Whether you think pot is cool, or wonder why alcohol is legal and pot isn't, or wonder if raiding California medical marijuana clinics is a good use of Federal resources that could be used to keep planes from crashing into tall buildings, or wonder think the states shouldn't be totally irrelevant, this link may be worthwhile. http://www.mpp.org/USA Oh I already faxed my Senators and Congressman.

POLITICAL COMERCIAL

By proposing H.R. 2592 Rep. Barney Frank (Mass. D) has shown his libertarian side. (Note lower case "l").

END POLITICAL COMMERCIAL

I support medicinal marijuana. But of course who didn't know that already? I'm basically Anti-Suffering In Pain, which is why.

Which also means you are for suffering afterwards, because the drug induced paranoia, perhaps caused brain-damage, and generally turned the person into a passive vegetable? There are always alternatives to cannibis, and it is an attack on the sick to release poisonous narcotics to be used by them. There is no serious medical case for legalising marajuna - it is a political case, where junkies and drug-dealers begin by getting cannibis legalised and move on from there. Taking drugs is morally repugnant and medically lethal. End of story.

Peter.

Not to mention the rush of people grabbing Twinkies and Pringles off the shelves of convenience stores, right Peter?

I support drug legalization, as the 'war on drugs' is costing me--a taxpayer--and the government billions of dollars a year to fight.

This is no different from prohibition.

Peter is correct - there are no proven medical benefits to marijuana that would make it superior (either in side-effects or effectiveness) to other painkillers.

More to the point, it is ridiculous to suggest that there is some sort of medical "benefit" to smoking something with a much higher tar content than tobacco.

I am not in favour of marijuana legalization, rather decriminalization. As for "hard" drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc.), there are definite health and societal disadvantages to condoning the abuse of dangerous substances. The analogy with prohibition is false - alcohol is not inherantly unhealthy when consumed in moderation.

Again, decriminalization is preferable - spend the money of the "war on drugs" on prevention and treatment instead.

Pot causes munchies. If chemotherapy causes you to lose your appetite and the doctor perscibes it, should a politician be able to veto his advice?

That question is irrelevant. Doctors may not proscribe illegal drugs, and if they are legal then a politician has no "veto" anyway. And as Doctors disagree on matters like this, the law must be based on expert medical opinion. Even if you care nothing for the morality of drug-taking, it is clear that health-wise it is very bad for the person.

Peter.

Ah, but what do you do when the 'experts' disagree? The easy answer would be to side with the side that most fits your opinion, but there are dangers in that. Beleive me, I learned a while back that blindly and idiotically following someone who appears to have the same ideologies as you can get in trouble.

Which also means you are for suffering afterwards, because the drug induced paranoia, perhaps caused brain-damage, and generally turned the person into a passive vegetable?

Have you ever met a recreational pot smoker?

That question is irrelevant. Doctors may not proscribe illegal drugs, and if they are legal then a politician has no "veto" anyway.

But legality in this case isn't something that just fell out of the sky. The politicians make that call. If the Dr. says that he'd like to perscribe it if it was legal and the politician says I won't make it legal, we have our problem.

In California (but not the United States and yes I know California is part of the U.S.) it is legal. The question is should it be a Federal crime or do states have any jurisdiction left.

Doctors may not proscribe illegal drugs,

That's why they're proscribed. The question is can they prescribe them.

OK, so I'm really nitpicky... this is a nitpicker's site!

I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana for medical use, or at the very least for research.

Josh, to respond to a couple of points you made:

Peter is correct - there are no proven medical benefits to marijuana that would make it superior (either in side-effects or effectiveness) to other painkillers.

Nobody is arguing that marijuana is superior to other drugs. The point is that it may help people for whom other painkillers do not work well enough. Medications vary in their effect from person to person. I've had personal experience with that, but I won't bore you with the details.

More to the point, it is ridiculous to suggest that there is some sort of medical "benefit" to smoking something with a much higher tar content than tobacco.

According to William's link, it may be possible to create a delivery system similar to the one asthmatics use, which would eliminate the harmful effects of smoking marijuana.

