Join me on Facebook!
Follow me on Twitter!
More 'toons here!
Or subscribe here.
This cartoon is lame. It makes the artist look inexperienced and ignorant about these issues.
Finally a liberal-leaning antidote to the neocon/conspiracy views of the "other side." Thank you.
leaglize pot and a lot of the crime will go away.
Mark watch the History Channel show on Wyatt Earp it tells of the border wars when Earp was sheriff. The outlaws were American cowboy rustlers and the US would not enforce laws, for the buyers and shippers packers and butchers were all profiting off it. When profit is involved no government will interfere.
hey Mark, guess i found something I disagree with you about and this is a BIG disagreement. And you even put marijuana in the same group as all those other S--T drugs. And you can put alcohol in that S--T category as well. I always thought you were enlightened because you inhaled. Ummm...
Drugs is drugs. (Although I do think alcohol can be more harmful than pot.) And alcohol traffickers don't shoot people (anymore) like the narcos do.
Alcohol traffickers certainly DID shoot people before they legalized alcohol. AND, now we have special places just to drink the stuff. I sure would rather be driving on the freeway with a lot of high drivers than with a lot of drunk drivers!
"drugs is drugs" = pathetic comment from someone who is supposed to enlightnen us and not obscure/dumb-down issues. Also marijuana is not a narcotic by any reasonable standards. Officially labeling it such was a propaganda and control move by our corrupt government. It is a mild psychedelic.
Who says he's supposed to elighten us, he's drawing a cartoon to entertain us. If you can't educate yourself educated it's not his fault, it's yours. And for the purpose of the DEA, drug running, crime syndicates and the misery and violence that breed on this trade, "drugs is drugs".
Just because it doesn't sit with your hippy chic view, doesn't mean it aint the truth. Oh and i'm a lifelong smoker myself, but I don't claim that my breaking the law is society's fault.
and after all, Vioxx (alone) only killed 30,000 people (lowball estimate) and that's only, like, 10 times as many as died in the WTC, what's all the fuss?
Alcohol traffickers don't shoot people? Ever heard of Al Capone?
Or little illegal pubs called speak-easys? Illegal, that is until they repealed prohibition. I guess personal rights can only extend to whatever the majority thinks is appropriate.
or maybe he said "anymore" in his post..
Ya but how many people die each year from driving drunk? More than weed has ever killed...
keep it local folks...works in canada
Perfectly said. The little dopers on this side of the border are keeping this going.
I have nothing against legalized pot use.
It reeks, kills brain cells like nobody's business, screws up brain chemistry, and subjects the user to more than half of the oral/bronchial health risks associated with cigarettes, but if people want to piss away the hours in a drug-induced haze, it's no skin off my nose.
Plus, California could use a cash crop right about now.
let's see how many lies we can dispell here,.. 2 recent US medical studies have blown the "kills Brain cells", and the "10 times as much lung damage as cigarettes" lies completely out of the water..but how many of YOU would rather associate with pissy, hair-trigger DRUNKS than with NON-hostile stoners??
This doen't even qualify as "damming with faint praise".. this is pure dog-in-the-manger BS!!!!!!
> 2 recent US medical studies have blown the "kills Brain cells"
Medical studies from the Institute for Cannabis Science? :P
Let's get some references.
> and the "10 times as much lung damage as cigarettes"
Which is a claim I've never made, nor heard, nor would believe.
I suspect it would be closer to 1 blunt = 1 cigarette, being that you're inhaling the same ash/tar into your lungs.
Or perhaps 1 blunt = 1/2 cigarette, since the former is less laden with arsenic and formaldehyde.
> but how many of YOU would rather associate with pissy, hair-trigger DRUNKS than with NON-hostile stoners
I'd prefer not associating with either. (At least not while they're drugged up.)
I help out at an employment resource center here in TO. I meet quite a few 40- and 50-year-old's that are/were chronic users--usually back in their country of origin. I won't say that "they never fail to have greater memory and comprehension problems" than their peers, but I can vouch that there's a very strong correlation.
Studies on long-term memory loss and brain damage are inevitably hindered by 'confounding factors'. People that light up also tend to drink more, eat unhealthier foods, and take poorer care of themselves. It's difficult to compensate for these factors when running long-term drug studies.
"Central effects of cannabinoids include disruption of psychomotor behaviour, short-term memory impairment, intoxication, stimulation of appetite, antinociceptive actions (particularly against pain of neuropathic origin) and anti-emetic effects. Although there are signs of mild cognitive impairment in chronic cannabis users there is little evidence that such impairments are irreversible, or that they are accompanied by drug-induced neuropathology."
Barring the oral/bronchial bit, you could be describing alcohol. Of course, booze makes up in other areas. Pot is no worse (and in some ways better) than already-legal self-poisoning products; the only reason it ISN'T legal already is that there wasn't an industry dominating several states and supported by numerous politicians who founded the country for pot back then, and people of a conservative bent are resistant to facts when the facts point to change from their comfortable ruts.
