Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
"$pliff is just stoned, but Paul is really amazing: Nixon wanted to ban grass, ergo it must be good!" No, no, no, no! Nixon wanted to ban grass, but his hand picked commission came up with the opposite conclusion. A presidential commission arrived at the opposite of the intended conclusion. That is significant. If you won't listen to experts on a presidential commission, then you surely aren't going to listen to me, so this is all kind of pointless, right? All talk and no listening for Monaghan? "Why not let under-age smokers buy tobacco, alcohol?" You make no sense. You keep throwing out asinine suggestions as if somebody actually made them, and then argue against them. Your "infinitely stronger now than back in the day" is patently false hyperbole, because you have no rational, logical argument to make. The strongest available marijuana today comes in pills from a pharmaceutical company and is prescribed by doctors. The odd thing about that fact (which you would call a "terrible truth") is marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 narcotic, meaning the government has declared it to have no known medicinal value. Do you know what the government has decided DOES have medicinal value and the government has labeled Schedule 2? PCP and Methamphetamine. The military has used them both on soldiers, and supposedly still uses methamphetamine. Go figure....— May 5, 2009 1:49 p.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
Monaghan, I know you don't like to let facts get in your way, but do you even know why Marijuana is illegal? You ought to look up the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (known as the Shafer Commission), whose members were appointed by Nixon in 1972 with the express purpose of permanently making marijuana a schedule 1 drug and outlawing it. A funny thing happened to the commission when they researched the issue; They ended up arguing for legalization instead, and found that many of the stereotypes (some repeated by you) are just not true. Nixon denounced his own report, and led a concerted effort to trash it several months before it came out. He then ignored it and got marijuana banned in spite of his own report. It is all in the Nixon tapes, and you can read the report here: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studi… Some findings by Nixon's own hand-picked commissioners included: Scientific evidence has clearly demonstrated that marihuana is not a narcotic drug, and the law should properly reflect this fact. Congress so recognized in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as did The Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in the Uniform Controlled Substances Law. ... [T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance. ... We have carefully analyzed the interrelationship between marihuana the drug, marihuana use as a behavior, and marihuana as a social problem. Recognizing the extensive degree of misinformation about marihuana as a drug, we have tried to demythologize it. Viewing the use of marihuana in its wider social context, we have tried to desymbolize it. Considering the range of social concerns in contemporary America, marihuana does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high. We would deemphasize marihuana as a problem. The existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug. To replace it, we have attempted to design a suitable social policy, which we believe is fair, cautious and attuned to the social realities of our time.— May 5, 2009 12:08 a.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
Its funny, cuz I noticed that one too! It turns out that Strong High-Yield is (or at least was) a very successful bond fund. Too bad, it sounded like a very interesting school (maybe an Ag school?)!— May 1, 2009 3:23 p.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
SurfPuppy619, Don't worry, my skin is not that thin. I just occasionally like to point out when somebody has gone off base in the off chance they think they are still making valid points. I agree that alcohol is big problem, but I disagree that legalizing marijuana would add to the overall problem. I think there is a relatively finite market for recreational drugs, so that legal marijuana would poach from the existing sources, namely illegal drugs and alcohol. If I thought for a moment that legal marijuana would significantly add to the user base, I wouldn't be in favor of it. What would most likely happen, however, is that existing light users of alcohol may become light users of marijuana or switch between the two, and current heavy users of alcohol and illegal marijuana would probably continue to be heavy users of one or the other (hopefully with better interdiction and treatment programs due to increased taxes). From everything I have read, the total number of addictive personalities prone to problems would not change, but treatment should improve, yielding a net gain in the overall problem at a substantially reduced cost with a dramatic decrease in crime (especially gang violence). Also from what I have read, if you are going to piss your life away, their is less negative impact on society if you do it smoking marijuana than by drinking. I'm basing my views on cold hard economic realities, which can be difficult for some people because it doesn't take into account anybody's particular situation. Nobody wants their family member to become an addict and want somebody or something to blame if it happens, but the cold hard reality is that a certain number of people will become addicted to something no matter what we do. We deny marijuana and kids are sniffing glue and aerosols, using cough syrup, lots of alcohol (of course) and making crystal meth. Is that really any better? Wouldn't you rather have some quality and dosage control along with a regulated supply line of legitimate storefronts to keep it away from kids (like alcohol)? I know you disagree, but that is where I am coming from.— May 1, 2009 3 p.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
For those wondering just what I have been smoking to make me in favor of legalization of marijuana (correct answer, of course, is nothing), here is succinct explanation along with a few people who support it. Most of them are just unsuccessful potheads who most likely dropped out of high school, so JW can safely ignore them (especially the first 3). http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html— May 1, 2009 12:44 p.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
JW, What an odd response! You do recall that you are the one who said "I NEVER want to live in a culture where the leaders says it okay to become an addict because they're lying to you to maintain their control.", right? I merely pointed out that you are proposing one form of strict government control to prevent another form of government control. The same group you distrust in one case, you are embracing in the other. I didn't say I agree with either, just that you didn't seem to have thought through what you were saying. I also see you are back to ad hominem attacks insisting that I must be on drugs, when you know I don't use drugs and probably average less than two drinks a week. PS: My dad worked for the group that invented the first microwave oven (the "Radarange"), so maybe you ought to rethink your position on aliens. That would give you a more plausible explanation for me than the one you have adopted.— May 1, 2009 12:15 p.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
