The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs

Posted on | July 2, 2016 | 137 Comments

“Many young people turned to drugs and immoral lifestyles; these youth became known as hippies. They went without bathing, wore dirty, ragged, unconventional clothing, and deliberately broke all codes of politeness or manners. Rock music played an important part in the hippie movement and had great influence over the hippies. Many of the rock musicians they followed belonged to Eastern religious cults or practiced Satan worship.”
America: Land I Love

Socialism, drug abuse and sexual perversion — during the 1960s, the connections between these phenomena were the subject of much discussion in America as university campuses erupted in protests, drug-addled hippies crowded into San Francisco and the so-called Sexual Revolution emerged in all its polymorphous variations. Naive dreams of “peace” and “love” in the groovy Age of Aquarius quickly came crashing down in the squalor, madness and murder of Altamont, the Manson cult, and the explosion that killed three Weather Underground terrorists. By 1970, any intelligent person who ever believed in all that hippie utopian nonsense had abundant evidence to inspire a reconsideration of their misguided idealism. Yet most of these young radicals never turned back from their destructive mission and the remaining survivors of the Sixties, now in their 70s or 80s, occasionally turn up in TV documentaries reminiscing fondly about how glorious it all was.

During a February radio interview, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert was asked about the surge of support for self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democrat presidential primary. Gohmert blamed the influence of “hippies from the Sixties” who gained tenure as university professors and, by “teaching the teachers” had succeeded in “rewriting history and keeping [young people] from realizing socialism has never worked, it will never work in this world.” Gohmert’s quote was featured on left-wing blogs as one of those Crazy Things Republicans Say, yet it was a simple statement of fact. Anyone can examine, e.g., the career of Bill Ayers, the terrorist who became a professor of education. Gohmert cited the example of Ayers in a subsequent interview with Stuart Varney on Fox Business Channel in which he said, “If you go to teach as a professor in the universities and you teach the teachers, then the teachers go down and miseducate the young people.”

The phenomenon described by Gohmert is well-documented. Roger Kimball’s 1990 book Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education is a good starting point for anyone who wants to understand this problem. One of the great difficulties in explaining this to young people is that they know practically nothing about the Cold War and the reality of the Soviet menace. For more than 40 years, the central fact of American politics was that the United States was leading what John F. Kennedy called “a long twilight struggle” against the threat of Communist tyranny. However, because anti-American leftists have captured control of the teaching of history in our universities, what little students learn about the Cold War is taught from what can only be described as a pro-Communist perspective. In their 2003 book In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage, John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr show the extent to which academic historians deliberately obscure and distort the truth about Soviet-backed espionage in the 1940s and ’50s. Academia’s commitment to indoctrinating students with an anti-American worldview can perhaps be best understood by examining how “McCarthyism” is presented as an irrational paranoia — a “witch hunt” that wrongly targeted innocent liberals with false accusations — when in fact, the American Communist Party (CPUSA) was a Kremlin-controlled instrument of subversion that harbored Soviet spies. M. Stanton Evans’ 2007 book Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies is a must-read for anyone interested in “McCarthyism.” What a careful reader discerns is that McCarthy was not, as he has been falsely portrayed by liberals, a man who ran around accusing people of being Communist spies. The FBI was doing an excellent job of breaking up Soviet espionage networks, and needed no help from Senator McCarthy in that regard. Instead, in his investigation of policies that permitted Soviet spies to infiltrate the federal government in the 1930s and ’40s, McCarthy was seeking to identify the officials responsible for lax security policies that had made this penetration possible. What almost no one knew at the time was that the Venona decryptions of Soviet diplomatic messages had enabled U.S. intelligence to learn specifics of the Soviet espionage operation. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover passed along very valuable information to McCarthy, but because the source of this information was a closely guarded secret, it was impossible for McCarthy to show the proof of how he knew what he knew. This is why so many people wrongly believe McCarthy was “discredited” and that he was engaged in a reckless “witch hunt.” It is true that McCarthy was an imperfect man who made mistakes, but as Evans’ book amply documents, McCarthy was a patriot, and a better man than his enemies. Furthermore, as Evans demonstrates by citing the facts of case after case, Joe McCarthy was right.

