DocumentDump.com ^ RWCS.com > Steal This Blog

Shane Griffis | April 24, 2009 | pontevedrarecorder.com

In the face of an economic downturn, shrinking tax revenue and government leaders scrambling to find funding for programs, JAX NORML believes there is an easy solution — legalize and tax marijuana.

JAX NORML, which stands for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, in association with the University of North Florida NORML chapter, presented a mock check for $14 billion Sunday to the United States Treasury, in front of Jacksonville Beach City Hall.

Ford Banister, founder of the Jacksonville NORML chapter, said according to studies the check amount represents the combined savings and tax revenues that would be generated by regulating the sale and production of cannabis, like alcohol.

“There are 1.8 million drug arrests yearly,” said Banister. “Marijuana arrests far surpass those of any other drug and 89 percent of those arrests are for simple possession.”

Banister, who has a degree in criminal justice and a law degree from Florida Costal School of Law, said policies regarding the prohibition of marijuana have been a failure.

“Prohibition of marijuana has been both a misguided effort from the beginning and a dismal failure,” said Banister. “Common sense demands that a policy that has persisted for more than eight decades without any measure of success must end.”

More than 40 people signed up as members of Jax NORML at Sunday’s event, Banister said.

Banister said he sees policies and attitudes toward marijuana beginning to change.

“I see the end of marijuana prohibition within the next two to 4 years,” said Banister. “The American people are in open rebellion against the marijuana policies. We’ve catalyzed enough as a group now. We will have a debate and we will win.”

Popularity: 2% [?]

RT @TIME See primo photos from yesterday’s 4/20 Great American Smoke-Out | http://ow.ly/3thv

via @lostmarblesmart twitter web

Popularity: 2% [?]

November 23rd, 2008 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director

It has been painful from the outside looking in to watch President-elect Barack Obama begin to cobble together his cabinet officers and senior staff in regards to what prospects there are for substantive cannabis law reforms in this first term.

There are only a couple of key appointments left that may signal the political tea leafs for cannabis law reforms in Obama 1.0 — head of Drug Enforcement Administration (which serves under the Attorney General at the Department of Justice) and the Drug Czar (see below regarding rumored nominee).

Who among current Obama nominees are giving me some acid burn?

In order of importance:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

“For us regarding opposing drugs and any reforms, it is: harms criminal justice; children; the pharmaceutical process and the legalization stalking horse.” -R.E., 1997

As a longtime observer of Rahm’s ascendancy into the stratosphere of politics (Chicago Mayor Daley’ staff, President Clinton’s White House, Congress, and now back to the White as Chief of Staff. What has me most concerned about Rahm is that for so long he has been so consistent in opposing drug policy reforms, most especially cannabis law reforms. In the Clinton White House he played a major role in domestic policy making, with a strong nod to matters of criminal justice. He was effectively the White House’s point man with the Drug Czar. In my view, Rahm was not concerned with effective policy-making as much as image making, so as to help inoculate the President (and Democrats) from the historical albatross hanging from their necks during most national elections—fear of being viewed by the Republicans, and more importantly the general public, as being ‘weak on crime’.

To put it bluntly, Bill Clinton and Al Gore lied their way up and down the countryside running for the Oval office in the summer of 1992, promising liberal donors, gay activists and drug policy reformers that if elected, at a minimum, they would expand the federal government’s Compassionate Investigative New Drug Program (a.k.a. IND, run by the Public Health Service), which allowed for a small handful of federally-approved medical patients to receive up to 300 ‘joints’ per/month for a serious medical condition.

When Clinton and Gore took office in 1993, they immediately felt the political pressure from state politicians, major gay donors and activists, notably from California, who’d impressed upon Clinton the need for medical cannabis for AIDS and cancer patients.

However, and disappointingly, rather than expand the important research program, Rahm and Co. moved to dismantle it, and by late July 1994 Clinton had canceled the IND program, grandfathering the group of eight patients in the program a columnist at the Washington Post deemed the Acapulco Eight.

Taking a far more politically pragmatic path than a compassionate one, Rahm chose to ignore the science (and the Constitution I’d hastily add) and conflate the somewhat easy to distinguish and politically popular battle for patients to access medicinal cannabis with the decidedly unpopular ‘War on Some Drugs’.

In the spring of 1997, a writer and author who interviewed Rahm for a major Rolling Stone piece on the ‘Drug War’, after he’d walked the 3 blocks from Rahm’s White House office to NORML’s K St. office, kindly shared with me his three pages of shorthand notes. The writer, who’d spent a few days in DC interviewing all of the major players in drug enforcement and drug policy reform had wanted to get an interview with Rahm, because absent the President, there was likely no other person in the nation at the time who had more sway over which way the Executive branch implemented drug control strategies.

When I asked, “Well, how was the interview, where does Emanuel stand on the issue of marijuana?” The writer looked up from his notes and said, “NORML is so screwed. In Emanuel you have the prototypical liberal drug warrior: More government intervention, more laws, more arrests; less freedom and personal responsibility.”

