Legal Pot In Oregon?

You may have heard many reasons for the repeal of the 18th amendment, the prohibition of alcohol.  The real reason was that the Federal and local governments needed the tax revenue.  Governments are once again experiencing income shortfalls.  Washington and Colorado approved measures to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana in 2012.  Oregon voters turned it down but the state legislators need money.

Bill to legalize, tax marijuana scheduled for legislative hearing

SALEM -- Marijuana would become legal, and the state would regulate and tax it under a bill under consideration in the Oregon Legislature.
House Bill 3371 would allow the production, processing and sale of marijuana and marijuana-infused products. Individuals 21 or older would be allowed to keep up to six mature marijuana plants and 24 ounces of marijuana at a time.
The Oregon Health Authority would be charged with licensing marijuana producers, processors, wholesalers and retailers.
The Oregon Liquor Control Commission would oversee taxation of marijuana, according to the bill. Marijuana producers would be taxed $35 per ounce. The money would go to a "Cannabis Tax Account," with 40 percent of proceeds going to schools, 20 percent each to Oregon State Police, the general fund, and mental health, alcoholism and drug services.
The bill is scheduled for an April 2 public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.
House Bill 3371 would not prevent employers from prohibiting the manufacture, delivery, possession or use of marijuana in the workplace.

Not unlike the repeal of the Prohibition of alcohol in 1933 it's all about a much needed revenue stream.

Reality And Hallucinogens

To be honest I came of age in the late 60s and early 70s and I have smoked a lot of cannabis taken LSD more than once and mescaline even more.  I never had a bad trip and always found it to be an enjoyable experience.  What it did do was make me question "reality" - that is, what is it?
Via Andrew Sullivan we have this interesting post by Miles Klee, Blowing Your Mind.

Aldous Huxley in 1954 wrote as eloquently as one can about taking mescaline, which accomplishes more or less what Psilocybe semilanceata does. He had a more pleasant day than young Edward’s family, however, and in The Doors of Perception quoted Cambridge philosopher Dr. C. D. Broad in describing the mental processes modified:

Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful. 

“According to such a theory,” Huxley continues, “each one of us is potentially a Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system.

In other word Hallucinogens don't alter reality they simply give us an overdose of reality.  The drugs disable the filter that determines what we perceive.  This pretty well matches my experiences.  It's been 40 years since I have performed any chemical experiments on my mind but I'm am convinced that it has impacted the way my mind works - the way I see things and in a positive way.  I question what I perceive which I think is a healthy thing.  Are drugs dangerous?  Of course they are but I have not personally known anyone who had a "bad trip."   I have known many who's lives were ruined by alcohol however.     

End The War On Drugs

Latin American nations push UN to drop zero tolerance on drugs (via The Christian Science Monitor)

‪The world has watched the crescendoing pushback, coming mostly from Latin America, against the United States-dominated "war on drugs" for the past three years with incredulity as the drug policy debate continues to mark new firsts.‬ First, in 2009, it was former presidents from Latin America who…

U.S.-led “war on drugs” questioned at U.N.

Leaders from Central and South America want the US led war on drugs debated at the United Nations.

(Reuters) - The presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala all called for a vigorous global debate of anti-narcotics laws at the United Nations on Wednesday, raising new questions about the wisdom of the four-decade-old, U.S.-led "war on drugs."
Although none of the leaders explicitly called for narcotics to be legalized, they suggested at the U.N. General Assembly that they would welcome wholesale changes to policies that have shown scant evidence of limiting drug flows while contributing to massive violence throughout Latin America.
"It is our duty to determine - on an objective scientific basis - if we are doing the best we can or if there are better options to combat this scourge," Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said.

The War on Drugs is one we lost years ago.  There are not fewer drugs and they are not more expensive. What it has created is violence and drug cartels.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who leaves office on December 1 after spending much of his presidency locked in a bloody battle with drug-smuggling gangs, called on the United Nations to lead a global debate over a less “prohibitionist” approach to drugs.
Guatemala’s President Otto Perez Molina echoed Calderon’s call and went even further, saying that “the basic premise of our war against drugs has proved to have serious shortcomings.”
The speeches, which were a few hours apart, constituted some of the most public challenges to date of anti-drug policies that have been mostly unchanged since the 1970s.

