Writing in the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? ( Chelsea Green, 2009 ), I argue that it is irrational for our society to condone, if not encourage, the use of alcohol — an intoxicant that directly contributes to tens of thousands of deaths annually and countless social problems — while simultaneously stigmatizing and criminalizing the use of cannabis, a substance that is incapable of causing lethal overdose and is associated with far fewer societal costs.  Well now a new study, authored by researchers from the Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia at the University of Victoria and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse at the University of Ottawa has directly compared the societal costs of marijuana and alcohol, as well as tobacco, and the final tally isn’t pretty.

Health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers, according to the report, published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal.

It states, “In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user.”

The study further reported that “94 percent of social costs for cannabis are linked to [law] enforcement.” Hmm, perhaps that explains why law enforcement consistently speak out against marijuana law reform; pot prohibition equals job security.
The study concludes:

The harms, risks and social costs of alcohol, cannabis and tobacco vary greatly.  A lot has to do with how the substances are handled legally.  Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances, which explains their low enforcement costs relative to cannabis.  On the other hand, the health costs per user of tobacco and alcohol are much higher than for cannabis.  This may indicate that cannabis use involves fewer health risks than alcohol or tobacco.

These variations in risk, harms and cost need to be taken into account as we think about further efforts to deal with the use of these three substances.  …  Efforts to reduce social costs related to cannabis, for example, will likely involve shifting its legal status by decriminalizing casual use, to reduce the high enforcement costs.  Such a shift may be warranted given the apparent lower health risk associated with most cannabis use.

In other words: Do the math; end marijuana prohibition!

Every plant starts as a seed. And many leaders of the drug policy reform movement and medical cannabis community started as young activists.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy’s national staff tends to a garden of brand new activists who go on to play influential roles in bringing about reform. In many cases, the cultivation of their advocacy begins at SSDP’s annual international conference. This year’s conference will be the first to take place in San Francisco since SSDP’s birth in 1998.

Richard Wolfe, a true believer in the power of young people to change the world, has generously opened his stunning home to us for a dinner party that will benefit SSDP’s conference scholarship fund, which helps students afford the trip to San Francisco. Will you join SSDP’s national staff (Micah, Amber, Jon, and Stacia) at Richard’s house at 1216 Folsom St, San Francisco on Saturday, December 5th?

Tickets are $75 in advance ($100 the week of) and include a dinner buffet and an open bar. Doors open at 7pm, dinner is served at 8, and music starts at 10. The party ends at 1:30am.

Students who are members of an SSDP chapter can purchase tickets for only $10!

Capacity is limited, so please purchase your tickets in advance. See you there!

Click image above to sign up.

A sometime prostitute who alleges she was sexually assaulted by an on-duty Riverside Police Department officer testified today he never threatened her, but she felt she had no choice but to comply with his request for sex.

“I was like, ‘This is so unreal. This isn’t happening,’” said the witness, identified only as Nadia. She is one of three women alleging former Riverside police Officer Robert A. Forman demanded sexual favors.

The 39-year-old defendant, who was terminated from the police force shortly after his arrest in October 2008, is charged with two counts of forced oral copulation and one count of sexual battery. He is free on a $50,000 bond.

Nadia testified that she knew Forman from several prior encounters, and he had never hassled or busted her for openly using drugs, typically crack cocaine.

The witness, a convicted felon currently serving time for robbery, prostituted herself to earn money to buy drugs, according to trial testimony.

She said that sometime in March 2008, Forman ran into her while on patrol in downtown Riverside. The witness said she was using crack at the time, but was not fearful of being arrested by the 12-year law enforcement veteran, even after he told her to get into the back of his patrol unit.

According to Nadia, Forman appeared to be “high” and handed her a bag of methamphetamine. The woman said the officer drove her into a dimly lit, tree-lined area — possibly a park — where he stopped the patrol car.

Nadia said Forman walked around to the rear of the vehicle, opened the door, unzipped his pants and indicated he wanted to be copulated.

According to the woman, she performed oral sex on the defendant and immediately became frightened of what might happen next.

“Why didn’t you leave? Why didn’t you refuse this officer?” asked Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Elan Ben Zektser.

“It didn’t seem acceptable to do that at that time,” she replied.

“Did the fact that he was a cop … have anything to do with your complying with his request to put his penis in your mouth?” asked Zekster.

“Of course it did,” she said.

Nadia testified the officer drove her back to the downtown area, then went to an ATM and withdrew $50, which he gave to her after instructing her not to discuss what had taken place.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Mark Johnson spotlighted apparent inconsistencies between the woman’s testimony and what she told investigators.

The attorney questioned why Nadia remembered Forman saying, “How about some head?” while telling detectives in earlier interviews that the officer just stuck “it in my face” without saying a word.

Johnson also questioned the woman about her contact with Forman later that same night and what she did with the money Forman allegedly gave her.

Nadia said she likely used the cash to purchase crack, but didn’t exclude the possibility that Forman actually gave her the $50 to set up a drug deal so the defendant and a fellow officer could make an arrest. She acknowledged talking with Forman later that night on University Avenue.

