Editorial: The Arrogance of Stupidity

David Borden, Executive Director

David Borden
As regular readers of this column are aware, I'm a legalizer, and I'm sure about it. I am absolutely convinced that on all counts prohibition does far more harm than good, and that the evidence for this is overwhelming.

For example, I consider the effects of sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year into the criminal underground -- only one of prohibition's many adverse consequences -- to be so serious in its impact on crime and violence and corruption as to be unfathomable. I cannot imagine how any realistically conceivable increase in drug use following legalization -- a hypothetical -- could come close in the harm it might cause to rivaling the incredible, well-demonstrated damage done today by just that one aspect of prohibition. Even if prohibition didn't make the drugs more dangerous themselves (which it does), I just couldn't see that happening. Not surprisingly, since I founded an organization devoted to working for legalization.

Still, I'm not so arrogant as to deny the possibility that people who oppose legalization might have legitimate reasons for holding the views that they hold. Not for marijuana -- support for marijuana prohibition is a truly bizarre aspect of our modern society, one that I believe will ultimately be viewed as such. But some of the other drugs that are illegal now do pose serious dangers for some of their users. Not for most of their users, despite popular belief; and the dangers have been greatly increased beyond what they would otherwise be by the conditions that prohibition has created. But there's enough potential danger connected with drugs like cocaine or heroin for the impulse to prohibit them to be understandable -- misjudged, in my opinion, but understandable -- it's not completely strange that many people agree with prohibition of those drugs, even though I think they're quite wrong.

Those of us who see things this way are in pretty good company -- there are legislators, judges, doctors, editorial columnists, former Cabinet members, even some heads of state, counted within our set of strong and fervent allies. In Britain over the past couple of weeks the set has grown larger. Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales, called drug prohibition "immoral" and recommended legalization in a report he submitted to the national "Home Office." His police force has backed him up on it. And this week the former prison chief added his voice to the supportive mix as well.

They are by no means the first Brits to say these things. For example, the current head of the Conservative Party in the UK, David Cameron, is a legalizer, as was the late Mo Mowlam, Britain's "drug czar" equivalent in her time. The UK-based Economist magazine, a widely-read global publication, used to opine for legalization almost non-stop, and still sometimes does so. So to reads the words of Brunstrom's opposition, the country's Association of Chief Police Officers, I have to wonder at the arrogance; ACPO president Ken Jones released a statement calling legalization "arguably a counsel of despair."

Despair? Really? Despite all the extremely smart people in the country who've expressed pro-legalization viewpoints to date, who have explained why they see it making things better, not worse? I completely recognize ACPO's right to take a prohibitionist position, and despite my views I'm not one to say that it automatically makes them unreasonable. But Jones' particular choice of words make me think he is either not familiar with the ins and outs of the issue, nor of the well known support that exists for legalization, or that he is unwilling to acknowledge them.

On this side of the ocean, upstate New York saw some similar illogic emanate from drug warriors in a District Attorney race. After the Democratic candidate, Jonathan Sennett, called for marijuana decriminalization -- not even legalization, just decriminalization, of marijuana no less, he said it's no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco -- his two opponents attacked him on it. One of them, a former Manhattan prosecutor named Vincent Bradley, actually said it was "inappropriate" for a DA to say that marijuana is no more dangerous than tobacco.

Well actually, if one judges by the mortality data, tobacco is enormously more dangerous than marijuana. Not that tobacco should be illegal either, of course. But the facts about what the two substances do are the facts about them, and acknowledging them is not irresponsible. I've already explained what I think about marijuana prohibition, and there are a number of blue-ribbon commissions whose findings back me up. So I think that Bradley's and Jones' comments are a clear-cut case of the arrogance of stupidity. Not because I disagree with them, but because they have taken their positions so arrogantly in the face of many impressive people who completely disagree with them.

We in the anti-prohibition movement can take a few insults. Indeed, the more of them get thrown our way, the more successful we know we are growing. Don't be too confident, Ken Jones, more Britons have heard of Richard Brunstrom now than have heard of you; and don't be too confident about your drug strategy, Vince Bradley. Our message is getting out, and it beats your message, hands down.

Permission to Reprint: This article is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!

Legalization article - Fantastic!

David, your article precisely states what I believe. And I believe it strongly. The insane acceptance of the evils of prohibition without question is unfathonable to me--I just can't accept it from people. I talk on radio talk shows, to all my friends & coworkers, write endlessly to public officials and do what I can. Thank you for your organization and your writings. They are very inspirational.

Inappropriate Comments

Prosecutor Bradley is in effect saying that law enforcement has to stick together and lie to save face It's your obligation to say marijuana is more harmful. In the same way if a prosecutor discovers that the wrong person is serving a life sentence, he should shut up and not reveal that his colleagues made mistake. (right?)

Arrogant stupidity...

The granddaddy myth of prohibitionists is that we will become a nation of addicts should prohibition be repealed. Bullshit.

Prior to the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, cocaine, opium and all its derivatives, including heroin, were available at grocery stores, pharmacies and even from the Sears, Roebuck catalog - and we were actualy encouraged to consume these drugs. Against this backdrop, the addiction rate was less than 2%; unchanged to this day - and there was virtually no drug crime.

Perhaps use will increase with repeal, but we should not discount the real possibility that, once the fruit is no longer forbidden, many may decide the thrill is gone and quit.

In any event, even should recreational use (and addiction) increase, the dramatic reduction (as much as 60%) in our overall crime rate will more than compensate.

Don't forget entheogens!

The arrogance of stupidity associated with entheogenic or "psychedelic" drug policy is equally absurd. As soon as people began to awaken with these substances, they suddenly became illegal. Of course the hippie generation went nuts with the stuff, but that's not an absurd reaction to a new substance that brings back ancient states of awareness and consciousness. For example, psilocybin mushrooms. They grow naturally in parts of the country. Studies have recently shown them to treat a myriad of mental illness in conjunction with psychotherapy. Although the first research allowed since th 1970's happened a couple years ago!! I and many others owe my grounded, progressive, useful personal and professional development to entheogens. But if I were to pick one and eat it, I could lose my state licenses, job, reputation, etc. No one has the right to tell you how to use your consciousness and that naturally occurring substances are "WRONG" to use. thanks for reading

Why Can't We All Just... GET ALONG ?

Interesting arguments for relooking at prohibition on some poisonous plant drugs, and possibly allowing modern adults go to the corner store for all their overdose needs. Bravo ! Social fiction at its best

i am confident the legions of online stoners will all agree with any soft soap paragraph that will bolster their sence of entitlement to become and stay drug impared. Bravo part 2--

However, I wonder why if the reasons for prohibition are so wrong, how do you explain how billions of your fellow educated, life experienced community loving fellow humans seem to support drug prohibition..? They are not listening to your arguments, they are directing their police to encircle doptopia and take it apart..at whatever price, it would be a bargain.

