Next entry: How to lose an argument
Previous entry: The Taco Bell Ad
Mike’s right; it’s sort of weird to deliver a “Fuck yeah” to a Joe Klein post. But he does make a couple of points that make you think:
--Just about anyone under the age of 60 who has lived in this permissive society during the past 40 years, has done something that might be unfit for a Hallmark Greeting Card. In fact, I have profound qualms about any would-be politician who hasn’t allowed him- or herself a moment of untrammeled human or chemical exploration. I fear that the media have driven an awful lot of interesting people away from public service for reasons that would have seemed extreme to the second generation of New England Puritans.
--These sort of crapulous stories are next-door neighbors to the sleazy negative advertising that, well, John McCain has been accosting us with. They feed the notion that politicians are just a bunch of soulless, egomaniacal dolts without a high-minded--whoa, almost said bone in their bodies--pick your allusion. One of the worst results of the past 30 years of the Reagan pendulum swing is that the politicians-as-perverts meme fits quite neatly into the government-as-problem-not-solution meme. Given the problems we’re facing now, this is not where we want our national discourse to be.
I will say that the fact of McCain’s adulteries and Obama’s admissions of drug use in his past indicate that one of the media’s ever-changing rules on what counts as a “legal” opportunity to engage in gossip seems to be “Safely in the past is off-limits.” I’m not entirely sure how I feel about that, and think the better rule would be, “Hoist them by their own petards” rule, which is to say that anyone who uses their position of power to oppress other people for their sexual orientation or behavior should consider his or her own sex life public property. People who don’t do this---even if they pander on “family values” in their rhetoric, for the whiny wingnuts looking for a technicality to dwell on this Edwards thing---have earned the right to keep their private life private. Like Klein says, if that doesn’t happen, we’re going to whittle down the eligible political pool to pretty much no one worth voting for. I suppose that suits the angry virgin College Republican crowd fine, but really, do the rest of us really want the semi-volunteer teenage virgin parade and K-Lo to be our only options? I didn’t think so.
The fatal flaw in this neat little idea is the War On Drugs, which pretty much all politicians automatically support, much to my chagrin. The level of hypocrisy involved in the War On Drugs is mind-boggling. It’s not just the politicians who did drugs and tolerate or even eagerly promote jail time for those less fortunate than them---people who get caught and don’t have the money and connections to turn that into a stint in rehab or no punishment at all. It’s also the sort of ur-hypocrisy. Pretty much everyone drinks alcohol and coffee, though smoking cigarettes is borderline socially acceptable these days. (I actually think that Obama’s smoking probably is more of an image concern than his admitted drug experimentation in his youth.) It’s completely unconscionable for people to even be in the same room as alcohol and yet support putting those who indulge in the far safer drug marijuana in jail.
It makes sense that we get the hypocrisy angle on sex---attitudes on sexuality have been liberalizing for decades, and people generally recognize government oppression of people’s sexuality for what it is, and expect the moral scolds to live by their own standards. Drugs are different, of course, in the sense that they’re dangerous and seem sort of extra-natural compared to sex, which asserts itself on your body not the other way around. But still, Klein linked them and I agree. So what is it going to take to move hypocrisy on drug use from standard issue behavior to scandal-worthy?
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
Posted by
Amanda Marcotte on 05:08 PM •
Permalink
Dealing?
Are those benadryl and generic ibuprofin in that line up?
So what is it going to take to move hypocrisy on drug use from standard issue behavior to scandal-worthy?
I think it’s really a matter of when you get busted and what you get busted with. Remember, it’s a war on not just certain people who use drugs, but on certain types of drugs. Heroin? You’re going to jail. Oxycontin? Depends on how rich and well-connected you are. Ambien? You get a ride home from the cops.
So take the craziest drug warrior out there (I have no idea who that would be) and put him/her in a car with a vial of meth and a bottle of Vicodin and have him/her eat a tree in their SUV. You’ll get a scandal out of that, but that’s about what it would take. It has to be an anti-drug politician taking the wrong kinds of drugs to make it a scandal, and even then, it’ll be tough to make the case.
Cigarettes and pot are part of Obama’s appeal, for me. Admitting to prior drug use and admitting it as something nearly everyone does is something I respect. The cigarette smoking actually helps to make him seem, I dunno, more accessible and more like an everyman. Not only does he come across as a guy who you’d wanna grab a drink with, but he wouldn’t cringe in revulsion at the dive you chose to take him.
