opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
10 Feb 2016
High-Tech Ted

Politicians tailor their messages to different audiences. Facing New Hampshire's primary, Ted Cruz talked … Read More.

3 Feb 2016
Political Arrogance

After the Iowa caucus results, it looks like Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio in November! They lead the … Read More.

27 Jan 2016
Running on Empty

Cars run on fuel. Politicians run on votes, and they'll do almost anything to get them. That includes … Read More.

End the Drug War, Save Black America


One key to getting past the race issue in America is to end the war on drugs. John McWhorter says it's the most important thing we could do.

Cato's Letter features a lecture by McWhorter in which he calls for an end to the war on drugs. (It's really a war on certain people.) McWhorter, the former Berkeley linguistics professor and now senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, specifically indicts the war on drugs for "destroying black America." McWhorter, by the way, is black.

The "main obstacle(s) to getting black America past the illusion that racism is still a defining factor in America" are, he says, "the strained relationship between young black men and police forces" and the "massive number of black men in prison."

And what accounts for this? Prohibition.

"Therefore, if the War on Drugs were terminated, the main factor keeping race-based resentment a core element in the American social fabric would no longer exist. America would be a better place for all."

McWhorter sees prohibition as the saboteur of black families. "It has become a norm for black children to grow up in single-parent homes, their fathers away in prison for long spells and barely knowing them. In poor and working-class black America, a man and a woman raising their children together is, of all things, an unusual sight. The War on Drugs plays a large part in this."

He also blames the black market created by prohibition for diverting young black men from the normal workforce. "Because the illegality of drugs keeps the prices high," he says, "there are high salaries to be made in selling them. This makes selling drugs a standing tempting alternative to seeking lower-paying legal employment."

This has devastating consequences. The attractive illegal livelihood relieves men of the need to develop skills that would provide stable legal incomes. To those who argue that there's a shortage of jobs for black men, he says that is refuted by the black immigrants who thrive in America. "It is often said that because immigrants have a unique initiative or 'pluck' in relocating to the United States in the first place, it is unfair to compare black Americans to them.

However, the War on Drugs has made it impossible to see whether black Americans would exhibit such 'pluck' themselves if drug selling were not a tempting alternative."

One poisonous byproduct of prohibition and the black market, McWhorter says, is that going to prison is a now "badge of honor." "To black men involved in the drug trade, enduring prison time, regarded as an unjust punishment for merely selling people something they want (with some justification), is seen as a badge of strength: The ex-con is a hero rather than someone who went the wrong way." This attitude did not exist before drug prohibition.

Would cheaper and freely available drugs bring their own catastrophe? McWhorter says no.

"Fears of an addiction epidemic are unfounded. None such has occurred in Portugal, where the drug war has been significantly scaled back." How about damage to the culture?

"Our discomfort with the idea of heroin available at drugstores is similar to that of a Prohibitionist shuddering at the thought of bourbon available at the corner store. We'll get over it."

He enumerates the positive results from ending prohibition.

"No more gang wars over turf, no more kids shooting each other over sneakers. ... (P)eople who don't sell drugs for a living don't much need to kill each other over turf. ... (T)he men get jobs, as they did in the old days, even in the worst ghettos, because they have to."

To the majority who say that there are better and less risky ways to address the troubles of young men in black America, McWhorter replies:

"(T)he question we must ask is: What do you suggest? ... Community centers? Take a look at the track record on that. Or is it that we have to try a lot of things all at the same time? Well, what else have we been doing for 40 years, and where are we now?"

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="" <>></a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at




