Pot smuggling is not the problem.
The problem is cocaine and heroin.
The narcotraficantes are building submarines in the jungles of Ecuador. Do you really think that’s for marijuana?
The big money and the big crime are associated with the smuggling of the powdered products.

60% of Mexican cartel profits come from marijuana so yes it is a big part of the problem.

Great rant Jane. The point that the largest crime problem associated with marijuana is precisely because it is illegal cannot be understated. Without the laws associated with marijuana, the crimes associated with marijuana would be almost non existent, almost immediately.

Great “Rant” Jane and I totally agree. If pot was legal you would be taking about 60% of the Cartel’s profit away from them almost overnight!!

The big money and the big crime are associated with the smuggling of the powdered products.

Nobody is advocating legalizing the chemicals though. You can’t associate cocaine and marijuana like you can associate beer and bourbon. Beer and bourbon both contain alcohol while heroin and marijuana are unrelated except that they are regulated by the same organization.

Outstanding, Jane. So clear with great answers. Thanks for all you do that makes sense.

Great work Jane!!

Oh No the Children….!

Now where’s some zoloft, litium or xanax for those attention deprived

lil’ cuss’s.

Or the beer that sits unsecured in literally millions of refrigerators across the country. Or the hard alcohol that sits behind home bars and in top cabinet shelves. Marijuana that can’t kill gets you a prison sentence while alcohol that does kill gets you sympathy from your church… Yeah, that makes sense.

:D

Of course, we on the left will get accused of hypocrisy when we expect the federal government to treat this differently than they treat SB1070.

I also think it’s a little dangerous to act like ending prohibition (that’s better language to use than “legalization” IMO) is going to cure the illegal immigration problem. The right loudly declares that anyone who doesn’t support SB1070 doesn’t care about the illegal immigration problem. It’s totally dishonest, but we can actually come off looking like we don’t care about it. There are some genuine reasons to combat it. Human smuggling, child prostitution, human slavery. Uncovering human smuggling operations happens all the time here in Texas and remember: we share a much longer and less treacherous border with Mexico than Arizona does.

We need to repeal NAFTA and sit down with Canada and Mexico and agree on a FAIR trade agreement. Then we need to institute a guest worker program. The only way Mexico is going to get fixed is if the people who have been Americanized and have a little money in their pockets actually go back to Mexico and try to make a difference.

And, yes, of course ending prohibition is an important step. We have to treat drug use as a personal health issue. Not just pay lip service to it while still locking people up. We don’t need to be locking drug users up at all. Not in prisons, at least.

I also think it’s a little dangerous to act like ending prohibition (that’s better language to use than “legalization” IMO) is going to cure the illegal immigration problem

Nobody is suggesting that. Jane’s point was that the violence that’s occurring on the border has much more to do with illegal drug cartels than illegal immigration. At least that’s what I took from it.

Great teaser! There’s a mystery pro-19 campaign just waiting to be rolled out, rolled up and fired up! Can’t wait!

Yes, some immigrant who wants to try to get a job washing dishes to send some money home is not the cause of our border violence.

How much fun was that! I never thought I would ever see anything like that on television in my lifetime. Thanks, Jane. You are making such a huge difference in my life and I appreciate it.

Exactly! The right wingers are blaming the violence on the immigrants in order to boost their cause. It’s no different than blaming Iraq for the events of September 11, 2001. Just an excuse.

I emailed my senator today. I had already phoned and her staff told me to write to her DC office.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cf...

Here is a copy:

Homeland Security

I would like a statement from Senator Feinstein as to why she discriminates against me and my religion.

I am a Reverend in the THC Ministry, a church I joined 5 years ago. Here is a link for the website http://www.thc-ministry.org/

Today my minister Roger Christie is sitting in jail without bail on federal marijuana charges.

I want to know why Senator Feinstein violates our first amendment rights and discriminates against us as a group of people and against me personally.

Is it due to her ignorance or her prejudice?