So what is it going to take to move hypocrisy on drug use from standard issue behavior to scandal-worthy?
That gets into IOKIYAR territory. Conservatives seem to free pass on hypocrisy these days because of their bedfellowship with Evangelical Christianity and the automatic sin-forgiveness thereof (something I always think is odd, given that ol’ Yeshoua ben Yosef was down on hypocrisy more than anything else). For those of the non-conservative persuasion, it just another “throw it against the wall and see if it sticks” item. As a rule, it really doesn’t stick that well anyway ("I didn’t inhale"). Hypocrisy is general will need to become scandal-worthy for the change you mention to happen.
As for drugs themselves, I’m more hopeful that rather than becoming scandal-worthy, a couple of generations might get the country to where it’s a non-issue. It will be tough - being “pro” (actually neutral, of course) drugs makes for an almost impossible political stand (hard to be publicly enthusiastic about getting rid of drug law, while the pro drug-law folks have the power of self-righteousness to fuel their fire). But hopefully enough of the ‘aginners will die out.
Though I agree with Klein’s overall point, this part rubbed me the wrong way
I didn’t care whether Clarence Thomas watched porn films, if Newt Gingrich messed around...and I’m profoundly uninterested in what Larry Craig does in the loo.
I’m to young to remember the Clarence Thomas/ Anita Hill controversy, but my understanding is that Thomas was accused of sexually harassing a subordinate. To me that’s a different issue than just watching porn on is own time. And Craig falls under the “hoisted by his own petards” rule, of course.
Sex? Check.
Drugs? Check.
So what is it going to take to move hypocrisy on drug use from standard issue behavior to scandal-worthy? How about… ROCK AND ROLL!
No, I don’t know how this would work, but it sounds right.
Follow the Money. The War on Drugs ain’t going away as long as it’s Big Bidness. It’s as ingrained as the Military-Industrial Complex and Lobbyists in our culture.
Ending the War on Drugs will take more political guts than pushing for Universal Healthcare.
But jeez, what a fucking wonderful country if we weren’t wasting billions on the futile hope of preventing people from unwinding.
In fact, excuse me, going for a little puff-puff.
“People who don’t do this---even if they pander on “family values” in their rhetoric, for the whiny wingnuts looking for a technicality to dwell on this Edwards thing---have earned the right to keep their private life private.”
I hate to say it because it is true that fear of intense daily scrutiny probably drives a lot of good people away from the political limelight. Nevertheless, people do hold elected officials to a higher standard than they require of the average bear. When someone enters into a political contest, it is pretty much common knowledge that their private life will be private no more.
I read some silly comment in that left-wing rag, THE NATION. I think the line in the article began with “Of course, no serious observer believes that the tip to the National Enquirer wasn’t politically motivated.” The writer went on to argue that Edwards’ debacle was a set-up intended to ensure that he had no chance at the White House (as if he ever did, snicker snicker), and no chance to be part of the Obama Cabinet (thank Christ for small blessings).
Although it may be true as this writer speculates that someone or a group of people on the right had it in for Edwards, the fact of the matter is that he brought this scandal upon himself. The timeless question remains: how could a political figure expect to visit prostitutes, to hire women who fuck him, or to insert cigars into his 20-something year old interns without someone finding OUT??
Hello Nation: it *is* the nation’s interest when a politician who expects to control our purse strings meets a bimbo in a hotel, starts fucking her, and then hires her for $100 000 to make some ridiculously prophetic films. Hee hee, he wanted people to know him for who he really is, and now we do. 
Let’s remember that Timothy Leary’s message (beyond his showmanship) was that you can control not only your learned behavior and conditioning, but that you can reimprint your early patterns to self actualize. The battle in the culture war is really between those who want to control your reality and those who want you to control your reality. Some intelligent drug use is conducive to reprograming your own way of understanding reality. The drug war was amplified in the sixties mostly because of a group of psychologists who were on the verge of unlocking psychedelics therapeutic and research potential. Things like heroin and cocaine were diversions to make money to fund government ops, like Iran Contra, and to discredit the psychedelic researchers by confusing harmful narcotics with beneficial entheogens.