What do these notes reveal from 1997?

When asked why did the Clinton Administration so actively oppose the 1996 ballot initiatives in California (and Arizona) to legalize medical access to cannabis, Rahm’s replies:

-We opposed the Arizona initiative because it had to with sentencing and harder drugs;

-We opposed the California initiative because it sent the wrong message to children and we believe that there is downward trend in use right now that these laws will hurt; send wrong message.

-This procedure should not be done by initiative. We have procedures whereby drugs are tested and approved. These initiatives don’t follow those procedures.

-We took an unpopular position on this. Our position is based on policy even if polls are going the other way.

When asked ‘what makes Clinton’s drug policy any better than George Bush. Sr.’s?’, Rahm’s replies:

-We have passed anti-meth legislation before meth has taken off nationally. Law enforcement are telling me that we got ahead of it.

-Our four points for control: drug testing, drug treatment, coerced abstinence works and if the states want the money for prisons they have to adopt what is proven successful.

-Some members of Congress want to defund the ONDCP, but General McCaffrey is different, brings energy and focus to the job.

-We [Clinton Administration] shifted resources from borders to domestic, community policing and drug free school efforts.

-There is nowhere near enough treatment space for the demand.

-This is about attitude and putting federal dollars to work.

When asked about medical marijuana community (doctors, patients, AIDS and drug policy reform organizations), Rahm slapped his head with his hand and said…

-“We oppose it [cannabis] because there is no doubt that the funding comes from those who advocate legalization. We thought this was the first of many battles and needed to fight.”

When asked about the high number of annual cannabis arrests in the US, Rahm said:

-“I’ve never heard of a police chief who says they waste their time on small time marijuana arrests. I would be surprised if very many people are being arrested for small marijuana possession.”

Further, “For us regarding opposing drugs and any reforms, it is: harms criminal justice; children; the pharmaceutical process and the legalization stalking horse.”

-“I think there is a sadder side to all of this that McCaffrey has spoken eloquently about how people who have used drugs in the past should not be disqualified or attack for their pasts.”

Regarding “marijuana”:

-“Yes, we believe it is a genuinely dangerous drug when it comes to kids. I’ll show you data after data that kids who go onto to harder drugs started off with marijuana.”

-“Laws signal acceptability or not. In this area we say its unlawful and we think that it helps parents say this is wrong.”

Whew. Well, there you have it, from NORML’s huge archives and directly from the writer’s notebook circa spring 1997. A couple of closing thoughts on Rahm and his views on cannabis…

Tactical and political savvy as Rahm clearly is, history proves the decisions President Clinton and he made regarding medical cannabis (and decriminalization) were demonstrably wrong. Rather than yield any quarter or embrace science, compassion and the Constitution in being so rigid and recalcitrant on the public health/criminal justice conundrum of medicinal cannabis, Rahm actually helped accelerate, not retard, the state-based strategy of reformers. From 1996-2000, the Clinton Administration failed to stop grassroots efforts to pass state initiatives or legislation in eight states that ‘legalized’ medical cannabis (Bush 2.0 and his Drug Czar John Walters have not faired much better opposing state medical marijuana laws, save for prevailing in the US Supreme Court twice, in 2001 and 2005. Though, despite the ‘high’ court’s adverse rulings in these cases, the number of medical cannabis dispensaries, cooperatives and even automated medical cannabis machines have steadily increased. If reformers lost at SCOTUS, functionally, what did we actually lose? My contention is not much as the court’s rulings don’t reflect the current political, public health and economic realities facing the respectable minority of Americans who, regardless of their state’s laws, currently employ cannabis as a therapeutic, often with their physician’s recommendation. Reminds one of prior SCOTUS rulings in our nation’s past regarding race, labor laws, women’s rights, internment of Japanese Americans, gay and lesbian equality and sexual reproduction laws where society (and often technology) is leagues ahead of legislation, and ensuing appellate court action–both of which move at a glacial rate (unless of course there is multi-billion dollar, taxpayer-funded ‘bailout’ to be performed, then federal legislative and court action is performed post haste).

Emanuel’s new boss, and admitted past cannabis consumer President-elect Obama has repeatedly indicated that he does not support the use of federal law enforcement to harass medical cannabis dispensaries in states that have approved medical marijuana laws; Obama historically supported decriminalizing small amounts of cannabis (until the end of the contentious Democratic primaries this spring where Obama ‘flipped-flopped’ on the issue, and now claims to oppose the decriminalization of cannabis) and believes that far too many young people are ensnared in an unwieldy and expensive criminal justice system.

Rahm is politically smart if nothing else, so I hope that he’ll follow his boss’ lead in the area of criminal justice reforms. Also, to his credit, after voting years against the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment, in 2007, as member of Congress from Illinois, Rahm voted in favor of holding back federal funding from law enforcement (read DEA) to raid or harass medical marijuana cultivators and dispensaries.