I can’t believe it she is that stupid, so naturally I think she is corrupt. I sure would like to see her change my mind, and NOT with a Blackwater helicopter like last time. Sincerely,

Reverend Lauren Unruh
THC Ministry, Pleasant Hill, California
A Native American Church

Democrats in California deserve Feinstein if she doesn’t get primaried next time. After everything she’s done, she might as well be Republican. She even spouts the right wing “unemployment benefits cause people to remain unemployed” bullsh*t.

*G*

“End of story.”

*G*

NEXT!

lol

Nicely done Mz. Hamsher and always a pleasure to hear and see you speak!

*BRAVO*

Perhaps not, but if my son is tired of being unemployed, goes to that restaurant and applies for that dishwashing job and is told that all the dishwashing jobs are filled that makes the immigrant part of the country’s unemployment problem. And don’t tell me that no Americans are willing to wash dishes cause I KNOW that is untrue.

Folks Feinstein has been in the Senate too long.She is up for re-election in 2012.It’s never too late to start mobilizing to put a challenger on the ballot against this creep.

She & Joe Lieberman ought to be top priority for dumping in 2012.

Margaret – you are exactly right. Jane’s point was that the talk seems to be about conflating violence along the border with the immigration problem. Jane’s point was that the violence is actually a result of the drug smuggling problem, not an immigration problem.

And Jane – that was a great presentation, you were excellent. And very photogenic, I might add. Lovely smile.

Goodkind – you have a good point, we should be changing the language used in the argument. Instead of using “legalization of marijuana” we should be saying “ending the prohibition of marijuana.” A much better phrasing, IMO; it draws a closer parallel to what was done about alcohol. In most people’s minds, ending the “prohibition of alcohol” was a good thing.

I said nothing to that effect nor did Jane. Only said if you are worried about guys with machine guns on the border you are worried about drug smugglers and some poor people looking for employment.

Nicely done, Jane.

Jane – that was a great presentation, excellent. Add you were very photogenic, I might add – great smile.

My guess is that DiFi won’t run in 2012. She will be 78 then and that’s fairly old. Yes, I know because I am the same age a DiFi and I can tell you, it’s TOO old. At my age, I would prefer a nap.

Nice to see how much respect Dylan shows you, Jane. Bravo.

Thanks Jane.

When it comes to our War on Drugs, the current solution is worse than the problem. Much worse.

Why does it always seem like programs with titles such as “War on ” always end up feeling like wars against the US public?

The point that Jane was making and that Jon was making is the VIOLENCE on the border is due to drug cartels on the border, not due the limited dish washing jobs in the United States. I live in central Texas and have been unemployed since January 13, 2009 but I have never once even considered that immigrants, legal or otherwise are responsible for my continued joblessness. Nor do I think they are responsible for border violence.

If she doesn’t run, she’ll probably try to hand-pick her successor. If that happens, her pick needs to be immediately derailed. The constituents shouldn’t have to suffer through any more DiFi-style duplicity and double-dealing. It is also a certainty that the wingnuts will bring out some horror show of a candidate, and throw a ton of money at it.

Whether she decides to run or not, it’s never too early to be thinking about a good progressive alternative.

I remember that Poppy Bush was asked about the war on drugs not working. He said that we would just have to put more money into it. The logic escaped me at the time and still does. He did put more money into it and we can see what a success that was.

Well, Poppy Bush was an idiot and so of course is Feinstein

Thank you, Jane.

I rather gather that Poppy got more cash out of the war on drugs than he asked taxpayers to put into it.

I also called Feinstein’s office a few days ago to protest the Saving Kids from Marijuana Brownies Act. They told me to send an email. I did. They never answered. I’m pretty pissed off at her.

Thats actually not true. from the Washington post recently

“While the trafficking of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine is the main focus of U.S. law enforcement, it is marijuana that has long provided most of the revenue for Mexican drug cartels. More than 60 percent of the cartels’ revenue — $8.6 billion out of $13.8 billion in 2006 — came from U.S. marijuana sales, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. ”

The main problem is a sick and UTTERLY destructive and entirely ineffective, as well as overtly racist US “war on drugs” policy of aggresive prohibition.

heres a link to the whole story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/06/AR2009100603847.html
I dont care for Wapo much but there is no reason to criticize that pretty well published statistic. It can found many other places

In the case of the WOD its because it is quite litteraly, a SHOOTING war on people. mostly poor people, and primarily hispanic and african american. but also poor whites, of course.