James Joyner:

Well, at the very least, it makes sense to recognize the fact that the War On (Some) Drugs has been a vast and monumental failure for the vast majority of the 40-odd years that we’ve been fighting it. Here in the United States, it’s led to massive increases in crime and strengthened the position of various criminal gangs in the same manner that Prohibition strengthened the power of the Mafia in the 1920s. It’s led to massive increases in our prison population and ruined the lives of countless numbers of mostly young black men thrown into prison for little more than mere possession. It has led to further erosion of civil liberties in the name of “fighting crime” as well as a dangerous militarization of the police as they adopt tactics more appropriate to a military squad then a police force. Politically, it has led to a rise in public corruption just as Prohibition resulted in countless police and government officials being “in the pocket” of the bootleggers and willing to look the other way on smuggling for a share of the profits of the criminal enterprise. Through it all, drug us has not decreased one bit. Indeed, it has demonstrably increased nearly every year since President Nixon took the nation down this path.

Here in Oregon vast areas of public land are off limits to hunters and hikers because heavly armed cartel members are growing marijuana and law enforcement doesn't have the resources to patrol it.  A majority of the border problems in the Southwest are now drug related.

This is just another war we can never win.

Prohibition Redux

The US experiment to prohibit the sail and use of alcohol was by any measure a grand failure. The only thing it succeeded in doing was to create rich and powerful criminal elements. It was eventually recognized as the failure it was bu even those who had supported it and abandoned. The "war on drugs" has also been a a very similar failure but is still going strong. In early 2006 I wrote the following:

While the war in Iraq may outrageous there is another war that is equally outrageous and is truly bi-partisan, the war on drugs. Like the war in Iraq it has accomplished nothing positive, consumed vast sums of the nations wealth and ruined lives. The reasons for the war on drugs are similar to the reasons for the war in Iraq.

• Political Power


• Corporate Wealth and Power


• Religious Zealotry

Like the "war on drugs" the "war on terror" is a metaphorical war. In an excellent article in the Washington Post, The Lost War, Misha Glenny reports that it is not only as big a failure as prohibition in the 1930's the criminal elements it is supporting are the very ones we are allegedly fighting in the "war on terror".

Thirty-six years and hundreds of billions of dollars after President Richard M. Nixon launched the war on drugs, consumers worldwide are taking more narcotics and criminals are making fatter profits than ever before. The syndicates that control narcotics production and distribution reap the profits from an annual turnover of $400 billion to $500 billion. And terrorist organizations such as the Taliban are using this money to expand their operations and buy ever more sophisticated weapons, threatening Western security.

In the past two years, the drug war has become the Taliban's most effective recruiter in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's Muslim extremists have reinvigorated themselves by supporting and taxing the countless peasants who are dependent one way or another on the opium trade, their only reliable source of income. The Taliban is becoming richer and stronger by the day, especially in the east and south of the country. The "War on Drugs" is defeating the "war on terror."

Go read the entire well written piece.

More on the "War on Drugs" can be found here.

Losing Another Metaphorical War

Below I compared the metaphorical "war on terror" to the metaphorical "war on drugs". In spite of all the spin the "war on drugs" has accomplished little and had more negative than positive "results". In the Washington Post today Peter Bergen explains how the same can be said for the "war on terror".
Al-Qaeda, Still in Business

Over the past four years, key members of the Bush administration have claimed that al-Qaeda is "on the run" (Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice), "disrupted" (George Tenet) or "decimated" (President Bush). At the same time, however, significant terrorist attacks around the world have dramatically increased since Sept. 11, 2001, most of them conducted by militant Islamists.

The franchising of al-Qaeda
In the last four years al-Qaeda has gone from an organization to a movement making it even harder to fight using conventional tool of war.

A new narrative that purports to answer that question has emerged: Yes, al-Qaeda as an organization is severely impaired, but it has been replaced by a broader ideological movement made up of self-starting, homegrown terrorists who have few formal links to al-Qaeda but are motivated by a doctrine that can be called "Binladenism." Recent examples would include the militants in Madrid who bombed commuter trains in March 2004 and killed 191 people, or the seven terrorist wannabes recently arrested in Miami in connection with an alleged plot to blow up federal buildings. They had embraced al-Qaeda's doctrine of destruction, yet had no ties to the terrorist group.

