Is there more evidence needed to show that the War on Pot is entirely stupid than the fact that they're banning a substance solely because its effects are similar to marijuana? I could understand if they were doing it because it was highly addictive or proven to cause cancer or had some other side effect of booze or tobacco. But banning it solely because its high is similar to the high of a banned substance? They're not even going to try to find any other rationale? Pathetic.
The only research the article cites is that the DEA claims it has minor ill effects in mice and an EU study which says that differing brands have different amounts of the active ingredient and they're not sure how many Europeans use it. Well geez, better stamp that out immediately. The article even cites the dangers of ten-year-olds buying the stuff at headshops, as if the only possible way of preventing that is to send people to prison for possessing it. You know, for kids.
My favorite quote is from a Missouri Democrat wanting to ban the stuff who said "This isn't Jerry Garcia's marijuana." Is this an admission that he's had Jerry Garcia's weed? If not, how the hell does he know if it's any different? And does this mean he approves of marijuana, as long as it's Jerry Garcia's? And really, what's the world coming to when anti-drug politicians cite Jerry Garcia's drug use in a positive way? It's like they're not even trying anymore. What's next, Elvis as an example of healthy pill addiction?
More likely, he's just using the same "marijuana is scarier now" meme we keep hearing from people who smoked pot without ill effect, but now want to arrest people for doing what they used to do; using Garcia as a code word to assure everyone that he's still hip. Eventually, someone's going to ask him if it's ok to legalize pot, as long as it's comparable to the pot of the 60's and he will have that man arrested.