Legalizing pot would knock out 60% of the cartels money supply OR provide them a legal product in the poorest rural aras of Mexico. OH FOR GODS SAKE DONT LET THAT HAPPEN>?>! HAVE WE CONSIDERED THE CHILDREN??? then we could think of a sane policy for the other 40%

I think that a big reason a number of Americans are still hesitant about ending prohibition is that they don’t understand the nature of addiction. The “War on Drugs” folks prey on that fear, making people think their kids are going to get hooked on pot and other things. Not everyone who drinks wine is an alcoholic, just like not everyone who smokes marijuana is a pothead. Addiction is about the individual, it has little to do with what they’re using to fill that void in their life. People can become addicted to anything: coffee, food, cigarettes, alcohol, cocaine, cough drops… The point is that an addict is someone who is dishonest with themselves and others. It should be treated like any other mental health condition. Trying to stop drugs at the border does NOT work. It’s time to allocate those resources to treating addicts, not criminalizing them.

Excellent!

Love you Jane. Congrats and keep up the good work.

Personally I think this is a trivial and frivolous issue for all but the habituated and addicted to marijuana. It’s importance certainly does not rise to a level appropriate to a serious political movement.

More than 60 percent of the cartels’ revenue — $8.6 billion out of $13.8 billion in 2006 — came from U.S. marijuana sales, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. ”

Assuming this statistic is reasonably accurate, IMVHO forget about simply claiming that legalization would ‘end prohibition’ or ‘legalize pot’.

Cut to the chase: “Defund the [violent] drug cartels by making marijuana legal” works for me, and seems like it would work well enough for a whole lot of people: libertarians, independents, liberals, and even some fiscal conservatives.

Hit ‘em where it’ll hurt ‘em: their wallets.

Great to see Jane on The Dylan Ratigan Show; I’m a huge fan of that show. Smart host, smart guests, and Ratigan consistently does a terrific job of translating the financial shenanigans and their related political dysfunctions for interested viewers.
Laws that end up generating profits for Mexican drug cartels are one excellent example of botched policies and political dysfunction, but it’s fixable if enough people wake up and Follow The Money…

Jane…you were fantastic…

I am probably not the only one here that unashamedly will say that if you were on the TeeVee more often, it would increase viewership in a very large way. Intelligent, sharp, incisive, and on topic without any BS!…and please don’t get offended, but you are so pleasant to watch…a distinctive potent combination that we all would appreciate seeing more of!

Please keep this subject on the front burner…too many in Amerika want to gloss over actually what you have brought attention to.

Thank you for all you do..

Legalizing marijuana will not eliminate drug pushers and associated crimes. They will just move to the even more dangerous cocaine, heroin, amphetamines etc.

So does that put you in the DiFi camp?

Let’s double the fines all the way around…that will certainly stamp out this insidious disease! /s

I don’t think so cause legalizing pot won’t put the pot dealers out of work.

Drug gangs don’t work that way. They have it all divvied up so that in a certain area one gang gets to sell the pot and another gets to sell the coke and heroin, and another gets to sell the meth. If you put the marijuana gang out of business they can’t switch to something else. They’re just out of business.

We have laws against giving alcohol and tobacco to children. I see nothing venal in enhancing laws to protect children from mind altering drugs.

In respect I find that analysis naive.

I don’t think so cause legalizing pot won’t put the pot dealers out of work.

I thought that was what I said.

Trust me I’m not naive. I can’t say it’s true everywhere, but when I was involved it was.

Well, thanks for your honesty, which in turn your reply indicates you find nothing abhorrent about the bill enabled by Senator DiFi…correct?

I thought you said the dealers would move to other drugs. I am saying they will still sell pot.

OIC. I see your point. I suppose they will move to other markets, maybe more vigorous toward children? or move to other states? etc.

