I don't think there is enough of a quote there from Clinton to know what she is referring to.

Maybe it's early for me, but I don't understand either how you legalize possession of an ounce while keeping selling/distribution illegal AND have a rationale for that, or a functioning drug policy.

In Arizona, if you live within 25 miles or so of a dispensary it is illegal to grow your own pot.

And seeing the crackdowns on medical marijuana distributors in California by the Feds and the threatened crackdowns in Arizona, Washington, Colorado, I don't know where Jacob Sullum sees that either.

If selling is an illegal activity and the Feds are cracking down on it, I would not expect price of pot to be dropping much just because possession of an ounce is legal.

Jerry, I thought that was sort of the point of the article: legalizing possession, when there is no legal source to purchase the stuff, is just putting lipstick on the pig. Marijuana is sort of differnet because it's practical and fairly easy for the consumer to produce their own. But for other drugs, someone has to be able to make and sell the stuff legally, or it's pointless.

She says you can't legalize drugs because there's too much money in it. She thinks those who make so much money selling drugs have to be stopped.

If it was legal why would they have to be stopped?

She's a leftist. The the thought of other people making a lot of money selling drugs is itself enough reason to keep them illegal.

Leftists hate drug dealers for the same reason they hate big pharmaceutical companies: not because of the nature of the products they sell, but because they make a lot of money.

Ah, thank you Cousin Dave, your explanation, a reread, and a bit more caffeine have helped.

I think she meant to say that there is SO much money to be made by the state and its partners in carrying on the war on drugs.

Smartest woman in the world. Or, is that Michelle now days? And some wonder why I prefer Mrs. Palin.

So, we're talking about all psychoactive substances here?

It would be SO cool to be able to get codeine whenever I want it.

Hey, codeine was a pretty widely used recreational drug in the early 20th century.

And a thought occurred to me: would a lot of recreational drug users turn away from the likes of heroin and meth, and to less dangerous drugs, if those drugs could be legally obtained for recreational purposes? Things like codeine, lidocaine, Valium, Adderall. No doubt hard-core addicts will continue to pursue over-the-top drugs like heroin, but a lot of the less "serious" users could turn to safer drugs. Could be a public health win even if the total number of users goes up.

She's Dumb As Wet Cement

That's it, Amy. You just made the enemies list.

I have heard from a good friend, who is a nurse, that at least half the cruise business that docks in ports outside of the US is US citzens buying prescription medications that are over the counter in other countries.

That's an insult to cement - which will often have a noble purpose...

Has anyone on THIS blog talked about commercialization, regulation and legal distribution but me?

"Legalization" still doesn't have the same definition in argument for all the participants.

Apparently, pot fans think problems mysteriously vanish if you can't be busted for having weed in your pocket.

When you buy it, you will still fuel turf wars, funding the killing and the violation of American borders by smugglers. You're not cool, much less noble, for scoffing.

Has anyone on THIS blog talked about commercialization, regulation and legal distribution but me?

I suggested the example of Portugal's drug policies a while ago as a way to decriminalize and regulate. Remember that? Or were you too high on glue, cocaine and purple drank to remember?

I know I was. Ha ha ha ha ha. JUST KIDDING.

Natural highs are the best. Rocky mountAin high, Colorado. Rocky MoUNTain hii!!i!gh, Colorado.
Yodelay, yodelay, I did an old lady tooooo!

How will we legalize root beers?!

The Eighteenth Amendment made alcohol illegal for about 14 years. In that time you had the overgrowth of the FBI, the growth of the mafia, Al Capone, and so many other abuses by the government and by the alcohol traffickers (including the Kennedy's) it was ridiculous.

So now we are looking at the illegal war on drugs circa 1981. From that we have illegal searches, no-knock warrants, illegal confiscation in violation of the Fifth. Hell, there is a Third Amendment lawsuit going on (www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jul/11/constitutional-scholars-take-notice-lawsuit-agains/).

So if you make it legal and manufacturers can be above board, what would happen?

"Turf wars?"

You should see the turf wars, here in Minnesota, over farm fresh eggs. Brutal, just brutal. You betcha. And don't get me started on cucumbers.

"...but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped."

She means stopped from making too much money by having it seized by the government forces and through kickbacks and payouts/bribes to government officials. Government makes mucho buckos from keeping drugs illegal.

Making drugs illegal is essentially saying, "Let's just put criminals in charge of this segment of the economy!" This war on drugs is destroying communities all across America and the world. It has to stop.

off topic; but, I am so going to use that phrase "as dumb as wet cement."

I think all of Washington is "wet cement."

"I hear Jimmy overdosed on Walgreens heroin last weekend".

'Doesn't that stuff come with a warning label?'

"Yeah. Stupid bastard ignored the instructions."

'Wow. This sucks. Now we need a fourth for poker night.'

Does anyone REALLY expect a potential 2016 presidential candidate - most of the time, anyway - to speak in favor of legalizing drugs?

Ridiculous. Not that it wouldn't be a good idea, but....