Interestingly, and I don’t think a coincidence, from 2005 forward Illinois’ state legislature has held hearings on medical marijuana and prominent (and compelling) cases like medical marijuana patient Brenda Kratovil have been featured all over the major news media in the state. My supposition is that Rahm, in fact a smart, keenly attuned politician, only came to support clipping the DEA’s wings regarding medical marijuana raids on the west coast after paying close political attention to how citizens in his state—along with its editorial boards and prominent columnists—readily support seriously ill, dying or sense threatened medical patients with a physician’s recommendation to access cannabis.

However, I fear that Rahm will continue to advocate for a politically cautious (I’d say paranoid) path regarding cannabis law reforms; is prone to engage in the most oft-trotted out, and easily deflated, myths and canards about cannabis; and will be too centrist and deferential to law enforcement for political expediency sake.

I just hope his boss and can talk him out of it. If not his new boss, maybe he should listen to his old boss, Bill Clinton, who has acknowledged that he was wrong to oppose harm reduction tenets: cannabis decriminalization and needle exchange efforts.

Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder

Much has been written and fretted about in the last few days about Obama’s pick to be the nation’s top law enforcement official, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder.
There are excellent and probing commentary penned regarding what prospects for criminal justice policy reforms the appointment of Holder portends.

My remarks to Reason’s excellent ‘Hit and Run’ Blog:

“NORML has serious concerns about the choice of Eric Holder as the next Attorney General because he has a long history of opposing drug policy reforms, perceiving cannabis smoking by adults as a public nuisance worthy of constant harrassment, promoting violent governmental intervention into the private lives of citizens who consume cannabis, supporting mandatory minimum sentencing and so-called civil forfeiture laws.

His attraction to the myth of ‘fixing broken windows’ and using law enforcement to crack down on petty crimes will swell an already overburdened, bloated, expensive and failed government prohibition against otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to consume cannabis.”

Vice-President Joe Biden

The pick of Joe Biden to be Obama’s running mate was my first sign of digestive tumult regarding the prospect of ‘CHANGE’ for drug policy reform. Suffice of to say here, because it was already said here, that Biden represents the decade and type of ‘liberal’ politician in the 1980s, who, rather than oppose the Reagan-inspired War on Some Drugs, decided to become an enthusiastic supporter and legislative booster. Biden was at the center of creating the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), mandatory minimum sentencing, civil forfeiture laws, the Rave Act, funding for DARE in public schools and the ad campaigns for the Partnership for a Drug Free America.

When asked in Connecticut this past May of pain management, Biden exhorted that “There’s got to be a better answer than marijuana.”

With Biden (and Emanuel) loyally by his side, from a purely political point of view, Obama (like a fellow Baby Boomer-type Bill Clinton before him) has wisely guarded against right wing attacks that he may be ‘soft on drugs’.

ONDCP Transition Team Director Dr. Don Vereen
As amazingly as it seems to most who come to know that the ONDCP is a cabinet level office (Thanks Joe Biden!), all cabinet level offices need an official transition team. So who is heading up the ONDCP transitional team? One of the principals is Don Vereen, a former ONDCP deputy director from 1998-2001.

Is Vereen a reform-minded health care professional and ready to embrace ‘change’?

Unlikely in my view as Vereen told the Psychiatric News in 1999 that he believed that doctors who prescribe marijuana as irresponsible and actually advocated arresting medical patients caught with marijuana. Yikes!

Vereen, like Emanuel (and so many other selective prohibitionists), has adopted the same rote cited rationalizations why cannabis can’t be legally controlled and taxed like thousands of pharmaceuticals currently: marijuana can’t be thought of as a therapeutic treatment because it’s usually smoked and because dosages are difficult to control.

Also, Vereen was on the losing side this past Election Day in Michigan where, in his capacity as director of Community Based Public Health at Univ. of Michigan, he claimed that a medical marijuana initiative ‘sends the wrong message to children’.

These folks sure do stick to the same talking points….I hope Vereen doesn’t pull a Cheney here and conclude that he is the best person for the job.

Former Congressman James Ramstad for Drug Czar?

As one of my favorite policy writers and commentators Maia Szalavitz aptly points out in her November 21 Huffington Post article regarding Ramstad:

On paper, Jim Ramstad — who is rumored to be Obama’s choice for drug czar — looks like the ideal man for the job . He’s a recovering alcoholic himself and a Congressman who championed legislation recently passed to provide equal insurance coverage for addictions and other mental illnesses.

Unfortunately, Ramstad may be a drug warrior in recovering person’s clothing. There is one issue that has consistently separated those who put science and saving lives in front of politics. That is needle exchange programs for addicts to prevent the spread of HIV and other blood borne illnesses.

Even President Clinton now says he was “wrong” when he ignored the recommendations of every scientific and medical organization in the world that has examined the question — from the AMA to the World Health Organization — and refused to lift the federal ban on funding.