So manymany people all over the globe don't seem to like the economy of the planet tilting to produce dope on a plantation scale. They somehow have missed the magic of radically impared brain function as a acceptable feature. They don;t particularily care for the spread of this way of drugged up half life amongst their offspring....and are alarmed when their loved ones devote themselves to a life of blurry, drug induced indifference.. Not everybody is a illiterate dope fiend hating hillbilly-- Most people simply don't want drug impared people around- minus the drugs they are fine, no problem.Simply put, the drugged underclass has worn out its welcome.

As long as we share this planet, we are obliged to get along with each other. The hobby dopers frequently mention they wish the non users would become more tollerant to their drug use: Well have you ever, and I mean EVER thought about being more tollerant to the vast majority of your species who would like you to not languish impared - fueling a vast black marketplace that enriches the enemies of your nation? History will not be kind to stoners for their obtuse contributions to human society

The math suggests that drug party lobby will never win the socio-economic acceptance they seek. They are powerless and their demands for euphoric autonomy will remain of small consequence in the larger scheme of things . Permastoners will continue to be chased down and invited to detox at community expence for the next several lifetimes. Stoners are not catagorically evil, but as a group, they sure are a nuisance..

If you sincerely study the playbook of a century of the prohibition superbowl, you will note that the pro drug people don't win any legislative battles: they don't succeed in reversing the simplist drug laws. for the 70 years that cannabis has been banned, the pro cannabis people have not made any progress at all in convincing the rest of society that cannabis is a safe fun thing they claim it is. Witness tobacco credibility falling everyday..Cannabis credibility is erroding everyday as well.

People have been using cannabis for millenia, and not all of it was good. very little of it was good. There were strong anti cannabis views in the historic record long before the DEA came into play.

As a medicine, cannabis was dropped from the official pharmacopia as soon as better remedies were available..the risk was just too much for the few benifits. Government won;t fund cannabis research because after two decades of study, they don't see much value in it.. Either will the major drug companies bother with cannabis.. its not a very promising remedy considering the side effects..

Tens of millions of people have tried cannabis since 1950 and you will note most of them discontinue it when they realize imparement - thats the clouded mindscape that cannibis does indeed produce with prolonged use. They quit because pot made them stupid and forgetful.. not necessarily because they feared arrest or the black market. And If it wasn;t for coffee, most pot heads would never come down from their fuzzy distopia.

So untill the stoner elete can come up with some real proof why society should do a 180 degree policy change on cannabis prohibition, the law and attitude of your fellow hum,ans will likely stay the same-
and that is YES TO PROHIBITION ..

This is not a call for more vague whining, or more stale anger- this is a call for proof, not airing out opinion. Until such time that this proof is presented, your fellow humans will roll a stone over the vain cries of the chemically compromised in our neibourhoods and go on to other things.. Believe it, there is more to this life than just being stoned and talking about it.

When this awe inspiring pro pot manifesto with all footnotes is ready, lemme know. Till then, the rest of us have stones to roll



The number one cash crop in this country is pot. Pretty amazing, yes? I think we're probably just taking the 60 billion tax dollars every year spent on this "war" and handing them to the drug producers, in a round-a-bout kind of way.

It sure isn't bringing the price up any :-)


Drug abuse is bad. Bad for

Drug abuse is bad. Bad for society, bad for families, bad for individuals. It does not automatically follow that Prohibition must therefore be good.

Drug use is part of the human experience. It has always been with us and always will. For better or worse. Prohibition just make the problem worse. Maximizing the dangers of drugs as Prohibition--which is the stated goal of the Prohibitionists--is immoral. And highly hypocritical for people who also profess as "Anonymous" does (my how brave you are, Anonymous! Why are you afraid to own authorship of your screed?), to support draconian enforcement of Prohibition, "for people's own good."

Throwing big words and tons of verbiage does not you appear particularly brilliant or witty. Misspelling words, misplaced punctuation and poor grammar on the other hand reflects poorly on your message.

No one is listening? We are doomed to be perennially frustrated in repealing bad laws? Prohibition is here to stay, get used to it? OK, "Anonymous", go right on burying your head in the sand and ignoring what is going on all around you.

Medical mj legal in 12 states and poised to be legalized in up to another half dozen w/i the next year. Public support for the War on Drugs, Inc. plummeting. States staggering as a larger and larger share of their limited resources go to drug law enforcement, drug offense prosecutions and prison cells stuffed to overflowing with drug offenders. Drug offenders who discover that scoring drugs inside the walls is actually easier than outside, btw. If we can't even keep drugs out of maximum security prisons, how can we ever hope to keep them out of an entire country?

Ya, go right ahead and believe that all is well in Drug War Cheer Leader Land. Ignorance is bliss. Our bliss.

Greg Francisco

Drug abuse is bad. Bad for

There is another way to look at prohibition. The US administration may desire prohibition not because prohibition is doing what it is supposedly intended to do, but the government may desire to control the civilian population and to get citizens used to the idea of government control, so that in the future even more of the people's civil liberties can be taken without much fuss.
Why is the border with Mexico virtually undefended in light of the illegal immigration crisis? Because the administration wants it that way. If it didn't the border would become properly patrolled and fenced.

Just because well educated

Just because well educated adults support a law doesn't make it just. All most all of Germany, including the well educated, supported Hitler's third Reich, which seems to be a bad cause to me, how bout you? I think it is silly that people who want to ban the idea of people being stoned are the same people that go out and drink alcohol by the gallons, then point the finger and call the people smoking marijuana "stupid and forgetful." I have known many successful people that smoke marijuana, just as I have known many successful people that were alcoholics. And, by the way Timothy Leary made pot legal when he showed the marijuana tax act to be unconstitutional in the 1960's.

You asked for it

Well dave,you wanted to give a few points to the other side?This guy's been smoking some bad shit and now he's regurgitating it all over your website.That's what you get from prohibitionists,they missed the prohibition of alcohol altogether and they still miss the point.The people that make billions just love these guys.I do hope that stone he's rolling is big,heavy and unweildly,not that I'd be so crass to wish harm on another human being.

The Irony?

This guy went down to the corner and had 4 martinis and half a pack of marlboro ultra-lights after writing this dreck.

Splendid Example!!!

The point of the Mr. Borden's editorial is well proven in every sentence of the above comment. Way to play the devil's advocate!!! Bravo from "Dopetopia"!! I guess I can scoot along with my little weed and search the web for more "soft soap paragraphs" to agree with so I feel better when I'm high. God is Love, Ignorance is Bliss, Heaven is What You Make It and Hell is Believing What is Typed in the Comment Above. Cheers!!!
P.S. Seriously, is that a real comment? Someone is hilarious!!! Stones huh??