The gender shit you always so brilliantly expose and expound upon is part of a pattern of cultural imprints. The function of the drug war is to rehearse a police state, destroy the constitution, amplify racial tension so it can be exploited to remain in power, and prevent researchers from learning how to use psychedelics to allow people to create their own psychological imprints.
The culture war is largely between people who want the state to control everyones perception of reality (the bedwetter control freak neocons, repressive church idiots, etc) and people who think everyone should decide for themselves how to perceive reality. The drug war is a war against people uncovering technologies for psychological liberation and self actualization, presented and sold to racists in code as a war against minorities and people with threatening ways of seeing the world, that creates black markets to fund secret government programs (like iran contra and god knows what else), while paving the way for a police state and slowing scientific progress.
The drug war will die quietly, not loudly as part of a movement like universal healthcare.
Damn right as usual, Amanda.
And let us not forget that the Democrats are at least as equally complicit in this particular War on Reason and sane public policy.
It’s been going on for 35+ years, after all, despite Nixon’s own personal commission saying it was stupid. It became an untouchable beast in rational American politics.
Nobody supports rampant drug use. Most everyone supports rational drug policy, at least privately, and this alone is testament to the Power of the Narrative, and the tyranny of the majority.
I have a lot of police officers in the family. Ask them which they would rather take on, given the choice between a crowd of stoners (such as it can be) and a crowd of drunks and they just laugh since it is so transparently obvious which one poses a bigger hassle.
Keep up the good work. You are a hero of mine. I don’t say that lightly, ever.
“The drug war is a war against people uncovering technologies for psychological liberation and self actualization....”
No, I think the drug war is largely against addicts and pushers who commit violent crimes while under the influence, or while trying to increase their markets.
The “psychological liberation” that tends to accompany substance abuse is that you don’t give a crap about your behavior, your rent, or showing up for work on time. So get fired, get evicted, lose your family and friends, and then you live on the street sitting on a cardboard box with a sign that says, “Pregnant, hungry, will take anything… soap, sandwich, cash.”
I saw a woman like that this morning who had clearly achieved her “liberation” from the norms of society. I saw another pair with their faces tattooed. Young people with a bedraggled looking dog, but the dog looked better than they did. I’m sure only an addict or a nutcase would tattoo his or her face that way. Liberation at its apex…
Go visit a prison and ask how many of the folks inside are there because of crimes they committed while high on drugs. I bet you will be shocked. Get your head examined while you’re there.
And no, prohibition is not what causes drunks/crackeads/meth users/etc… to shoot their wives in fits of rage, or to rob banks impulsively, or to rape their friends while on dates. It’s the substance and not the lack of it that changes peoples’ brain chemistry.
The fact that nearly half of the populations says they’ve *tried* drugs means nothing. I think we can all agree that people who end up committing serious offenses are not in general first time or second time users. They are hard core addicts with no regard for anyone but themselves, and not even themselves, but their next high. Look at the Preppy Killer guy. It was not a lack of drugs that caused him to kill his girlfriend, or that caused him to sell drugs more recently. It was his addiction.
Foucault has totally jumped the shark as a troll.
Only now do you consider Foucault a troll?
I’m just glad we have the Drug War News report every weekday at 4:20 PM on KPFT. There are some good pro-decriminilzation professors at UofH in its influential Social Work and Psycology department. Don’t know about Rice, but Rice for all its academic badassed-ness is less of of an influence on local culture than UofH with the notable exception of that Kleinberg guy.
I’ve shifted over the last several months from Foucault being a more moderate feminist who doesn’t much agree with the opinions typically held by the Pandagon commentariat to Foucault being an interesting troll who is occasionally fun to bat around like a cat toy, to “Bored Now”, to quote Willow.
Flashback: Freshman year of college. Going to visit ex-boyfriend who had political ambitions.
He was sitting in his living room in the dark with a case of vodka near his easy chair, one out and almost empty. He was watching Grateful Dead videos. Getting drunk watching people get high. Because he wanted to get high, but he wanted to have a political career. So he was getting drunk instead.
It’s been twenty years. I don’t think he’s any political bigwig. Googling him has never worked because he has such a common name. I’ve always wondered what happened to him.
Maybe he drowned in a bottle of vodka.
Sorry, this all came flooding back in when I read the opening of this post.