Needle exchanges have been shown repeatedly to reduce HIV and contrary to the claims of opponents, they help addicts get into treatment.

But Bill Clinton had a drug czar — Barry McCaffrey — who said that needle exchange “sent the wrong message,” and would make him seem soft on drugs. McCaffrey fought against it and Clinton now says he “regrets” caving in to drug war politics.

Ramstad also — again, against the evidence – opposes medical marijuana and supports federal policing and prosecution of providers and patients in the states that have made it legal. These states have not seen the rise in teen drug use that opponents like the Congressman predicted.

The opposite, in fact, happened — as is the case in countries that have decriminalized marijuana like Holland. The UK’s “downgrading” of cannabis offense to a lesser status was also accompanied by a drop in use.

There’s simply no evidence that allowing sick people to get needed medication conflicts with helping addicts. Obama has said he does not support these prosecutions — will Ramstad push him in the wrong direction here, too? In an economic crisis, do we really want to spend federal time and money locking up medical marijuana providers and sick people?

That’s not change, President Obama — that’s more of the same. Don’t make the mistake that Bill Clinton did and install a drug czar who will ignore science and push dogma.

Amen Maia!

Popularity: 11% [?]

[SOURCE: NORML News of the Week 8/21/2008 @ Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:19 PM]

Sacramento, CA:

According to recent media reports, Attorney General Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown is currently privately circulating to top state and law enforcement officials the “final draft” of his long-awaited rules for ensuring “the security and non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use.” These, when finalized, will be the first definitive guidelines provided by the state of California in the decade plus since Prop. 215 was approved by the voters.

According to the attorney general, these guidelines are intended to accomplish three objectives: to avoid diversion of marijuana grown for authorized patients; to help law enforcement understand and apply the law consistently throughout the state; and to “help patients and caregivers …cultivate, transport, possess, and use marijuana under California law.”

Brown, who earlier announced his intension to appeal the recent Kelly decision (People v. Kelly), holding SB 420, the act passed by the legislature that placed limits on the amount of medical marijuana a patient could legally possess, to be an unconstitutional infringement on the power of voters to adopt state policy via initiative. Brown has consistently indicated his opposition to private dispensaries, and his draft guidelines reportedly reflect that position, and may present a new challenge to dispensaries.

Brown’s draft guidelines reportedly have this to say about dispensaries: “Although medical marijuana ‘dispensaries’ have been operating in California for years, dispensaries, as such, are not recognized under the law.” Individuals who operate dispensary establishments “that do substantially comply with [the] guidelines… may be subject to arrest and prosecution under California law.”

For patients who may possess more than the authorized amount, the guidelines also reportedly present a problem. “If a person has what appears to be valid medical marijuana documentation, but exceeds the applicable possession guidelines identified above, all marijuana may be seized. “

On the positive side, patients would reportedly be entitled to the return of their authorized medical marijuana from law enforcement, once their authorization was verified, and state officers would be protected from liability for following this guideline.

For more information, contact NORML Legal Counsel Keith Stroup or California NORML director Dale Gieringer or call 415-563-5858

Popularity: 4% [?]

[SOURCE: NORML News of the Week 8/21/2008]

Sacramento, CA: A medical marijuana employment rights bill, AB 2279, which would protect hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients in California from employment discrimination, passed the State Senate on August 20. The proposal had passed the State Assembly in May, and now heads to the Governor’s desk for his signature or veto.

Introduced in February by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and co-authored by Assembly members Patty Berg (D-Eureka), Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) and Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego), this proposal is designed to reverse a January 24th decision of the California Supreme Court in the case of Ross v. RagingWire, in which the court held that an employer may fire someone solely because they use medical marijuana outside the workplace.

The bill leaves intact existing state law prohibiting medical marijuana consumption at the workplace or during working hours and protects employers by carving out an exception for safety-sensitive positions.

“AB 2279 is not about being under the influence while at work. That’s against the law, and will remain so,” said Assemblyman Leno. “It’s about allowing patients who are able to work safely and who use their doctor-recommended medication in the privacy of their own home, not to be arbitrarily fired from their jobs. The voters who supported Proposition 215 did not intend for medical marijuana patients to be forced into unemployment in order to benefit from their medicine.”

If enacted, California would become the first of the 12 states that currently recognize the medical use of marijuana to protect authorized medical use patients from being fired based solely on a positive THC test.

California NORML director Dale Gieringer had this to say about the measure. “The legislature was right to approve banning employment discrimination of medical marijuana patients. Marijuana is safer than many prescription drugs that workers are allowed to use, and urine testing has never been FDA tested as either safe or effective in improving workplace safety and productivity.”

The governor has not indicated his intentions regarding the measure.

For more information, please contact California NORML director Dale Gieringer or call 415-563-5858

Popularity: 3% [?]

Staff Reporter | Posted July 31, 2008 1:30 AM

Articles written by a Staff Reporter are unsigned reports from a member of the staff.

