tagged w/ Prohibition
-
I'm a big fan of Stumble because well you never know whats going to come next. Here is my favorite from today. Sure it's fifteen years old but still holds true.
by Tom++, June 27, 1995
From the Talk.Politics.Drugs Usenet newsgroup
"We now come to the real reason why marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and other drugs are illegal: Lifestyle control! Prohibitionists fear that if drugs are legalized, the “drug culture” will spread to the rest of society. Nobody can force others to use drugs! Adults must take responsibility for their own health! Because the prohibitionists have decided that drugs are wrong for them does not give them the right to force their lifestyle on others. Prohibitionists want government to play the role of parent. Prohibitionists believe they must babysit adults. Prohibitionists are the lifestyle police!
In the last 25 years, per capita alcohol and tobacco consumption has decreased significantly. This was accomplished by education and treatment, not by threat of punishment! Drug use/abuse would drop significantly if we spent our resources on education and treatment instead of law enforcement. No rational person would call for imprisonment of smokers and drinkers in order to reduce tobacco and alcohol use. But that method is exactly how we try to reduce drug use. The savings to be had in ending the drug war could easily pay for all the drug treatment and education programs we need. The drug war is a failure! Education and treatment work!"
Click here to read the entire post http://www.hoboes.com/FireBlade/Editorials/Legalize/
And on the subject of the drug war here's a little video from our Mindsi2 station
youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzf4_UlbvgII'm a big fan of Stumble because well you never know whats going to come next.... more
-
-
-
Vote YES on Prop 19: A word-for-word analysis of California's Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana by Russ Belville of The Norml Stash Blog.
I’ve spent the evening reading various blogs that have sprouted up in opposition to Proposition 19, California’s effort to legalize marijuana this November. These “Stoners Against Legalization” blogs confound me; they remind me of Sam Kinison’s line comparing “Rock Against Drugs” to “Christians Against Christ”.
Some of these blogs are based on the notion that legalization would be worse than “what we have now”. The assumption there is that if you smoke marijuana in California, you must already have your Prop 215 recommendation from a doctor, and you’d be losing your rights under Prop 19.
Most marijuana smokers, believe it or not, are healthy and aren’t comfortable spending money for a doctor to give them permission to use cannabis. Currently we face a ticket, fine, and misdemeanor drug conviction record for possession an ounce or less of cannabis. That record prevents us from getting student aid and can cost us our jobs, child custody, and housing, or if we’re on probation, our freedom. (Even if California succeeds at downgrading possession to an infraction from a misdemeanor, a $100 ticket is a lot of money to some people!) We face a felony charge if we grow even one plant at home. For us, Prop 19 is much better than “what we have now”.
Another thing that appears in some of these blogs is outright misinformation, such as talk of a $50/ounce state tax (it’s not in the initiative; that was Ammiano’s bill) or that it would supersede Prop 215 (it wouldn’t, and Prop 19 even references Prop 215 in its language, so it couldn’t). Others play up the “millionaires”, “big corporations”, and “monopolies” that would be created and the earnest Emerald Triangle family growers who’d be put out of business (which amuses me: Prop 19 allows localities to regulate sales, so why wouldn’t Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino county residents whose economy depends on pot sales lobby really hard to get legalized pot sales OK’d in those counties and cities within, and regulated in a way that protects the small grower?)
Two notable sticking points have to do with minors below 21: Prop 19 creates a new crime in being an adult over 21 who gives marijuana to adults aged 18-20 and Prop 19 forbids adults over 21 from smoking where minors are present. Prop 19’s penalties in the first situation mirror the penalties for giving alcohol to 18-20-year-olds, but, yes, it is disturbing to create a new statute that calls for jail time over marijuana. It’s also questionable whether an adult should be punished for smoking pot if their child can see them – we don’t even require that of alcohol and tobacco.
But are these reason enough to continue ruining the lives of people 21 and older? Besides, if you’re over 21 smoking with some 18-year-olds or in front of some minors, and you’re doing it inside your home, who is to know? And if you’re 18-20, wouldn’t you love being legal in 1 to 3 years?
Because the biggest thing Prop 19 does, the forest that these blogs are missing for the trees, is LEGALIZE ADULT MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION.