27 Comments | Post Comment
Hmm... I kept waiting for Jon's "but", however, I realize as a Libertarian, he probably does support the end of this decades-long travesty. However, I was disappointed Jon elaborated no further on his aside, referring to the "war on drugs" as "really a war on certain people". This is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. While this piece makes many valid points, it still leaves us with the illusion that young blacks are more prone to use, buy & sell drugs than young whites, & if they would "just say no" much of the problems in Black America would dissipate.
Well, while that's of course true, the fact is that a greater percentage of white youth break the Prohibition laws, and being the majority, that means their numbers are far, far higher than those in the black community. Yet, despite this numeric disparity, our prisons reflect exactly the opposite, the overwhelming numbers serving time for drug-related, non-violent crimes are black!
It's obvious the enforcement of these laws has been primarily in black neighborhoods, & in mixed areas (like where I grew up in Chicago), when white kids were caught by police (& we weren't stopped & searched constantly), they would often just have their parents come & get them, or plea a low-level charge, which would be expunged, & they could go on to college & a productive life. Black kids would be prosecuted, sentenced as felons, serve time, thus torpedoing any chances of higher education & a better life....
Comment: #1
Posted by: StevenCee
Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:56 PM
What is flagrantly left out of this discussion is that the disintegration of the black family was triggered by the War on Poverty (a.k.a., The Not-So-Great Society), enabling and encouraging out-of-wedlock births. This predates the War on Drugs.
Oh, did you mention the percent of births in the black community that are out-of-wedlock? Impregnation and incarceration rarely occur concurrently!
And the "badge of honor" is nothing new. When my wife was student-teaching in college in the early 80's, a girl's "badge of adulthood" was to have a child. The vortex of poverty cannot be explained by simply blaming it on drug-induced incarceration.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Dave D
Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:30 AM
I'm not sure if you read these comments Mr. Stossel, but I'd like to know your take on personal responsibility. I happen to agree with you on almost every issues, and why I agree that the war on drugs should be ended, mine is for a different reason. I believe the government has no right to regulate the market, even harmful drugs (like hard drugs). This would include the abolishment of the FDA. I may be reading this wrong, but my take is that the discussion is leading to the idea (not directly or indirectly, just the mindset) that crack was created to bring down the black community. While it's tempting for blacks to sell drugs due to the massive amounts of money, I also see the same with whites, hispanics, etc. I went to a public magnet school in a black community (I'm white myself) where at-least 80% of the kids where black. Out of all the students, none had done anything other than weed, and we had less than a 1% drop out rate. Most of us got amazing grades, and many of the kids didn't have fathers or even parents that cared. It was their decision to go to that school and get a proper education to make something of themselves. Many had moved on to college and became engineers, chemists, etc. My point being, they chose to do this so they could move on with their lives and make something of it for themselves, and for some, their children.
So I ask you this, is the personal responsibility of a black man/woman different from any other man/woman?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Cody W.
Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:55 AM
The racial devide in 2011 is bigger then ever, it is the big elephant in the room, people afraid to voice opinions because political correctness and what in hell is a hate crime, crime is a crime!!!! We need Black @ White Politicians and Business men to forge a strong leadership role in open discussion legalize all druge w/tax and let non profits run it not goverment. We would empty the prisons and put Drug smuggling out of business and save hundreds of thousands of lives. Cost would be 1/10 of costs now..The taxes charged would cover most medical cost in this country!!!!!!!
Comment: #4
Posted by: R.Haith
Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:58 AM
Would America turn into a nation of junkies without Drug Prohibition?
Before the Harrison Narcotics Act was passed back during World War 1, morphine, heroin, cocaine, and many other addictive drugs could be legally and inexpensively purchased without a prescription. Approximately 1% to 2% of Americans were addicted to these drugs - but they didn't have to rob people to pay for their fix. After nearly a century of Drug Prohibition, approximately 1% to 2% of Americans are still addicted to these drugs - and, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics, about 85% of all crimes against property (crimes to get money or property that can be converted to money) are to pay for prohibited drugs.
Ending Drug Prohibition would save a lot of lives south of the border, too.
Comment: #5
Posted by: dpearson
Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:05 AM
If 1 in 9 black men are in jail, why aren't the other 8 in 9 at home with the mother of their kids? Why, as McWhorter asks, is a black man and woman at home raising a family a rarity?
Comment: #6
Posted by: jay ess
Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:25 AM
Prohibition didn't work against alcohol, and it's not working now. That marijuana is still illegal, though proved to be non-addictive to the vast majority of users, should make all free Americans insist that it be at least decriminalized. Other harder drugs are more problematic, but clearly the war on drugs is an abysmal failure, and trying to solve our "drug problem" by police action is absurd, corrupt, and must end.
Comment: #7
Posted by: william
Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:50 PM
If marijuana is not addictive, then people would have no problem giving it up permanently.
I guarantee you that if terrorism is decriminalized, then there will be zero terror attacks and zero people jailed for terrorism. Think of the money we taxpayers will save on Gitmo maintenance.
We need more than short-sighted experience.
Comment: #8
Posted by: jay ess
Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:25 PM
So, drug dealers make a lot of money and the attraction for black men is too great to do the right thing. Then, the big bad GOVERNMENT takes these upstanding citizens away from their "families." You know, the random chicks they knocked up every time they had unprotected sex. Then, they get out, they are too warped by PRISON to revert back to their upstanding ways, you know... when they were just a drug dealer.