The problem is, it's extremely difficult to perform research right now, because doctors have to go through so much red tape to even get marijuana for research purposes. Also, few drug companies are interested in investing in marijuana research at this point because--well, would you invest a lot of money in a product that may never become legal?

Anyway, to a dying patient, the harmful effects of smoking marijuana hardly make much difference. If there is anything that can make their remaining days a little easier, I think they should have it.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that if these same arguments had been used successfully against the development of medical uses for opium years ago, we would never have developed morphine. With a little research, who knows what kind of wonder drugs might come from marijuana. Nothing might come of it. The point is, if we don't try, we will never know.

Juli, the trouble with that argument is it doesn't only apply to cannibis. Why not do the same with LSD, or ectacy or something? The thing is when you have a poison there is only so much research you can do into any supposed benefits of it. And to ignore the moral consequences of using drugs on the sick is also rather irresponsible. Any drug dealer will happily tell you that there is nothing wrong with taking drugs, but why follow his depraved immorality in deciding public policy?

Peter.

Anyway, to a dying patient, the harmful effects of smoking marijuana hardly make much difference. If there is anything that can make their remaining days a little easier, I think they should have it.

I agree! And FTR Peter, in case you're wondering, there some who want Marijuana legal period, like you've said. But, not everyone who wants it medicinally legal want it legal for recreational use. The two are not mutually inclsuive so I don't think badly of them, or sayign I agree with them. Just acknowledging their existence.

Why not do the same with LSD, or ectacy or something?

I will let someone msarter then me point out the issues in the later part of that post, whilst I shall stick to what I know. Now, my memory of this MAY be a tad fuzzy, but during the mid or late '80s, there was a doctor who apparently founf psychological beneifts of Ectasy, and gave to some of his patients. I forget what it was for, but apparently these people did get better, despite the knwon side-effects of horniness and excessive thirst. Of course the Government shut him down. The point is LEGAL drugs like the over the counter stuff has bad effects, same as the illegal stuff. In fact the only difference between pharemcutival companies and streep dealers is that pharmiceticuals dress better and make more money. That all Partnership Fro A Drug Free America thing is a smokescreen. They want us hopped up on drugs, they just want it to be THEIR drugs. Did you ever hear the story of the company that was PAYING shrinks to get kids put on drugs like Ritalin, even when they didn't need it? Psychiatrists are pushers, same as Crack dealers.

P.S. Don't ask for a link. I get all my stuff from 'underground' news sources (i.e. stuff NOT paid for by the Democans or Republicrats), and they don't have a website. But that's cool since I distrust just about everything I read off the net anyway.

Juli, the trouble with that argument is it doesn't only apply to cannibis. Why not do the same with LSD, or ectacy or something?

Well why not?

The thing is when you have a poison there is only so much research you can do into any supposed benefits of it.

Why can't the researchers make that call?

And to ignore the moral consequences of using drugs on the sick is also rather irresponsible. Any drug dealer will happily tell you that there is nothing wrong with taking drugs, but why follow his depraved immorality in deciding public policy?

And if you ask any street dealer if weed should be made legal he would say 'no' because if it was legal and sold over the counter he couldn't charge $50 for a miniscule bag of the unrefined leaves of a weed. BTW I can go ask one if you'd like.

during the mid or late '80s, there was a doctor who apparently founf psychological beneifts of Ectasy, and gave to some of his patients. I forget what it was for, but apparently these people did get better, despite the knwon side-effects of horniness and excessive thirst.

Don't forget about the side effects that include excessive energy, dialated pupels, happyness and good feelings.

The thing is when you have a poison there is only so much research you can do into any supposed benefits of it.

We're so glad that you've saved us the trouble of doing any research, Peter! Thank you for the time and money saved!

Here's a thing for you to consider... most medical drugs ARE poison (in varying dosages). Especially most cancer medicines. But because they're poisons, it's a good thing they didn't waste any time or money in researching them!

So...if all medicines are poisons...and poison has no research value...should we quit searching for medicines to ward off AIDS?

Peter confuses me.

Scott, anything is dangerous is consumed to excess. But that doesn't make drugs which are inherently dangerous and poisonous whatever quantities they are taken in any better. To make no distinction between say, penicillin and LSD is moronic.

