You might want to fix this typo, Glenn -

Portugal has among the best drug usage rates both within the EU and outisde

You sure got a heckuva lot of MSM coverage. Was that due to a shifting of the winds in terms of the topic under discussion, do you suppose? Or did Cato simply pick the right guy to perform/present the study?

The link to this article must've come from GG, but I can't find it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/apr/02/torture-human-rights

And I must be misinterpreting it, no? Mohamed's lawyers face jail time for sending the fully redacted memo to POTUS*!?

Stafford Smith had written to the president after judges in the UK ruled against the release of US evidence detailing Mohamed's alleged torture at Guantánamo. The letter [PDF] asked the president to reconsider the US position and urged him to release the evidence into the public domain. He attached a memo summarising the case because his US security clearance gives him access to the classified material. In order to comply with classification guidelines, the memo did not identify individual officers by name or specify locations of the abuse.

He and Gappour submitted the memo to the privilege team for clearance but the memo was redacted to just the title, leaving the president unable to read it. Stafford Smith included the redacted copy of the memo in his letter to illustrate the extent to which it had been censored. He described it as a "bizarre reality". "You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command."

The privilege team argue that by releasing the redacted memo Reprieve has breached the rules that govern Guantánamo lawyers and have made a complaint to the court of "unprofessional conduct".

Merits a "hard kill"

Pulling up notebook right now...

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/209

or sig

No more need for my Twitter account...

Just reading him's enough to make me want to feckin puke!

This struck me -

Rubin, Summers and Greenspan succeeded in inducing Congress -- funded, of course, by these same financial firms -- to enact legislation blocking the CFTC from regulating these derivative markets.

I bet the history of that leg (written by, sponsors, committee history, voting) would tell a tale.

Aside @ GG: I listened to the Izzy speeches, Glenn. I've said this before, but I really get a kick out of listening to you talk. It helps that I've read most of your stuff, so I have a general idea of your thought processes, but I always learn something new from listening to you extemporaneate. [Hey! I made up a new word I think!]

It will remain enshrined as the most "meta" comment ever.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/02/portugal/permalink/03355019e2b22f84943068532debc6d3.html

And apparently, some people aren't allowed to use it all. [snicker!]

Ha-ha!

Do some research of your own. Start w/ GG's paper.

Here are some other "authorities" in re: cannabis decrim.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3382

or sig

For other drugs, try here...

http://www.harmreduction.org/

I lack the requisite typing skills for discussion. I disagree w/ you though. Here's why.

Prohibition per se does little to lessen the very problems w/ which you are concerned. Prohibition simply increases the harm of drug abuse.

Education and treating abuse as a Health issue (vs. a Criminal issue) decreases the harm from abuse. The data supports this. Glenn's paper is far from the only data point.

Prohibition is, in a nutshell, COUNTERproductive.

Wha' happened? I only see letters from pow wow, ondelette, and Greenwald...

PDA is right. So nice to see that msg.

8')

From now on, folks, if I don't respond - it's because I ain't listenin'!

Does anybody know how to spel "Greeenwold"?

Do you know the likely path to "Notepad" so I can designate it as my text editor in order to input my author list?

Tks!

Holy cow, Glenn! I'm not exactly impartial, but that, THAT, was your best "TV" ever!

Man, I'm compelled to say you lived up to to Rachel M.'s characterization. That was (as the little kid in "The Incredibles" says after Bob Parr trashes his car) AWESOME!

Or maybe she's bemused by the anonymity/confusion.

I think Amity's a she.

Ain't your linky just the proverbial bite in the balls...

Thanks for the heads up, I guess.

Marcy Wheeler on your question...

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/31/durbin-and-whitehouse-why-did-mukasey-give-olc-a-peek-at-the-yoobradbury-results/

or sig

I'm affirmatively PRO-pot. Yes, I understand what I'm saying.

And I hope this thread doesn't unravel entirely within a page or two.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/us/politics/01terror.html?_r=1&ref=washington

...was that not the funniest take-down, perhaps, ever? When they do the cut-back to Colbert in that get-up after the bit about how we all felt on 9/12? He kills.

GG, how went the event? Do you get to enjoy Ithaca at all?

I think it might be rather easily and emphatically demonstrated that virtually all "outside" participation has been excluded by the ongoing internecine polemic.

I'd wager [thread] readership has declined drastically as well.

Maybe that would pique somebody's interest.

Most American Nazi's you see in the media have been Jewish.

Why on earth would i want to post at Stormfront?

-- Shootingsparks

If you'd care to send your email to bamage02 at yahoo dot com I will address you offline.

Certain posters refrain from demonstrating with virtually every post that they prefer belligerence to rational discourse?

As well as "ignore" capability, there ought to be a linky to an individual's profile, where anybody interested could see, for example, Cole D'Biers' ignored "list of stupid brain-dead jagoffs whom [s/he doesn't] wish to read."

That way, we'd all know who irritates who. That'd be good for a few laughs, wouldn't it?