Look! Foucault found a Welfare Queen and her cardboard box! See? Cardboard is a bad car to drive when you’re an addict! See?.. & brain chemistry’s a “given"- we’re all equal chemists when we have equal brains!
(Whew...) The drug war is gonna go down because we can’t afford it, anymore… the jail time, the courtroom hang-time, the stigma, the cultural disruption, etc. Despite the fact that the Liquor lobby & the Tobacco lobby and the Sanctified Pharma lobby & the Prison guards lobby and the… oh, fuck… it’s as likely to become an entrenched cultural icon as the Mormons, or racism, or big-Dickism, with that kinda clout. I give up. I surrender. Here are my eggs in a hot pan… you Go, foo ko ^..^
How did you get a photo of my desk? Actually, I think one of those things is a smashed avocado. Or maybe it’s a banana peel? Very Dead Milkmen.
You can call me a troll, but at least I hold positions on this subject that are socially acceptable. I wonder where we will be in the war on drugs in twenty years?
I suspect that street drugs will still be highly illegal and people will laugh out loud at those who fondly approved of Obama’s drug days/cigarette habit. I believe Obama is an ex-smoker, so he clearly realizes how stupid and money-wasting smoking is.
Finally, the reason why poor people are probably disproportionately in jail for their drug use is because they get high and commit crimes. Rich or middle-class people have a joint and stay in their apartment. The poor and the homeless do this in parks and then go rob a grocery store. Go figure…
Ah, yes, social acceptability. Like slavery, and denying women the right to vote, and Jim Crow, and interning American citizens of Japanese dissent. All socially acceptable in their time.
And even now police can kill black people on the slightest of pretexts, and the nation can kill a half million Iraqis for the hell of it. Quite socially acceptable.
And if drugs were legal, they would be much cheaper, so poor people wouldn’t have the need to steal, but rather could have a joint and stay in their apartment (as countless poor folks do already).
You only hear about the folks that are arrested, and make the illogical leap that drugs=>crime. No, that would be hopeless poverty. If folks have no way out, what have they got to lose? Why would they worry about being “socially acceptable” since society hasn’t done them any favors.
You know, Foucault, most rapists aren’t under the influence of drugs when they commit rape. Most burglars aren’t under the influence of drugs when they burgle. And most murderers aren’t under the influence of drugs when they murder.
If any of these people are under the influence of a drug, odds are it’s perfectly legal alcohol.
I personally take no mind-altering drugs whatsoever, including perfectly legal alcohol, and I actually kind of despise people under the influence of drugs. But the fact that I despise them shouldn’t be what makes law. They should have the right to fuck up their own minds and bodies, somewhere far away from me personally.
I would be in favor of laws that say that drugs are legal to do in the privacy of your own home, or a willing friend’s home, or a location that is licensed to serve drugs, and it’s illegal to be using them or be under the influence of them anywhere else. You know, like we do with alcohol. Public drunkenness? Is a crime. Publicly being high could be a crime too, and it wouldn’t stop you from toking a joint in your own house.
As for the crimes committed by drug users, did it ever occur to you that putting drugs on the black market made them more expensive than they needed to be, and therefore poor people are more likely to need to steal shit to support a drug habit? Most alcoholics don’t need to steal to get some booze.
“You know, Foucault, most rapists aren’t under the influence of drugs when they commit rape. Most burglars aren’t under the influence of drugs when they burgle. And most murderers aren’t under the influence of drugs when they murder.”
Why don’t you do a little research into the folks on death row? The Mexican executed last week was high or drunk when he committed his crimes.
Poor people should find something else to occupy their time instead of drugs.
Most alcoholics don’t need to steal to get some booze.
Go to poor, isolated communities. One of the most common crimes in B&E;for booze. People who are (genuine) social drinkers or who stock some alcohol for the odd party or celebration usually keep that fact quiet.
I know one RCMP officer who told me that if he had the opportunity, he’d gladly hand out weed in exchange for all the alcohol in the community he was working in. Another that, if they had something equivalent to a breathalyzer that could check THC levels in the street like they can for alcohol, the Mounties would be for pot legalization the next day.
Just about anyone under the age of 60 who has lived in this permissive society during the past 40 years, has done something that might be unfit for a Hallmark Greeting Card.
Because no member of “the greatest generation” ever whored or drank?
Sorry, Joke Line still lives up to his name even when he’s partially right.