Is that really the argument? Get real. We're always going to have criminals and if it wasn't drugs, people would find another way to make "easy" money illegally and would end up in the same place.

Where is "Black America" by the way? Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Joe
Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:53 PM
Wow! This is incredible stuff Stossel. So, your argument is that if we rescind the drug laws, "blacks" will settle down, get an education, get a job, marry, and raise a family like the rest of Americans? I doubt that. Over 50% of "blacks" can't figure out how to get a high school diploma (Hey, those Hispanics can't seem to figure it out either. They are failing at the 60% plus rate in attempting to get a high school diploma). Of those that manage to go to college, 65% drop out before getting a degree. In other words, the first stop in being a responsible citizen is beyond their reach because apparently, more than a majority are just too stupid or don't give a damn. I got news for you, I don't either – give a damn.
Hey, if you are reading this and you are "black" prove me wrong. Do the opposite of what seems to come natural - failure. I challenge you to get an education as a first step. Usually, having been successful at that, the rest falls into place.
If you don't like my "tone” too bad. If you think I am a racist, again, too bad. I am not going to coddle you like Stossel and give you an easy out - it's the drug laws, man! Baloney.
To move forward, you have to take the first step. That step is education. Feel me?
Comment: #10
Posted by: Jamal
Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:58 PM
So when the "War on Drugs" is over, it will be all happy families and picket fences. So when they let all of these fine upstanding black men out of prison, exactly which baby mama are they going to go home to. The "War on Drugs" didn't make them have babies with eight different women, of which they are married to none. The "War on Drugs" also did not make the baby mama have children with eight different men of which they are married to none.
It is my opinion that the "War on Poverty" aka "Great Society" caused this by having the government take the place of the black man. Why take any responsibility? The government is going to raise all the children I can have.
Jamal, your only partially correct. You cannot make these people responsible and get an education as long as they have no incentive to improve themselves. Take away all the government hand outs and see how fast they start lining up to get an education and get jobs. Its not natural for people to be failures. Its natural for people to be winners and strive to be better. The problem is that the government has created an unnatural, far from "Great Society".
Comment: #11
Posted by: Joe
Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:51 AM
Cmon Stossel, are you really that naive? The premise of your argument, Black criminality is all linked to illegal drugs, is absurd. The notion that Black men would suddenly become responsible citizens and model family men if drugs were legalized is laughable. The Black community will never experience lower incarceration rates until that community recognizes that the cancer that afflicts it will only be mitigated when that community demands accountability from its men (boys) and stops accepting anti social conduct as the expected norm.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Cactus0912
Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:57 AM
Thank you, John! Bravo. I myself am also a Libertarian and I'm sure it's difficult to post articles like this knowing your reader base is predominantly Republican. I appreciate your honesty and the fact that I know your articles are truly written from your perspective in a logical and interesting way.