What an articulate moron

That last poster was a great example of a prohibitionist. Call 'em names (everyone who wants to end prohibition is a "Stoner", of course), deride the "Legalizers", distort the truth and lie. Who is this guy, John Walters?

We'll see who ends up winning in the end, Mr. Prohibitionist...justice will prevail, stupidity will fail. It's just a matter of time.

dude must work for big pharma.

If I live in doptopia (isn't there an e in dope?), he must be in a friggen concentration camp of sobriety. Look, plenty of people get WAY more messed up on perscription pills like xanax, klonopan, aderral (meth in a pill), etc. But let's just say its evil only if its illegal.. Ya. Sure.

Let's just make more laws

Apparently this guy is annoyed by users and this is good enough reason to jail people. Well, anybody else annoyed by others then- I'm sure we can find enough cells to jail everyone in the country (start with jailing the religious fundamentalists since they annoy the hell out of me). By the way- I am and know many highly educated people who support legalization. I challenge the prohibitionist to read Nixon's own 2 year commissioned report on Marijuana; not even that report agrees with prohibition.

Wow!!! This guy is a real gem!!!!

Spewing DEA dogma like the risks outweigh the benefits of marijuana, so it has been removed from the pharmacopia.....Well Mr. prohibitionist.....what are the risks? Am I going to go crazy and kill my family? That's what the prohibitionists stated in their propaganda movies. Oh wait, I know, it's a stepping stone to harder drugs like heroin. How about having no motivation and I'll end up on the couch in my parents basement? Mr. Prohibitionist says he wants facts and footnotes.....there is PLENTY. The DEA's own administrative judge stated that marijuana has tremendous potential with no known overdoses....ever. What are the risks Mr. Prohibitionist. My family is alive. I have never tried herion or crack. I own my own business and sit on the board of several charities. I have a college education, and I've smoked marijuana for 24 years. Why am I a criminal? Is it because as you say, I'm a nuisance? If that's the case, I'll just have to stay that way. Like Jefferson said, "Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." Reason is against you my friend. Ridicule away!

Last Exit to Dopetopia ...

Wow.. nobody replied to the validity of contrary comments, just took turns making snarky sideswipes. Ho hum...This is what I was refering to when I stated that stoners are not taken seriously..They stray so off point so often and so badly that they are perpetually in the logic ditch..by their own hand I might add.

So somebody knows knows highly educated people who support legalization? good.. maybe they can help you succeed at changing the laws that you break. maybe convince millions of your fellow citizens to go along with this. maybe convince the rest of the world.

thats a lot of maybes.

Anyway I came upon this website while researching the downfall of Marc Emery- the Prince of Pot - he pushed his luck playing the dope bandit king in British Columbia and he lost.And is lkikely going to serve the rest of his life in a US prison. And his stoner community are powerless and clueless about what to do about this downturn except mumble vague threats to the prohibitionists ( AKA the sober majority )

However, Mr Emery succeeded in :

1) bringing the Drug War to Canada
2) having anyone he ever had anything to do with incarcerated
3) single handedly turning the once dynamic West Coast of Canada into one big dull 420 ghetto of badly aging men-boys.
4) showing that medical marijuana is an cheezy hoax

And, bring on the emo essays about why the world should ignore 10,000 years of evidence that cannabis is a brain softener and support stoners amplified sence of self entitlement to become a lost caste of clouded people .. and of course. lots more feeble snits against the rational measures of drug prohibition. Grade six students need to see what the stoner community has to offer before they laugh at you..They appreciate all your sincere examples of drug deranged lifestyle choices more than any slide show, phamphlet or presentation I could ever show them..

thank you for sacrificing your higher brain functions so that kids can learn


I'd like to see your documentation for your claim that 10,000 years of evidence support the idea that cannabis is so destructive that it should be banned. I think this poster has some issues with his Hippy parents perhaps or he's a fake poster. He attacks others for lacking documentation but offers none in it's place.Some of the anti-Prohibitionist conclusions he claims have no documentation actually do have documentation. The biggest reason for a lack of documentation for our position is the refusal of the DEA to sanction studies. Every objective study ( look up the study ordered by Richard Nixon) has concluded that Marijuana, while not harmless, is not dangerous enough to warrant incarceration as a penalty. Of course I doubt the poster can be convinced by anything except having his own progeny incarcerated for a small quantity of cannabis. Maybe he hates his kids but personal experience has a way of changing minds.


It would seem that,if nothing else,weve taught this guy to spell dopetopia properly.

What on earth are you talking about?

Oh, I really like that - first you unload on all the responders who offer well-thought-out, reasoned arguments in support of legalization, then have the temerity to accuse THEM of making snarky sideswipes at YOU. A classic illustration of projection, if ever I've seen one.

Every single word of your post is nothing more or less than YOUR OPINION. That is why no one responded as to its validity (or lack thereof). There is none without supporting evidence. You know, sort of like theory and the Scientific Method? Do you have any FACTS to back up anything you say, or do you just assume your own wisdom is unimpeachable because you say it is? Just because a lot of others agree with you, it doesn't make you right. History provides numerous examples of how that works. It seems from my perspective that those offering opposing views have a lot more data to back up their side of the argument. Let's see some of yours, if you want to be taken seriously. Until then, snarky asides are entirely justifiable.

Also, your surprise in the knowledge that there are intelligent, well-educated people who support legalization betrays your lack of education on this subject. There are MILLIONS. But apparently none of them hang out with you. Wonder why?

Emmet C's picture

Pity the poor creature ...

... all bound up in hate.

S/he is only carrying on the the tradition of our Pilgrim forebears - rabidly maintain unquestioned dogmata and attempt, without regard for reasoned argument, to impose some code of conduct on others who are 'obviously' unable to make their own decisions.

After all, it's for their own good. If miscreants were meant to make choices about their own lives, they wouldn't have been "endowed ... with certain inalienable rights." Especially that Liberty thing.

Besides, what fun would s/he have if s/he couldn't feel superior to those whose logic leads them to a more realistic and compassionate view. S/he don't need no stinking logic!

So, pity the poor creature, all bound up in hate.

Good Lord...

I attended the 20th anniversary gala bash for the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, in November 2006. It was held at the Waldorf-Estoria in New York, and it was a pretty big deal, as they raised 2.5 million dollars - not bad for a night's work. Two interesting observations: 1) The event had an open bar reception before dinner, and the wine flowed (literally) freely during the entire dinner. 2) The man they honored as one who had done the most to exemplify the mission of the Partnership was none other than Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball - the man who sat on his hands in the catbird seat during the steroid scandal. Of course, it should come as no surprise that MLB contributed over $2M of the $2.5M raised that evening...

So screw showing any respect for our small-minded little friend and his absurd postings. To agrue there exists two sides to every story is to ignore that the truth has but one. And the truth remians that drug prohibition is the most destabilizing domestic policy in America today.