However, according to five veteran U.S. counterterrorism officials I've spoken with recently, al-Qaeda the organization remains a real threat. One longtime government terrorism analyst points to the four suicide attacks in London last July 7 that killed 52 people as evidence of the organization's resilience. "At a minimum, this was an al-Qaeda-supported operation," the analyst told me. And al-Qaeda's leaders don't seem to be feeling the heat of the "war on terror." On Thursday, Osama bin Laden released his third audiotape in three months, while his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has appeared on an unprecedented number of videotapes since the second week of June -- averaging one a week.

So while the rapid spread of al-Qaeda's ideology in the past two years -- partly fueled by the Iraq war -- should be of considerable concern, it would be quite wrong to conclude that al-Qaeda the organization is down for the count. Indeed, if the bombings in London are any indication, it may be staging a comeback.

Graduate School in Iraq

The rapidly deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan over the past year is also, in part, the responsibility of al-Qaeda. The use of suicide attacks and makeshift bombs and the beheadings of hostages -- all techniques that al-Qaeda perfected in Iraq -- are methods that the Taliban has increasingly adopted in Afghanistan, making much of the south of the country a no-go area.

Hekmat Karzai, an Afghan terrorism researcher at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore, points out that suicide bombings were rare in Afghanistan until 2005, when 21 such attacks took place. This year has already seen at least 16. In addition, Karzai reports that two of al-Qaeda's "most able" commanders -- Khalid Habib, a Moroccan, and Abd al Hadi, an Iraqi -- have been appointed to run its operations in southeastern and southwestern Afghanistan. These developments suggest that al-Qaeda is regrouping and strengthening along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

The results of the "war on terror"

Almost five years after the attacks on Washington and New York, al-Qaeda not only remains in business in its traditional stronghold on the Afghan-Pakistan border, but continues to project its ideology and terrorism abroad. So now we face a world of ideologically driven homegrown terrorists -- free radicals unattached to any formal organization -- in addition to formal networks such as al-Qaeda that have managed to survive despite the tremendous pressure brought to bear against them since 9/11. And even more grim, they now feed off and strengthen one another.

That's right, al-Qaeda is not only alive and well but becoming increasingly more dangerous and harder to fight. The drug lords have been able to adapt to the "war on drugs" and it seems that al-Qaeda is successfully adapting to the "war on terror".

The other outrageous war - The Battle of the Bong

A few months ago I wrote about the other outrageous war:

While the war in Iraq may outrageous there is another war that is equally outrageous and is truly bi-partisan, the war on drugs. Like the war in Iraq it has accomplished nothing positive, consumed vast sums of the nations wealth and ruined lives. The reasons for the war on drugs are similar to the reasons for the war in Iraq.

• Political Power


• Corporate Wealth and Power


• Religious Zealotry

The first post concentrated on the war against marijuana. The post today is about a cruel and absurd skirmish in the war on marijuana, the battle of the bong. James Bovard explains in The Most Absurdities per Kilo

On February 7, 2003, as the U.S. government prepared to invade Iraq, Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge raised the terrorist alert to the orange level and declared that “specific protective measures will be taken by all federal agencies to reduce vulnerabilities.” Ridge added comfortingly, “It’s probably not a bad idea to sit down and just arrange some kind of a contact plan, [so] that if [a terrorist] event occurred ... the family [could] get in touch with one another.” Attorney General John Ashcroft, bombasting at the same press conference, urged Americans to go about “with a heightened awareness of their environment and the activities [i.e., potential terrorist attacks] occurring around them.”

Seventeen days later, on February 24, Ashcroft proudly announced the most decisive attack ever on purveyors of bongs – pipes and bowls often used for smoking marijuana, tobacco, and whatever else a person chooses. At a time when political leaders warned that a terrorist attack on the homeland could be imminent, more than 1,200 federal law officers were involved in Operation Pipe Dreams, conducting raids in Pennsylvania, Texas, Oregon, Iowa, California, and Idaho. Fifty-five people and 10 companies were indicted in the biggest attack on glass bowls in American history.

