|
July 31, 2010
Sweetening the pot -- NOT!
Lest anyone think that only the mean old Republicans are Drug Prohibitionists, I just learned about another ridiculous anti-drug law that must have passed while I was asleep. At least one one blogger is complaining about it, and because he's a leftie, I thought I should add my two cents worth. Anyway, thanks to the hard work of the gun-and-sudafed-grabbing Dianne Feinstein, the federal government is launching a new crackdown. They are doubling the penalties for marijuana brownies! Last night the United States Senate voted to double the penalties for the nation's newest existential threat: brownies made with marijuana!That's fascinating, for several reasons. First, eating any substance is almost always less harmful to the human body than smoking it, and many medical marijuana patients should not be putting any form of smoke in their lungs. So why make it harder for them? Might the timing of this bill be intended to send them a message? Feinstein (who vehemently opposed medical marijuana in California) claims the target of the bill is "candy flavored meth," but the bill's language is broad: Marijuana prohibitionists often hide behind vague threats to children, and DiFi's bill is no different. Her "Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act" is framed to make politicians afraid to oppose. "How dare you voted against saving kids from dangerous drugs?"Naturally, it's being done for THE CHILDREN! Really? Pot Brownies?While the law says that the sweetened controlled substance has to be intended for "a person under 18 years of age," how is such an intent to be determined? By the sweetness, obviously! That's the way the prosecutors will interpret it. The war on added sweetness is broader in scope than Feinstein's latest federal manifestation. Adding sweeteners to any evil product makes them twice as evil! See my earlier post about prohibition of sweetened "girlie drinks" and "kiddie booze.". And in New York, they are trying to ban candy cigarettes! State law is one thing, but what has long perplexed me about the federal law is from where does the constitutional power to ban substances arise? Why is it that when alcohol was prohibited, they had to amend the Constitution to create the power, but with drugs, no one seemed to bother? The difference between one substance and another is not of constitutional dimension, so what gives? And if the federal government has the power to criminalize what you possess in your home (or grow in your yard), then why couldn't they also prohibit growing tobacco? Or simply prohibit candy? People who think the federal government has no power to take over health care might want to think about such threshold constitutional issues. Can rights that are lost ever be regained? MORE: For linking the same piece that I did, Ann Althouse is getting flak in the comments: Althouse is going to lose cred w/ the natives w/ links like that. What's next; HuffPo and Dkos?Another genius wants to know about her reading habits: Professor;Look, I don't like FireDogLake any more than I like a lot of the sites I link. What mattered to me here was the fact of the legislation; not the political philosophy of the site that editorialized about it. I think I found the link at Memeorandum, but I can link any story I want from wherever I want whenever I want. (Of course, I've even been accused of "hate linking", and that didn't stop me...) MORE: Jacob Sullum has more on the law, which he thinks could be applied to brownies. On one hand, brownies are baked goods, not candy. On the other hand, they contain chocolate, which is a kind of candy, and it is "combined with" the cannabis. Perhaps the crucial criterion will be the brownie's consistency: If it's caky, it's a baked good; if it's chewy, it's essentially fudge, which is candy. (If you think a drug offender's punishment couldn't possibly hinge on such an arbitrary distinction, recall that it took Congress more than two decades to address the equally senseless distinction between smoked and snorted cocaine--and even then, it shrank the gap instead of eliminating it.)Perhaps the idea is to pass it now, and think about it later! posted by Eric on 07.31.10 at 10:13 AM
Comments
For those of us old enough to remember Feinstein as mayor of San Francisco, this shouldn't surprise. She has always been a political opportunist. Had it not been for the murders of Moscone & Milk, she would have been a political nobody. She couldn't bring herself to march in a gay parade in The City after Milk was assassinated, vetoed a pro-gay parternship bill while mayor, and then when almost recalled from office found how much she was for the civil liberties of gay people. She's such a political hack and hypocrite. As a staunch advocate of banning guns for the average person, she has her own conceal/carry permit. When pressed by liberal supporters, at the last minute she makes a nervous appearance in a video opposing Prop 8. Her video appeal was worded in such a way that she was able to give herself cover: "No matter HOW you feel about marriage, don't vote for discrimination...etc." If you can stand to watch the commercial, notice the bitches eyebrows. They give her away. How much money does she get from the prison guard unions? Frank · July 31, 2010 11:49 PM But they give meth to children who have ADD/ADHD. So children who take meth with the approval of the medical/industrial complex are OK. And those who get their meth without tithing the medical/industrial complex are criminals. Candy flavored meth is the least of our problems.
M. Simon · August 1, 2010 09:52 PM Hugh, I think you're onto something! Chocolate is itself dangerous! http://road-to-health.com/64/What_are_Endorphins_.html
Chocolate is by far the most popular endorphin-producing food on earth. Known by the Greeks as the "food of the Gods," chocolate is derived from cacao beans that were revered by the Aztecs, who believed that eating chocolate would confer wisdom and vitality. In addition to sugar, caffeine and fat, chocolate contains more than 300 different constituent compounds, including anandamide, a chemical that mimics marijuana's soothing effects on the brain. It also contains chemical compounds such as flavonoids (which are also found in wine) that have antioxident properties and reduce serum cholesterol. Although the combined psychochemical effects of these compounds on the central nervous system are poorly understood, the production of endorphins are believed to contribute to the renowned "inner glow" experienced by dedicated chocolate lovers. ***END QUOTE*** No doubt this is another "gateway" substance, from which our government ought to protect us! Eric Scheie · August 2, 2010 08:50 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2010
July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Less Power More Control
My Political Source the bigoted nature of identitarianism makes me want to find a "tribe" Who gets to elect our "cultural" representatives? Sweetening the pot -- NOT! "freedom to think what they want to think" A surprising and hopefully sincere apology To the authoritarian ruling class, dissenters are "authoritarians"! The Tea Party may have "wings," but no one can clip them! Obama's Katrina: Did Admin Policies/Incompetence Cause The Oil Spill?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
And what is the real difference between chocolate and cannabis? Other than cannabis is considered a drug.