Why don’t you do a little research into the folks on death row? The Mexican executed last week was high or drunk when he committed his crimes.
Um… you are exhorting US to do some research and YOU don’t know if he was drunk or high?
BTW, drunk is the correct answer.
I believe he was drunk and stoned on pot. And please do your own research as to whether marjuana is harmful and addictive. The scientific evidence confirms that it is just as addictive and harmful as any other drug, and that more people go to rehab for pot than any other drugs combined.
Again, readers of Pandagon defy science to argue their silly wish list of drug permissiveness. It’s not going to happen.
The scientific evidence confirms that it is just as addictive and harmful as any other drug
Who said weed wasn’t addictive? I know I didn’t. And if you want to argue that marijuana is as bad as, say, crystal meth, well, that tells me just about all I want to know about how serious you are.
Sure, marijuana is addictive. So is nicotine and alcohol. The delivery mechanism for nicotine causes cancer, and the catastrophic effects of alcohol are well known. So, are you for banning them? Be a bit hypocritical if you weren’t, wouldn’t it?
Quoting Amanda:
“It’s completely unconscionable for people to even be in the same room as alcohol and yet support putting those who indulge in the far safer drug marijuana in jail.”
There is no evidence that marjuana is any safer than alcohol. The health effects are pretty grim, although long term abuse of alcohol is no pretty sight, either. Crystal Meth is like drinking bleach. How stupid can you be? So yes, I would concur that pot is relatively “safer” than pouring chemicals down your throat.
But all in all, I think people should obey the laws and avoid advocating for things that have proven deadly.
Foucault, I think you’ve conclusively proven yourself to be the not-so-charming relic in this discourse on the drug war. Your logic is completely clouded by stereotypes, and you also have no discernible commitment to scientific fact, which is the basis of any fruitful discussion. Even the massive study funded and overseen by “crime fighter” Richard Nixon concluded that cannabis prohibition was a gigantic waste of time and resources, because the health risks posed by the drug itself don’t even compare to the huge black market and criminal cartels spawned by the federal policy of prohibition. (see http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm)
Other, harder drugs certainly deserve police focus, but drug issues are basically issues of health - addicts need help and not jailtime. To portray drugs as a criminal issue is to put the cart before the horse; if they weren’t criminalized, criminals wouldn’t be the ones trafficking them. Focus on the health aspects, and with a bit of earnest research I think you’ll find that your position regarding drugs in general, and marijuana especially, is a very illogical and counterproductive one.
I think I’ll just stick to the legal aspect of the issue. Health and criminality go hand in hand. Many addicts and would-be addicts receive their first wake-up call to improve their health when they get arrested. I’ve heard from several people that their lives changed for the better when they were forced (by the law0 to enter rehab programs.
I don’t believe that most first offenders get jail time. They get a chance to change their ways.
Advocating that drug use remains “private” is basically a good way to keep irresponsible and abusive people like Bush and Cheney in office. It’s no different when the junkie is a poor black guy.
Poor people should find something else to occupy their time instead of drugs.
Nice one, Foucault. Spoken like somebody who thinks that the only drug use in America is the junkies and crackheads on the street. Maybe you’d like to think about the 20% of the American public that has used prescription medicines for non-medical uses. Rush Limbaugh, anyone?
Then again, I’m sure this bunch of hippies are just blowing smoke about how many Americans have smoked pot.
Since you seem to like to argue from a law and order perspective, maybe you’ll listen to LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
But all in all, I think people should obey the laws and avoid advocating for things that have proven deadly.
What, like driving?
Poor people should find something else to occupy their time instead of drugs.
Damn, you’re a stupid fuck. I think the above statement pretty well wraps you up.
No, I think I’m pretty pragmatic. You’re the idiot if you think American legislative bodies will reverse the trend and allow the poor to enjoy their rights to get high and wreak havoc on public property.
You’re the idiot if you think American legislative bodies will reverse the trend and allow the poor to enjoy their rights to get high and wreak havoc on public property.
I’m pretty sure those exact words were used to fight the 21st amendment.
I don’t believe that most first offenders get jail time.
I believe he was drunk and stoned on pot.
You believe a lot, and prove little.
Go visit a prison and ask how many of the folks inside are there because of crimes they committed while high on drugs. I bet you will be shocked.
Citation? Statistics? Maybe even an anicdotal story to back up your assumption?