The feds confiscated 124 tons of what was alleged to be drug paraphernalia, including plastic baggies that could be used to package illicit drugs. One wonders how many federal employees or federal contractors were involved in weighing the baggies – one of the favorite examples of how the raids protected American families across the land.

At the triumphal press conference announcing the raids, Ashcroft declared, “With the advent of the Internet, the illegal-drug paraphernalia industry has exploded. Quite simply, the illegal-drug paraphernalia industry has invaded the homes of families across the country without their knowledge.”

I'm sure you will sleep better tonight knowing you aren't threatened by bongs. One person who didn't sleep better was 64 year old Tommy Chong.

By far the biggest catch of Operation Pipe Dreams was 64-year-old Tommy Chong, the older half of the legendary, Grammy Award-winning comic duo Cheech and Chong, who lampooned drug warriors from the 1960s to the 1980s. Chong’s company, Chong Glass, sold ornate bongs that cost hundreds of dollars over the Internet; a Los Angeles art gallery had an exhibit of Chong’s top-of-the-line products. The Drug Enforcement Administration set up a phony shop in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, and ordered bongs and other material from Chong Glass.

The DEA hit Chong’s Pacific Palisades, California, house at 5:30 a.m., while Chong and his wife were asleep. Chong later commented,

It was a full-on raid. Helicopters, them bangin’ on the door. They come in with loaded automatic weapons, flak jackets, helmets, visors, about 20 agents. They bust in the house. They took all my cash, took out my computers, and they took all the glass bongs they could find.

I don't know about you but I sure am glad the Feds are using out tax dollars to keep us safe from blown glass. It would be amusing except that Chong was imprisoned and ruined financially.

Chong was sentenced to nine months in federal prison, fined $20,000 for selling bongs and other drug paraphernalia, and forced to surrender $103,514 in cash to the feds, as well as forfeit his Internet domain name, Chongglass.com. He was also forced to promise the judge that he would not profit from his arrest and prosecution. This effectively destroyed Chong’s freedom of speech to discuss his case in future comedy performances. At least in Chong’s case, mocking the feds will now be a federal offense.

The other outrageous war! Part III

I made it clear how I feel about "The War On Drugs" here:

While the war in Iraq may outrageous there is another war that is equally outrageous and is truly bi-partisan, the war on drugs. Like the war in Iraq it has accomplished nothing positive, consumed vast sums of the nations wealth and ruined lives. The reasons for the war on drugs are similar to the reasons for the war in Iraq.

• Political Power
• Corporate Wealth and Power
• Religious Zealotry

And had an example of how misguided it is here.

This morning the New York Times reports that Mexico Passes Law Making Possession of Some Drugs Legal.

MEXICO CITY, April 28 — Mexican lawmakers passed a sweeping new drug law early Friday that would crack down on small-time dealers, legalize the possession of small quantities of drugs and mandate treatment for addicts.

Under the bill, it would be legal to have 25 milligrams of heroin, a fifth of an ounce of marijuana or half a gram of cocaine. The bill also makes it legal to possess small amounts of LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines and peyote.

Joe Gandelman has a good summary of the reactions to this move by the Mexican government. Needless to say the war on drugs hawks in the US are not too pleased.

The other outrageous war!...continued

In The other outrageous war!. Like all wars the war on drugs is a way for politicians to consolidate power and it is an ideal war since it can't be won.

While the war in Iraq may outrageous there is another war that is equally outrageous and is truly bi-partisan, the war on drugs. Like the war in Iraq it has accomplished nothing positive, consumed vast sums of the nations wealth and ruined lives. The reasons for the war on drugs are similar to the reasons for the war in Iraq.

• Political Power
• Corporate Wealth and Power
• Religious Zealotry

The most outrageous aspect of this outrageous war is it's emphasis on marijuana.

