Kleiman does not “make his living off prohibition”. He’s a professor and writes on topics other than just drugs. I highly recommend his book “When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment”.

Wow. Succinct, to the point and pretty much impossible to refute if you know your history. Well done Ted!

No; power is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.

Franklin P. Adams, 1931

In reaction to recommendations of a panel of ‘experts’ concerning continued enforcement of the Volstead Act.

That would retain alcohol as the most harmful recreational drug legally available while at the same time give people the right to legally choose safer alternatives to alcohol.

If the government really cared about keeping children safe then why is it bending over backwards to make them unsafe?

There’s a proven model for harm minimization, which is Portugal’s. I support it.

our FOUNDING FATHERS grew AND smoked cannabis… George Washington’s journal describes his habit of “separating the males from the females” …the male plants are good for two things. fertilizing flowers and creating fiber. That was the LAW back then.. EVERYONE was required to grow hemp.

This quote is all over the web attributed to Anslinger but I can’t find a primary source; it appears to be spurious. I think you should stop using it.

It’s perfectly rational for someone to fear legalization. It’s a drastic change from current policy. If we were to adapt all of Kleiman’s recommendations would be much closer to a rational drug policy than we are today. I would definitely wish to go further than him, but he’s someone who I would say thinks clearly and honestly about this issue. He just comes to conclusions I disagree with.

Generally he does not want marijuana to be marketed like alcohol, and so he does not want mass production to be allowed. He fears increased usage among kids. So he favors allowing personal production and co-ops but prohibiting marketing. Something along this lines.

Seems like a waste of time to me. Just legalize it already. But it’s better than status quo for sure.

I would say that the author of this post is mis-characterizing Kleiman’s position. I’ve never seen him say the drug war is worthwhile. He calls it a complete failure. He just does not want ubiquitous easy access and marketing of drugs. Maybe you think “anything other than ful legalization means drug war,” but I certainly son’t think that’s true.

Overdoses can also be related to prohibition. In the black market there are no lawful standards for packaging and labeling a discrete dose of drug, which can contribute to overdosing. And given that users and dealers are criminals they can’t make use of the legal system to punish people for torts committed against them.

That Kleiman is a moral degenerate is pretty apparent, if not to him. He thinks he is righteous, like most people whose livings are based on unjust dominion. He can’t believe he is wrong.

The terrible thing is that these moral degenerates’ salaries are paid for by us, the victims of their unjust dominion. Pretty sad state of affairs.

Still, Dunagan’s writing serves the essential function of “wake up call” for those millions of deluded souls among the general population who are still in thrall to the “official” policy and who still believe that goal of a “drug-free society” can be accomplished without completely destroying what little remains of a free society.

Perhaps we need a semi-naked girl…to tell Americans about the failures of prohibition.

I volunteer.

Perhaps we need a semi-naked girl, or some reality-show sleazeball to tell Americans about the failures of prohibition.

Yes it its. But as long as its mostly brown and black bodies being sacrificed on the altar of puritanism and job security then these deluded fucks will believe it is worth it. Drug prohibition has been a racist endeavor since day one.