“If you’re giving us different versions of what happened, how do we know which version to believe?” asked Johnson.

“The more I talk about it, the more I remember,” she responded.

Johnson suggested the woman was trying to “help the state make its case,” but she denied tailoring her testimony.

A woman named Kathryn testified last week that Forman sexually assaulted her at her Mission Inn Avenue apartment.

According to the woman, the alleged April 18, 2008, encounter occurred a few hours after Forman and other officers searched her residence following a domestic disturbance complaint.

Of all the factors on the table in the current Afghan strategic review, the War on Drugs and its unintended consequences should be front and center. Our 95-year effort to create a Drug Free America by enforcing world-wide prohibition has twisted our foreign policy out of shape all over the globe and the nightmare in Afghanistan is just the latest manifestation.

It seems to be an open secret that President Hamid Karzai’s brother is a player in the heroin trade, and the whole administration in Kabul is said to be riddled with corruption. Unfortunately, the replacement of Karzai, even if that proved possible, would not change the fundamental dynamic. Nearly a tenth of the population relies on the illegal opium industry for their daily bread. Corruption will be the norm as long as the American people are willing to invest limitless resources manning an arbitrary barricade between the sellers and buyers.

Unfortunately narco-corruption, like narcotics themselves, can penetrate any border and there is growing evidence that this cancer has metastasized into every nook and cranny of the known world. Consider, for example, this headline from London: “Corrupt officers exist throughout the UK police service.”

This jarring assessment of the once-pristine Royal Constabulary comes from Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service. According to a document leaked to the Daily Telegraph, the head of the agency warns that “corruption may have reached ‘Level 2′, the situation which occurs in some third world countries.”

The “situation” in the colonies, current and former, is undoubtedly worse. Here’s a two-week random pick from recent U.S. headlines: August 14, a Baton Rouge deputy sheriff is sentenced to 10 years for cocaine distribution. Six days later a Georgia cop goes down on the same charges. The following week a Memphis officer is busted for distributing crack and the next day a U.S. Customs agent in Newark is cuffed for running off with a hundred pounds of cocaine. The day after that a prison guard in Arkansas is nailed for delivering meth to the Pine Bluff maximum security wing, and the head of a Michigan narcotics unit pleads guilty to diverting drugs and cash.

This is a tiny sample of lawmen who were sloppy enough to get caught. But according to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition [LEAP], the virus is everywhere. LEAP co-founder Peter Christ, a retired Police Captain from suburban Buffalo, puts it this way: “You’ve been a police officer four or five years, you’ve seen the wasted energy spent on this drug war, and now you’re standing in a motel room and lying on the bed is a hundred thousand in cash that hasn’t been counted yet. And in your back pocket is a bill from the plumber you can’t pay. And it doesn’t make any difference anyway. So you take your first taste. And then you’re gone.”

In this war as in all wars it’s the foot soldiers who bite the dust. But focus for a second on the staggering amount of cash in play — more than $300 billion a year according to the United Nations — and we would have to be brain dead not to suspect that this corrosion reaches the upper echelons of all governments including our own. As presidents Hamid Karzai, Felipe Calderón, Álvaro Uribe, Michelle Bachelet, Rafael Correa, and others have discovered, with that kind of loot lying around you can’t trust anyone. What’s worse, the exposure to people who are getting fabulously wealthy by ignoring the law inspires a corrosive tolerance for criminality. In Ohio we just uncovered two juvenile court judges who were raking in thousands of dollars a head for every kid they sent to a private for-profit prison. This is a fire alarm sounding for the court system itself.

Even more ominous, the illegal drug trade turns out to be the ultimate crime university and a godsend for terrorists. It provides weapons, training and untraceable cash for operations, and essential technologies like border penetration and money laundering have become an art form in the hands of the drug lords. We have, in effect, created a global mechanism that is in the process of eating our civilization alive.

The drug warriors tell us we have to stay the course or drugs will destroy us but they don’t like to talk about the incalculable damage being done by blind adherence to a failed policy. While abuse of narcotics can be devastating, the tragedy of addiction actually affects only about one person in a hundred. There are humane answers to this problem that don’t require putting the future of the nation at stake. We cut tobacco addiction in half through education and never fired a shot.

International drug prohibition was begun by the United States and we can end it with a simple majority vote in Congress. As for the rest of the world, several of our allies are already ahead of us. Portugal, Holland and Switzerland are successfully experimenting with legalization and three former Latin American presidents are calling for an end to the drug war because the corruption and violence in their countries is spinning out of control.

The prohibitionists insist that legalization would only increase lawlessness, but all the evidence is on the other side of the scale. When we ended alcohol prohibition the U.S. murder rate was cut in half. Then we regulated booze, taxed it heavily, and the state got the money instead of the mob. The prison population shrank and the criminal justice system was freed from the daily grind of processing drunks and their enablers and the huge burden of enforcement was lifted from the taxpayers.

We could repeat that success with the stroke of a pen. And we could cut the funding for terrorists and simultaneously pull the rug out from under the drug lords. And in Afghanistan we would no longer have to explain to the family of the poppy farmer whose livelihood we just torched that we really meant well.