That is all.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Jenny
Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:27 PM
Re: william
Vast majority of users? O.K. so tell me how many who will fall due to marijuana use are you willing to forfeit or abandon? Make no mistake, the majority of people who do smoke it do so without becoming addicts but thier are also those who will go on to other drugs. And do you want your bus driver toking? Do you want the cops patrolling the streets to be lighting up? Tell the companies who now demand drug testing including marijuana to stop. The discussion is always muddled by the extreme ends of the argument. Nobody really cares about someone lighting up at home and not going to work or driving. That is not the issue. The true issue is do we want to add pot use to the alcohol abuse? In mos places pot is almost decriminalize already. First offense with no record is 6 months without a find and then without further charges the record is expunged. Isn't that enough? The idiots who somehow get themselves arrested for smoking pot aren't worth fighting for.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Simon645
Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:33 PM
Health care and the war on drugs are the two biggest financial drains on our society, and will eventually destroy us if left unchecked. (!!) Scenes like this are happening everyday:
1.) To buy drugs, user strips a home of all available copper, which brings $50 at the junkyard, and buys marijuana, cocaine or heroin that costs less than a nickel to produce. Repair of the damage costs $10,000, paid by insurance, not to mention societal costs of tracking, catching, sentencing and housing the user for 10-20 years (at $30,000/yr.).
2.) Simple break-in in the suburbs, nets 2 personal computers, a couple tv's, sterling silver and a cellphone. All told, street value of $500 or less spent on marijuana, cocaine or heroin with production and transportation costs of less than $50. Insurance reimbursement of $5,000 doesn't begin to compensate for loss of heirlooms, business records, contacts and other data destroyed in the process. Add in societal costs above.
3.) Simple break-in in the suburbs goes bad, resulting in loss of life, of permanent injury of unfortunate victims...
You price that one.
We are paying dearly to play cops and robbers with dealers and pushers who could be otherwise gainfully employed (and paying taxes). Despite all that time, effort and expense, most high school kids know how to get drugs, whenever they want. The truth is, the vast majority don't want to get drugs, and never will. The rest are highly prone to addiction, and need to be helped in a way that is both efficient and effective. The WOD is not working, and it won't ever work unless we can reduce/eliminate the river of cash that drives it.
Legalize it, tax it and treat it. And don't be surprised at how organized and well-funded the opposition becomes.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Mark Terry
Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:51 PM
If drugs are legal, then what defines an addict? Why would someone who fights valiantly for legalization voluntarily ask that drugs be removed from his/her life? If addiction is a reasonably forseeable event, then why would you want to torture a person with the challenge of getting over it? Does a breathalizer test for stoned driving exist? If drugs are legal for adults only, then adults become the dealers and kids become the buyers. If you think the public education system is in trouble now, just wait until the 14 year olds choose to get stoned on cheap drugs every day instead of study. This is a great way to drag people down and control them, to create a ruling class and a jonesing-for-a-fix class.
Comment: #16
Posted by: jay ess
Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:48 PM
We all make a concious decision to follow or break the law every day, regardless on how we may feel about a given law. Therefore it is not the WOD or the drugs themselves that are the problem, but rather the choices made by the people themselves. Additionally this is not a black problem, nor is the WOD targeted specifically to black Americans. If anything it is a class problem rather than a racial one. The fact is that gangs thrive in lower income areas and a higher percentage of blacks and hispanics live in these area than do whites and asians. As such those incarcerated for gang related crimes such as selling or manufacturing drugs are by percentage going to be more likely hispanic or black. Of course the poverty itself also prevents them from the superior legal representation that a middle or upper class family could afford which even further skews the numbers. The fact is if drugs were made legal today, organized criminal groups would simply find a new source of revenue. The American mafia families have made plenty of money and murdered many rivals before, during and after prohibition. Many lower income men joined the mafia so they could live the good life, today gangs operate the same way. The answer to the real problem lies in eradicationg the gangs and making the lower income communities believe that the only real path out of the ghetto is by working hard and getting an education.
Comment: #17
Posted by: richard
Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:17 PM
This may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. "Racism is not an issue" really? Then how come studies how than minorities are far more likely to be pulled over then white when in fact those whites are 4 time more likely to be in possession when they actually are pulled over? Why do studies show that people with "ethnic sound" names are less likely to be hired despite their skills? If you are upset that black homes have been ripped apart by these injustices it is not the "blacks" who are to blame. Racism exist....ignoring it will not get rid of it.