I haven’t read the bill thouroughly. My comments are about marijuana, not political figures.

That said, I am a fan of Diane Feinstein though I don’t always agree with the positions she takes.

Nope. None of that. They will just keep doing what they are doing but probably undercut the legal price. Why would they stop?

It won’t be legalized because what is happening is exactly what they want to happen. In chaos they can steal
You may remember that the Mafia was started and funded by liquor Prohibition; same here.
CA, with it’s economic mess burned up a BILLION $ worth of pot last years. Crazy but true.
The drug laws also help plump up the private prison complex and help local governments seized property…what’s the worry?

Let’s see;

Legalizing pot will not end global warming.

Legalizing pot will not end torture.

Legalizing pot will not end greed.

Legalizing pot will not end jaywalking.

Legalizing pot will not end the endless wars on terra …

Legalizing pot will not end drunken driving.

And legalizing pot will not end the consumption of brownies.

It would end a certain hypocrisy and the incarceration of people who are not harming others.

So, on balance legalizing pot would not do many things, but it would do some.

Of course, NOT legalizing pot won’t do those things either, but that is beside the point … because the political class does not want to “end” most of these things … anyway or any how … well, maybe jaywalking.

You see, the political class is involved in doing or allowing the doing of these things.

But they HAVE to draw the line somewhere. Just so they’ll be taken seriously (and that people will be afraid of them … unless the people applaud them … for whatever lack of reason).

DW

I guess we agree on the basic premise that legalizing will not eliminate drug pushers and the associated crimes.

Are you apposed to folks smoking pot?

Woo-hoo, Jane! Well done!!

No we don’t! Nobody has been primarying her because the Dem establishment in California thinks she’s an “institution” and actively thwart any progressives who might challenge her. And the White House will do the same to any challenger. We have had no choice in the last several elections. It is either her or some unknown Republican. Don’t blame Californians. We would LOVE to get rid of her but there is no mechanism for that when the people in power control the purse strings. I voted for her unknown Republican challenger last time and it did no good.

If you have a better idea for how to get rid of her I would love to hear it!

The light at the end of the tunnel is that she is old.

That seems to be the only way we will get rid of Boxer either. It is infuriating that the will of the people has been thwarted by the executive branch and their meddling in elections. Throw all the bums out!

That said, I am a fan of Diane Feinstein though I don’t always agree with the positions she takes.

I see nothing but a convenient political ploy to engage people at that level where nurturing and protecting children’s welfare becomes an emotional laden carrot to extract laws that will continue to imprison a new set of people and expand the already bloated prison business.

I have three grandchildren and daily strive to protect them in every way possible, but it angers me that people like Senator DiFi can pontificate about how she wants to protect the children, but she belongs to the governing cabal that has not effectively stopped the death and destruction of the children in our myriad wars, has not helped in creating healthcare that will actually help all children and their parents, and certainly has not made any effective dent on the creation of jobs that inevitability is a safe guard against a plethora of troubles.

Please, I can assure you that I condone nothing that remotely suggests subjecting ‘the children’ to mind altering substances…but this bill is a convenient trojan horse to help defeat prop 19. It is not addressing the issue of child protection in a candid and meaningful way, and it is disgusting for this senator to make believe she is the torch bearer for some glorious brand of righteousness!

Jane, once again thank you so very much. A better spokesperson I cannot imagine. You can count me in for NOW. Just tired of being a citizen/criminal.

I am opposed to children having access to it.

It is not up to me to judge how adults treat themselves. However pot is not good for you. But neither is alcohol or tobacco. I am hypocritical in that I partake of alcohol not infrequently. ( The tobacco went a long time ago.)

My main complaint with the preoccupation with pot I see here is that I just don’t see it as a seminal political principle or policy.

Diane Feinstein is political? Shocking. We have all kinds of laws intended to protect children and I am glad,

This particular one would seem to fall into the interactive hazard e..g unfenced swimming pools, uncovered well shafts etc..