Even under Prop 215, the adult cannabis consumer is guilty of being a criminal unless proven innocent as a patient. When Prop 19 passes, the adult cannabis consumer is considered innocent until proven guilty. It is a complete game changer for law enforcement, because:
•the smell of marijuana on your person is no longer probable cause to search you;
•that joint in your pocket means nothing;
•the seizure of stems, leaves, and seeds from your trash is irrelevant;
•a couple of baggies with weed residue in them are just garbage;
•the sight of that bong on your table visible through the kitchen window isn’t a “welcome” mat for a police search;
•your utility bills raising a bit for water and lights don’t matter;
•your neighbors smelling skunky plants is just a nuisance, not the source for an “anonymous tip”;
•receipts for lights, soil, fertilizer, ballasts, trimmers, and stuff are meaningless;
•infrared signatures of your home aren’t evidence of anything;
•marijuana sniffing K-9 units are out of a job; and
•pre-employment drug testing programs become harder for businesses to maintain for cannabis.
Basically, one of the simplest tools law enforcement has for harassing cannabis consumers – the sight and smell of cannabis and paraphernalia – is no longer in the tool belt. As long as you’re an adult, keep your grow in a 5?x5? area, don’t smoke in front of kids, and don’t leave the house with over an ounce, you are free from police harassment.
And even if you don’t follow the law perfectly, who’s to know? If you’re pulled over and there’s an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know? Does it “smell heavy” in your car? So long as you refuse a search, how will he know? The smell of pot isn’t cause for a search; you’re allowed to have an ounce of it.
If you have a 10?x10? garden, who’s to know? Is the electric bill that much higher? Does the garden smell more (probably not at all if you build a good grow room)? Plus don’t forget that you’re allowed to have more than one ounce, namely, any amount that you grow within your 5?x5? garden, at the location of the garden. I think by the time law enforcement came back with a warrant to investigate how big my garden is, three-fourths of it would be cut down and I would suddenly have my 5?x5? garden and my hanging plants from the last 5?x5? area I harvested.
Suppose there is four pounds of marijuana at my house. Why, officer, that’s the results from my last legal 5?x5? personal garden harvest. What, you don’t see any 5?x5? growing space? Well, I used to grow, but I took down my garden and sold my equipment after my last harvest. Why, yes, they were some pretty big plants. No, I didn’t take any pictures, because what I was doing was perfectly legal. (Prop 19 also has a nice affirmative defense to claim the marijuana in your home was for your personal use. These blogs never seem to notice that.)
So below I’ve decided to write a word-for-word analysis of Prop 19, mainly because it seems like many of the people against it have never read it. Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even a college graduate.
CONTINUED>>> http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/07/20/California-s-Prop-19-Word-Word-AnalysisVote YES on Prop 19: A word-for-word analysis of California's Proposition 19 to... more
-
-
A man was shot and killed by Santa Clara County sheriff's deputies after he pointed a rifle at them in a remote area where 20,000 marijuana plants were being grown, authorities said Thursday.
The man, whose name has not been released, was shot at about 10:25 a.m. Wednesday when he pointed a rifle at deputies who were on a "scouting mission" for marijuana, said Sgt. Rick Sung.
Three deputies shot the man, Sung said. Despite being shot, the man again reached for the rifle, prompting the deputies to fire another volley at him, Sung said.
Deputies initially believed another person fled the scene, but Sung said it was possible another group of deputies had seen the same suspect running before he was shot dead.
The incident happened near Mines Road in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County south of Del Valle Reservoir. Alameda County sheriff's deputies joined their counterparts from Santa Clara County in the anti-marijuana operation.
The 20,000 marijuana plants have a street value of between $60 million and $80 million, Sung said.
The deputies who shot the man were placed on paid administrative leave pending investigations by the sheriff and the Santa Clara County district attorney's office.
- Article from San Francisco Chronicle.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/07/23/Police-Kill-Man-California-Marijuana-FarmA man was shot and killed by Santa Clara County sheriff's deputies after he... more
-
-
From the Canadian Press: "Cheech and Chong have some blunt advice for Stephen Harper when it comes to Canada's drug laws. The stoner comedy duo believe marijuana should be legalized and suggest Mr. Harper is out of step with the public will."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcbIcUkuvig&feature=player_embeddedFrom the Canadian Press: "Cheech and Chong have some blunt advice for Stephen... more
-
-
-
Advocates of drug law reform had reason to celebrate today after public statements by senior figures in the medical and legal community suggested the argument was turning in their favour.