There has already been lots of research into supposed medical benefits of cannibis. The American Cancer Society and the US National Multiple Sclerosis Society are unanimous: cannibis is not a useful drug. Professor Greenfield, Britain's most prominent neurologist (so she knows what she is talking about) goes further, in showing that the chemical balance of the brain may be interrupted by drug-taking, especially by cannibis. This means destruction of imagination and the induction of passivity in the person. Those slowly speaking hippy types are no stereotype: that is what cannibis does to you. It encourages paranoia and can counteract the effects of anti-schizophrenic drugs, as well as bring on schizophrenia in others who would otherwise be fine. It destroys brain cells even faster than alcohol, is more cancerous than tobacco, and as little as one joint every two days can cause permanent brain damage. If you have some great research plan up your sleeve that is going to make all these terrible things worthwhile, Scott, now is the time to reveal it.

Brian, I don't think I have ever met or spoken to anyone who thinks marijuana should only be legalised for medical uses. The reason is very simple: the medical "argument" is a front:

"We will use the medical marijuana argument as a red herring to give pot a good name." - Keith Stroup, 1979

People who are so selfish that they sell and consume drugs that melt away their minds and eliminate their concern for the world as it really is are the sort of scum who mug the elderly for their next hit. They are the people who risk their lives and end others' lives robbing convenience stores solely to that end. The idea that the selfishness that drug-taking naturally involves is compatable with a genuine concern for the sick is just silly. They use the medical argument to save themselves from arrest and so they may take drugs anywhere they like, not to ease the suffering of a single person.

Drug-taking is wrong, and it is an abhorence to civilised society. It destroys the basic principle of the way the world works, which is that rewards come from hard work, kindness, intellectual fullfillment and love, not from nothing. It creates a false ecstacy that naturally makes people less interesting in doing the hard work that will create real joy.

Amsterdam legalised cannibis years ago. Its own Minister of Justice describes the city as the "crime capital of Europe". This is a continent that stretches right from the Republic of Ireland to Afghanistan, and the drug capital happens to be the crime capital. Pretty big coincidence, huh? Since the legalisation of cannibis there, teenage use of cannibis rose to 250% the figure before legalisation. Since then, the number of registered heroin addicts rose by a quarter. Alaska tried relaxing the drugs laws a while back. When they saw the horrific consequences they quickly reversed their decision. Let's not anyone else make this mistake.

Peter.

Brian, I don't think I have ever met or spoken to anyone who thinks marijuana should only be legalised for medical uses.

Well I have, Peter. So people who take drugs are selfish eh? Well since when has Selfishness been a crime? It's awful yeah, but really the only one truly affected is the selfish schmuck, and the Unverse will remove him in a timely fashion. Ever hear of the Darwin Awards? Frankly I think drug users are nothing more than shoe-ins for that award. And if we make EVERYHTING that sends these morons out of the gene pool illegal, than we should also criminalize trucks, toilets, gasoline, motorcycles, Camaros, ropes, bungee cords, cats, speed bumps, ad infinitum. Conservatives of your mindset seem to think that society can be saved by making more and more things criminal and locking more people. However, many people who go into jail for such 'horrible" crimes as being gay, or smoking a joint, or trying to amature graffiti art, or, the wrost crime of all, being innocent and having a bad lawyer, go in decent people who've made a mistake that they can learn from given the chance, come out cold blooded, heartless murderers that drag black men to death using a truck.

---

Quote:

To make no distinction between say, penicillin and LSD is moronic.

---

Well I have, Peter.

I strongly suspect they were lying, then.

So people who take drugs are selfish eh? Well since when has Selfishness been a crime?

What does it being a crime have to do with anything? My point was that drug-taking is an inherently selfish act, and it ties in with all other acts of selfishness, like muggings and theft to pay for a drug habit. So to make out that junkie scum and drug dealers are motivated by some concern for the sick is nonsense. They are motivated simply by a selfish desire to help themselves.