> people of a conservative bent are resistant to facts
The 'facts' being that marijuana is (as you so aptly put it) another self-poisoning product.
Read the OP. I agree with you. Legalize it. California can use the tax money.
...Really, really use the tax money.
I still think you're foolish to light up. Nothing screams "Don't respect me." quite like recreational drug use.
> Nothing screams "Don't respect me." quite like recreational drug use.
Actually, I can think of a few things. Being a hyper-judgmental, condescending jerk, for example.
If I recall, when Vicente Fox was President of Mexico he was a day or two away from legalizing personal use of drugs in Mexico but our Presidnet Bush stepped in at the last minute and pressure him from withdrawing that stance.
Within 6 months the drug violence escalated. Had they legalized it they could have created an Amsterdam type tourist industry and had less illegal crossings here, not to mention thousands of lives saved in Mexico. Once again, Bush's policies lead to death. He should be #1 in the war crimes tribunal. Did I go off on a tangent? ;-)
I love to imagine if suddenly the Presidents of both countries, USA and Mexico would have a televised statement and say, "Congress has determined that the war on drugs has failed and passed an emergency bill legalizing all previously illegal drugs. Yep, heroine, cocaine, marjuana, LSD, and etc... You have freedom to choose and its your body, you can do with it what you want. However, if you cause harm to anyone, causing their injury or death by use of these drugs, you can be found guilty of manslaughter or murder. All drug enforcement departments will now be assisting in drug rehab facilities."
The cartels and gangs would be out of business ASAP. And not to mentions all the alphabet agencies... CIA, DEA, ATF, FBI, etc...
Oh, it's a dream...
This is why they can't legalize all this stuff: We--you---us would have to be willing to pay for the health problems associated with the use of the addicting drugs, the children born with nervous system defects?
Better yet, people could work on the fundamental, underlying causes of their addictions and suffering and need to check-out. That could have a profound effect on the society we find difficult to co-exist in.
I'm talking from experience. It's so much better to feel healthy from not smoking, drinking, drug taking.
Umm... Excuse me, but we're -already- paying for the health problems associated with the use of drugs. Under the current rules we also get to pay for imprisoning drug addicts, and getting entangled in a never ending 'war' on drug traffickers.
Mark, I love your work and generally(though not always) agree with your views, but on this one, you missed the mark by a mile.
ALL the violence, killing, corruption, money-laundering, ect associated with drugs, is 100% the inevitable result of drug PROHIBITION. Drug prohibition is nothing more than both:
A)An employemnt guarantee program for otherwise-unemployable drug
prohibition jackboots that couldn't make it in the private sector.
B) A profit guarantee program for the drug traffickers, who'd be out of business overnite, should recreational drugs be legalized and regulated, taxed and sold as alcohol now is.
Blaming some harmless pothead for the violence that may or may not have occured somewhere along the way between the plant in the ground, and his purchase of pot from his local dealer, when the REAL cause for all the harm and violence is drug *prohibition*, is rather disingenious. The War on Drugs is like peeing in your boots,and then complaining that your feet are wet.
Huh, I thought that's exactly the point he was trying to make. That all that killing by the cartels would stop if it was legal to purchase pot and etc... I guess I missed the point...which was probably the part of boycotting the narcomex by not buying the drugs, which would stop the killing etc... Nope, it will stop when they legalize it.
I agree with you Anonymous.
+ 1 for homegrown! :)
There is, of course, the small problem that the police and military of Mexico long-since took over the drug trade from there. What? You want them to live on *those* salaries?
We need good jobs for jackboots. What else could those people be doing? It's better than sinking all that money into the military. Doh!
"Narco Mex, Incorporated": Another bit of yellow journalism from Mark Fiore. It's hard to imagine greater idiocy than the implied contention in this latest Mark Fiore cartoon that a consumer boycott of marijuana would affect the drug cartels of Mexico. Or a greater lie than alledged link between marijuana and heroin and cocaine that Fiore implicitly alledges in the piece. In point of fact, the best marijuana comes from California's Humbolt and Mendocino counties, with Hawaian products not all that far behind. Not from Mexico. And is (relatively) unassociated with violent crime.
To be sure, there is a (weak and backhanded) plea for the rational step of legalization of marijuana in the cartoon. But it's buried in false and confused inuendos.
Anyway, all of the violence to Americans by the drug cartels of Mexico is minor comared to the violence done to Americans due to lack of universal and quality health care coverage, lack of acess to free, quality education, and lack of access to quality, frequent intra and inter urban 24/7/365 public transit that puts Americans into the carnage-producing devices known as auotmobiles. How about the violence to Mexican (and other) immigrant "undocumented" workers, hyper exploited in American meat packing and other plants?
I know the tendency is to draw three fingers and one thumb in the post-Peanuts era, but why don't you try to be a rebel ? Go, draw that pinky ! Your style and the medium permit it.
Heh-heh, nice observation. I still think five fingers on a cartoon hand just looks weird and over-fingered.
I guess the alternate title of this animation could be, "Grow Local."
More information about formatting options