GG, have you seen this poll of "independent voters"?

H/T Raw Story for the link

http://tinyurl.com/27n94g

If it's at all valid, I wonder if there's any hope the "mainstream" candidates might wake up and smell the coffee...

Ondolette, you're clearly somebody who's more intelligent than most. What's going on w/ your argument against legalization? You obviously know legalization doesn't equal complete lack of regulation.

I believe the argument is that currently illegal drugs be subject to a tax/regulatory scheme similar to that with which we approach alcohol. And use the revenues generated for realistic educational initiatives. You know, like the ones that have helped drive down tobacco use.

...the rationale for legalization is NOT "the War on Some Drugs is a Failure so let's just throw in the towel". It's more along the lines of "mountains of empirical data prove beyond a scintilla of doubt that the War on Some Drugs appoach to minimizing the societal harm caused by drug abuse is nothing but COUNTER-productive". Those who actually wish to reduce the harm associated with drug abuse (and not ALL use is abuse) believe education is a big part of the solution. Incarceration is most definitely NOT a part of the solution.

I don't believe you would consciously raise a straw-man argument, but isn't that what the whole "open the flood-gates" argument is? Nobody (that I know) is advocating unlimited access to [anything]. We have all sorts of regulatory schemes for various substances (see, for example, tobacco, alcohol) that we don't want to be consumed willy-nilly by, f'rinstance, children.

I have no desire to rehash all the reasons why the WOSD is counter-productive. Go look @ NORML, or DPP, or Rand or Cato reports.

But to argue that legalize/tax/regulate will open the flood-gates for the 40 year-old virgin to OD on his Viagra and nitro is just, silly. Hell, that could happen now. That's why I was so surprised to see that from one of the most knowledgable of the regular commenters.

Helluva link.

I read somewhere that the DEA (routinely) tests certain municipal water supplies in order to "properly allocate their resources". Seems certain rural areas have high concentrations of methamphetamine metablolites, versus certain other alkaloids in say, South Beach. Go figure.

'Course when they performed my no peek visits, tweren't nuthin' but light beer (dark beer that's been passed through a bladder) to be found. No comment on the possible results from seven years ago.

Dunno what it says that I wanted to drop in here to say that...

Have a mimosa/eggnog/coffee for me. They're still legal even though it's Christmas, aren't they?

Look at the author and read the footnote(s)

http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/1312.html

Next thing you know, we'll have to question the existence of the Jolly Old Elf, himself.

Bah. HUMBUG!

Just after the new Iran NIE assessment came out, David Gregory was on the Diane Rehm show, talking about the fact that Iran was still very much a problem, still a threat.

I called in and, as part of my tirade, berated Gregory and the Corporate media for their ongoing complicity in Bush Administration war-mongering.

Gregory said something to the effect of (sorry, NOT a direct quote) [As far as the media enabling the Bush Administration, I've heard that at lot. But I venture to say the only reason you know what's going on is because you've heard it from 'the media'.]

I tried yelling in to the phone to tell him that the only reason I was reasonably well-informed was because I explicitly disregarded the tripe he and his ilk proferrs... but my line had been muted.

David Gregory: He STILL believes the only info we have on the Bush Admin. is what the Corporate media has deigned to share w/ us.

TPM has terrific interview w/ [somebody far more knowledgable than I] here:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062049.php

Read what I meant, not what I typed!

...this post needs quite a few more "Diggs".

Clearly, this is just exactly what our country desperately needs, what it is missing most -- a neoconservative, combat-avoiding, Bush-supporting, Middle-East-warmonger who sees U.S. and Israeli interests as indistinguishable and inextricably linked, with a fetish for ever-increasing government control and surveillance, and a background as a Wall St. billionaire. We just haven't had enough of those in our political culture. Our political system, more than anything, is missing the influence of people like that. That's why it's broken: not enough of those.

But here's an important point, I think.

In fact -- despite his steadfast neoconservatism -- it's hard to see how the candidacy of a divorced, unmarried, stridently pro-gun-control, pro-choice, socially liberal New York City billionaire would accomplish anything other than offering the Republicans their best hope of winning in 2008. All of this seems to be intended as punishment meted out by the Establishment to the Democrats -- using Bloomberg's billions as the weapon -- for not repudiating their loudmouth, restless liberal base strongly enough. That, more than anything, seems to be the oh-so-noble and trans-partisan purpose of David Broder, David Boren and Sam Nunn: to find a way to stifle the populist anger at our political establishment after 8 years of unrestrained Bush-Cheney devastation, increasingly represented (on the Democratic side) by the Scary, Angry, Intemperate John Edwards campaign.

[emphasis mine]

Looks weird, but I can't figure out the html tags. The quotes are GG's, from the post, obviously.

But this is "weird".

Kucinich the Surprise Winner in Virginia Dems Poll

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The strong showing of

grassroots support for Ohio Congressman and Democratic presidential

candidate Dennis Kucinich continues to be evident across the United States,

as the people's choice has just earned another victory in an online poll,

this time sponsored by the Democratic Party of Virginia.