And no, prohibition is not what causes drunks/crackeads/meth users/etc… to shoot their wives in fits of rage,
Not mysogny? Or it’s socially “acceptable” to treat women like property?
or to rob banks impulsively,
Not poverty? Not desperation? Not rage at a “society” that offers them no way out of crusing poverty?
or to rape their friends while on dates. It’s the substance and not the lack of it that changes peoples’ brain chemistry.
I thought the last one was because of fraternities.
Why don’t you do a little research into the folks on death row? The Mexican executed last week was high or drunk when he committed his crimes.
A Mexican convicted of rape was high when he committed his crime, therefore all criminals are drug abusers, and all drug abusers are criminals. QED, muthafuckers!
“Not poverty? Not desperation? Not rage at a “society” that offers them no way out of crusing poverty?”
Drugs don’t solve poor people’s problems, they only amplify them. To live in denial of that is to be plain stupid. I have never met one person, poor or well-off, whose situation improved because they did drugs in bad times. On the contrary, whatever they did have going for them was lost on account of their substance abuse problems.
As for prison anecdotes, I’ve read some oral history interviews with prisoners who were incarcerated in medium security prisons. They typically cite poverty. child sexual abuse, and adolescent or early adult drug use as factors that contributed to their arrrest. Usually, all three factors are present, but not always.
I keep reading a lot of claims in your posts, Foucault, but not a lot of data to back those claims up.
I don’t need data. I have the law and social convention on my side. It’s you who would need to present a compelling argument that drugs are fine recreational activities. Sorry you missed the late 1960s: that was your big moment.
And please do your own research as to whether marjuana is harmful and addictive.
You asked for it.
The scientific evidence confirms that it is just as addictive and harmful as any other drug...
When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome’s relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. -Jones, R.T. et al, “Clinical Studies of Cannabis Tolerance and Dependence,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:221-39 (1976)
You obviously have absolutely no knowledge, anecdotal nor scientific, of the subject you are speaking on. Anyone who has ever smoked cigarettes and pot could tell you that your claim is so laughably moronic as to be barely worth even addressing.
No, seriously. We’re talking fucking brain damage stupid here. Have you received any blunt-force trauma to the head recently?
I don’t need data. I have the law and social convention on my side.
Go see a doctor about that head injury NOW.
Dream on, loser. Maybe your friend Puff the Magic Dragon will help you time travel so you can be reunited with the freak culture in which you belong. 2008 is a little late for your pot-is-empowering baloney.
Yeah, but when people like TomK write things about how drugs are “technologies for psychological liberation and self-actualization” my first thought is Jesus what a crock of happy horseshit.
I’m fond of escapism, always have been, but the less exposed people are to cocaine, crystal meth, and most of the opiates, the better off the world will be.
I have a hard time putting up with statements about how substance usage is a mind-expanding positive good. I’m fairly sure (had I been >7 in the 80’s) i could puzzle out that Ronnie Raygun was a douche without smoking pot. I suppose I support the general decriminalization of a broad swath of substances, including pot, and am annoyed by the governments bizzare need to go and criminalize the possession of random obscure shit with no obvious harms (re salvia), but to state it as a positive good just seems stupid. The decriminalization of marijuana will lead to huge savings in manpower, incarceration, court costs, opportunity costs, etc, and lead to a mild upswing in the number of losers who live inside their glassware, safe in their middle-class apartments, and in those who approach me for spare change so they can go buy some nugs/King Cobra, and ignore the fact that their lives still suck for another day.
Like I said: not a possitive good, just way better than the alternative.
/So- should 2-CT-7 be available over the counter to anyone over the age of 21?
//Hey, wasn’t Tom the guy a while back going on about how we all failed to grasp that WALL:E was in fact a metaphor for an ayahusca trip, explaining emotion on a level of love that transcended gender…
///I’m gonna go use the technology of psychological mind expansion known as “huffing spray paint” open my third eye and help reach the self actualized goal of doing my thesis stats.
Starting to think there’s potentially a helluva drinking game here regarding Foucault’s comments… can I get a ruling?
Sure, the ruling Louise is that you’re probably a drug-use sympathizer, and thus a loser like your friends Sarcasto and The Other Will. The only drinking game you all need to play is hide the booze from the pro-drug addicts.