Should marijuana use be legal?

That’s a question that will be debated in public now that Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced a bill that would remove federal penalties for personal marijuana use.

Speaking at a press conference Wednesday in support of the legislation, HR 5843, Frank said we “should not lock people up” or use federal resources to stop people from using marijuana unless they are harming someone else or engaging in excessive behavior.

The new bill would eliminate federal penalties for possession of up to 100 grams (about 3½ ounces) of marijuana, and for the not-for-profit transfer of up to one ounce of marijuana.

Representatives from the drug reform lobby, including the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), all support the legislation. But the Bush Administration does not.

Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of NORML calls the legislation ”the first time in a generation” that Congress is taking a “serious look” at reforming components of cannabis prohibition laws.

St. Pierre also praised Congressional Black Caucus members who took part in the press conference, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and William Lacy Clay (D-MO). The two CBC members argued that marijuana laws unfairly target African-Americans for arrest, and Clay blamed ”a phony war on drugs” for ”filling up our prisons, especially with people of color.”

But representatives from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) attended the press conference to rebut the claims that marijuana is safe, even for medical purposes.

Groups Say Marijuana Is Safe

Marijuana is the third most popular recreational drug in America, behind alcohol and tobacco, according to NORML. The group says nearly 80 million Americans have used marijuana and points to government surveys indicating that 20 million Americans have smoked marijuana in the past year.

“Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco,” says NORML. According to statistics on the group’s web site, more than 400,000 die each year from tobacco smoking and 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. But marijuana, on the other hand, is “nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose.”

The federal government does not agree. “Marijuana is the blindspot of drug policy,” said John Walters, director of national drug control policy. “Baby Boomers have this perception that marijuana is about fun and freedom. It isn’t. It’s about dependency, disease, and dysfunction,” he said in a press release.

But cannabis users argue that marijuana can also be used to treat illnesses, including glaucoma, asthma, multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS. Although 12 states allows medical marijuana use, the federal government does not, putting users in a position of legal limbo.

Rep. Lee said California law allows medical marijuana and criticized federal policy as “inhumane” and “immoral.” The new legislation would allow people suffering from chronic pain or illness to smoke marijuana legally.

Talk show host Montel Williams agrees. Williams has spoken out about his own need for medical marijuana to deal with the pain associated with multiple sclerosis. He has said he takes nearly a hundred pills a day to treat his condition, and after serving 22 years in the military, he feels he should not be made to feel like a criminal just because he needs a drug to keep him healthy and out of pain.

Costs of Enforcement

Supporters of the legislation also argue that enforcing marijuana laws costs taxpayers $10 billion a year. A marijuana smoker is arrested every 38 seconds, says St. Pierre.

Rob Kampia, director of the Marijuana Policy Project, said marijuana arrests outnumber arrests for “all violent crimes combined,” forcing police to spend more time chasing nonviolent criminals than violent ones.

But the Bush Administration disagrees. Officials from ONDCP issued a preemptive press release on Tuesday to show that “less than one half of one percent of inmates in state prisons are serving time for marijuana possession only.”

But Rep. Frank responded to this argument at the press conference, “I never understood why people thought it was a defense of a law staying on the books that it was rarely used,” he said.

Public Opinion On Marijuana

Marijuana use was outlawed in 1937 in the U.S., four years after the end of Prohibition. But pressure began to reform the law in the 1970s, according to the Drug Policy Alliance.

The Netherlands passed a law in 1976 that declared cannabis a “soft drug,” which was not subject to “prosecution, detection or arrest” in certain amounts. And in 1996, voters in California approved Proposition 215, which allows sick and dying patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

“The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government’s business,” Frank said at the news conference on Wednesday. “I don’t think it is the government’s business to tell you how to spend your leisure time,” he said.

Although most Americans support efforts to reduce penalties or decriminalize personal recreational use of marijuana, they do not support legalizing marijuana altogether. A Gallup poll in 1995 found a third of Americans support legalizing marijuana, up from just 12 percent in 1969, but still not a majority.

Support for medical marijuana, on the other hand, is much higher, even among older Americans. A 2004 poll conducted for the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) found the overwhelming majority of seniors support legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. Sixty nine percent of those 70 and older agreed that adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it.

The issue of decriminalizing drug use may be controversial in a presidential election year when candidates are trying not to offend voters. But Rep. Frank’s bill is not expected to come to a full committee vote until 2009.

Popularity: 3% [?]

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet
Posted on July 29, 2008, Printed on July 29, 2008

Rachel Hoffman is dead. Rachel Hoffman, like many young adults, occasionally smoked marijuana.

But Rachel Hoffman is not dead as a result of smoking marijuana; she is dead as a result of marijuana prohibition.

Under prohibition, Rachel faced up to five years in a Florida prison for possessing a small amount of marijuana. (Under state law, violators face up to a $5,000 fine and five years in prison for possession of more than 20 grams of pot.)