The chair of the Bar Council argued in his most recent report that decriminalising drug use would have substantial public benefits, while the editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the UK's most well-respected medical publication, came out publicly in support of drug law reform.
The twin developments come at an exciting time for those calling for a more liberal drug policy. Both deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and prime minister David Cameron are on record questioning the effectiveness of Britain's drug laws. Activists hope reform might be in the pipeline.
In his most recent report the chair of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, argued that decriminalising drugs did not lead to greater use and would have the effect of cutting crime.
"A growing body of comparative evidence suggests that decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences; it can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health," he said.
"All this can be achieved without any overall increase in drug usage. If this is so, then it would be rational to follow suit. And this will save money and mean that there is less pressure on the justice system.
"A rational approach is not usually the response of large parts of the media when it comes to issues relating to criminal justice," he continued.
"This is something the Bar Council can address. We are apolitical; we act for the prosecution and the defence and most of the judiciary are former members. We can speak out in favour of an approach which urges policies which work and not those which simply play to the gallery."
The comments came at the same time as a special edition of the BMJ in which the editor, Fiona Godlee, endorses an article by Steve Rolles of Transform, a group which lobbies for reform of the UK's drugs laws.
"In a beautifully argued essay Stephen Rolles calls on us to envisage an alternative to the hopelessly failed war on drugs," she writes.
"He says, and I agree, that we must regulate drug use, not criminalise it."
Danny Kushlick, head of external affairs at Transform, said: "The war on drugs is in deep crisis. These comments show that support for drug policy reform is becoming more and more mainstream, and fundamental change is now inevitable.
"With a prime minster and deputy prime minister both longstanding supporters of alternatives to the war on drugs, at the very least the government must initiate an impact assessment comparing prohibition with decriminalisation and strict legal regulation."
In 2007, Mr Clegg - then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman - said the "so-called war on drugs is failing" following a critical RSA report into drug prohibition.
David Cameron voted in favour of recommendation 24 in the home affairs committee's inquiry into drug misuse in 2002, which read: "We recommend that the government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways-including the possibility of legalisation and regulation-to tackle the global drugs dilemma."
Activists may be disappointed if they expect a sea-change in policy on the back of the coalition government's legislative agenda, however.
While Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron have previously expressed a sympathetic view of the arguments calling for drug law reform, neither will be keen to trigger the media attack which would result from a move to liberalise drug laws.
Recent comments from home secretary Theresa May to the home affairs committee suggest the government is moving in precisely the opposite direction, and is ready to pass legislation allowing for temporary bans to be imposed on legal highs while the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) establishes their legal status.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/07/22/Experts-Turn-Against-War-DrugsAdvocates of drug law reform had reason to celebrate today after public statements by... more
-
-
CANNABIS CULTURE - Nearly two thirds (65%) of Americans think the US's "War on Drugs" has been a failure, according to a new scientific poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. Only 8% of respondents said they thought it had been a success, with 27% not sure.
Drug Abuse
The online survey, which has a +/- 3.1% margin of error, sampled 1,003 adults about their thoughts on America's and drug problems. 64% of those polled said they thought "America has a serious drug abuse problem and it affects the whole country".
Legalization
52% of respondents strongly or moderately supported the legalization of marijuana. 10% or less supported the legalization for ecstacy, heroin, powder cocaine, methamphetamine or crack cocaine.
Mexico
The poll also addressed Mexico's growing drug production problem, and 49% believed Mexico "deserves most of the blame" for "allowing the drug cartels to grow and flourish".
COMPLETE PDF IS AVAILABLE ON LINK>>> http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/07/22/65-Americans-Think-War-Drugs-Has-FailedCANNABIS CULTURE - Nearly two thirds (65%) of Americans think the US's "War... more
-
-
With California heading to a decision on marijuana legalization later this year, the debate is gaining some well deserved exposure in Canada. A reversal of archaic thinking should prevail on reversing prohibition, and Canada should lead down this path.
Here are 11 powerful reasons to end prohibition of cannabis:
1. Legalization would eliminate the estimated $10 billion collected each year in B.C. alone, by gangs ranging from the H.A. to U.N.
2. Gangs exchange marijuana for harder drugs such as cocaine from South of the border, which come into Canada in large quantities, and feed the drug distribution “pushing” system.
