Monday, April 10, 2006

Marijuana PROHIBITION Violence

The Drug Czar's "blog" highlights a story about a shootout that took place at a marijuana garden in Arkansas as evidence that marijuana causes violence.

What absurdism!

Such tragic gunfights would never happen under a legal, regulated market for marijuana. When's the last time you saw beer distributors shooting each other over who gets to stock a specific store?


Anonymous said...

Such tragic blog posts would never happen under a legal, regulated market for marijuana. When's the last time you saw Tom Angell using an argument other than the beer-distributors-packing-heat analogy?


Daniel J Evans said...

Thats not even a real blog. Those cowards make us send their comments to them so they can choose what people get to see. I sent in my comment amyway.

Anonymous said...

so wait, you're are FOR legalizing it, right? I'm confused, I thought you were trying to take the high road in just pursuing drug policy reform. I'm confused.

Micah Daigle said...


I'm confused too. I'm not sure what you mean by "I thought you were trying to take the high road in just pursuing drug policy reform". True, SSDP currently has no official stance on the legalization (or tax & regulation) of marijuana. HOWEVER, we do expressly promote "an open, honest, and rational discussion of alternative solutions to our nation's drug problems." Tom is doing just that by pointing out the simple fact that marijuana-related violence would be all but extinguished under a regulated market. That's not taking a stance on "legalization"... that's just simply stating the obvious.

Anonymous said...

Can you help me out? What's the difference between "legalization" and "tax and regulate?" Is the difference that "tax and regulate" focus group tested better? Or are you just trying not to sound like a dirty hippie from the 70's?

Micah Daigle said...

Hey no problem, Anonymous. I'd love to help a brother out.

The difference between "legalization" and "tax & regulate" is that the latter term actually signifies a specific policy paradigm, while the former term is simply a loaded, ambiguous word.

"Legalization" tends to evoke images of your "dirty hippie from the 70's" selling marijuana to small children, while the police do nothing. "Taxation and regulation", on the other hand, evokes images of responsible business owners carding minors under the watchful eye of the government, while a portion of the taxed product is earmarked for drug treatment and education.

For more information on a current state-level campaign to regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol, visit:


A short-haired college student from the 2000's

800 pound gorilla said...

Hey, I'm for legalization. I have no hidden agenda. I sincerely believe that the War on Drugs is a hoax and a scam. And legalizing meth is more important than legalizing cannabis. Even criminalized, cannabis is far less problematic than alcohol. Even police openly acknowledge that marijuana usage is "not high priority". I was around when meth was regulated - but limited in distribution. It was less of a problem than Ambien is today.

I can't get anyone to debate me. If legalizers were so far out there, there should be a lineup of people eager to debate them - right? Everyone in my community who has ever discussed the drug war with me greets me with a "I'm not going to face you in a public debate". They know how lopsided that debate would be. I'm the self proclaimed 800 pound gorilla. Nobody will ever face me in a public debate forum. That's a fact: end of discussion.