JW, you earlier said: "I NEVER want to live in a culture where the leaders says it okay to become an addict because they're lying to you to maintain their control." I find that statement fascinating, because you are proposing huge government programs with very strict legal controls on what you can and can't do to your own body, because you are afraid that the government is trying to control you. Interesting dichotomy. Have you ever stopped to consider that just maybe those same pols are lying to you about the war on drugs in order to manufacture a crisis that allows them to fund and staff a larger police force and allows them to pass laws which take liberties with your liberties?— May 1, 2009 8:44 a.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
Monoaghan: "None of the high-minded arguments about the failure of the "war on drugs" or the rationales for "legalization" address the carnage that occurs in families with addicts or to the society that has to manage the anti-social fallout (crime and illness) that comes with any addictive drug-use." Patently false for two reasons: First, using "high-minded" as a dismissive of an opposing argument is meaningless rhetoric. The arguments in favor of the war on drugs are every bit as "high-minded", plus have the added disadvantage of having been tried in practice where they have failed miserably, just as they did during prohibition. Second, I (and most arguments in favor of legalization) directly and comprehensively DO address the "carnage" and "anti-social fallout". A key component of my rationale for legalizing certain recreational drugs is so that they can be strictly regulated with tough laws and enforcement to prevent use by minors, along with education programs and rehab programs. That combined with removing the profit motive for violent smugglers and gangs would allow us to attack drug use the same way we do alocohol and tobacco. While there are alcoholics and those addicted to cigarettes, the amount of crime to support those habits is comparatively very low while the amount of discouraging education and availability of rehab programs is very high. Would you rather have young adults stealing cars to support an illegal meth habit, or legally buying marijuana at a price they could afford by bagging groceries? I imagine you would prefer neither (so would I), but the insistance of the "neither" argument has resulted in a meth explosion in the central valley and the highest stolen car rates in the nation. My fundamental position is that a certain number of people are predisposed to addiction and will be susceptible to drug problems, whether they be legal (caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, prescription drugs or over the counter) or illegal. Aguably the total number of people with addictions is not going to change if you legalize marijuana and cocaine, but what you WILL do is offer an alternative to crack, crystal meth, heroin and other truly devastating drugs while simultaneously dramatically decreasing violent crime and increasing funding for education and rehab programs. From your rhetoric I have to assume you are currently out marching for a return to prohibition? That was a disaster. Have you bothered to stop and figure out why? Have you bothered to ask yourself why alcohol is now the only allowed recreational drug? (hint: there are two very major industries that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo: Pharmaceutical and alcohol).— May 1, 2009 8:38 a.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
JW said: "Another ridiculous premise. The Mexican Government has been corrupt for decades. It’s too the point where the weight of its corruptive behaviors are unsustainable and subject to collapse. The cartels are filling a void. Your argument is we should follow by allowing our own people to use the product supplied by the cartels because you want to have an open supply route." Who argued that the Mexican central government is not corrupt? I personally prefer a central government to drug cartels running the border, but maybe that is just me. You also appear to completely miss the point for legalization. I don't want to "use product supplied by the cartels", I want to bypass the cartels with a legal product (grown in America is just fine) that removes the profit and smuggling incentives for cartels to be involved in the first place. JW said: "If all you really want is to get high, join Fred in one of those free thinking European bastions, no one is restraining you from leaving. You wouldn't last a year before you realized they have little, if anything to make your life satisfying. But your just a coward, your answer is to bring down the standards here." This is a rather pathetic personal attack that completely ignores all facts and even what you presumably already read in my prior posts. To wit; I don't use drugs and I don't have any desire to use drugs, either here or in some foreign country with a prostitute. I don't want my children to drink alcohol or use marijuana, just as I don't want them to become addicted to caffeine, cough syrup or ephedrine. I have read and believe studies showing that a certain percentage of the population will have addiction issues and that marijuana is no worse than alcohol, so that aside costing us more than we can afford, the "war on drugs" has no possibility of success as long as alternatives (such as alcohol) are available. Your own allusion to current addiction problems clearly demonstrates that the "war on drugs" has not prevented people from becoming addicts. You have zero evidence to support your contention that legalizing marijuana will increase the number or severity of drug addicts, yet you are blindly willing to throw billions of dollars annually at the problem and fund a well armed criminal cartel with the excessive profits from illegal drugs. Please refrain from your baseless personal attacks and spend more time supporting your baseless opinions with some facts.— April 28, 2009 7:56 p.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
JW, Could people become hooked on Heroin or Morphine? Sure, but that is just a straw man you set up, because nobody here has suggested legalizing LSD, heroin, opium or crystal meth. Nor has anybody suggested legalizing prostitution. Do you feel that our leaders are pushing you to become an alcoholic to control you? That is the level I am talking about. You are setting up a straw man by arguing against the assumption that if marijuana was legalized that morphine and prostitutes would be freely available and you could do anything you want to enjoy yourself. Legalizing marijuana (and possibly cocaine) and controlling the distribution, purity and dosage (not unlike alcohol) would lead to none of the doomsday scenarios that you describe, but would neuter the Mexican gangs smuggling operations. Aside from costing us unnecessary billions, the war on drugs has made the border lawless and destabilized the government of Mexico so that it is on the brink of collapse. We have to stop pretending that the war on drugs has been fought at an extremely high price with very little positive benefit to show for it but a a whole lot of negatives.— April 27, 2009 9:28 p.m.