Ah, the 1920’s…the decade of bathtub gin, the model T, speakeasies, flappers and gangsters.  Referred to as the Roaring Twenties and The Jazz Age, it was a period of American prosperity and optimism.  A time of great social upheaval and change…the most explosive decade of the century.  Women were granted the right to vote, but Prohibition cast its shadow over the decade and inspired the rise of organized crime.  The decade was a time of great advancements as America became more urban and more commercially driven until the market crash in 1929 and the Great Depression.

Join us here at Boundary Bay Brewery for a rip-roaring party on Saturday, December 5th as we relive the 20’s/30’s and celebrate the End of Prohibition! This is a family friendly event that starts around noon and lasts all day.

Costumes are not only welcome, but encouraged! Dress up in 1920’s/30’s period costume and join us as we re-enact prohibition.

In the evening, we’re going to shut down the taps, stage a protest, and then let the beer flow once again.  But that’s not all!  We’ve got good times planned all day for you…FREE horse drawn wagon rides from 1-4 pm, live music from 5-9 pm and costume contests with prizes for best dressed.  And, don’t forget to get your portraits taken by professional photographer, Jon Brunk to memorialize your flapper dress and pearls or zoot suit and tommy gun!

Need costume ideas?  Come as a speakeasy owner/bartender, a factory worker or a moonshine runner.  How about a gangster, a flapper or a protestor?  You could be a Suffragette, model Depression era clothing or just cobble together something that reminds you of the 20’s and/or 30’s.  Think zoot suits, pinstripes, wing tips and martinis.  Feathers, beaded fringe, evening dresses and long pearl necklaces.  Cigarette holders, finger waves in your hair and pinstripe suits.

Come re-enact history with us.  Join the protests.  Raise your voice.  Demand your right to beer!

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) – A new law eliminating mandatory minimum drug sentences in Rhode Island has taken effect without the governor’s signature.

Similar measures had been vetoed in past years by Gov. Donald L. “Don” Carcieri, but supporters say they compromised on this year’s legislation by removing a provision that placed a cap on the maximum sentence a judge could give for drug possession crimes.

The new law, which took effect this month, leaves the sentence to the judge’s discretion.

Under the old law, anyone caught manufacturing, possessing or dealing up to one kilogram of heroin or cocaine, or up to five kilograms of marijuana, could face a minimum 10-year sentence.

Despite that, many drug offenders in Rhode Island actually receive and serve far shorter sentences.

You know, friends — sometimes we just need a little “jump-start,” if you will, to enhance our lives by adopting healthy habits.  Take drinking, for example; you’d think it would come naturally to everyone, yet there are still some folks who don’t know how to do it.  They’d like to tie one on big-time, but they’re ashamed to ask for help.  Well, there’s a proven system that will get you boozin’ in no time flat.  Recommended for people all of all ages — from infants to the super-geriatric — “START DRINKIN’ NOW” can help YOU learn how to imbibe.  I know what you’re asking — will it work for me?  YES!  This fool-proof approach, developed by a world-famous M.D. in Ireland, has helped MILLIONS of alcohol-deprived people –  including countless Mormons and Moslems — to discover the wonderful world of drinking.  ISN’T IT TIME YOU JOINED THEM?

http://www.keef.org/drink/getdrunk/drink1.html

This days the Swiss people gonna vote about an initiative for prohibition of arms exportation. Rarely there are things to vote about, who are so easy to decide, as any civilized human clearly understands that any arms lead to killing and killing is a no-go.

Sadly that nevertheless, the prohibition is by far not decided yet, as there is a big amount of not so civilized people who rather serve their greed than the common good. Of course there are those involved who fear about their employment as also the couple of CEOs who are the only ones really making profit out of it – it is understandable that all this people will vote against the prohibition. But they are about 3000 voters against 7 Million who have more to loose then just a job – especially their dignity.

Now the even more sad thing is that many of those 7 Million really beliefe they would gain anything from it. Instead, if one thing is for sure, it’s they will not see even one Franc out of the 700 Million Swiss Francs made from such exportations. Fact is, tax payers are funding each Franc of exportation profit with more then 2 Francs of amends and reparations for the affected countries and their escapees.

Many people just see the big wall in front of them, they are not able to think around the corner. If so, they could see that instead of a little profit, the result of allowing arms exportations is a triple loss: The famous Swiss neutrality* will be gone, as will its integrity and Swiss peoples dignity – and its selling it cheap. This are values that can not be measured in money, once gone, there is no buying them back.

By the end of this month, we will see the true face of Switzerland: A country with heart and honor, or one of greedy cowards.

*Yes, Switzerland is producing and exporting arms for decades. But it was always the decision of some few black sheeps. But now, the result of the votation will be an official decision of the whole country. Nevertheless, even if exportation will officially be allowed, it is still prohibited by the Bundesverfassung (the country’s founding documents), in there, Switzerland is declared to be a neutral country, which by definition is not possible while making profit from arms exportation.

‘‘Sec. 2711. No lifetime or annual limits.
‘‘Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions.