Under prohibition, the police in Rachel’s community viewed the 23-year-old recent college graduate as nothing more than a criminal and threatened her with jail time unless she cooperated with them as an untrained, unsupervised confidential informant. Her assignment: Meet with two men she’d never met and purchase a large quantity of cocaine, ecstasy and a handgun. Rachel rendezvoused with the two men; they shot and killed her.

Under prohibition, the law enforcement officers responsible for brazenly and arrogantly placing Rachel in harm’s way have failed to publicly express any remorse — because, after all, under prohibition Rachel Hoffman was no longer a human being deserving of such sympathies.

Speaking on camera to ABC News’ “20/20″ last week, Tallahassee Police Chief Dennis Jones attempted to justify his department’s callous and irresponsible behavior, stating, “My job as a police chief is to find these criminals in our community and to take them off the streets (and) to make the proper arrest.”

But in Rachel Hoffman’s case, she was not taken “off the streets,” and police made no such arrest — probably because, deep down, even they know that people like Rachel pose no imminent threat to the public. Instead, the officers on the scene secretly cut a deal with Rachel: They told her that they would not file charges if she agreed to go undercover.

Rachel became the bait; the Tallahassee police force went trolling for sharks.

In the weeks preceding Rachel’s murder, police told her to remain tight-lipped about their backroom agreement — and with good reason. The cops’ on-the-spot deal with Rachel flagrantly violated Tallahassee Police Department protocol, which mandated that such an arrangement must first gain formal approval from the state prosecutor’s office. Knowing that the office would likely not sign off on their deal — Rachel was already enrolled in a drug court program from a prior pot possession charge, and cooperating with the TPD as a drug informant would be in violation of her probation — the police simply decided to move forward with their informal arrangement and not tell anybody.

“(In) hindsight, would it have been a good idea to let the state attorney know? Yes,” Jones feebly told “20/20.” Damn right it would have been; Rachel Hoffman would still be alive.

But don’t expect Jones or any of the other officers who violated the department’s code of conduct — violations that resulted in the death of another human being — to face repercussions for their actions. Obeying the rules is merely “a good idea” for those assigned with enforcing them. On the other hand, for people like Rachel, violating those rules can be a death sentence.

Of course, to those of us who work in marijuana law reform, we witness firsthand every day the adverse consequences wrought by marijuana prohibition — a policy that has led to the arrest of nearly 10 million young people since 1990. To us, the sad tale of Rachel Hoffman marks neither the beginning nor the end of our ongoing efforts to bring needed “reefer sanity” to America’s criminal justice system. It is simply another chapter in the ongoing and tragic saga that is marijuana prohibition.

Paul Armentano is the deputy director for the NORML Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Popularity: 2% [?]

[SOURCE: salem-news.com]

BY TIM KING
(SALEM, Ore.) – A proposed law for Oregon would radically alter the availability of marijuana for adults, by allowing the herb to be purchased in liquor stores. The Oregonians For Cannabis Reform 2010, say the Oregonian Cannabis Tax Act would make cannabis products legal and available in a retail environment. Proponents say it will mean millions and millions of dollars for Oregon’s state coffers and many predict that the move would literally salvage the state’s unstable economy.

Backers of this Initiative say their plan would send 90 percent of the proceeds from the state’s sale of marijuana to Oregon’s General Fund, which could lower the state tax burden significantly. Portions of the revenue would be used to fund drug abuse education and treatment programs.

But right now, the people bringing this opportunity for Oregon voters forward, says their effort needs money, equipment, and, most of all, volunteers.

But they say the payoff will be enormous, as the Cannabis Tax Act (CTA) will take the lucrative marijuana market out of the black market, where children and substance abusers often control it today, and place it in state liquor stores, where the age limit of 21 and older is strictly enforced.

Advocates also say it will be like a rebirth of the Oregon farmer. Farmers will be licensed to cultivate cannabis for both medicinal and adult private use. Farmers will be able to grow industrial hemp without a license, for paper, fabric, protein and oil, under the new proposed law.

Medical Marijuana

While the overall law as it is proposed addresses all marijuana use for adults, there are specific allowances to aid the ongoing battle for the rights of medical marijuana users. The CTA will allow doctors to prescribe untaxed cannabis through pharmacies, so patients won’t have to grow their own or buy medicine illegally.

The law would modify Oregon’s program and ultimately, see it appear more similar to California, where dispensaries are already available for people using marijuana legally.

They say that while accomplishing so many things, the law would also raise millions of dollars in new public revenue, lowering the tax burden on all and saving taxpayers money by taking the profit out of crime.

More than marijuana, the CTA will restore industrial hemp, the most productive agricultural source of fiber protein and oil, and a huge aspect of American heritage. Hemp seed oil is diesel fuel. The first cordage, cloth and paper were invented from hemp fiber.