The most counterproductive element of the war on drugs has to be the emphasis on marijuana. It is legal in the Netherlands but Important Drug and Violence Indicators in the Netherlands are significantly lower than in the US. The emphasis on marijuana is at least in part to benefit "big pharma". Marijuana has many medical benefits associated with marijuana but there is also a serious problem with it, it can't be patented. It is effective or more effective than many drugs that the pharmaceutical industry makes a great deal of money selling.

Well today we have yet another war on drugs outrage reported by Brian Doherty in The Crimes of Pot Justice.

Last week a man was shivering and vomiting in a cold cell in Auburn, California, at the foot of the Sierra Nevadas in Placer County, his urine bloody, the medicine he needs denied him.

His name is Steve Kubby. He was the Libertarian Party's 1998 gubernatorial candidate, and a major player in the crafting and passing of California's Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that legalized medical marijuana in the state.

Kubby did not enjoy the protection of the law he helped pass. Prompted by an anonymous tip, police in California's Placer County began surveilling Kubby's home near Lake Tahoe in 1998, including digging through his garbage. Eventually on January 19, 1999, 12 armed officers raided his home and arrested him and his wife, claiming to have found 265 pot plants. (More than half, Kubby insists, were unsexed seedlings, and California law does not have a specific numerical limit on personal use marijuana growth for medical marijuana patients.) The warrant was obtained partially on the basis of claims that a journalist who had been seen visiting the Kubbys' home was in fact a known Jamaican drug smuggler, according to a DEA report later found not to exist; Kubby is certain his prominence in the pro-marijuana movement made him a target.

Kubby is struggling with a rare and usually fatal form of adrenal cancer,
pheochromocytoma, which he has suffered from since the late 1960s. A doctor who helped treat him for the condition in the 1970s, Vincent DeQuattro of the University of Southern California, was amazed, upon seeing Kubby's name in California's voter guide during his gubernatorial race, to discover that his old patient was still alive. As High Times reported:

"In some amazing fashion," DeQuattro subsequently advised the judge in Kubby's case, "this medication has not only controlled the symptoms of pheochromocytoma, but in my view, has arrested growth" of the cancer. "Every other patient than Steve, with Steve's condition, has died in the interval of time [that Kubby has had the disease.] Steve was the only survivor."

Kubby insists the only treatment he's taken in a long while for the cancer—whose effects include sudden rushes of adrenalin and noradrenaline, resulting in high blood pressure spikes, headaches, and panic attacks—is marijuana; that it, and only it, had kept him alive this long; and that without it, as he now is in Placer County lockdown, he'll likely die.

Is he right? Even with the grim reports of his vomiting, chills, and bloody urine this past week in jail, it's hard to be sure. He's merely one anecdote, and concerted research into such questions of marijuana's medical efficacy are hamstrung by restrictive federal regulations and supply constraints. But right now his Placer County jailers are conducting a very dangerous experiment to test Kubby's theory. A Canadian doctor, Dr. Joseph M. Connors, chair of the Lymphoma Tumor Group at the British Columbia Cancer Agency, has testified that without his pot, Kubby is at high risk of suffering potentially fatal heart attacks, seizures, or strokes from his cancer's effects.

Kubby was acquitted of the pot charges arising from the raid, but convicted in 2001 for some peyote buttons and a psychedelic mushroom the cops also found. Before serving his term, he and his family left for Canada, where they've spent the past five years. He, his wife Michele,
and his two daughters were finally deported back to the U.S. last week.
They were met at the San Francisco airport by a gang of officers, Kubby was handcuffed and taken away, avoiding the press and well-wishers awaiting him in the airport, and ended up in Placer County jail.

Kubby has become something of a cause célèbre because of his intimate connections with the libertarian and medical marijuana communities. But he's not the only one suffering in prison because of lack of marijuana. In a similar situation—ill, in prison, denied marijuana that helps them cope or survive their illness—are Joe Fortt (in jail in Fresno, his T-cell count plummeting, he'd been using pot to cope with AIDS while free), Robert Schmidt (currently in Leavenworth, a prison under full "lockdown," denied both medicine and visitors), and many others. Prisons in California may, at their discretion, but are not required under the law, provide inmates with their medical marijuana-and generally don't.

