Salon: 1935 ad, "WARNING! Shrewd dope peddlers may put some killer "marihuana" in your tea"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Thursday, Feb 17, 2011 08:01 ET
Can celebrities get busted for bragging about pot smoking?
Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson explains the loose connection between celebs, liberty, the Tea Party and pot
By Adam Clark Estes

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/17/nesson_marijuana_pot_legalization_gaga/index.html



An advertisement distributed by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1935

Lady Gaga appeared on "60 Minutes" a few days ago and talked for a minute about smoking pot while writing music. As the debate around Proposition 19 in California ramped up last year, we heard a lot more celebrities talk about their marijuana habits, and many donated large sums to the legalization campaign. So we wondered, could they get in trouble for talking so openly about breaking the law?

To find some answers we called up Charles Nesson, the William F. Weld Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, for some thoughts on the state of drug policy. After studying at Harvard College and Harvard Law School in the '60s, Nesson has become an expert in civil liberties and defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case. Now, he's interested in advancing justice in Jamaica, the evolution of the Internet, as well as national drug policy. While he doesn't know much about Lady Gaga, Nesson is optimistic about a more open dialogue around the notion of liberty in America.

[jobycom]

1. They should write posts for DU on vaccines and HFCS and stuff. nt

[Kurmudgeon]

2. More focus should be put on the profit generated by prohibition.

Not only the higher prices which helps the dealers and peddlers of much worse things than marijuana, but what a cash cow it is for law enforcement and other associated businesses. They get to double dip, both out of the taxpayer's pocket and whatever they can get out of whoever is arrested. It's not about protecting the public as much as it is stuffing their pockets and continuing to feed the prohibition monster as well as whatever personal bias they may have. And they are ok with that even when those profits flow to the other side too, allowing criminals to fund larger gangs with bigger and more powerful weapons.

Pot should and would have been legalized long ago if not for the profit motive, all the other excuses were debunked a long time ago.
Take a look south of the US border if you want to see an obvious current example of the real cost of prohibition.

[Uncle Joe]

3. It seems to me this interview prefers to focus on the fear/retribution angle instead

of the liberty/justice side.

If the people truly want to change unjust, draconian laws and dysfunctional, insane policies they must speak out and I commend any celebrity willing to do so.

This is the only way to change our society for the better, I hope the author of this Salon column can understand that.

Thanks for the thread, Amerigo Vespucci.