For thousand`s of Years

We the people of the world were smart enough to live without
drug laws , How the Hell Did these Laws get Buy Us and who Got all The Money? Oh we know all of that, We must Take Our Freedom`s Back And save the World From US! Vote People Vote

Vote People Vote

yes by all means vote- and then live with the results of the vote. I was bringing to your attention that over 70 years of voting has given the world a well orchestrated drug prohibition. thats a fact not an opinion.

Whether anyone agrees with the prohibition model or not is opinion. The fact remains the dangerous drugs a minority of people seem to adore are dangerous enough to be deemed forbidden by the rest of the world. No where on earth is cannabis_ legal to just help yourself and be stoned. Nowhere at all is it legal.. that is non prohibited- not even Holland..what does this imply ? That Billions of your fellow humans do not agree with legal or easy access to cannabis .
If you want this to change, get a proper candidate to run and vote them into proper office- if you win, then prohibition will be lifted,: but if you lose, prohibition stays intact. Chances of prohibition lifting in this century is almost nill...come on- you must know it, if you don't billions of other people certainly do.

Freedom to be stoned? Thats not a particularily noble ideal to reach for..

last post here, good luck on reversing world opinion concerning drug prohibition. You are going to need a lot of luck to make one hit, even a bunt at that game


Ever heard of Mexico?

How to convince the "good folks?"

I have no desire to convince anyone of anything. I sometimes encounter people who, like the prohibitionist above, claim that pot makes one stupid. It's fun to talk to them and marvel at what cretins they are, and it always makes me think of the scene in the movie "Exodus" where an anti-semitic British officer who brags of being able to smell a Jew a mile away, carefully examines the eye of his fellow-officer in blissful ignorance that the latter is a Jew.

Everything that needs to be said about drugs has been said, but not yet by everybody. So I'll throw in my two cents' worth. The ancient Teutonic tribes would discuss important decisions twice - once when sober, and the second time when they were resoundingly drunk on mead. After that, they would balance the different perceptions and come to a decision. There - that was my contribution in the category of Drugs-In-The-Service-Of-Community-And-Father-, er, Homeland.

Prohibitionist writes about "... the clouded mindscape that cannibis[sic] does indeed produce with prolonged use." Is this an attempt at explaining mental states in terms of meteorology? True, "so much depends on the weather" sang the Stone Temple Pilots in "Plush." But I imagine that people who live in the equatorial desert might think that clouds are just dandy, so a "clouded mindscape" would be something cool, something removed from the perfervid heat and glare of the normal day.

Ach, mein Gott, but vy go on? You clouded-mindscape stoners know what I mean - nothing will convince or deter the enemy. When he was shopping for attitudes, the ignorant prohibitionist settled on what most closely resonated with his mentality, and having sought an enemy whom it was acceptable to persecute, he settled on users of some, but not all, drugs. ("And If it wasn;t[sic] for coffee[=good], most pot[=bad] heads would never come down from their fuzzy distopia[sic]." (I recommend Arabian Mocha Sanani at Starbuck's.) Prohibitionist belongs to the proud heirs to the self-appointed society-savers and civilization-rescuers of bygone days. During the Middle Ages it was common belief that Jews had horns and that the activities of "witches" threatened the social fabric, pretty much like the charge that cannabis users generate a "marketplace that enriches the enemies of your nation."

And now, Prohibitionist, I must say a fond farewell and proceed to roll myself another joint. And from excellent domestic cannabis, produced by diligent, capable, and dedicated American farmers who have honed their skills by having been driven underground. And these fine folk are supposedly enemies of our nation? Why, I know one such person who even has a "Support Our Troops" magnet on his truck! And he has a magnificent green thumb - America in Red, White, and Blue, with a healthy dollop of green, but I digress ...

Ranter Offers No Useful Information

And yet another visitor from the deepest, darkest recesses of the drug warrior culture crashes onto the honorable web pages of StoptheDrugWar.org.

This one uses a kind of school-yard bully approach in making arguments. The wild-eyed drug-user stereotypes the ranter enlists are right out of a racist’s playbook. More likely, it’s hearsay produced and reinforced within a very close-knit cultural group, the kind of insular group that refuses to value empirical evidence. No valid bits of information are offered to back up the claims made by the writer, because none exist.

I never cease to be amazed by people who believe that talking trash to well informed political activists is going to accomplish anything. And then to portray oneself as a jerk while doing it? Oh yeah, great PR. Are we supposed to laugh or cry when there are people in the drug warrior business who reflect this kind of hate mongering mentality?

Actually, studies have been done on these very people. John W. Dean wrote about “authoritarians” in his book Conservatives Without Conscience (2006). Dean greatly acknowledges the influence of Bob Altemeyer’s book: The Authoritarian Specter (1996). Altemeyer’s work goes beyond the Milgram experiments done at Yale where test subjects kept shocking mock test subjects despite fake cries of agony emanating from behind opaque panels.

And which Milgram test subjects had no problem at all pressing the shock button all the way up to the highest voltage? Hint: Altemeyer includes drug warriors among those he refers to as authoritarians.


In response to a prohibitionist

To the insulting prohibitionist, you tried to make yourself appear intelligent and highly educated, you failed, you used some big words but your spelling is atrocious, you can't even spell "sense" (you misspelled it repeatedly, in both posts).

Anyway, to answer you, here is the one, major, and overriding, reason for legalization of all drugs:
I own my body! Society does NOT own my body. The government does NOT own my body. I own it! I am the only one who has any right, at all, to determine what I ingest. The government has no legal authority or right to tell me I may not ingest whatever substance I might choose to ingest. Society has no authority or right to tell me what I may not ingest. It is illegal and unconstitutional to prohibit/criminalize my use of whatever substance I choose; just as it would be to force me to ingest a substance I wish to avoid. Tell me, do you support the forced ingestion of drugs? Would you accept the government telling you that you had to take a particular drug or be sent to jail/hospital and force fed the drug? Two sides of the same coin.

The second best reason for legalizing drugs:
Ingesting marijuana, or any other drug does no harm to anyone else (and in the case of marijuana, no harm to me either), and that makes it a vice, NOT a crime -- a crime has a victim, a vice has no victim except, perhaps (depending on the vice), the person with the vice. All crime that is "associated with drug use" comes from the prohibition of drugs, very few exceptions. As far as crime goes, alcohol is more likely to trigger a crime, especially a violent crime than any of the illegal drugs. Criminalizing a vice doesn't stop people from taking up the vice and just makes criminals of otherwise law abiding people, ruining their lives and the lives of their families.