Ignorance of Cold War history is a major reason so many young Americans are unable to understand why the collapse of the Soviet Union — “the Evil Empire,” as Ronald Reagan famously called it — proved the futility of socialism. If the Bolsheviks had been unable to bring about the egalitarian utopia promised by Marx and Engels, and if tens of millions of innocent people had died in the disastrous effort to implement “the dictatorship of the proletariat,” was this not sufficient proof that socialism was a deadly error? Yet the facts of Marxist-Leninist failure are deliberately obscured, and a dishonest version of Cold War history is promulgated, by the left-wing professors who dominate academia.

In a similar manner, the history of the Sixties has for many years been taught as a triumph of Progress, in which enlightened Youth overthrew the oppressive forces of right-wing bigotry and intolerance. Any young person who wishes to disabuse themselves of this counterfactual hippie mythology can start by reading Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. They were both leading activists of the New Left during the 1960s, as editors of the radical journal Ramparts, but by the 1970s they had become disillusioned and, in the 1980s, emerged as supporters of Ronald Reagan. Until you have read Destructive Generation, you really can’t claim to understand what went wrong in the 1960s, and almost no one employed as a professor at any American university will acknowledge this lesson. Nearly every “educated” young person nowadays accepts without question the triumph-of-Progress narrative of the Sixties. This probably explains why recovering cocaine addict Tiernan Hebron, who graduated from San Francisco State University in 2014 with a degree in psychology, was arrested while protesting topless for Bernie Sanders.


Commie dopehead sex maniacs — how did American society travel full circle and end up in this weird time warp flashback to the 1960s? Well, the true history of the Sixties has been suppressed, which is why left-wing blogger John Avarosis freaked out in 2013 upon discovering that some private Christian schools in Louisiana were teaching the truth about hippies. The quote about “drugs and immoral lifestyles” of dirty Satan-worshipping hippies was featured in Avarosis’ blog after he learned this eighth-grade history book, from the Christian homeschooling publisher A Beka, was being used by some schools enrolling students whose tuition was funded by a new K-12 voucher program enacted by Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature. Ask yourself this: Why does a liberal blogger care so much what Louisiana kids learn about hippies?

This answer is that what we believe about history has a lot to do with what we believe about politics and, furthermore, Marxism is based on a specific theory known as historical materialism: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels declared in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, and by teaching children history from this perspective, the leftists who control the education system indoctrinate our nation’s youth with a worldview that is anti-capitalist, anti-American and anti-Christian. Why do you think a University of Southern California student would vow her intention to destroy “our capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy”? The answer is as simple as two words: Public education.

Commie dopehead sex maniacs are celebrated as heroes in the history taught in American public schools, and liberals are shocked to think that anyone would dare criticize the drug-addled hippies of the Sixties.

Testimony by an Expert Witness

What effect did hallucinogenic drug use have on the hippies? What role did this phenomenon play in the political and social upheavals that began during the 1960s? By a strange coincidence, one of my readers is a relative of a recognized expert on this subject. Friday morning I got an email about Dr. Harvey Powelson, who had been staff psychiatrist with the student health service at the University of California-Berkeley. The reader mentioned Dr. Powell’s critical views about the early push to provide contraceptives to UC students, in the context of what I wrote Thursday about “sexually active” people and the herpes epidemic. However, the reader also mentioned Dr. Powelson’s pioneering research on the effects of marijuana use. Dr. Powelson expanded on what is known as “amotivational syndrome,” i.e., the tendency of marijuana users to become idle and lose ambition, concluding in 1971 “that the effects of marihuana are cumulative . . . that after a period of prolonged use a disorder of thinking characterized by a lack of coherence and a pathological thinking process results.” Because of his expertise, Dr. Powelson was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1974, and I will quote here his statement at that hearing:

In 1965, I was chief of the Department of Psychiatry in the Student Health Service at the University of California in Berkeley. It was the first year of the student riots. It was also the first year that hallucinogens were becoming widely used and I, as the person responsible for mental health on the campus, was vigorously involved in the debate about psilocybin, LSD, and mescaline.
In the spring of that year a reporter for the Daily Californian, the student newspaper, asked for my opinion on marijuana. At that time I lacked any direct experience as a physician with marijuana users. The medical literature was sparse, but in general seemed to be saying that there was no proof of long-term harmful effects from marijuana. I summarized this for the reporter and said there was no proof of harm and that it should be legalized and controlled. In general, this view met with approval from most of the students and most of my professional colleagues.
In 1965, the use of marijuana spread through the Berkeley campus. Simultaneously its use was spreading to all the colleges and universities across the country. From the campus communities it spread at an accelerating rate through the surrounding communities. By now its use is subject to no age, social, or geographical barriers.
My place of observation was unique. I was routinely meeting with deans and administrators who were dealing with the drug problem and the students who were in academic and disciplinary difficulties as a consequence of the use of marijuana and its derivatives.
Most importantly, I was in daily contact with the constant flow of students through the student health service and the psychiatric clinic and hospital.
During this time (1965-1972) an increasing number of patients were using marijuana. My best guess, based on surveys and impressions, is that more than 80 per cent used it at one time or another in college. More than 50 per cent used it “socially” (1-2 times per week), and about 10 per cent were heavy users (at least 1 time daily).
My first important shift in thinking occurred as a result of observations made during psychotherapy with a young man, S., who was bright enough to be getting his law degree and Ph.D simultaneously and competent enough to be learning to fly and deal in real estate at the same time. As we proceeded in our work together, I came to know S.’s way of thinking: i.e., how he thought. Most of us do this without thinking about it. All of us come to know to some degree the way our friends and colleagues think. In therapy, the opportunity to hear someone think out loud about a problem important to him maximizes the opportunity to come to know how he uses or misuses logic, remembers clearly or not at all, does or does not exercise good judgment about his own thinking, and whether he is able to know his own feelings. We had made enough headway so that S. had begun to be able to observe and understand his own thinking. Periodically, we had hours (I was seeing him twice weekly) when his thinking became mushy. If I tried to follow him, my head began to spin. When I protested that he’d become impossible to listen to, he’d argue that his own experience was that he was thinking more clearly, more insightfully, than ever. On one such occasion, he mentioned that he’d been to a party two nights before where he’d had particular good “grass.” In Berkeley, 1968, that was not a particularly memorable remark, but we thought there might be some connection with his thinking. This same series of events recurred often enough so that I finally was able to [diagnose after the fact] that S. had some “mind-expanding drug,” usually marijuana.
S., because he was a good observer, helped show me another aspect of the thinking disorder I’m describing. Central to his difficulties was a paranoid stance toward the world. By this I mean a style of thinking characterized by a constant suspicion that one is being controlled; e.g., by the establishment, the system, etc.; and simultaneously a constant unwitting search for people and situations which will do just that; e.g., drugs, demagogues. If this manner of thinking is carried further, it blends into the condition usually called paranoia. Here the subject is controlled by voices, God, or whatever, and at the same time, he is very often “against his will” being controlled by a state hospital or jail. S. was forever talking about his search for someone or something he could trust. He very frequently clutched to himself people who were totally untrustworthy and hurt and rejected others who manifestly admired him.
When he had used marijuana, his thinking became more paranoid, i.e., he became more mistrustful of me, for instance, and at the same time, he became more wily so that he talked glibly, using cliches, theories, and “insights,” all to avoid noticing concretely and immediately whatever he was really doing and feeling in his relationship with me, as well as his relationships outside. In short, the pathological part of his thinking was exaggerated in two ways:
(1) he was more suspicious and
(2) he was more adept at fooling himself about what he was up to, while simultaneously maintaining how “aware,” “in touch,” and “loving” he was.
S. continued in therapy but also continued to use marijuana and hashish. Toward the end of his therapy I decided that so long as he muddied his thinking in this way, there was no use continuing. He, however, suffered a fatal accident (as a result of an error in judgment) before his therapy was terminated.
As I was becoming familiar with these effects of marijuana on S., I gradually learned to pick up signs when they were more subtle. I came to observe the same changes in others, i.e., that marijuana exacerbated the pathological aspects of their thinking.
Following the above described observations, I saw the same picture more and more frequently. The essence of the pattern is that with small amounts of marijuana (approximately three joints of street grade), memory and time sense are interfered with. With regular usage the active principles cause more and more distorted thinking. The user’s field of interest gets narrower and narrower as he focuses his attention on immediate sensation. At the same time his dependence and tolerance is growing. As he uses more of the drug, his ability to think sequentially diminishes. Without his awareness, he becomes less and less adequate in areas where judgment, memory, and logic are necessary. As this happens, he depends more and more on pathological patterns of thinking. Ultimately all heavy users (i.e., daily users) develop a paranoid way of thinking.
After I had become aware of the generality of this sequence, another reporter from the Daily Californian interviewed me to see if my opinions had changed in the interim. In the course of that interview, I realized in a concrete and explicit way that they had. The headline read, “Psychiatrist says pot smokers can’t think straight.” This time the response of the community and colleagues was not so approving. It is an interesting fact that questioning the claims of marijuana users leads to much more anger, vilification, and character assassination than does the opposite stance.
In subsequent years in Berkeley, both at the clinic and in my private practice, I have observed the long-term effects of cannabis. Originally, my observation was that students who had “dropped out” into the “drug scene” and were attempting to return were finding it difficult if not impossible. A frequent story is that the young person has become aware that the life he’s been leading is unsatisfactory and unproductive. He then stops drugs for six months or so and re-enters the university. When he returns to school, however, he finds that he can’t think clearly and that, in ways he finds difficult to describe, he can’t use his mind in the way he did before. Such people also seem to be aware that they’ve lost their will some place, that to do something, to do anything, requires a gigantic effort; they have become will-less — what we call anomie. They need an external director. They are ripe for a demagogue.
The changes in the capacity to think in some subjects are long lasting, if not permanent. One of my original (1967) subjects was a member of the junior faculty. He “dropped out” and used hashish exclusively for 18 months in daily doses. When he realized that it was interfering with his physical coordination, he stopped all drugs. Two years subsequent to this he returned to the university. He found that he could not do mathematics at a level which he had found possible before. Three and a half years later, his conviction was that the change was permanent. My own observations of him and other such gifted people have led me to the same conclusion, that the damage may be permanent.
My stance toward marijuana has shifted to the extent I now think it is the most dangerous drug we must contend with for the following reasons:

1. Its early use is beguiling. It gives the illusion of feeling good. The user is not aware of the beginning loss of mental functioning. I have never seen an exception to the observation that marijuana impairs the user’s ability to judge the loss of his own mental functioning.
2. After one to three years of continuous use, the ability to think has become so impaired that pathological forms of thinking begin to take over the entire thought process.
3. Chronic heavy use leads to paranoid thinking.
4. Chronic heavy use leads to deterioration in body and mental functioning which is difficult and perhaps impossible to reverse.
5. For reasons which I can’t elucidate here, its use leads to a delusional system of thinking which has inherent in it the strong need to seduce and proselytize others. I have rarely seen a regular marijuana user who wasn’t actively “pushing.”

As these people move into government, the professions, and the media, it is not surprising that they continue as “pushers”, thus continuously adding to the confusion that this committee is committed to ameliorate.

This concluding paragraph of Dr. Powelson’s testimony is important. The tendency of marijuana users to “proselytize” others, he suggested, was observable in the efforts to push for decriminalization of marijuana, a proposal that the Senate committee in 1974 was addressing. A few years later, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, there was a significant rollback of federal “War on Drugs” (begun under Richard Nixon). One reason the Left so hated the 12-year White House tenure of Reagan-Bush was that the War on Drugs was renewed.

‘Pathological Patterns of Thinking’

It is also worthwhile noticing what Dr. Powelson said about how his marijuana-using patient, despite being illogical to the point of incoherence, insisted “he was thinking more clearly, more insightfully, than ever.” The long-term user “becomes less and less adequate in areas where judgment, memory, and logic are necessary” and develops “pathological patterns of thinking.” Because this psychological effect is cumulative, after the heavy marijuana quits and tries to go back to a normal life, he finds himself unable to function at the level he did before he started using — or at least, that was Dr. Powelson’s conclusion based on his clinical experience in the late 1960s. Dopeheads don’t like to admit that their habit has any harmful effect, and as Dr. Powelson told the Senate, experts who disagreed with pro-marijuana arguments became targets of “anger, vilification, and character assassination.”

Sic semper hoc.

Misery loves company, and dopeheads with “pathological patterns of thinking” don’t like being told they have a problem. Because “marijuana impairs the user’s ability to judge the loss of his own mental functioning,” as Dr. Powelson observed, it becomes impossible for the dopehead to recognize that he is suffering the symptoms of long-term use. The paranoia described by Dr. Powelson often takes the form of reversals and projections, so that the dopehead contends that the “system” is the problem, rather than his own drug-influenced beliefs and behaviors.

Do you remember Professor Erik Loomis? He is the academic expert on homosexual lumberjacks who, in 2012, became notorious because of his deranged violent remarks about Second Amendment activists. It was Professor Loomis who inspired me to remark: “When I said that the mentally ill should be in institutions, public universities weren’t the kind of institutions I had in mind.” Readers will perhaps not be surprised to learn that Professor Loomis is in favor of legalizing marijuana and unionizing workers in the marijuana industry.

