An illegal substance sold legally.
articles.latimes.com
articles.latimes.com
Politics seems not to have changed much I reckon:)
I don't know why that is, because I've heard of plenty of harassment and vandalism against conservative supporters (or were they opposed?) of California's Prop 8 as well, but it didn't get much media coverage. I don't believe one can say that either liberals or conservatives are more "enlightened" overall, at least in matters of raw politics.
Specifically, the commentary on the prohibition for racial profiling was especially interesting. With 9% of black adults under correctional supervision [1], a significant portion of whom are there for drug-related charges [2], one might argue that the War on Drugs is even closer to the prohibition than this article suggests.
1: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm 2: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64
I don't understand how people browse without it, now.
Shame on LA Times really. I'm most definitely not one to begrudge an institution their profits, but this just feels like a bad business decision to me.
From that interview I learned that there is a lot about the politics of the day that I didn't know. For instance did you know that the KKK supported the Suffrage movement (giving women the vote) because they believed women would vote for Prohibition, which could be used to target Catholic immigrant groups? (Immigrants were a major target of the KKK at that time.)
I haven't gotten around to getting that book yet, but it is on my list of books to read.
To provide better care or to make more money?
This is a great story.
Considering how everything you ingest is a drug (affects you both in mind and body) it's interesting how various substances become "dangerous" over time -- and how that can be reversed.
Also, I'm not sure what your overall point is. Alcohol abuse still is considered dangerous now. (I say this as someone who drinks socially.) If you want to point out how cultural attitudes change how various substances are regulated, I don't think just "dangerous" expresses that.
Looking past that, wouldn't hair gel or plaster used to make a cast for a broken bone qualify as a drug under that definition?
Maybe the word actually does have less meaning than you suggest. I would suggest the following definition: any substance included on Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act.
The definition implies that the substance has to enter the body somehow, so hair gel and plaster are out. As for intention, there's potential ambiguity, but for the most part we know what it means. Word definitions aren't programs, we can settle for "good enough." But the parents definition was, to me, obviously too inclusive.
The amount of regulation they receive is mainly based on their potency.
In some ways I am against the legalization of pot, although I agree with a number of points for it. I can not help but agree that moving this from the underground is a good thing. But pot is also a great demotivator, experience with a great number of people who smoke it has shown me.