Personally, I think 500 of the Fortune 500 companies require their job applicants to pee into a jar if they want the job. I could be wrong about that. Prior to some time in the very early 1980s, few people were given drug tests, though blood/urine tests for every controlled substance and alcohol, except marijuana’s THC, were available and reliable. When, in the early 1980s, a reliable test for the presence of THC was developed, drug testing became widespread. The inference you can draw is that most voluntary/random drug tests test for marijuana use. It’s very costly to test for pot.

That aside, one of Jane Hamsher’s most important points is that too many people have their lives ruined and are imprisoned because marijuana is prohibited by law. That’s not trivial or frivolous, and you know better than to think it is.

I don’t think legalizing marijuana will solve the imprisonment problem. I do favor prison reform of a number of situations, the two most egregious are the criminalizing of such a high percentage of black men and the abuse of the prison system by using it a holding institution of the mentally in, many in dire need of treatment.

I agree the WOD is mostly a failure. But legalizing MJ is not going to alter that. Besides all those DEA agents need jobs and if you undo the drug thing they will just shift to adding to the government spying on us.:-)

Agreed, she is shocking isn’t she.

I concur with you on the importance of laws protecting children, as I said in my response. I am more unsure about the equivilency you find by judging this under the same possible category of hazards like unfenced swimming pools…

Is it okay with you if your readers infer that you don’t care if marijuana users – buyers and sellers – are imprisoned?

Yes or no.

If pot laced brownies are left sitting out, a child comes in, they are attractive to said child who promptly pops one or two down.

This on is I agree more silly than useful. But legalizing pot over all is IMO as silly.

As one whose Senators are Isaackson and Chambliss I think California should be very grateful for the Senators you have. Beware of what you pray for.

No

What happens to the child that eats a pot brownie?

Sorry. I am not getting sucked into a discussion of whether pot is dangerous or not, proofs and opinions etc. Been there done that. Same results as debating those who believe their heroin is simply replacing a missing chemical needed to feel normal.

In the great list of things dangerous to our culture and nation pot and white boys getting locked up for using it is far down. I question the wisdom of taking it up as a signature issue for a serious political movement.

Thanks for your response @76 (and I’m not a dentist).

I’m pissed off about the ‘pot brownies’ worst-case scenario extrapolation; it’s a strategic folly, a silly hipster’s distraction. It’s easily countered by the opposition because the schmucky DiFi bill obviously isn’t about ‘pot brownies’ at all.

white boys getting locked up for using it

? It is the black boys and Hispanic boys I am worried about.

Ingesting THC has a longer-lasting effect than smoking it. Also, it’s much easier to ingest a large amount of THC than by smoking it from a pipe or a cigarette, assuming the user takes several puffs – enough to get the effects.

It could be very scary.

Jane, you’re beautiful, but the make-up folks need to give you a bit more color, particularly lipstick.

“Sorry. I am not getting sucked into a discussion of whether pot is dangerous or not, proofs and opinions etc. Been there done that. Same results as debating those who believe their heroin is simply replacing a missing chemical needed to feel normal.”

Oh, puh-leeze. you’re the one who’s been telling spooky stories about kids eating brownies, and the fact is that if it occured, the kid would be stoned as hell for a few hours, nothing life threatening. Now you want to say it’s the ‘same’ as heroin.

I think she looked great!

: )

Legalizing pot will not end global warming.

Legalizing pot will not end torture.

Legalizing pot will not end greed.

Legalizing pot will not end jaywalking.

Legalizing pot will not end the endless wars on terra …

Legalizing pot will not end drunken driving

Legalizing pot will get you better weed.

(Apologies to Gil Scott Heron)

Jane knows how to look, if anyone knows. The blouse overwhelms and exudes a regal fitness.

Senator Feinstein (D-CA) wears Cleopatra-style lipstick; it’s sexy in that Republican way.

I hate to put this so bluntly, but it’s directly to the point.

So trigger warning!

Drunk men use force, crack using men use force, meth using men use force.

I can’t imagine that potheads use force even 1% as often as men who are not high.