When weirdos like Professor Loomis are hired at taxpayer expense to teach history, what does this tell us about the values of academia? And what happens when these warped values become widely accepted? One effect is that, as abnormal behavior is increasingly seen as acceptable by the intellectual elite, society is expected to tolerate these behaviors and we begin “defining deviancy down,” as Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed:

I proffer the thesis that [since the mid-1960s] the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can “afford to recognize” and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the “normal” level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. . . .

Among the examples Moynihan discussed were the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and the breakdown of the family. He observed that “a large increase in what once was seen as deviancy has provided opportunity to a wide spectrum of interest groups that benefit from re-defining the problem as essentially normal and doing little to reduce it.” As divorce and unwed motherhood became redefined as “normal,” the problems so often experienced by fatherless children became normalized, too. Violence between street gangs — often fighting over “turf” in their drug-trafficking operations — has turned many major cities into war zones. In Chicago, there have already been 333 homicides so far this year; in the month of June alone, more than 400 people in Chicago were shot, 67 of whom died of their wounds. Murder is so common in Chicago that this incessant carnage — averaging about a dozen homicides a week — is not even considered newsworthy by the national media.

The tendency toward making “previously stigmatized” behavior exempt from criticism, to tolerate behavior that was considered “abnormal by any earlier standard,” is most obvious in the area of sexuality, where academia has led the way in destigmatizing perversion.

In 2001, for example, a University of Cincinnati professor published an article entitled “The Myth of the Heterosexual: Anthropology and Sexuality for Classicists.” This built on the professor’s earlier work, “The Teratogenic Grid,” published in the 1997 anthology Roman Sexualities. More recently, he contributed a chapter entitled “Sex, Popular Beliefs, and Culture” to the 2011 anthology A Cultural History of Sexuality in the Classical World. The Yale-educated professor’s influential work popularized the idea that the ancient Greeks and Romans did not classify sexual behavior by categories that we recognize today.


Also, we might note, nowhere in the works of Plato or Cicero do we find a phrase that can be translated as “child pornography.”

University of Cincinnati professor
arrested on child pornography charges

A University of Cincinnati professor has been arrested on child porn charges. According to court papers, Holt Parker told agents that he’s collected hundreds of videos and images of child pornography. He told them he traded child porn every day. Parker answered to charges in court on March 16. A federal judge ordered him held on $250,000 bond.
The FBI says agents arrested Parker on charges of distribution and receipt of child pornography in Clifton on March 15. He’s also charged with “destruction of property to prevent seizure”, for allegedly trying to destroy a thumb drive as agents were entering his home. They say he told them he’d recently downloaded thousands of files. . . .
He allegedly told them he started trading child porn online five or six years ago.
When the FBI came to his home, they say Parker apologized to his wife for his behavior and for ruining their lives, according to court papers. He allegedly told them he’d planned to commit suicide if he was caught.

In his online trading of child pornography, Professor Holt used the identity “Mr. Cruel Daddy,” with an email account he had created in 2008. That account was linked to another account, “Anne Thrax,” that Professor Holt evidently created in 1998. Professor Holt’s wife, Barbara Burrell, who has a Ph.D. from Harvard, is also a professor at the University of Cincinnati. So this Yale-educated professor married to a Harvard-educated professor, apparently spent 10 years online using the fake female identity “Anne Thrax” before creating a another identity “Cruel Daddy,” and admitted to the FBI he had been trading child pornography over the Internet since 2010. He had thousands of files.

This is probably another random coincidence, like the case of University of Southern California Professor Walter Lee Williams, who was sentenced to five years in prison in 2014 for “flying to the Philippines and sexually assaulting underage boys he had met online.” Professor Williams was co-editor of a 1997 book, Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia, and also co-edited the 2003 book Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States: A Documentary History. A random coincidence . . .

In May, Indiana police arrested Ball State University math instructor Brian Kenneth Siebenaler, 48, on child pornography charges. A search found “thousands of images (and) videos of nude and semi-nude boys.” Siebenaler reportedly told police he had developed an “interest in boys about 10 to 15 years ago.” A random coincidence . . .

Also in May, former University of Nebraska-Kearney psychology professor Joseph Benz, 55, guilty of “possessing more than 20,000 child pornography images on his computer, including images of babies being sexually assaulted.” This was probably just a random coincidence . . .