There is one fact that all insurance companies face, not only one, but two.

Limits and exclusions.

But how could you expect a group of people that know no limits to spending, that are spending us into ruin, know the value of limits.

Without limits there is no ceiling for which the rates can be set or controlled. If you cannot control the limits, then you cannot control the cost. If you can’t control the cost, the cost is not affordable.

This is a fact that has been lost on Congress.

This bill is designed to:

1. Bankrupt ALL commercial insurance companies.
2. By means of elimination of free enterprise, force everyone onto the government option.

I also find it odd that they believe one should be able to buy auto insurance after an accident and the insurance company is liable for the accident.

Sec. 1101. Immediate access to insurance for uninsured individuals with a preexisting
condition

That is exactly what immediate access to insurance is. You break a leg and file for insurance, and the insurance foots the bill. Something for nothing. You cannot control the cost.

THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS, JUST FOR THE FREE LOADER OF AMERICA. THE REST OF US PAY OUT THE ASS AND OUR PROVIDERS GO BELLY UP.

Socialism is just a fancy word for slavery.

That is not just the view from here,

Duane

A highlight of the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Albuquerque was getting to spend time with Jack Cole, Bill Fried, Peter Christ, and so many other members of LEAP. They were at the conference in big numbers (surely, the most highly represented and visible group) with an even bigger message: cops want to legalize drugs. LEAP stands for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, www.leap.cc, representing thousands of current and past police officers, prison wardens and judges who want drugs legalized. They want drug policy and regulation out of the hands of the criminal justice system and into the hands of the health and education systems, where it belongs. LEAP makes a compelling case for total drug legalization.  

L.E.A.P.’s Peter Christ was presented with the coveted H.B. Spear Award at the Conference Banquet. Spear played the lead role in British drug
control policy for more than a quarter century. Influenced by the 1926 Rolleston Report, “Bing” Spear believed drug control and law enforcement could be rational and humane.  Peter Christ retired as a police captain after a 20-year career on the enforcement side of the War on Drugs. After retiring in 1989, Peter began speaking out publicly against that war. In 1993 he became one of the first members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and remains one of LEAP’s most experienced speakers, having appeared before hundreds of civic, professional, educational, and religious organizations, television and radio audiences.

Although we don’t share their message, IDPI has much in common with LEAP. Most people are as surprised to learn of police against the “Drug War” as they are to learn of clergy. (Health professional are another surprise.) People think “cops – it’s illegal”, “clergy – it’s immoral”, and “doctors – it’s unhealthy” even though it is the current drug policy that is immoral and has ruined so many lives. We are also working closely with LEAP’s Speakers Bureau. LEAP sends cops all over the country to speak to civic, communal, and educational groups, and as featured guests on talk-back radio shows.

IDPI is now building a data base of pastors and rabbis, imams and priests ready to address similar, as well as religious, settings. For more information, or to volunteer, please write me at rabbikahn@idpi.us. If you are ordained clergy or a religious lay leader, we need your help now! Every day, more and more police acknowledge the failure of the “War on Drugs.” In fact, LEAP leads the fight to end drug prohibition. This prohibition, like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s, has been the source of increasing violence, increasing crime, and increasing drug abuse. Even incidents of drug use is on the rise (the D.A.R.E.-Just Say No-Red Ribbon Campaign generation uses drugs more than the previous one). Police want to stop making drug busts and turn their attention to the real crimes that plague our society and have only gotten worse as the so-called drug war intensified.

LEAP also has a special place in my heart. One of its founders, Judge Eleanor Schockett, of blessed memory, sat on the bench in Miami, Florida, when I was the rabbi of Temple Israel there. Judge Schockett was a temple member, a Friday night regular, and a good friend who was an early advocate of drug policy reform. I am proud to be working with Eleanor’s group. Check us out on YouTube: Cops and Clergy Speak Out Against War on Drugs: http://www.youtube.com/CSDPTube. The IDPI booth at the conference in Albuquerque was between those of the Harm Reduction Coalition and MAPS – the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, two groups with which IDPI works. I’ll be blogging about them next… Rabbi Jeffrey Kahn

Can ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) stimulants like Adderall (amphetamines) be the answer for college students looking to increase academic performance? They think so.

It’s a week before final exams and you haven’t begun studying. These general education classes are, simply, a drag and you’re already tired from fraternity, sorority or extracurricular activities. Besides, your friends are partying this weekend anyway.

You should, (A) clamp down and study for a few hours every night this week, pacing yourself for finals. But you know you’ll probably (B) start absentmindedly perusing your books four days before the exam to make yourself feel better, or (C) free your mind of finals worries until two days before testing, then pop an Adderall pill and spend 10 and 12 hours a day in the library maniacally whirring through your textbooks.

For a small, but growing, minority of college students, the answer is clearly (C).

In 2005, a national survey found that students’ nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (like Adderall) ranged from zero to 25 percent among four-year colleges and universities. Building on this prior research is a 2009 study, headed by Duke University’s David L. Rabiner, which explores why these students chose to illicitly use these prescription stimulants.