As is the case most of the time when it comes to legislating morality….says who?…should have been the first question about the legality of something……It seems to me …that , things that grow are legal…..no waffle….the fact that they grow makes them legal. On the flip side laws against legal things are criminal laws…and the people that enforce criminal laws are criminals…is not the first law common sense?
Is ignorance of law an excuse …..

There may be a societal-cultural effect at work in that observation. The word ‘assassin’ derives from the (Arabic?) word ‘hashish’.

After the Audit the Fed legislation, it is the seminal issue in terms of finding common ground with libertarians and conservatives. We already know all the other issues upon which we disagree. Early in its history, FDL reached out to conservatives to fight the FISA Amendment of 2008. If we can win in CA, it will invigorate our efforts to work with the right on getting our combat forces out of the Middle East.

This is a smart use of the limited resources FDL has.

Oh my….. the drug war has been going on since Nixon, what an unspeakable tradgedy it has been. so many lives wasted. so much treasure, human potential sucked down into an abyss….heres another stat, i learned from a former career federal NARC of 30 years who supports complete decriminalization. 20-30 years After the Civil war, Morphine addiction became enough of a concern to sudy long term addiction rate. They discoverd that about 1.5 – 2 % were addicted at any given time. Thars TOO HIGH they said, we must criminalize use and possesion of certain drugs. Fast forward to Nixon. when he began the Drug war they learned that about 2% were addicted to narcotics (opiates) at any given time. TO MANY! drug war save us. after 40 years of waging brutal non stop war on sick addicted poor people and their famillies and communities, Narcotic addiction rates stand at about about 2%-3% . So when anyone could go to the local pahrmacy and buy Bayer brand Heroin off the rack addiction rates were 2%. after jailing millions, killing 10s of thousands and spending trillions for 40 years, 2 % are addicted. END THE EVIL. end the Drug war now. Maybe, if we used the rescources wisely instead of pissing them into a cess pool of violence, ill will , fear and corruption, we could learn why 2 out 100 people wind up addicted.

Jane, there’s an interesting bit of evidence that the US is supporting a regime in Honduras that may be actively involved in drug running. An anthropologist who works in Honduras, Adrienne Pine, reports on the situation in the state of Tocoa that the airfields are on the lands of oligarch Miguel Facusse.

While this has long been suspected, this is a specific allegation. Here’s the excerpt:

He [Dr. Luther Castillo] explained how the area had become militarized, “ese retén era tomado por militares, todas esas son tierras de [Miguel] Facussé, bueno son tierras que robó Facussé, son tierras del pueblo”—”this stop was occupied by soldiers, all this is [Miguel] Facussé’s land, I mean- it’s land that Facussé stole, it is the land of the people.”…

And when one speaks of Facussé one speaks of narcos. To be fair, I brought this topic up, not Luther. And like most Hondurans, he spoke carefully and indirectly about the topic, pointing to the mounds of circumstancial evidence without making direct links to individuals. Like the many small airstrips in the middle of nowhere, and Tocoa’s inexplicable level of development. “La ciudad de Tocoa no produce para que tenga ese desarollo.”

Miguel Facusse is one of a dozen people who run Honduras. It would certainly be easy to run narcotics through Honduras if one controlled as much land in rural areas as Mr. Facusse does.

Among other issues, arresting and incarcerating people for smoking pot is an incredibly poor use of the law enforcement dollar. I say that as someone who is vehemently anti-drug.

Agree. Thanks for mentioning the regal, I missed that, but you nailed it.

Jane, you appeared relaxed, happy and just calmly delivered a damn broadside.

…pot is not good for you. But neither is alcohol or tobacco.

What is your criterion? Abuse- overuse – of any of those is usually very damaging to the body eventually, and sometimes immediately. Moderate use of any of those isn’t invariably bad or unhealthy. Moderate use can be beneficial, yes, even for one’s health.

Did you point blank ask her staff why she was discriminating against you for your religion? Because I did. I plan on calling back until I get an answer.

‘Struth, SD

(I know a couple of people with degrees in Plant Science … an investment in their companies, were sanity to prevail, would be quite as good as … “gold”.)