You also wrote:
the risk was just too much for the few benifits (it's spelled benefits, btw). Government won;t fund cannabis research because after two decades of study, they don't see much value in it.. Either will the major drug companies bother with cannabis.. its not a very promising remedy considering the side effects..
The government won't fund cannabis research because if they did it would put the lie to everything they've said about it since Anslinger. The pharmaceuticals won't study it because they cannot patent it and make a killing off the users, it's too easily grown in a back yard or closet, they could never "corner the market". The alcohol manufacturers don't want the competition, so they pay lobbyists handsomely to keep the pressure on the politicians. The DEA and ONDCP and other law enforcement agencies want it to remain illegal so they can keep their jobs, their perks, and their big government funding. Other big businesses want it to remain illegal so what they manufacture won't have to compete with hemp products (wood pulp, petroleum, cotton, etc.).

As an aside, here, I should mention that I oppose government funding of any research, regardless the purpose. All research should be privately funded, the government was never authorized to take money from the people to give to ANY purpose other than the constitutionally valid costs of government.

Ok, back to medical marijuana.
Marijuana has been proven to cause cancer cells to stop growing, even die. Marijuana has been proven to give chemotherapy and AIDS patients an appetite and relieve their nausea. Marijuana has been proven to decrease, even still the muscle tremors in Parkinson's and MS patients. Marijuana, when taken with Ibuprofin or other NSAIDS, increases the ability of those drugs to relieve pain, sometimes enabling a patient to stop taking more dangerous prescription pain relievers like hydrocodone. There are doctors' and nurses' groups which have endorsed medical marijuana. So are you going to claim these doctors and nurses and researchers don't know what they are talking about? Are you going to claim that you know better than medical personnel what works for their patients? Are you going to claim that they have not seen the benefits with their own eyes? Or that they are lying? And, btw, the only side effects are increased appetite, uplifted mood, heightened perception, and maybe sleepiness.

But the medical uses of marijuana are beside the point, just as the use of cinnamon to control blood sugar levels is beside the point. The point is it is a property rights issue! The first piece of property any of us owns is our own body. We do NOT belong to the state, we belong only to ourselves, and once we become mature, only we have the right to say what happens to our own bodies -- what we do, how we exercise, what we eat, what we drink, what we smoke, what we otherwise ingest, what color we wear, etc., all solely our own choice and no one else's.

In response to a prohibitionist

In response to your statement where you say that 'you own your own body, society does not own your own body etc.' let me just say that you have no rights whatsoever other than those that the state grants to you. The government does in fact own you. You also have the right to do as you're told.
You're desire to own yourself however is noble and is a cause worth fighting for.

In response to "in response"

I was hesitant to respond to the prohiber, and I'm pleased I waited until now. I agree with the entire "response" of 4:34 am. It says it all and backs it up too. The fallible foibles addressed by Mr. Prohib are, you must agree, humorous at least. He got what he wanted though, a big rise from the element. Prohibition is the gateway to tyranny. It also seems to be the self satisfying shelter for fools. Remember, "them" are "us" once awareness sets in.


I have seen the enemy and he is us.Pogo,nice.


The guy, who came on to comment to all of the "dopers", had many unsupported "facts" in his letters. "The 10,000 years of evidence" What evidence is he referring to here? People "seem" to support drug prohibition (they supported alcohol prohibition, too, back in the days). "poisonous plant drugs" Could you be referring to foxglove? (One of its chemical components used as medication, even today?)

And the phrase "don't seem to like the economy of the planet tilting to produce dope", seems invalid also. What about the bumper crop of poppies in one occupied middle eastern country? What about MJ being the second biggest crop in many states, throughout the nation? I bet there are some people that like it. Even though, they are not on my list of people I want to associate with! The reason the drugs get so much attention is the fact that prohibition has made them the gold standard of the world of terrorism! Money just waiting to be had by the Mexican cartels, so strong that the government cannot even win the battle against them!

And what about the "dope fiend hating hillbilly"? Where does the evidence for this, rude, comment come from? I lived for years in the hills of the old south and this type of disrespect seems to be common amongst elitists. (better than anyone who would use drugs!?) Now that is a joke! Offend as many as you can. (of the "drugged UNDERCLASS") Does that underclass include the alcoholics and alcohol abusers that consume way too much, legally, in this country? (What about re-introducing alcohol prohibition?) Seems they are a big part of the so called "elite" maybe? Talk about a toxic drug! At least,there would not be as much cirrhosis, if alcohol was not legal!

You talk about the "risk" of THC. What about the other legal drugs out there and their risks? Lets just talk about the ones that have not been taken off of the market. Prozac or Xanax anyone? There is a new inhaled insulin that causes known lung damage, yet it is being advertised on TV for people who just cannot a stick themselves with a needle. Permanent lung damage because you are scared and can't take a stick of an insulin syringe? I think that, is a very strange situation.

And "getting along" with each other! How do you propose that, when the group you seem to represent here, is incarcerating non-violent drug offenders at such a rate that our country has the highest population per capita of prisoners, anywhere, in the world? And where does the claim about the history of strong anti-cannabis views " prior to the DEA" come from? Any documentation to support, yet another vague claim! (Well, I made one mistake, here, about that.) The DEA was not around in 1913. It was established in 1970! That is the only reason, I can see, that your claim is substantiated. Twist the facts to fit the situation. Sounds like typical drug warrior propaganda. Does that mean the views, that were stated by Anslinger and associates (that Mexicans, Chinese, and blacks would get white women on it, so they could have their way with them) are valid? Those are a couple of the views, I recall.

And the claim that no legislation has been victorious, confuses me. Isn't that one of the biggest debates in the country. Is it not claimed that well over 60% of the population accept medical marijuana as a possibility? Has it not been accepted by several states, already. Its prohibition has been declared unconstitutional, for years, in Alaska. But, maybe it helps them tolerate that wasteland! Your claims are, not only , unsubstantiated, they, at times, seem to mock any semblance of reason!

And what is tobacco "credibility"?! There are many fewer people using it, now-a-days, because of the education as to its, valid, risks. I am sure there are many non-smokers, like me, on this site, as well. Just as many on here don't condone or promote drug use, either. We just see the hypocrisy of it all! I say, lets go for it! I think it is time to prohibit alcohol again!

And "contributions of stoners" There was a great surgeon, Halstead, I think that used morphine all of his life! Most contributions that stoners make would be swept under the carpet ( I am sure, if they were known ) by people, like you, wanting to spread more propaganda than facts.

And you end your essay by asking for footnotes and facts and complaining about vague whining?! Sounds about right!
You should, at least, expect some sort of response to your vagueness!

Sort of like stepping on a skunk, then wondering why the heck you got sprayed! I guess we do stink!

Prohibition IS Arrogance

Our Constitution was drafted upon Cannabis hemp paper. And you can be damned sure there were no idiotic THC-content limits imposed upon hemp farmers Jefferson and Washington. "Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere".
Indeed. The roots of Cannabis prohibition are vile and despicable. It shall not stand.

