Controlled Substances vs. Compassionate Use

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington: Watch Ashcroft v. Raich carefully. The government is upset that your citizens are finding relief for terminal and chronic conditions without lining the pockets of Pfizer, Merck and their co-conspirators.

What's the deal with drug laws anyway? They're so arbitrary, they don't even make any sense. "Uhh, tobacco, yeah that's legal because it's just a plant. It grows naturally. Marijuana on the other hand, well, yeah it's a plant too -- but it's an EVIL plant. You can tell because it's pointy."

Other ridiculousness:
-The TV ad that claims marijuana use is bad because it "often involves criminal activity." Well, no fucking shit. It's illegal. Would it often involve criminal activity if it weren't illegal? Is murder bad because it involves criminal activity, or is there another reason? This is like the poll after the election that showed 51% of the country satisfied with the results. I could have told you that, and I didn't need to conduct a poll to do it.

-The radio ad which claims that marijuana use is bad because "all teens who use cocaine also used marijuana." Therefore (the ad claims) marijuana use leads to cocaine use. Following the same logic train, all people who have been to the moon are men. Therefore, all men have been to the moon. More seriously, it seems much more likely that the kind of person who uses cocaine isn't likely to say to themselves: "Yeah, I do coke, but I draw the line there. That marrajoowanna is some wack shit."

Given the efficacy of the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on terror, I'm glad that the government and the 51-ers have declared war on science and logic. Things are looking up for the results-oriented, reality-based community.

(Incidentally, while searching Google for a picture of a tobacco leaf, I came across this picture. I think it's supposed to illustrate something about smoking, but I came away with a different impression.)