3. Shipments of marijuana into the U.S. also get exchanged for American made guns.
4. The price of marijuana will overnight crash to 10% or less of current levels.
5. Legalization would bring much needed tax revenues.
6. Legalization would dramatically reduce whatever effect marijuana might have as a gateway drug – when you eliminate the financial benefit on the street, you eliminate the exposure to the “pusher.” When you eliminate contact with the pusher you eliminate much of the exposure to hard drugs.
7. Allowing Canadians to grow a maximum of 5 plants for personal use, for example, would eliminate the thousands of dangerous, energy sucking, destructive grow ops that the police claim exist in surprising numbers.
Apparently 1 in 4 homes in large swaths of Surrey, B.C. are grow ops.
8. Canada would save billions of dollars currently spent on the whole process of catching, charging, “trialing,” and incarcerating users. The enormous bureaucracy burdening the taxpayers, would shrink dramatically. The vocal voices currently against legalization, beside the pushers, include those who financially benefit from existing laws.
9. Overnight you will find that unsafe, spiked marijuana will disappear.
10. Test labs would bring conformity, awareness and a certain degree of safety to consumption. There are 500 cannabinoids in cannabis which can have different effects depending on their degree of presence in the samples. Along with cannabinoid analysis, laboratories could test for fungal, bacterial, e.coli and pesticide screening. “Certification,” would bring a degree of safety and standardization of protocols to what is now a very often dangerous product.
11. Medicinal cannabis use has broad support and cannabis has been proven effective in dealing with pain. Safe cannabis should be made available to sufferers through certified dispensaries.
The spread of hard drugs is disintegrating large portions of Canadian society. The power and reach of the networks that push the hard drugs has been made powerful and ubiquitous by billions made from marijuana. It’s time to end the insanity that has fuelled this festering sore that impacts every neighborhood.
Additions to this list through comments are welcome. [Go here to read comments from the originally printed story from Digital Journal].
- Article from Digital Journal on July 20, 2010.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/07/22/11-Reasons-End-Cannabis-Prohibition-CanadaWith California heading to a decision on marijuana legalization later this year, the... more
-
-
The drug MDMA—better known by its street name, Ecstasy—may be illegal, but a new study suggests that it’s also a promising treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.
The study, which appears in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, included 20 people with PTSD stemming from traumas such as sexual assault and combat stress. On two separate occasions, 12 of the people took a dose of MDMA and then spoke for several hours with a pair of trained therapists. The others took a placebo but received the same therapy. (All of the participants received additional therapy sessions that did not involve the drug.)
Two months later, 10 of the 12 people who took MDMA had improved to the point where they no longer met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, and three participants whose condition had prevented them from holding down a job were able to return to work.
By contrast, just two of the eight people in the placebo group experienced a substantial improvement in their symptoms.
MDMA is believed to raise levels of the feel-good brain chemical serotonin and the so-called "bonding hormone," oxytocin. The resulting sense of euphoria and emotional warmth seems to help patients connect with their therapists, says Michael Mithoefer, M.D., the lead author of the study and a Mount Pleasant, South Carolina-based psychiatrist who specializes in PTSD.
"A lot of the time, people have quite painful and challenging experiences revisiting the trauma, and [MDMA] can help them do it without being overwhelmed or numbed out," he says.
Don't try this experiment at home. Ecstasy use can cause depression, severe anxiety, and potential cognitive problems, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. And when purchased on the street it can be contaminated.
Conducting a study with an illegal drug is a complex process. This was the first clinical trial to explore the therapeutic potential of MDMA since the drug was outlawed in 1985, and the researchers required the permission of the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration , and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
"It took quite a bit of time to get approval," Mithoefer says.
The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a California-based nonprofit organization that also sponsors research on medical marijuana and psychedelic drugs such as LSD and psilocybin.
The use of MDMA in psychotherapy has been studied for decades, but research in the U.S. all but ground to a halt after the drug became illegal.
Mithoefer and his team are now gearing up for a similar study involving combat veterans, which is scheduled to begin later this year.
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/18/can-ecstasy-help-ease-post-traumatic-stress/The drug MDMA—better known by its street name, Ecstasy—may be illegal, but... more
-
-
-
-
Somehow, and no one seems to even imagine how, this country managed to survive and thrive before 1984 without a national minimum drinking age. Before that, the drinking question was left to the states.
In the 19th century, and looking back even before — prepare yourself to imagine horrific anarchistic nightmares — there were no drinking laws anywhere, so far as anyone can tell. The regulation of drinking and age was left to society, which is to say families, churches, and communities with varying sensibilities who regulated such things with varying degrees of intensity. Probably some kids drank themselves silly — and we all know that this doesn't happen now (wink, wink) — but many others learned to drink responsibly from an early age, even drinking bourbon for breakfast.