DW

I don’t know quite you mean, exactly. I’m speaking from some familiarity with potheads. Made a lot of strange food in the wok, rode bikes a lot. That’s about as dangerous as it got.

: )

Investigate her ties to the drug war, illegal spying and the OK’ing of torture.

Then you never heard of my plan to build a new political party.

Plus ça change…

In South Vietnam, US military guarded piles of opium at airfields, where planes (owned by that woman who illegally contributed to Nixon’s re-election campaign) operated by CIA, flew the opium somewhere, where it wound up on ships manned by French men, who processed it into heroin.

(Sorry, no useful sources to point to. Allen Ginsburg described all that on The Dick Cavett Show, 1970-something. I recall he was referencing an article in The Journal Of Foreign Affairs that described the operation.)

I just thought it was blatant religious discrimination, but then when I emailed her before with a plan for ending war in Iraq since it is all based on religion, she answered me by sending a Blackwater helicopter with men in it pointing machine guns at me.

I really don’t appreciate that kind of terrorism against a citizen, I am deeply disappointed to hear you do.

Well they already rape us, it will make that a little bit harder to get away with.

Right, because so many people die each year from pot overdoses.

Right, it is a religious difference. If you were a police force trying to defend the CHRISTIAN practice of rape, pot is the last drug you would legalize, and that explains about 65% of the motivation for illegal pot, greed being the other 35%.

Put another way, our society (US) and its pop culture are very aggressive – excessively violent to outsiders. Almost all of it shouts and never shuts up. It pounds and pounds in various martial beats and rhythms. Electricity has this effect (60 Hz more so than 50 Hz). We are always a-buzz.

Alcohol, cocaine, crack, meth are short-term stimulants and often exacerbate the aggressiveness already there.

Pot often counteracts those nearly hard-wired aggressive effects.

Unlike almost every other intoxicant, there are no measurable pharmacological effects on the body from being high on pot. It’s all cerebral. We don’t know how or why it’s a wonderful intoxicant. We don’t know how or why aspirin works its wonders.

But we pretend to know a lot about a lot of things.

That’s not really what I meant. I don’t consider this a religious issue, rather a harm reduction issue.

“Alcohol, cocaine, crack, meth are short-term stimulants and often exacerbate the aggressiveness already there.

Pot often counteracts those nearly hard-wired aggressive effects.”

Very true.

Jane’s exquisite performance was obviously rushed. She fonfered and had to re-start once or twice. I’m trying to post talking points that scan easily, that can be delivered on TV, radio, and at a conference. I used to perform poetry and also gave lectures. Jane is 99th percentile. I was maybe 97th.

Me and Alvin Greene will hold down the 8th percentile for you all.

lol.

I was surprised that Ratigan of all people would give anyone the time to express a point without barging in. I think Jane may have been startled at the size of the opening.

It will prevent thousands of non violent, otherwise non criminal people from going to prison, geting felony charges and spending the rest of their lives in a permanent narco-underclass -not allowed to vote, prohibited from becoming employed in about 75% of the economy, etc.etc.

Drug use seems to be an imperative for some relatively small % of humans and has been since before history. Substance use does have medical risks, and therefore some social risks that are shared, but the milltaristic police state response we have is allll way out of line with the actual amount of risk. Addiction is a public health issue. Recreational use is a personal moral issue. its way past time to end the inquisition against drug use, and sexual preference.

Great job Jane! The blouse, well, wow, but then you’re generally a wow, anyway.

The fundamental issue that society needs to resolve once and for all is: Who owns ones body? The State, God, the Brain, the Spirit occupying it? (For me, I own my body but on a philosophical level I’m not sure if I is chemicals zooming around in my corpse or some immortal spirit thingie or something so bizarre that I can’t imagine it–I’m probably in the bizarre camp :)).

Feminists help me out here, was it Greer or Millet who resurrected this philosophical nut in their early gender equality arguments?