Overwhelmingly, college students use prescription ADHD stimulants to concentrate better while studying and to increase academic performance. These results might shock a few but — as many college students (and freelance journalists) know — the Adderall culture has been a long established university tradition for overachievers, underachievers and chronic procrastinators.

Common to all the above users is the perception that there is a tangible correlation between taking Adderall and feeling less restless while studying (perhaps there’s less compulsive Facebook or e-mail checking). They also find that they study much longer without reporting significantly harmful side effects.

The new study, which surveyed 3,407 students from public and private universities in the southeastern United States, largely mirrors the results of the 2005 national survey, but it also extends the prior work on the subject in several ways — including shedding light on the motives for using the stimulants.

The student respondents who reported nonmedical use of prescription stimulants were asked to rate the frequency of the different motives for doing so. A variety of choices including “to get high,” “to feel better,” “to feel less restless in class” and “to concentrate better while studying” were meant to gauge whether the students were motivated to take these stimulants for academic or recreational reasons.

The results indicated that very few students took ADHD medication to “get high” or “feel better” and instead used it primarily as an academic performance drug. In total, 8.9 percent of respondents reported ever using ADHD medication without a prescription, with a slightly higher percentage from the private university alone. Sixty-one percent of these students reported that they used the stimulants “often” or “always” for the purpose of concentrating better while studying. Only 5 percent reported that they took the stimulants “to get high.”

Overall, the students who used these stimulants tended to be white, involved in a fraternity or sorority, had lower GPAs and were more likely to have drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes or marijuana, or used other drugs in the last six months.

But despite these tendencies, the large majority (82 percent) of these students reported that taking the stimulants “definitely” did not contribute to taking other nonprescribed medication. Their response is curious because clearly these are the students who are accustomed to using other drugs for recreation. Adderall, it seems, is viewed solely as a study tool — something to efficiently help students to cram copious amounts of study material.

While there is no documented correlation between actually receiving better grades after using Adderall, that won’t stop the pervasive feeling that you can study longer — and harder — after taking the pill for Monday’s exam.

And, perhaps, another for the next week’s exam.

In 1979 President Jimmy Carter signed a law repealing the last laws restricting brewing beer at home.This should have been done in 1933 but the words “and/or beer” were left out of the bill legalizing the home brewing of wine.Typical for the bureaucracy!

Now that there are no Federal restrictions, each state can decide for itself whether or not to place limitations on home brewing.One example of this variation is a section of the Alabama code that states “in all counties of the state it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation o have in his or its possession any still or apparatus to be used for the manufacture of any alcoholic beverage of any kind or any alcoholic beverage of any kind illegally manufactured or transported with in the state or imported into the state from any other place without authority of the alcoholic control board of the state…”. Despite this language, chances of enforcement seem small as there are home brewing stores operating within the state.

Almost all the other states permit beer brewing at home and allow a home brewer 100 gallons of beer per person (over the age of 21) per household up to a maximum of 200 gallons per year for the entire household.Try to think of it this way.200 gallons of beer equals roughly about 355 six packs or 177 twelve packs. If this is your level of consumption, home brewing may be a way for you to save money.You will not be able to sell your home brewed beer because all state tax alcohol.So keep it legal and make it for your own consumption.

Please visit us at Brew Beer Today for more about beer.

In a significant reversal, the American Medical Association on November 10 acknowledged the medical value of marijuana and called for the U.S. government to reconsider marijuana’s current classification as a Schedule I substance (drugs that the government says have “no currently accepted medical use”).

However, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) still claims on its website that, “The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance.”

Please use the form at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com/dea to send a message to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, asking them to correct this misinformation on a government website.

Weed, grass, pot…let ‘em smoke it. Gay, homosexual, partners…let ‘em put a ring on it. Inconvenient, unintended, accident…let ‘em kill it. Decent, moral, compassionate…let ’em all just forget it.

When I read an article by Jacob Weisberg in a recent issue of Newsweek, that is exactly the message I took away from it. Weisberg seems to think if enough people want to do something, every one else should just get out of the way and let them do it. My problem with this short-sightedness is that when anything goes, everything goes.

“Our forms of prohibition are more sins of omission than commission,” Weisberg writes in the article, titled, “Gay Marriage & Marijuana: You can’t stop either. Why that’s good.”* “Rather than trying to take away long-standing rights, they’re instances of conservative laws failing to keep pace with a liberalizing society.”

While I do think too many in the media would love it if Americans could just lounge around all day massaging their same-sex spouses, inhaling cannabis, eating Doritos and shooting babies with BB guns, I do think a majority of Americans still disagree. Certain elements of society — namely, the media — are “liberalizing,” but many Americans such as myself feel like a lot of this is being shoved down our throats. We are starting to choke.

Weisberg quotes the president, Barack Obama, saying, “‘I inhaled — that was the point.’”*  That is just one more reason I am glad I did not vote for the man. Seriously, even when he admits he consumed illegal drugs, Obama does it in a condescending way.