As of this writing, Kubby is being permitted the use of marinol, a pharmaceutical synthetic THC, though not the whole marijuana plant. His blood pressure has stabilized and the blood has left his urine. (When he refused to take standard blood pressure medicine, inappropriate for the spiked variety of high blood pressure his adrenal problems caused,
they made him sign a waiver absolving his jailers of all responsibility for what might happen to him.) His pre-trial hearing on a charge of failure to appear for probation is scheduled for February 15.

The Kubby case presents many unresolved controversies; is it really the marijuana that has kept his adrenal cancer from killing him? Did his status as a felony fugitive arise from judicial misconduct? (His conviction was originally for a misdemeanor, raised to a felony level by a judge during his appeals process, which is what made his lack of appearance at a hearing because he was in Canada a crime. Kubby has filed a complaint with California's Commission on Judicial Performance, alleging the judge, who had been earlier recused from his case, was acting illegally.)

Whatever the final resolution of those questions, in Auburn, California, a man is in jail ultimately for growing a plant he believes helps him, suffering from cancer, his vitals erratic, deprived of medication that makes his life bearable. He has harmed no one, and is being harmed for it.

The war on marijuana is above all else a war on threats to the bottom line of big pharma. If there was any doubt that the pharmaceutical industry place high profits above good health we only have to look at the war on marijuana.

Technorati Tags

war on drugs, marijuana

The other outrageous war!

While the war in Iraq may outrageous there is another war that is equally outrageous and is truly bi-partisan, the war on drugs. Like the war in Iraq it has accomplished nothing positive, consumed vast sums of the nations wealth and ruined lives. The reasons for the war on drugs are similar to the reasons for the war in Iraq.

• Political Power
• Corporate Wealth and Power
• Religious Zealotry

The most counterproductive element of the war on drugs has to be the emphasis on marijuana. It is legal in the Netherlands but Important Drug and Violence Indicators in the Netherlands are significantly lower than in the US. The emphasis on marijuana is at least in part to benefit "big pharma". Marijuana has many medical benefits associated with marijuana but there is also a serious problem with it, it can't be patented. It is effective or more effective than many drugs that the pharmaceutical industry makes a great deal of money selling. This is the topic of The Evil War on Drugs by Anthony Gregory.

Speak out too loudly against the drug war, and you might be targeted. Peter McWilliams had AIDS and cancer and was dependent on marijuana to stay alive. It turns out that the people who had been using the stuff medicinally for thousands of years were onto something. No one has ever been recorded as dying from the physiological effects of marijuana. But the federal government wouldn’t let McWilliams, a vocal anti-prohibition activist, have his medicine. They threatened to take his mother’s house away if he used the substance that was keeping him alive. He was found dead in his home in June 2000. The drug war killed him directly.

And now Steve Kubby is in jail, being deprived of the medical marijuana that has kept him alive. About a quarter-century ago, he was diagnosed with an exceedingly rare strain of adrenal cancer that no one else has been able to survive for more than five years. He was expected to die within the same timeframe. His physician, Dr. Vincent DeQuattro, an expert on this rare condition, has credited marijuana with saving his life. Several years ago, Kubby was forcefully deprived of his medicine for three days in jail, during which he suffered extreme vomiting and shivering and went temporarily blind in one eye. In U.S. custody again, after having taken refuge in Canada and being extradited back to the Land of the Free, he now has a good chance of dying, of being murdered by the state, all so it can make an example of this courageous anti-drug war activist.

For Kubby, as was the case for McWilliams, prohibition of life-saving medicine could prove a cruel and unusual execution, all for the non-crime of self-medication, the right to which all humans are born with. Apparently, he has been allowed to use some Marinol, but the synthetic THC simply isn’t a replacement for the complex mixture of cannabinoids in marijuana. Smoking about twelve grams of pot a day has worked for him, allowing him to live a healthy life; the government’s approved version does not quite do the trick, though it might barely be keeping death away. It is very uncertain at this point what will come of his health and legal situation.

As we can see the war on drugs is not just a case of misdirected resources......

The drug war is misdirected. It is foolish. It is stupid, unworkable, disastrous, tragic and sad. But beyond all that it is evil.

There is much more so go check out the original.

Technorati Tags

war on drugs, marijuana