The Topic is Drug Prohibition

Ok great stuff, you old stoners have the songs memorised, but sing when there is no music playing. That qualifies as drifting mental capasity

But anyway, the topic is PROHIBITION... I note that in 70 years of drug prohibition there has been zero gains by the stoners to reverse the prohibition laws, in fact these prohibition laws are ramping up in scope and strength. They have wide support. Its a numbers game this democracy stuff and the prohibitionists are way way ahead.

Add all the noise you want about your freedom to get wiped in a free and wonderful country., . fine.. maybe your dog is listening. The rest of us have heard it all before..Sure its your body but its someone elses dope being grown on or smuggled into our shared land that selfish angry wipeheads seem to be unable to function without..

1) What are you going to do about the stoners losing every legal battle they ever enter into, threaten, wage or have thrust at them?

2) Prohibition is winning, and winning bigtime over all your arguments
because Dopetopia is not at all a desireable way to live-
and most free people agree, and work together to thwart the wipehead perogative otherwise. You want numbers< look at the 100% failure of each and every one the anti prohibition lunges that have come up in your whole lifetime. And look back in history and watch the bell curve stay at the bottom of the graph. Then ask yourself why?

3) Generations and Decades of failure at what you strive to achieve and all you stoners can come up with is the blurry rage comments posted above. lame and vague to the man. nobody is buying any of it.. and likely never will.

4) Honestly, what are the chances of you guys winning one inch ? The war on drugs is over and you lost.. its now a matter of containment, erradication , unbolting the black market and then walling bad habits off from a new generation of normal people.Too bad about you.

5) repeat- what are the chances of you guys winning even _one inch of legal territory over Prohibition, what the vast majority of your fellow humans people are glad to abide by and think of as proper anti dope laws?

One inch..
how will you ever gain one inch of legal ground ?

** hint- legal mediical marijuana is going down fast,
if you present that as evidence of your one inch advance
you will get laughed at... a quarter inch of mercy and the stoners blew it

Detox is affordable- dry out and come back ,
it would be interesting to see who makes it
anybody can make it, afterall
" addiction is just a by product of prohibition.."

borden's picture


Actually, there have been medical marijuana laws passed in a dozen states, with hundreds of dispensaries in California alone, and needle exchange has made significant progress in gaining acceptance as well. While Plan Colombia (now the Andean Initiative) continues to rage, there are real debates about it happening in Congress that would not have taken place at this level ten years ago. The public is more skeptical of the drug war than ever before; when presented with alternatives they tend to go with them. Support for marijuana legalization is not quite at 50% yet, but it's getting close. States are beginning to enact sentencing reform -- a slow process, but it's happening. During my time in the issue (14 years) I have seen heroin maintenance come to Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada (to varying degrees of implementation), as well as moves to restore it in Great Britain.

Obviously we have a long way to go to get to legalization. But name a major social reform from the past that didn't take many decades to accomplish. In historical terms our movement hasn't been at it for that long. The currents of the time may still be against us, but the under-currents have been moving our direction for some time, and the future is ours...

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC

Victory for Stoners

The bizarre futility of alcohol prohibition was defeated and rolled back by its opponents after 13-years of blood-drenched street crime, political corruption and currency diversion. I would say the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933 constitutes winning a legal battle and a net gain by the alcohol branch of the drug culture.

After Harry Anslinger finally croaked in 1975, a number of states decriminalized marijuana. Felony marijuana crimes were made misdemeanors. In the Netherlands, Amsterdam’s city government made possible the quasi-legalization of marijuana in ‘coffee shops’ (great coffee, by the way). Since then, a number of U.S. communities have made marijuana their lowest law enforcement priority. The battles were both political and legal, and all were won by the “stoners.”

The computer revolution was pioneered by hippie freak stoners who went on to write the code and build the machines that changed the world forever. This is a well documented fact.

Stoner victories continue in millions of small and larger ways every day. Some feel that every time they light up it’s a victory over the forces of old and evil. Bring me a joint, and I will win the war! Tough battle. Before prohibition can win, drug warriors cannot leave a single marijuana smoker standing. Tougher battle.

But nothing says it like the numbers. The ONDCP estimates that each year 1.4 million people enjoy a hit of marijuana for the very first time. On the opposite end, there is an attrition factor. People aged 65 and older, who generally did not participate in the drug revolutions of the 60s, 70s, etc., and who currently make up a greater part of the voting public, are steadily passing into the great beyond and taking their conservative voting habits with them.

Chairman Mao maintained that it only took 10-percent of a nation’s population behind a leader or a social movement to foment and bring about a successful revolution. The drug culture far surpasses that number. Victory is certain.


subject of rants?

I am sorry that I got off of the topic. But, I thought that the response I gave above, was made by asking about the erroneous statements made in your rant. I guess I would have to balme you, since you got it started!

And, you may see prohibition as winning. I agree it is doing just as good as alcohol prohibition was at winning! We are supplying many new jobs, with all of the new prisons, we are building, for housing the, many, non-violent drug offenders, created by that prohibition. But, it does nothing to stop the deaths created by our drug culture, in Mexico and other countries, that don't have the abililty to, properly fight the militaristic drug cartels.

This rohibitionist idiot is obviously living under a rock

as well as being blind and deaf. No facts no arguments will get through his thick skull, so, why should we bother with him? Let him go on his merry way, hopefully he will drink himself to death and we won't have to read his crap anymore.

Those against Legalization

It appears to me that most of the people who are against legalization are the very same ones who are opposed to paying their fair share of taxes...not only that, but I believe many of our political leaders against it are getting kick-backs and being paid off to fend off legalization by the drug dealers who are making BIG bucks off drugs and don't care to become legitimate as there is little risk to themselves and only to the little dealers who broker their products. Not only them, but prison owners and businesses that make money off prisons and their labor are also benefitting. Yes, I totally believe it is the big, moral-less crooks that want to keep it illegal. These are the people which are hindering justice in our land. But what else can you expect from crooks?

The old hysteria versus rationality debate

Actually, prohibitionist and his ilk, albeit one step removed, give enormous support to the whole legalisation chebang. I'm certain that if this debate was aired in public, it'd be pretty obvious to a neutral who was giving the most coherent, rational and reasoned argument. I guess the whole point for the anti-prohibitionists is just to try and make this debate as public as possible. Shame that publicizing so often results in the kind of hysterical witchhunt behaviour that seems typical of these so-called "sober" individuals. How ironic. Huh.

Prohibitionist's central point seems to hang on the age-old reactionary argument that because something is illegal, it is wrong and cannot be debated or changed. Seemingly immunatized to the fact that laws do occasionally change, prohibitionist hankers on tediously about how popularity is correllative to how correct something is - the type of argument that chills me slightly if it were applied to Nazi Germany, but there we are.