Pointing out that the bastion of conservative ideology, The New York Times, (can you hear my sarcasm?) has recognized gay unions on its wedding pages for the past seven years, Weisberg says this reflects “evolving social norms.”* I say this is just another example of a media outlet foisting its views on us.

Weisberg writes, “What’s advancing the decriminalization of marijuana is not just the demand for pot as medicine but the number of adults — more than 23 million in the past year…who use it and don’t believe they should face legal jeopardy.”*

Wow, I am amazed the “but Mom, everybody else is doing it” excuse can be used at any age now. Weisberg calls this the “evolving definition of the pursuit of happiness.”* I call this another example of our declining civilization.

Rome crumbled once the societal elites turned to hedonism. Is that the path we wish to travel? Should we let just anything go?

Discussing the relaxing of marijuana laws, Weisberg reports, “In L.A., you need only tell an on-site doctor at a walk-in pot emporium that you feel anxious to walk out with a legal bag of Captain Kush.”* Well, I have to stay up late to get this article done. How long before I can step into a walk-in methamphetamine boutique to pick up some Captain Keep-Me-Awake?

This is exactly my point. Where do we draw the line? When does it stop? Who is going to stand up and yell, “Enough!”? When are we going to realize what I said before — when anything goes, everything goes?

I do not think the problem is that society is becoming more liberal. I think the problem is that we are becoming weak and spineless.

We are too afraid of appearing judgmental. We are too afraid of being deemed politically incorrect. We are too afraid of causing offense.

I say the whole thing about not judging others is a load of crap. We judge others all the time. It is in our nature to do so. If I hurt your feelings and you think I am politically incorrect, go cry to your mama. If I offend, maybe you should be offended. Perhaps that is exactly what you need.

* Quotes from the article, “Gay Marriage & Marijuana: You can’t stop either. Why that’s good.” Newsweek. Nov. 9, 2009. (24).

On September 5, 1989, President Bush, speaking from the presidential desk in the Oval Office, announced his plan for achieving “victory over drugs” in his first major prime-time address to the nation, broadcast on all three national television networks. We want to focus on this incident as an example of the way politicians and the media systematically misinformed and deceived the public in order to promote the War on Drugs. During the address, Bush held up to the cameras a clear plastic bag ofcrack labeled “EVIDENCE.” He announced that it was “seized a few days ago in a park across the street from the White House” (Washington Post, September 22,1989,p.A1). Its contents, Bush said, were “turning our cities into battle zones and murdering our children.” The president proclaimed that, because of crack and other drugs, he would “more than double” federal assistance to state and local law enforcement (New York Times, September 6, 1989,p.A11). The next morning the picture of the president holding a bag ofcrack was on the front pages of newspapers across America.

About two weeks later, the Washington Post, and then National Public Radio and other newspapers, discovered how the president of the United States had obtained his bag of crack. According to White House and DEA officials, “the idea ofthe President holding up crack was [first] included in some drafts” of his speech. Bush enthusiastically approved. A White House aide told the Post that the president “liked the prop….It drove the point home.” Bush and his advisors also decided that the crack should be seized in Lafayette Park across from the White House so the president could say that crack had become so pervasive that it was being sold “in front of the White House” (Isikoff,1989).

This decision set up a complex chain of events.White House Communications Director David Demarst asked Cabinet Affairs Secretary David Bates to instruct the Justice Department “to find some crack that fit the description in the speech.” Bates called Richard Weatherbee, special assistant to Attorney General Dick Thornburgh,who then called James Milford, executive assistant to the DEA chief. Finally, Milford phoned William McMullen,special agent in charge of the DEA’s Washington office, and told him to arrange an undercover crack buy near the White House because “evidently, the President wants to show it could be bought anywhere” (Isikoff,1989).

Despite their best efforts,the top federal drug agents were not able to find anyone selling crack (or any other drug) in Lafayette Park,or anywhere else in the vicinity of the White House.Therefore,in order to carry out their assignment, DEA agents had to entice someone to come to the park to make the sale. Apparently,the only person the DEA could convince was Keith Jackson,an eighteen-year-old African-American high school senior. McMullan reported that it was difficult because Jackson “did not even know where the White House was.”The DEA’s secret tape recording of the conversation revealed that the teenager seemed baffled by the request: “Where the [expletive deleted] is the White House?” he asked. Therefore, McMullan told the Post, “we had to manipulate him to get him down there. It wasn’t easy” (Isikoff,1989).

The undesirability of selling crack in Lafayette Park was confirmed by men from Washington,D.C., imprisoned for drug selling, and interviewed by National Public Radio. All agreed that nobody would sell crack there because,among other reasons, there would be no customers. The crack-using population was in Washington’s poor African-American neighborhoods some distance from the White House. The Washington Post and other papers also reported that the undercover DEA agents had not, after all, actually seized the crack, as Bush had claimed in his speech. Rather, the DEA agents purchased it from Jackson for $2,400 and then let him go.