Comment: #18
Posted by: liddy
Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:16 PM
Don't be silly. Marijuana is a plant not a drug and the gov't has no right to control it as such. Furthermore, the same laws that apply to alcohol should apply to any other drug. If you use them fine but if you use and then get in your car and driver down a public street that is a problem. What most people forget is that the U.S. gov't never gave 'we the people' the chance to decide for ourselves. They violated the Constitution when they made drugs a prohibited substance without our consent. That is not their place in a so-called 'free and democratic' society. Rgardless of your stance on drugs, that should offend you at the very least. Remember, when they tried to prohibit alcohol they had to pass an amendment to the constitution and then repeal it. That never happened with drugs. And what incentive does the DEA really have to ever end the 'war on Americans' (I meant war on drugs)? None. If they iever do they will be out of a job! Sound like a conflict of interest right!
Comment: #19
Posted by: Charles
Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:39 AM
If this guys idea were enacted, the blacks selling drugs would not "get jobs, as they did in the old days, even in the worst ghettos, because they have to." They would just go on the government dole and start (or keep) getting hand outs. Look what's happening now...the only time the people on unemployment talk about getting a job is when the unemployment is about to run out. As long as there are unending entitlements, the line waiting for them will be unending.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Dram123
Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:08 AM
If I had the money, I would file a federal lawsuit on the grounds that in the preamble, congress cannot abridge the freedoms of the individual unless such freedoms infringe on others more basic freedoms (such as noise or air pollution by one impacting another). Arguably, if I use drugs and don't rob another in the process, my freedom to use drugs does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Joe
Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:06 AM
How can slavery be overlooked? BLACK people, whole families...were looked after by the white master. Only the blacks who took risks and initive lived in the "free" world. All throughtout history we have been creatures of habit. Rarely does an individual come along and change that. It normally takes groups of people with similar ideas working together. BLACK people were taught to depend on others for their needs. That is something near impossible to break in the life of family. I don't see how that is so hard to comprehend. In other words the BLACKS need to be the WHITE master has been passed down from generation to generation. Look with your eyes at how they copied what WHITE people do. White people don't usually accept black people, tolerate and do their Christian thing, but rarely are they personal friends. Numerous and endless programs have been put out to the BLACK people which was suppose to "better" their poor beginnings. Recent programs that you remember all slanted to better poor, pitiful black folks. The programs are always a horrible drain on the funding entity. There is so much corruption, lies, and cheats that it's impossible to make an accurate account of who has really been help. People survive. All the help needs to stop. How I as a white person wish someone had supported me, my two diabetic sisters, my mom, my two Crohn's brothers, when at almost 19 I was left to keep us alive. My father never contributed a dime to our well-being. I went from comfortable to desperate. But inspite of having I.C., I supported everyone. We did not starve...maybe not eating well, but eating. We survived. It can be done. And you learn so much about what you can do, if you listen and learn. When I finally was able to buy a little house nearing my 40's there was no help. No discount, no lowering of a monthly note, insurance, upkeep. No government program to get me into a home. Ha!
So, I say to John McWhorter, you are full of shit. Fill people with all the legal and illegal drugs they want is insane.
There will still be gangs, people who refuse to work, and poor souls unwilling to help themselves. I wonder who helped you get as far as you did? You see, no one helped me a little white girl 19 years old and head of the household. IRS
would not allow me to claim my mother as a dependent...I didn't even try to claim my siblings. The froze my little checking account and I had to grovel before an IRS representative on how poor and needy I was. It was humiliating.
Did you ever have to do that? Or do you go around in your little world and pass judgement on people who MADE America great by the sweat of their brow, their hands, back, and feet. Get over yourself.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Sandra O'Connor
Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:39 AM
My family suffered because of my father's drug addiction. The only reason my siblings and I did not grow up in a one parent household is that he was addicted to alcohol. Addicts need help, not prison time. We continue to destroy our cities, the people within them, and now the country of Mexico. Hasn't our war on drugs done enough damage?
Comment: #23
Posted by: robert herrmann
Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:14 PM
Dear Stossel,