Advocates say the laws would virtually wipe out the black-market. “The CTA allows police and the courts to concentrate on real criminals that hurt others, not arrest, prosecute and jail harmless, productive adult cannabis users. Stop our government from tearing families apart. Let’s show real family values and end cannabis prohibition.”

The OCTA will wage its campaign to help stop the War on Cannabis by challenging the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act- it’s credibility and effectiveness. This is the law that was precededd by mass hype and hysteria fed to the American public by Harry Anslinger, (see: Harry Anslinger page on Wikipedia) a dubious U.S. politician who worked with Dow Chemicals and Dupont in the 1920′s and 30′s, to demonize marijuana and place it in an illegal category, in order to get their new “synthetic rope” on the market. In truth, the natural hemp fiber is to this day, superior in strength, quality and durability.

It would appear that Anslinger was a conservative who truly believed marijuana to be a threat to the future of American civilization, yet his biographer maintained that he was an astute government bureaucrat who viewed the marijuana issue as a means for elevating himself to national prominence.

Paul Stanford of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, told KATU that the measure would also put a dent in illegal dealing of the weed.

“We want to take marijuana out of the hands of children and substance abusers, who control the market today, and put it in the hands of the state’s liquor control commission and the age limit of 21 will be strictly enforced,” Stanford said.

Others say it is simply the time to do this, and the next presidential administration will almost certainly live up to statements that they will be supportive of state’s legal rights to pass marijuana laws, and redirect federal agents and protocols. This clears the path for very large steps as medical marijuana tests and research continues to yield one new medical application after another.

Dr. Phillip Leveque of Molalla, Oregon, first became familiar with the positive health-related aspects of marijuana in the early 1950′s, while studying at the Oregon Medical School in Corvallis. That was a bottle of marijuana cough medicine from before Harry Anslinger’s time. Leveque is a WWII combat veteran. As a physician, toxicologist and pharmacologist, Dr Leveque offers sound reasoning. “I would be far more surprised to see someone come up with something it is not helpful for, as a medical property.” He says little time is passing now between large developments that show marijuana’s potential role in society as a legal product.

Supporters have two years to collect nearly 83,000 signatures to get the measure on the November ballot in 2010. They say you can learn more about this proposed new law for Oregon, by visiting this page: CannabisTaxAct.org/oregon/

Popularity: 3% [?]

[SOURCE: Chronicle.com]

By TOM QUINCEY

7-2-08

I never would have made it this far in graduate school without the aid of marijuana.

Perhaps the title of this column made some people think it would be a cautionary tale. On the contrary, I think my pot smoking has helped smooth out the roughness of a Ph.D. program. And frankly, I think the disturbing issue with a younger generation of graduate students is that they don’t toke up enough. Instead many indulge in things far worse, both for them physically and for the humanities.

On one level, marijuana is simply fun, of course. However, it has other worthwhile properties for the abject doctoral student. To begin with, it’s probably the only drug that rewards you for using it. Sure, if you smoke cheap pesticide-laden stuff, you’ll probably feel crummy the next morning. But if you buy something decent, you’ll probably be good to go after a cup of coffee. I’ve often been at my most productive the day after I’ve indulged.

I’m an insomniac who averages four to five hours of sleep a night. The best way to deal with a sleeping problem is with regular exercise. But it’s nice to have a secret weapon to knock me out on days when I can’t make it to the gym. I’m certainly better off than peers who have flirted with Xanax addictions, or who waste their stipends on genuinely worthless stuff like Ambien or Lunesta.

Some might accuse me of minimizing the danger of a substance that is, after all, illegal. But it ain’t heroin or cocaine. You’ll never hear rumors that an actor’s heart stopped or an actress got scary-thin because he or she was smoking too much pot. For that matter, it ain’t alcohol, which is far worse for one’s body and mind.

Of course I’m not arguing that one should smoke out every day. In The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Aunt Polly commands Tom to whitewash a fence. Pretending to enjoy it, Tom is able to unload the job on a friend with surprising ease. The narrator then remarks: “If he had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.”

If you feel obliged to get wasted every time you’re stressed, then smoking will become a part of Work, and will increase your dissatisfaction with graduate school. But if you use the substance judiciously, marijuana can remind you that “intellectual labor” is really a form of Play, and infinitely preferable to most of the jobs your peers are drudging through.

Hence, I accept Paul Bowles’s basic distinction between an alcohol-drinking culture and a cannabis-smoking culture, with the latter encouraging inwardness and creativity. It probably comes as no surprise that I’m a graduate student in the humanities. Literature departments are still influenced by the legacy of Romantic poets and their latter-day heirs, the Beats, who used drugs to imagine alternatives to mainstream society.

Similarly, an offshoot discipline, cultural studies, is pervaded by neo-Romantics. For example, after his televised debate with Noam Chomsky in 1971, Michel Foucault was partially paid in hashish. For weeks afterward, his friends in Paris referred to it as the “Chomsky hash.” Should we be surprised by that anecdote, related by Foucault biographer James Miller? Let’s be honest here: No one could have written History of Madness or Discipline and Punish while sober.