Actually, of all the material I've poured over on this issue, I still have yet to find a single argument in support of prohibition that does not resort to dogma, demonisation and hatred. Maybe prohibitionist will help me on this one?

I won't hold my breath.


But what's G-ds opinion?

Rabbi Tovia Singer of outreachjudaism.org said one should ask, what's G-ds opinion?

G-d said, "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; THEY SHALL BE YOURS FOR FOOD." GENESIS 1.29

One of my children belived this and he was put in prison for it.



" Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."- Ronald Reagan. What? Ronald Reagan? Even Reagan understood one of the primary purposes of the constitution which is to protect a minority group from "moral tyranny" of the "billions of humans" such as Mr. Anonymous. The catch-22 of this "freedom thing" is that allows us to realize the good in ourselves(see Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce, countless musicians, artists e.t.c., many of whom struggled with addiction,) and It also must allow us to self distruct if that is the path we choose. I urge Mr. Anonymous to reread the "Declaration of Independence", read a book by John Stuart Mills called " On Liberty" and enroll quickly, without delay in a Logic 101 course.


Prohibition is the gateway to...

The progenitor of corruption is prohibition. The progenitor of prohibition is moral tyranny. The progenitor of moral tyranny is ignorance compounding.

Way Too Much to Play with here..

Indeed a dozen states have passed some form of medical MJ laws, but this slim ratio is not a big deal. Not a determining number at all..

True, California has med MJ dispensaries in some cities but its also true many of them have been shut down for vending to non medical users and some , like Rosenthal. have been found guilty of using med MJ as a smokescreen to grow and vend party pot. Good luck on all these legitimate initiatives.. I hope that good Americans are able to sort out the legit med patients from the scores of toker fakers- because the very existance of these med MJ will depend on whether or not you succeed.If you fail to do this, the DEA will do it for you. And so far your movement has failed, and the DEA has had to do this for you

Good luck at overturning the International Coca spray initiative- and there is an opium spray iniative of equal scale about to start . Please remember that cocaine & heroin arrives unwelcomed at many other nations doorsteps other than the US of A. All of these non American nations ( aka most opf the world ) are eager to see coca & poppy plantations erradicated, cocaine / heroin production shut down never to return except for the minute ammounts required for true medical use.

needle exchanges on thios post Drug War planet is akin to firearms surrender at the close of conventional wars. Only in this case, the needle soldiers tend to use their drug war weapons on themselves..

and as to "what is God's opinion when God gives us " all seed bearing plants for food? " Marijuana as it appears in the black market therefore does not qualify under this Biblical vegative ammesty- if it is grown without seeds,and your basic high end pot is seedless..

Can anyone can show the rest of the world that people eat the seeds of coca bush or prefer the poppy seed over the congealed latex..? When this can be shown we will be making progress.. Both cocaine and heroin are the artificially concentrated alkaloids of natural seed bearing plants- nobody eats them- instead people injest these concentrates through their lungs, noses or veins. Any normal food i am familiar that humans need or like is orally injested.. aka eaten

as far as liberty to do what you want to yourself- sure go ahead.. Nobody cares nor have they really cared for the whole 70 year legacy of drug prohibition..What people do care about is the spread of drug use,bveyond your personal gravity zone and outwards to youth.. and most human beings are deeply annoyed with the undertow drag of legions of drug intoxicated people underfoot as they try to make a living, raise a family and build a community.
You don't like Ronald Regan, or his ilk and millions of people don't like drug culture . Its that simple..However the majority of the world is against Doptopia, and are in a position to do something about it.
The pro drug minority are not in a position to do much about it.
Think hard when these desires to seek and injest drugs require the labour of many hands in far distant drug plantations to bring forth a non food product ( be sure to ask God if drug cropping and concertrating same for vending against the law3s of the land would qualify as food )

Is it fine that poor people far away labour in the drug fields so that the wealthier castes can dwell in a state of intoxication ?

Ask God if if this is what heaven had in mind ... what Martin Luther King had in mind, what John Stuart Mills had in mind...and then consider why so many of your fellow humans are strongly against this druggie nether world..One that produces nothing but drugs, not food, not culture, not any form of " healing of the nations" a child would understand.. you can call this tyrany of the masses when indeed it is might just be how the losing side views the winning side in a planetary struggle against a drug soaked world in this 21st century. You may be free to do what you want to your own body, mind, economy etc.. but others also are equally as free to work together to sustain what they agree to to be for the common good, and thwart in unison what they considerinterfering with their freedom to live as they see fit.

the numbers are not in favour of libritarian drug existance in the forseeable futiure. the stoner caste have not denied this considerable opposition force. The prohibition favoring majority of humanity does not want the drug thos to prevail..not when these forbidden substances choices splash over on everybody else.

This is true for America, the western world and the rest of the humble hoards of humanity that inhabit this planet. No ammount of self rightiouys denial will change the oddas. and that is mosty humans do not agree with lifting drug prohibition. In fact they clearly want to see whatever aspects of Dopetopia that reamains to be completely removed.

Can you offer any theories why are so many human beings standing alive and fully aware of the effects of drugs are _not in favour of your position? Most human beings alive today are very much in full aggreement that these drugs which you defend as something special should be destroyed and the use of them discouraged by all means available..

What do drug users know that billions of other humans don't know? Are billions of your fellow human beings blind and the small % of human beings who are the drug embracers the only ones that can perceive and weigh truth? Is it the drugs you defend that accomodate this special vision ? Please, how can concentrated botanical poisons that regularily kill people every day be such wonderful stepping stones to a higher understanding of the nature of the universe?

Eight billion people want to know .
A new generation of young people want to know
I want to know.

borden's picture

actually (again)...

Actually, Ed Rosenthal wasn't found guilty of supplying non-medical marijuana under the guise of medical marijuana. He was found guilty of supplying marijuana. Federal law doesn't recognize the medical marijuana defense, and the judge didn't allow his defense attorney to tell the jury that it was a medical marijuana case. Many of the jurors were angry when they found out that it was a medical marijuana case and went on to join the protests against the conviction that they had just voted for. As for "slim margins," public support for medical marijuana is at about 80%. When the federal government legalizes medical marijuana, it will become more possible to regulate the trade.

As for other nations supporting opium eradication, actually there is a lot of opposition in the European Union to it, they are losing troops in Afghanistan as part of NATO and they are more willing to acknowledge that eradication doesn't work and would turn the country upside down if it were pursued in a serious way.