This incident illustrates how a drug scare distorts and perverts public knowledge and policy. The claim that crack was threatening every neighborhood in America was not based on evidence; after three years ofthe scare, crack remained predominantly in the inner cities where it began. Instead, this claim appears to have been based on the symbolic political value seen by Bush’s speech writers. When they sought, after the fact, to purchase their own crack to prove this point, they found that reality did not match their script. Instead of changing the script to reflect reality, a series of high-level officials instructed federal drug agents to create a reality that would fit the script. Finally, the president of the United States displayed the procured prop on national television. Yet, when all this was revealed, neither politicians nor the media were led to question the president’s policies or his claims about crack’s pervasiveness.

Two weekends ago, I had a college reunion with two out of the three roommates with whom I shared an apartment during my Junior and Senior years at Miami University.  Perhaps the biggest dilemma we encountered in an otherwise perfectly planned weekend was deciding where to eat with our respective girlfriends and/or brothers (in my case).  Once we came to the realization that it would be best to have the women in our lives pick the restaurant, we felt a sense of relief, yet a certain degree of anxiety over their choice of “Employees Only,” a 1920’s style Speakeasy on Hudson St.

It was our last night all together and we arrived at the restaurant shortly after our 6:00 p.m. dinner reservation.  Some of us were a little late getting to the place, probably because the address of 510 Hudson Street can be easily missed and/or confused for a “Pyschic,” as there is actually a fortune-teller in the window of the restaurant (see picture of me cautiously entering under the awning marked “EO” above)

Once we were all together and began to order cocktails (the menu of alcoholic beverages was quite ample), we all settled in nicely to our surroundings of what once was a place for local New Yorkers to convene during prohibition as they imbibed on beer and spirits.  My roommate, Jeff, suggested the Billionaire Cocktail, in order to evoke a kind of “Old Boys Club” feeling.  This drink contained bourbon shaken with lemon juice, homemade grenadine and absinthe bitters.  For $15, this not-so-cheap cocktail made me feel like I was the champion of the mahogany covered back room at Employees Only.

After a successful opening act to our festive meal, we proceeded to order what we thought was the best pairing of food and aperitif as if young adults in their early twenties could make such a decision.  I decided on “Orecchiette,” which contained house-made Italian sausage, arugula and parmesan cheese.  While, others in our party carefully chose the “Young Organic Chicken,” probably the safest thing in the menu, my brother took a risk by opting for the evening special of Trout over a bed of green vegetables.

Needless to say, I thoroughly enjoyed my meal and overall experience at Employees Only, a place which was not necessarily the cheapest, but definitely made me dream of the days when alcohol was illegal and women wore flappers, a 1920’s style outfit which often consisted of a short skirt, bobbed hair, and excessive make-up.  The whole idea was this kind of pervasion of societal norms by women who flaunted themselves through their dress, smoking and drinking habits as well as many other behaviors that were easily frowned upon.

Anyways, if you are ever in Manhattan, specifically in the West Village near the intersection of Christopher Street and Hudson Street, definitely give this place a try!  Lastly, here is some more information from New York Magazine:

Employees Only Menu – West Village – New York Magazine Restaurant Guide

Il vous M / elle vous encule, le ton est donné dans les Inrocks du 22 au 28 septembre 2009. Christophe Conte revient sur les sorties respectives de Prohibition et Mister Mystère.

Le journaliste annonce dès le chapeau de l’article : « Le pacifique M et l’électrique Brigitte Fontaine sortent les deux albums les plus osés de la rentrée française. Depuis bientôt dix ans, ces deux-là s’amusent à conjuguer leurs pôles opposés. Dialogue convivial entre la marraine des kékés et ce filleul qu’elle a déniaisé». Revenons sur ce portrait croisé haut en couleurs. À chaque question, les deux artistes répondent, se complètent et visiblement s’amusent. Je ne vais pas vous résumer l’article, je vous laisse plutôt l’apprécier dans sa totalité sur le site des Inrocks.

Non, je tenais à parler de cet article dans le journal du P. parce que :

• Le titre : Juste ce qu’il faut de jeux de mots pour Mathieu Chedid et d’impact pour la troublante Brigitte Fontaine. Il vous aime, vous enveloppe de mélodies et range au placard Monsieur M. Elle vous encule, elle à 70 berges, elle est barrée et on aime ça !
• La performance du journaliste : J’ai eu la chance de « rencontrer » Brigitte Fontaine cet été au hasard d’une terrasse de café. J’ai pu être présenté à cette grande dame. L’échange fut bref et étrange. À la question : « Comment se passent vos vacances ? », elle m’a répondu « J’ai mal à la jambe ». Je vous laisse donc imaginer la prouesse et les différents chemins qu’a dû emprunter Christophe Conte pour obtenir 3 pages d’interview.
• Le personnage : Brigitte Fontaine montre ici à quel point elle peut être imprévisible et avec quel génie elle manie les mots. Tout est calculé et réfléchi, mais dans l’instant. Ainsi, elle porte l’article, Mathieu Chedid et Christophe Conte ne peuvent que suivre et acquiescer, Madame mène la danse. On en vient à se demander qui porte la culotte dans cette interview !