I’m an analyst of imaginative literature instead of a producer of it. But I would lay claim to a modest form of drug-induced insight. For example, I took a demanding seminar in my first year of graduate school and wanted to impress my professor with a stellar paper.

Naturally, I came down with a bad case of writer’s block shortly before the paper was due. For two hours I did nothing more than use the cut-and-paste function, treating my essay like a Rubik’s Cube: “If I just move this section here, it will all make sense.”

Finally I thought, “Screw this.” I decided to shelve the project for a few hours and toked up instead. Of course I immediately began thinking about my paper again. But now it seemed like a privilege to consider economic globalization and its relation to British poetry. Instead of frantically rearranging sections of text, I started to imagine the theoretical basis of my essay in holistic terms, and saw a connection between arguments that I hadn’t noticed before.

A few minutes later, I was at my computer, typing a series of notes that became a satisfying conclusion to my essay. I was very pleased when my professor told me it was publishable. It certainly wasn’t something I could have come up with while drunk.

And that brings up my worry about a younger generation of scholars. One thing I’ve noticed about today’s doctoral students is that they party way harder than I’m used to. My friends and I kept it simple: a few bong hits, a Stereolab CD, a movie rental.

By contrast, the new cohorts often blow off steam in a manner that would put undergraduates to shame. The goal is to kick back shots until your friends have to prop you up inside a top-loading washing machine, or, better yet, strap you to the roof of a car next to a cooler, while everyone looks for a designated driver to take them on an impromptu road trip to Las Vegas.

Then there’s the burgeoning rave culture. I admit I’ve never done ecstasy. But years ago raves seemed to involve a social idealism that recreated the ambience of Haight Street, albeit at a higher tempo and volume. A friend once said of ecstasy, “It’s great. You have to try it. When you’re on it, you love everyone.” The parties were underground, with their own unique fashions — e.g., those tall, fuzzy top hats inspired by Dr. Seuss’s famous cat.

Well, raves are mainstream, now, aren’t they? They’re advertised online and frequented by jocks and sorority girls as well as social deviants. Recently a young woman whom I’m tutoring interrupted our SAT-prep session to tell me about her love for raves. I noticed that her emphasis was entirely upon the thrill of loud beats and flashing lights — as if a rave were a visual and tactile representation of the global-consumer economy, oriented toward pure sensation and the quick fix.

I’m aware that I sound like an old curmudgeon here (“Well, back in my day, when people did X …”); younger readers might give me some well-deserved criticism.

But the politics of another fashionable drug, cocaine, are deeply messed up from any perspective. I think Woody Allen had the right idea when, surrounded by expectant, pleasure-seeking noses, he wrinkled his own and sneezed the stuff all over the living room.

Of course I’ve often felt troubled, politically, by my marijuana use: Here I am in the comfort of my apartment while unfortunate people are incarcerated for selling it to me. That’s a form of hypocrisy, and it’s led me to donate money to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Norml).

I admit that’s not much, but it’s something. By contrast, it’s hard to imagine making a political virtue out of snorting coke. My impression is that habitual users simply don’t care that they’re indirectly wreaking havoc in Mexico and Colombia.

A significant portion of the people who enter Ph.D. programs in literature seem to come from wealthy backgrounds. So it makes sense that over time, glossy designer drugs would predominate. Maybe it’s inevitable, but I find the trend disturbing.

A lot has been written over the past decade about the corporatization of the university and the subordination of a liberal education to business efficiency. The drug usage of scholars in the humanities may be an indication of that shift. I fear that we’ll have finally, irrevocably, lost the culture wars when the humanists are doing the same drugs as the M.B.A. students.

So we have our work cut out for us. At this point, I should emphasize that my opinions in no way reflect those of The Chronicle.

That said, remember what Nancy Reagan told you when you were very little? Here’s my version: When someone offers you hard drugs, Just Say No and fire up a bong instead. While you’re at it, join NORML. Together we’ll resist the soulless forces of materialism and corporate conformity.

And maybe someday I’ll be able to write a column like this under my real name.

Tom Quincey is the pseudonym of a Ph.D. candidate at a research university.

Popularity: 2% [?]

[SOURCE: StopTheDrugWar.com]

John Stossel says Legalize Every Drug in The New York Sun. It’s nice to see someone in the mainstream media who gets the issue – the whole damn thing – not just bits and pieces. Of course, anyone familiar with Stossel knows that he’s been on the right page about this for a long time.

p.s.

Paul Armentano at NORML is really super exhausted from spending the whole weekdebunking the potent pot propaganda parade, but he summoned the energy to produce a final post on the topic. Paul calls our attention to a disgraceful CNN report falsely crediting increased potency for increased marijuana treatment, as though skyrocketing marijuana arrests and subsequent treatment referrals had nothing to do with that.

and:

This post about drug free zones is good too.

~ StopTheDrugWar.com

Popularity: 3% [?]