In April, police in Pennsylvania arrested Villanova University history and classical studies professor Christopher Haas, 60, on charges of possessing more than 400 images of child pornography. Professor Haas had previously been investigated for similar allegations by federal officials, but that was just a random coincidence.

Professor Alyssa Azotea (psychology, Simmons College),Professor Michael Dean Stroup (economics, Stephen F. Austin State University), Professor James Francis Quinn (criminology, University of North Texas), Professor Douglas Paul Dohrman (health science, Texas A&M University), Professor Christopher DeZutter (chemistry, University of Minnesota-Rochester), Professor Noel Campbell (business, University of Central Arkansas), Professor Kevin Sullivan (public health, Emory University), Professor Amol Kharabe (business, Ohio University), Professor J. Martin Favor (African American studies, Dartmouth College) — would anyone care to guess what they have in common?

Yes, all of them were arrested on child pornography charges.

These random coincidences just keep piling up, don’t they? Some people might suspect “immoral lifestyles” and “pathological patterns of thinking” had become commonplace on American university campuses. But this could only be possible if Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs had taken over the country, and that could never happen, could it?

Bill and Hillary Clint at Yale University, 1970.



137 Responses to “Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs”

  1. News of the Week (July 3rd, 2016) | The Political Hat
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:10 pm

    […] Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs Socialism, drug abuse and sexual perversion — during the 1960s, the connections between these phenomena were the subject of much discussion in America as university campuses erupted in protests, drug-addled hippies crowded into San Francisco and the so-called Sexual Revolution emerged in all its polymorphous variations. […]

  2. Quartermaster
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:18 pm

    The problem we have is what we have is beyond mere anecdote, but does not rise to the level of what we would like for a proper study. I would have to say that as a regular user without permanent damage, you are an outlier.

    I have as yet to meet a regular user that did not have permanent damage. I have talked with Doctors who have said the same thing. The testimony is so overwhelming that it’s beyond anecdote. Given the ethical protocols in medical research, there is no way we can have the sort of study people call for on MJ. It matters not that people are stupid enough to volunteer to be subjects. The researchers themselves can not engage in research they know going in has a very high chance of doing debilitating damage to a majority of the research subjects.

    Frankly, medical testing has been halted with only a fraction of the problems we already know MJ research will cause.

    The really bad thing is we are doing is watching an informal experiment with the stuff. Too many have bought the lie that there’s nothing bad about the stuff, and so as it’s legalized, more people will indulge, and they will ruin their lives in the process.

  3. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:28 pm

    Pot is an intoxicant, which isn’t to say it makes people violent. In my experience both personal and observing those around me, pot generally tends to mellow folks. Of course there are exceptions.

  4. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:34 pm

    A person prone to violence is just as likely to become violent drunk, stoned or sober. The difference is that when sober they may be more likely to think twice before reacting violently to any given situation. Both those individuals met the end they were destined to meet and whatever intoxicant they were using probably had little or nothing to do with it.

  5. Joe Joe
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:40 pm

    The intoxicant certainly helped grease the wheels.

  6. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:42 pm

    More than two drinks a day is considered immoderate, 10% of those who drink beer, drink 90% of the beer consumed (that was definitely me). As for the cleaning up a drunk it’s doable, but most have already totally destroyed their lives already and some spend the entirety of their waking life simply trying to stay sober.

  7. NeoWayland
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:44 pm


    But what about three drinks a week?

  8. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:45 pm

    The hemp they grew was nothing like what’s available today or even what was available before Colombian came to town.

  9. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:47 pm

    Anslinger didn’t need much pushing, he needed a job after prohibition.

  10. NeoWayland
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:47 pm


    But is that a reason to ban it?

  11. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:48 pm

    It had much to do with Chinamen, Mexicans and Negroes.

  12. NeoWayland
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:50 pm


    I wasn’t going to mention that just yet, but you are absolutely right.

    Also jazz.

  13. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:50 pm


  14. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:56 pm

    One can get just as drunk on beer as vodca

  15. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 8:59 pm

    Don’t crush that dwarf hand me the pliers.

  16. NeoWayland
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 9:01 pm

    Yes you can.

    But an ounce and a half of beer is not going to have the same effect as an ounce and a half of vodka.

    Two beers will have about the same effect as two vodka shots.