Foucault--may you find yourself on the wrong side of a door through which a SWAT team carrying out an “anti-drug” raid comes through. Without any warning. Or warrants.
Don’t try to defend yourself in any way....
(I’m against the anti-drug silliness because too many innocents are getting mowed down by trigger-happy cops.)
I doubt it. I have nothing to do with drugs, and thus don’t expect any anti-drug SWAT teams to be busting down my door.
Unlike some of the paranoid weirdos who comment on the arbitrary nature of the police and their drug busts, I actually believe that the police have some sense of discretion. In general, the cops go after those who have shown some indication of buying, selling, or using drugs. They don’t just target the average Joe whose drug of choice is Alka Seltzer.
I doubt it. I have nothing to do with drugs, and thus don’t expect any anti-drug SWAT teams to be busting down my door.
Neither did these folks, but their door got busted anyway:
Some Doubt Mayor’s Tie to Drugs
Police are investigating whether a package of marijuana addressed to the wife of a Prince George’s County mayor was really intended to be intercepted by a deliveryman as part of a drug smuggling scheme.
A Prince George’s Sheriff’s Office SWAT team and county police narcotics officers burst into the house of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo on Tuesday evening after they saw Calvo take the package inside. In the course of the raid, they shot and killed his two black Labrador retrievers.
According to law enforcement sources, police believe it is possible that a deliveryman intended to collect the box from Calvo’s porch, either before the package was signed for or after the mayor or his wife reported that it wasn’t theirs. They asked to remain anonymous because the investigation is ongoing.
Police had been tracking the package, which was addressed to Calvo’s wife, since a police dog at a shipping facility in Arizona alerted authorities to the presence of drugs inside. It was delivered to Calvo’s house by police posing as deliverymen and left on his porch at the instructions of his mother-in-law. After the raid, police recovered an unopened package containing more than 30 pounds of marijuana, but they made no arrests.
The possibility that no one in Calvo’s house was the intended recipient of the package is among several theories police are pursuing.
Prince George’s State’s Attorney Glenn F. Ivey said that police have made some “headway” in the investigation, which continues.
“I don’t think they’ve shut down any angles in their investigation,” he said.
The follow-up isn’t much better:
A small-town mayor whose dogs were killed in a drug raid was cleared of any wrongdoing after police had been reluctant to rule out his involvement in drug smuggling or apologize for the violent incident.
Prince George’s County Police Chief Melvin High said Friday he called Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo and his wife, Trinity Tomsic, on Thursday to say they were no longer suspected in a drug smuggling scheme.
A SWAT team raided the mayor’s home July 29 after intercepting a FedEx package shipped to Tomsic that was filled with 32 pounds of marijuana. Officers broke down the door, shot the two dogs and kept Calvo and his mother-in-law bound for nearly two hours.
Police now believe the drug delivery was part of a scheme that sent packages to the homes of unsuspecting recipients. The packages would then be picked up by someone else shortly after delivery. Two suspects have been arrested in the case.
“The Calvo family members were the apparent victims of a local drug ring,” High said in a statement. “I called him to express my sorrow and regret for that and for the loss of the family’s beloved dogs.”
High stopped short of apologizing for how the drug raid was carried out. He said the police department was conducting a review of the narcotics investigation that led to the raid. The county sheriff has said the dogs’ deaths were justified, saying officers felt threatened.
It happens many times a year, there was a case in Malibu where a property-owner was shot during a raid for marijuana that turned out to be non-existent.
I apologize for bringing in facts in contrast to your excellent arm-waving here, but you really don’t know anything about the subject.
Hope you don’t have anything to do with japanese maple trees either..
Or have a similar address to someone who does have something to do with drugs.
Marijuana - not deadly, not ever
Poor people - just as entitled to enjoy their down time as the well-to-do
Alcohol - involved in more crimes than any other drug
Foucault - ignorant and loving it
Foucault posts the last comment, so Foucault wins the thread.
Right, Foucault?
I don’t need to post the last comment to realize I have the most compelling argument posted on this thread. The rest of these arguments are laughable.
Hitler was a vegetarian, so obviously we have to eat meat or we’ll turn into gendocidal war mongers like him.
Thanks for the non-logic in this thread, Focault, you live up to the rigor of your nickname’s work.(Not.)
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Dealing?
Are those benadryl and generic ibuprofin in that line up?