Jane,

Smartlady and I waited through the program, something we rarely do, to see our Jane on the Ratigan Rant and it was worth it. Aside from making sense, which is rare enough these days, you look great doing it! Prosecution and imprisonment for pot is a distraction, a money mill travesty of justice that need s to be corrected. Legalize, tax and control marijuana use to get the criminal element out of the business. Then the police can concentrate on WHITE COLLAR CRIME that is costing trillions and ruining the moral fiber of our country.

Pot often counteracts those nearly hard-wired aggressive effects.

Does that maybe explain the sorry performance of Obama and the Democrats in Congress?

If that is the case. I am out of here. I have no interest in being involved in a political party whose most evident principles are legal marijuana and hating Democrats. The authors and posters on FDL are better than that.

You make some really good points, Ms. Hamsher. If for no other reason, this country’s policy on marijuana should be revisited because it clearly isn’t working. It’s broke: Let’s fix it.

Being from rural New England, I can say that the growers I support are mostly local, with the occasional bag of Canadian Hydro thrown in. So the image of the weed-smoking kids supporting terrorists in Afghanistan is not an accurate one. Of course the Partnership for a Drug Free America is funded by pharmaceutical, alcohol and tobacco companies (query: why would a company that makes drugs want a drug free America?)

Regarding the Just Say Now catchphrase, it reminds me of a little toast we say: Just Say Yo. We country people look forward to the day when strains of cannabis can be displayed at the county fair and home growers can take their rightful place besides other local farmers.

Your post makes it clear that you have no concept of the effects of MJ. Perhaps you should stick to what you do know about. I understand that may be difficult.

Using drugs to alter consciousness is a natural thing that humans have done throughout history. One of the first things a child will do when they learn how to walk is spinning around to alter their consciousness.
In the nineteenth century when someone got addicted to a drug, he did not get fired, he did not loose his family. People laughed at him and said, “Now what are you going to do?”
By far the worst thing about drugs is that they are not legal.

That’s a bit harsh of a comment for someone who is apparently on the same side and in agreement that the laws need changing.

Grovester is not claiming that marijuana is all that addictive, just that individuals react differently to it. He uses the language differently and maybe does not smoke marijuana, but the thrust of the comment is agreeing that the laws need to be changed.

I’ve smoked quite a bit and I know that it does not affect me nor has it affected me in the same way as others.

And science and addiction specialists have recognized at least a potential psychological addiction to marijuana, even if there is no physical addiction.

I smoked pot everyday for almost 7 years. I have been chemical free and sober for over a year now. I don’t care if people smoke pot. All I know is that I can’t. I’m an addict. I can’t use alcohol or pot or other substances responsibly. However, I do think marijuana should be legal because prohibition does NOTHING to prevent addiction. Having something become legal does not promote addiction. Addicts are conditioned for their problems from life experiences and family circumstances. Drug violence is completely the result of prohibition.

If you want to ask me what else I “know” about my pot usage, feel free.

It’s not just very hard to be a human being – as far as I know, it’s the most difficult thing on earth. We live most of our lives repressing, suppressing, sublimating, and displacing much of what nature has made of us. It’s all too easy to lapse into anti-social (or immoral) behaviors. Too many of us are constantly fighting off bad health or terrible moods. It’s all too facile for social scientists, social workers, and law-enforcement humans to find fault, especially since they’re trained to find it. Someone’s ‘failure’ is their fuel.

Most humans have learned and figured out how to cope with being human, despite the recurring bouts of unhappiness; and I think all humans have a natural “right to be let alone”. That’s a fair paraphrase (and quote) of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote with regard to the implicit right to privacy as part of our social compact.

I think humans naturally take to pot, and need it, in a similar way that dogs naturally take to humans and need us.

I think humans naturally take to pot, and need it, in a similar way that dogs naturally take to humans and need us.

google ‘the endocannabinoid system’ – it’s fascinating!

Great and popular focus but claiming that the marijuana importing from Mexico will fix the immigration/border problems is naive. Certainly part of the equation but not the whole problem by any means.

Taxing marijuana sales has been a long long time coming

He definitely gives people openings that he agrees with. And one thing Jane keeps nailing no one in the MSM addresses the issue.