To legalize drugs is insane. Use some Common Sense, the crime will not stop, it will only add different kinds of crime and go more underground. Our freeways will be loaded with loaded people. Maybe this is now true somewhat, I do not believe that America has as much of a Drug Problem as is said, this not to say there is no Drug Problem. There is another agenda going on here, and it is not racial or even totally political. Education at home and in school is the key, start young and educate the children about responsibility for themselves and for others, about the tradegy of Drugs and Drug Addiction. The children will grow up responsible and make the right choices for themselves.
Sincerely, Linda L Hill, an American Citizen
Comment: #24
Posted by: Linda L Hill
Fri Apr 1, 2011 4:08 PM
Drug addiction is not just within the black community. I live in a university town. The streets are littered with whites of every age group strung out on some drug. Many of these people used to go to UCSC, but have dropped out. Blacks control the trade. You can go to the corner of Laurel and Pacific and buy anything you want. Motorhomes are parked on streets and sell drugs like the old-fashioned ice cream trucks used to sell Eskimo Pies. Take a walk on West Cliff and you can buy whatever drug you prefer while you look out over the beautiful Monterey Bay. Legalization is not an issue here. Drugs are available and cheap. Some dealers have left because their profit is too small to survive. Most of the drug crowd don't have jobs. If they need money, they beg, steal, or prostitute themselves - guys and gals. Go on the police website and view the crimes occurring daily in this little town. Rapes are common. Gunshots in the middle of the night. Executions on busy street corners. We've had seven bicycles stolen over the years. Got two back at the flea market from some guy who bought them from the druggies for $20 each. We and two neighbors have been burglarized. One found a druggee in his kitchen at 3:00 a.m. eating food from his fridge. If this is the society we would have if drugs were legalized, do what I do: Get help from Mr. Stoeger and Smith and Wesson.
Comment: #25
Posted by: Ron
Sun May 22, 2011 11:38 AM
Though this article describes the victims of the drug war as mostly black Americans (which may be true), it is also true for most lower socioeconomic groups. When prohibition creates such an inflated price, natural human greed tempts those with less options to turn to a life of crime. It's risky but lucrative. Ending prohibition and regulating, similar to much more fatal products like alcohol and tobacco, is the only way to break-up the black market for narcotics by driving down the prices and thus incentive to sell.
Most importantly, this is a matter of civil liberties. The government is saying something is bad for our health and, if we use this something, they will put us in a cage. How can this be acceptable to anybody that wants to live in a free society? When a person has an addiction to alcohol (which directly kills 80,000+ Americans annually) or an addiction to cigarettes (which directly kill 400,000+ Americans annually), it is considered a Medical issue. When a person is addicted to another substance, how is this a legal issue? Who's rights are they violating? Who is the victim? Why have we given the government the power to lock-up our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, and children for choosing an unhealthy lifestyle? And why do they consider some unhealthy lifestyles a crime and some not a crime? Conspiracy theorists will tell us to follow the money but I think it is something easier than that. Most Americans find it acceptable to pass laws to ban things they find morally objectionable and most Americans find alcohol acceptable and other intoxicants unacceptable. But this precident sets the stage for future limitations to be placed on items based on the ever changing whims of public opinion.
Recent example: Oklahoma just passed a bill to raise first time offenses of creating marijuana edibles to a possible sentence of life in prison. As already mentioned, over 80,000 Americans die from alcohol use each year. It's highly physically addictive and toxic to the body. During the same period, there were zero deaths from Marijuana. The lethal dose (LD50) for marijuana is roughly 1:20,000 (basically 20,000 times the effective dose should cause death) as opposed to 1:10 for alcohol. Additionally, every time it has been tested for levels of addiction, it is measurably less addictive than such things as alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine. Despite this overwhelming disparity in safety levels between alcohol and marijuana as well as the complete absense of deaths reported from marijuana, Oklahoma legislatures feel that creating something as benign as a 'pot brownie' is a crime so servere it could be punishible of life in prison. Most prohibitionists claim it's to protect the children yet they hardly seem to care that families can legally store hard liquor and beer in locations that could be accessible to children.
Comment: #26
Posted by: SpellCzech
Mon May 23, 2011 2:00 PM

Hit the TEAs with this:

I never noticed a Prohibition Amendment. Except for Alcohol.

Comment: #27
Posted by: MSimon
Tue Sep 6, 2011 11:59 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
John Stossel
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Veronique de RugyUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Larry Elder
Larry ElderUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Matt Towery
Matt ToweryUpdated 11 Feb 2016

25 Jan 2011 My State of the Union Address

24 Aug 2010 Where Are the New Jobs?

22 Jan 2013 Shopping Around for a Better Life