    The serving sizes differ, but a serving of each has about the same alcohol.

  17. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 9:08 pm

    The long term memory thing is mostly a function of the short term memory problem. One can’t remember a month from now what they forgot 5 minutes ago.

  18. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 9:10 pm

    ”Forward never straight”.

  19. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 9:17 pm

    Nobody drinks an ounce and a half of beer. Unless one has chosen liquor in order to get drunk as fast a possible, whether one drinks beer, wine or liquor, most wind up at the same place in the same amount of time. You’re comparison of the difference between beer and liquor on the one hand and 60s era pot vs mid 70s era pot, let alone what is available today doesn’t hold up.

  20. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 9:18 pm

    Once again ”Negroes”.

  21. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 9:20 pm

    Moderate drinking and good for you.

  22. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 9:23 pm

    Maybe, or perhaps they were simply thugs. Most people who use intoxicants aren’t thugs but most thugs use intoxicants.

  23. Adobe_Walls
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 9:26 pm

    No, and banning it then has made it much more popular today (and egalitarian) than it would have been otherwise.

  24. DeadMessenger
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 9:37 pm

    Your testimony comes from biased sources. You yourself are biased, and it wouldn’t matter one bit whether there was conclusive proof otherwise, you still wouldn’t believe it, which is your right.

    But now you’re hearing different anecdotal testimony from me. I’m telling you that there are different conditions to usage that affect the very symptoms you complain about, but we don’t know what they are because there are no current studies. For every one of your anecdotal sources, I could name one, including doctors, who would swear that I – DM – never touched the stuff. So yes, some people do experience the symptoms you anecdotally believe, but some don’t. Many don’t. But neither you nor your anecdotal doctors can speak to that because very few people (and especially hostile or authority figures) even realize that this other group exists.

    “Given the ethical protocols in medical research” – BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You haven’t done a lot of reading on that topic, I see. Are you referring to the “ethical protocols” that resulted in young girls dying after the allegedly safe cervical cancer vaccinations? Or the ones that result in the inevitable class action lawsuits after people suffer horrible, disfiguring and/or fatal side effects of supposedly safe drugs?

    For the record, when pot legalization last hit the FL ballot, I voted no. I think it’ll be on there again soon. Orlando already decriminalized it.

  25. Big Cobb
    July 3rd, 2016 @ 10:43 pm

    Haven’t I read here that RS McCain was once a user of the dreaded marijuana in his youth? “It was the Seventies” and all of that. Apologies if incorrect.

  26. NeoWayland
    July 4th, 2016 @ 6:37 am

    *grins* Thank you but I don’t drink at all. I don’t use either.

    My family has a history of substance abuse and I didn’t want to face that particular temptation for the rest of my life.

  27. NeoWayland
    July 4th, 2016 @ 6:41 am

    *nods* I agree with you.

    There’s the whole “temptation of the forbidden” thing going on there.

    Personally, I think we’d have fewer problems if it wasn’t forbidden, but I’ve no direct evidence to back that up.

  28. NeoWayland
    July 4th, 2016 @ 6:50 am

    I talk and hang out with some unusual people. I went to parties in the 80s and 90s where Reefer Madness (not the musical) was shown, along with some of the other propaganda.

    Incredibly racist films. “Those dirty N****** and Mexicans are coming to steal our white women! And they are so drugged up they have superhuman strength and feel no pain!!”

    At the time of the parties, the same things were being said about crack and meth addicts…

  29. NeoWayland
    July 4th, 2016 @ 7:00 am

    As long as recreational substances are illegal, there’s no real portion control or quality control. In a black market, you may buy five ounces, but there’s no telling how pure it is, how potent it is, if it has been cut, or what it has been cut with.

    In a free market, a company keeps it’s customers and reputation by delivering a quality and consistent product. Customers know what to expect from a beer no matter what the brand. The flavors may change but the alcohol remains about the same. They know that one beer next week won’t have the same effect as a six pack this week.

    In a free market, portion size and potency will stabilize over time. Just as it did with beer and liquor.

  30. Quartermaster
    July 4th, 2016 @ 8:08 am

    You’re headed down the same path neo went down. That’s your right.

    You have two instances of testing failures. Can you show they went into the tests knowing damage would be done?

    Had you been tested for THC, the physician ordering the test would have known you were on the stuff. That you showed few, if any effects, is simply you. As I said, you’re an outlier. In this instance, anyone that disagrees with you is biased.