De cet article, je ne retiendrai qu’une seule phrase « Je suis grossière comme une duchesse ». À bon entendeur…

Crédit photo : Philippe Garcia

I read that the government’s drug advisor Professor David Nutt has been sacked after claiming that ecstasy, cannabis and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol. It’s a shame that the scientist Nutt, who used evidence and reason to back up his claims, has been ousted like this. I am constantly baffled at where the moral double standards and the chasm between reality (what the public thinks and does) and policy comes from when it comes to the drugs debate.

Taken out of context his comments are probably quite shocking to many people. But when you add up the figures – deaths and illness caused by alcohol against comparative user figures in other drugs – alcohol is a far greater problem and risk. They don’t even mention smoking. Why is tobacco legal and other drugs aren’t?

In broader terms I am baffled by where the ethical hypocrisy comes from with regards to certain drugs being illegal. I am a firm believer that being occasionally intoxicated is a basic human need. Not quite as basic as food, water, shelter and sex. But it comes in as an important second tier ‘need’. Anthropologists have studied different cultures and many involve rituals with intoxication as central to the ceremony. Whether it’s the shaman communing with the spirit worlds after consuming pyote. Mushrooms, herbs, leaves – anything that can produce an altered state – has been ground up, smoked, drunk or snorted for spiritual and therapeutic purposes. Amongst citizens of various countries and societies intoxication has also played an important bonding purpose. Amongst the heavier drinking Northern European cultures alcohol oiled the Protestant work ethic – by making the humdrum existence more bareable and hence maintaining productivity amongst the workers. 

As it is a basic human need humans will always pursue it. Even if it is illegal. Prohibition doesn’t work. Anything in extreme can become addictive. There are lots of legal prescription drugs with harmful side affects which are also very addictive. Particularly in the USA as people are prescribed pills for everything and hence the prescription drugs industry is worth so much money. Double standards. Why can I take one drug for one thing – anxiety, depression, tiredness, sexual problems – legally? But not other drugs – cocaine, cannabis, ecstacy, psychedelics – for other medicinal, emotional or spiritual reasons? Where does this stem from? 

Why is it illegal for a plant that grows on a tree – the cannabis leaf – to be grown, picked and smoked? I am not saying cannibis isn’t harmful amongst certain users, just like anything it can have adverse side affects. But there are probably hundreds of millions of ordinary people who lead normal lives who are made to be criminals due to outdated and pointless laws. It costs around $80,000 a year to keep someone in prison. How many millions are wasted each year on imprisoning people who shouldn’t be there?

It is only a matter of time before the pointless pursuit of drugs prohibition is ended. More taxes can be made by governments through controlling the market. The drugs black market and all it’s nascent criminality will be stopped. Drug use will probably go down as the illicitness of the pursuit is ended. Wake up and smell the caffeine (another drug).

I haven’t talked about where we’d be without the positive effect of drug taking on music and other cultural pursuits. I will leave that for another post.

John Hoeffel reports in the Los Angeles Times:

The American Medical Association has urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious group behind calls for more research.

The nation’s largest physicians organization, with about 250,000 member doctors, the AMA has maintained since 1997 that marijuana should remain a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive category, which also includes heroin and LSD.

In changing its policy, the group said its goal was to clear the way to conduct clinical research, develop cannabis-based medicines and devise alternative ways to deliver the drug.

“Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked cannabis,” said Dr. Edward Langston, an AMA board member, noting that the limited number of studies was “insufficient to satisfy the current standards for a prescription drug product.”

The decision by the organization’s delegates at a meeting in Houston marks another step in the evolving view of marijuana, which an AMA report notes was once linked by the federal government to homicidal mania. Since California voters approved the use of medical marijuana in 1996, marijuana has moved steadily into the cultural mainstream spurred by the growing awareness that it can have beneficial effects for some chronically ill people…

[continues in the Los Angeles Times]

“But half a millennium later, by the time the British had begun to colonize North America, setting up outposts in Virginia and Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, there would be a variety of distilled drinks available to men and women, not just brandy, and there would be improved means of brewing grains for beer and processing grapes for wine. The Americans would welcome them all. The Americans would drink them all, rivers of mind-altering potables of their own that produced scenes of bibulous merriment of their own, not to mention inspiration and stimulation and comfort, as well as heartache and illness and dissolution, and, finally, early in the twentieth century, the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, perhaps the worst idea ever proposed by a legislative body anywhere in the world for the ostensible goal of a better society.” [Emphasis mine.] -Eric Burns, The Spirits of the World, p. 5

Once Upon a Time in Chicago, bootleggers, flappers, gangsters, and underground casinos were the norm! Enjoy this colorful lotto game set during the deceitfully romantic times of 1930s Chicago. Work your way from rags to riches as you try your luck in different casinos. Race against the clock and use a variety of power-ups to defeat your opponents, and write the perfect happy ending to your fairy tale.

Immersive atmosphere

Multiple mini-games

Strike it rich!

System Requirements:

OS: Windows XP/Vista

CPU: 800 Mhz

RAM: 256 MB

DirectX: 8.0

Hard Drive: 29 MB

It Takes Just A second To Say Thanks,

It Takes Longer To The Work On This.

Once Upon A Time In Chicago