You say you "want to know," well the first thing you need to do to know more is to stop using silly loaded terms like "dopetopia." This is a policy issue, and most drug use of whatever the drug is done in a moderated way and that will always be the case no matter what the laws are. It's a natural human tendency to accept the status quo, whatever the status quo happens to be, and that's why there isn't higher support yet for legalization. As we get our message out to more people about the incredible destruction being caused by the drug laws, minds will change our way.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC

Slavery and prohibition

The Prohibitionist poster makes the argument argument that Marijuana has been banned for 70 years so that means is should be banned. Slavery was accepted worldwide until the 18th century. I guess that makes it right. The fact that the world all signed the UN anti drug treaty and remains signatories is a testament to the hegemonic power of the US. Mexico tried to rationalize its drug laws and was stopped by the BUsh administration (look it up) Canada, although the right winger who is presently President trying to roll back reform, when Canada voted to lessen drug penalties, the US threatenedthem. So your consensus isn't quite so solid. Another statement that shows your ignorance is the statement that only a minscule amount of the worlds opium is used medicinally. There actually is a shortage of legal opium to make pain medication, Before you start blubbering about Oxycontin try being a chronic pain patient. You would certyainly commit suicide. If you doubt this you know nothing about CRPS(RSD) or Neuralgia.


no-you don't.

ny decrim

Getting back to Davids original point of the Ulster county DA race. The article also has Vincent Bradley making the statement that marijuana is just $100 fine. What a lie is that. Make that $200 when you include the court fee. I personally was busted in Rosendale NY this summer. Bradly does not point out that the fine requires court appearance. It is not like a traffic ticket where you can just send in and plead guilty. Furthermore my pentene for my offence started by going to court twice because the first time I found a note on the door saying no court today! That cost me some $ . How about taking up the courts time. Does that amount to anything. The judge after making some wise cracks which had chuckles throughout the court house, from the man with the badge to the men in the orange jump suits, seemed annoyed by me even being there. There was some important business going on in that court and the judge was right to be annoyed.

So I guess I have some kind of misdemeanor. What else will this effect? My volunteer work for a local prison? What about a student government loan?

Jonathan Sennett is courageous in coming out on the ridiculousness of marijuana prohibition. Lets see how the people vote on this one. For the lying prohibitionist crying what about the children what about the children-Or truth. Mr. Prohibitions says the liar will win and in the past he has been right many times. DAMN

Arrows by any Other Name...

" Actually, Ed Rosenthal wasn't found guilty of supplying non-medical marijuana under the guise of medical marijuana. He was found guilty of supplying marijuana"

thats true, and he had a certificate granted by the city he lived in which the city staff issued, This immunity however, wasn't accepted by the DEA who are charged to enforce the laws of America.- even after Rosenthal stated his sole purpose for manufacuring cannabis in a sophisticated indoor grow was to supply the compassion clubs. DEA evidence indicacted he was _not delivering this cannabis to the compassion clubs, but was instead, diverting it to the party pot market for personal financial gain. His sketchy certificate of permission issued by a city clerk did not exempt him from federal law, as he soon discovered.
Because Mr R's production was clearly not intended for the compassion clubs, the judgeat trial had every right to direct the jury to ignore his plea that he was providing theterminally ill with healing marijuana. He wasn;t doing compassion production at all, he was waving low level civic govt paperwork in court. How he imagined that city level permission outranked federal law is bizarre thinking . Rosenthal is a recognised expert legal witness concerning all things medical marijuana- he wrote a sophistcated text book about American marijuana law - Mr R knew the score about improper permissions to cultivate a controlled substance better than anyone in California, alive or dead- private sector of governeent agent. Mr R pushed his luck as a big name, big time grower right to the wall and was caught in the act. he was very lucky he didn;t receive a decade in jail for his warehouse full of party pot. City Certificate or not- he knew what he was doing - defrauding the compassion system he claimed to be serving- soiling the integrity of the legal California medical marijuana system. His peers failed to reigh him in when he went pirate mode so the DEA did it." Ask Ed " himself if he didn';t know the details of cannabis law before he started growing his warehouse loads of party pot.
You say you "want to know," well the first thing you need to do to know more is to stop using silly loaded terms like "dopetopia"
the editorial you prepared and posted here I was responding to was titled
"the Arrogance of Stupidity" That is blatently non neutral speech and combattive title to open with. Fine, this is your website and it has been made clear that non compliant views concerning prohibition are not at all welcomed.. thats the game i walked into to i didn;t expect much from the Dopetopists and they fullfilled my every expectation

. However I forgive youcitizen Borden because thats how you choose to express yourself in a policy debate. I accept that Please understand that I chose the word "Doptopia" as my term of choice refering to the social ideals that the second place winners in the War on Drugs are advocating

I am not obliged to formulate terminology that meets your approval anymore than you are obliged to modify your speech concerning prohibition values..Sticks and stones may break my bones but names, hurled by antiiprohibitionists will never hurt me, never did and never will.

Still, the inmates of Dopetopia have yet to win and advance a single aspect of their policy platform they keep repeating over and over again. Nobody is buying it,except othjer Dopetopists -and your task is to convince billions of other people who believe otherwise on the merits of your claim. In the meantime the supporters of drug prohbition are succeeding at attaining their stated goals. cease the war on drugs and finish off the erradication process . True, its a slow progress but the prohibitionists are making sure and steady progress none the less.
--- Not bad for 6,500,000,000 arrogant stupid people

borden's picture

dear anonymous...

Dear anonymous:

You are proving the validity of my title with every post you make. I've cited by name some very impressive supporters of legalization, including the top police constable in North Wales and the former prison chief in the same, and the widely respected Economist magazine. Without listing the names in this particular article, I believe I alluded to heads of state who have expressed pro-legalization views (Batlle in Uruguay did so very passionately, Mexico's Fox in a comment to the press once but he said it), judges, doctors, former members of presidents' cabinets here in the US, probably others and if I didn't I could have.

You on the other hand have ignored all of that, instead referring to us all with names like Dopetopists, etc. Funny, I have never heard George Shultz or William F. Buckley or Clarence Page called Dopetopists before, I wonder how they would react to it -- perhaps with a tone similar to that of my editorial! Did I mention Gustavo de Greiff, former attorney general of Colombia who organized the work that defeated the drug lord Pablo Escobar? He spoke at our conference 4 1/2 years ago. Is he a "dopetopist" who lives in "dopetopia"? Does he know a thing or two about the consequences of drug prohibition?

So yes, you are free to continue to prove my point about arrogance by using the kind of language you are using to refer to all of these extremely accomplished and knowledgeable people. By the way, I've never even used any illegal drugs, not even marijuana. Am I a "dopetopist" who lives in "dopetopia"?

As wrote, disagree with my views about legalization, I think you're quite wrong, but not automatically unreasonable. But insult my legalization views, like the guys in New York and now you, and I'll have a few things to say about the foolish mindset that that represents.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <blockquote> <p> <address> <pre> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <br> <b>

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, 2015 Drug War Killings, 2016 Drug War Killings, 2017 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, Vaping, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Pill Testing, Safer Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Kratom, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psilocybin / Magic Mushrooms, Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School