  31. Red47 carpe carp
    July 4th, 2016 @ 8:52 am

    Yes they have. At least two here in Colorado.

  32. Wicked Witches: Marion Zimmer Bradley and the Feminist Pagan Sex Cult : The Other McCain
    July 4th, 2016 @ 12:15 pm

    […] widely viewed as “progressive” among leftist bohemian avant-garde intellectuals. The Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs of the 1960s did not suddenly appear out of nowhere. The philosophy of the Sexual Revolution had […]

  33. DeadMessenger
    July 4th, 2016 @ 10:50 pm

    You’re treating anecdotal claims as factual, which seems pretty biased. You have no qualitative nor quantitative evidence whatsoever. My grandfather used to base his opinions on his personal feelings about a topic rather than facts also, so I’m used to that type of bias.

    But what I’m saying is that you calling me an outlier is wrong, and that the outliers (so-called) are, in reality, the majority. A silent majority, because you’d have to be nuts to volunteer this type of info. As for testing, there is the matter of animal testing as opposed to human testing, unless you’re a rat rights activist. As well…and speaking of anecdotal evidence…there does happen to be anecdotal evidence that Big Pharma will go into tests knowing what damage could be done. And anecdotal evidence that they will market products knowing that test data was falsified. But you only believe certain types of anecdotal evidence, which represents bias.

    I never got tested for THC because there was no reason to ever be tested for it since I displayed no effects. (In fact, I never really got “high” on it – brain chemistry thing, I think.) In fact, I’ve had a lifetime sleep disorder literally since infancy. (Definitely a brain chemistry thing.). For the first, probably, 23 years of my life I suffered from constant sleep deprivation because I literally cannot shut my brain down in order to sleep properly. Doctors tried me on a variety of narcotic and non-narcotic, as well as natural sleep aids, but nothing worked, and only zombified me. Pot did work though. So during those years, I was able to get 8 hours a night and felt great the next day. Then I became a Christian, stopped using, and have once again suffered from sleep deprivation for the past 14-15 years.

    Indeed, if you were able to look at the times that I post comments, you’d notice that lots of times it’s in the middle of the night, because I can’t sleep.

    So pot does have legitimate medicinal effects that do benefit some people. But the reason I vote against that legislation is because the medicinal use is poorly controlled, if we look at Oregon for how that would work. Otherwise, I would vote for it.

  34. Lamont Cranston III
    July 5th, 2016 @ 10:17 am

    Industrial hemp will give you a massive headache if you smoke it. Recreational hemp is a different strain.

  35. Quartermaster
    July 5th, 2016 @ 5:57 pm

    I’ve known a fairly large number of people that were regular users. All of them ended up as mild mental cases at a minimum. I have classmates that went to medical school and are practicing physicians and have observed exactly the same thing. There are a few that don’t end up like that, but they are mighty few.

    You can call the observations of people such as myself, and practicing physicians and counselors anecdotal all you like, but that isn’t what it is. It doesn’t rise to the sort of data a full on study would demand, but you aren’t going to get that. Even if the stuff is investigated for medical use, you won’t see the regular heavy use pot heads love so much in such a study.

    I will grant, however, that it may not be the THC that is causing the mental problems. It may well be something else, or even something in combination with THC that is causing the problem. But, as long as the ethical protocols required these days are in place, it is unlikely any sort of study will take place. Instead we will continue to get the massive uncontrolled experiment we have now, only it will expand.

    No, you are an outlier.

  36. DeadMessenger
    July 6th, 2016 @ 2:10 am

    So, if you work for a corporation, what % of your coworkers would you guess smoke pot? The answer is WAY higher than you think. In fact, I was consulting for a…mmm…don’t wanna say too much here…let’s say, large contract winner…and when the same company won a second contract, I was contracted to manage the switch to the new contract. Per contract, I had to “fire” all employees out of the payroll system and “rehire” them into a new one. I asked execs whether they planned to readminister the pre-hire drug test. Answer: Hell no, or we wouldn’t have any experienced employees left. I learned throughout my career that this is not at all uncommon.

    Point being: not an outlier. By far. You personally simply have no way to know how many people you encounter that smoke pot, but it’s a lot, and you’d never be able to tell.

  37. FMJRA 2.0: Call of the West : The Other McCain
    July 9th, 2016 @ 7:08 pm

    […] Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs The Political Hat Batshit Crazy News […]