Really, it is only because we are somehow used to it that we accept the complete absurdity of a national law that prohibits the sale of beer, wine, and liquor to anyone under the age of 21. This is a restriction unknown in the developed world. Most countries set 18 as the limit, and countries like Germany and Austria allow 16-year-olds to buy wine and beer. In the home of the brave, the police are busting up teen parties, shutting down bars, hectoring restaurants, fining convenience stores, and otherwise bullying people into clean living. We read.....
http://mises.org/daily/4559Somehow, and no one seems to even imagine how, this country managed to survive and... more
-
-
-
For 30 years, Donald Tashkin has studied the effects of marijuana on lung function. His work has been funded by the vehemently anti-marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse, which has long sought to demonstrate that marijuana causes lung cancer. After 3 decades of anti-drug research, here’s what Tashkin has to say about marijuana laws:
“Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects,” Tashkin says. “But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization.
Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.
UCLA’s Tashkin studied heavy marijuana smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. He hypothesized that there would be a definitive link between cancer and marijuana smoking, but the results proved otherwise.
“What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect,” says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted.
Prejudice against marijuana and smoking in general runs so deep for many people that it just seems inconceivable that marijuana could actually reduce the risk of lung cancer.
But that’s what the data shows and it not only demolishes a major tenet of popular anti-pot propaganda, but also points towards a potentially groundbreaking opportunity to develop cancer cures through marijuana research.
Over and over again, all the bad things we’ve been told about marijuana are revealed to be not only false, but often the precise opposite of the truth.For 30 years, Donald Tashkin has studied the effects of marijuana on lung function.... more
-
-
REMEMBER TO VOTE THIS NOVEMBER! for or against the only way to matter is to vote.
this goes out to my california friends.
and all those fighting to legalize a harmless plant!REMEMBER TO VOTE THIS NOVEMBER! for or against the only way to matter is to vote.... more
-
-
-
-
A federal judge in Maine, sentencing a 32-year-old former Boston firefighter on a marijuana-growing charge this week, noted that the man had admitted smoking about 2 ounces of the drug each week during the time he worked as a firefighter, prosecutors said.
The comments came when Sean Berte was sentenced Thursday by US District Judge George Z. Singal in Portland to eight months in prison for his role in cultivating more than 100 marijuana plants, US Attorney Paula D. Silsby’s office said yesterday in a statement.
“At the sentencing, the court noted that in addition to pleading guilty to cultivating the marijuana, the defendant admitted smoking approximately two ounces of marijuana [weekly] during the eight years the defendant was employed as a Boston firefighter,’’ prosecutors said. “The court noted that the defendant’s drug usage during his employment violated the respect and trust the public has in firefighters.’’
The judge was commenting on a presentencing report prepared by the US Probation and Pretrial Services System, said Assistant US Attorney Daniel J. Perry, who prosecuted the case. Such reports are not public documents. While the judge spoke of Berte’s using the drug during the years he worked as a firefighter, “There’s no information in the record to suggest that he consumed drugs while on duty,’’ Perry said.
The plants were discovered after police and Drug Enforcement Administration agents executed a search warrant at a home in Bridgton, Maine, on May 29, 2009. In addition to marijuana plants and harvested marijuana, prosecutors said, the agents recovered objects such as grow lights, timers, an exhaust vent, and various agricultural products.
Berte resigned from his firefighter job shortly after the search was conducted. He pleaded guilty to the charge in February.
Berte was also sentenced to three years of supervised release. Silsby’s office said that both the conviction and the sentence were significant because they sent a strong message that those who grow marijuana in Maine will be prosecuted and face severe punishment.
“He accepted full responsibility, took his punishment like a man, and apologized to his family and to the court for his mistakes,’’ said Berte’s defense attorney, Philip A. Tracy Jr. “He hopes to return to be a productive member of society and rebuild his relationship with his family.’’ Tracy had no further comment.
http://imgsrv.wbz.com/image/DbGraphic/201006/1599713.jpg?1277612523
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/26/ex_firefighter_to_spend_8_months_in_prison_for_growing_marijuana/A federal judge in Maine, sentencing a 32-year-old former Boston firefighter on a... more
-
-