Ever hear of the Darwin Awards? Frankly I think drug users are nothing more than shoe-ins for that award. And if we make EVERYHTING that sends these morons out of the gene pool illegal, than we should also criminalize trucks, toilets, gasoline, motorcycles, Camaros, ropes, bungee cords, cats, speed bumps, ad infinitum.

Again, suicidal idiocy is nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one is saying we should ban ropes or cats.

Conservatives of your mindset seem to think that society can be saved by making more and more things criminal and locking more people.

Brian, I simply stand by the existing laws. There is no point in making things illegal if they are not immoral. I don't propose any new things being made illegal.

As for saving society, your perhaps overblown phrase disguises the real point which is that Conservatives in fact want only to build the better society. I think the vast majority of normal people would agree that a society where drug-taking is seen as a dangerous crime which should be punished is better than one where drug-taking is a normal, legal part of growing up and everyday life.

However, many people who go into jail for such 'horrible" crimes as being gay, or smoking a joint, or trying to amature graffiti art

How in the hell can someone go to jail for being gay? How often do people actually get sentenced for the offence of smoking pot? If only they did, society might be a lot safer and more decent. Graffiti is not "art" and to claim it is is to support vile and mindless vandalism which ought to be opposed. None of these things are going to lead to a prison sentence, although things might be better if the last two did.

[They] go in decent people who've made a mistake that they can learn from given the chance, come out cold blooded, heartless murderers that drag black men to death using a truck

This is garbage. Decent people will not become "cold blooded, heartless murderers". To condemn prison in this immature way is ridiculous.

Peter.

To say that something poisonous can never help is plain wrong.

I didn't say that. But the tremendous harm caused by cannibis is hardly evidence that it will do good.

The research you cite refers to use of cannabis as a recreational drug; do you have any examples of research into cannabis or cannabis derivatives as a medication?

Yes, and I quoted it above:

"The American Cancer Society and the US National Multiple Sclerosis Society are unanimous: cannibis is not a useful drug."

This isn't to say that there's any way to know in advance if medical marijuana research will lead to new effective treatments. There's also no way at all to know in advance that it won't.

Such research has been done. Reputable scientists do not think it does have medical benefits. We do know about research once it has actually been completed! It supports what I am saying.

Peter.

I strongly suspect they were lying, then.

Boy you will say or do ANYTHING to make you right and me wrong won't you? You are so self-righteous that your presume to know people you've never met, who live thousands of miles away from you, better than I know them. I who live less than a few miles away, in one case live WITH, adn have known for years. And yet you call us morons. I may hyopthethize about your family adn friends PEter, but I DON'T, or at least I try not to make bold assetions about them as I KNOW that you know them better than me.

What does it being a crime have to do with anything? My point was that drug-taking is an inherently selfish act, and it ties in with all other acts of selfishness, like muggings and theft to pay for a drug habit. So to make out that junkie scum and drug dealers are motivated by some concern for the sick is nonsense. They are motivated simply by a selfish desire to help themselves.

Now, Peter, here is where you ALWASY fail to lsiten. With drugs leglaized and regulated, and controlled by the Government, we can PREVENT a lot of muggings and robberies. How? If people are in safe houses, either getting drugs or being treated for addiciton, which IS a diesease BTW, they aren't out buying guns and robbing 7-11s. Ever think fo that? Doubt it, but, again, I am not you so I won't presume. And exactly when did I say junkies and dealers were looking out for other people's health? Nowhere did I say that! Junkies need help, and Street Dealers are scum, NO ONE has disagreed with you there that I can recall. But addiciton can lead to that. Slefishness, lack of concern for SELF or others. That's why it needs to be treated, not criminalized! And please don't go off on one your 'pedophillia/necorphillia/whateverphillia' tangents. They ARE not same one, and treating someone thing a certian way doesn't mena we have to treat EVERYTHING a certain way! An 'All Or Nothing At All' mentality is what leads to Bulls^it happening sin the world. Allow me to epxlain how.

After Columbine, a Memorial wall was built at the shcool for the victims. A nice thing. Some students were religous. OK. Don't agree, but it's not my job to tell them what to do. The wall was made up of small square tiles, designed by parents, teachers and students. Good! This should help the ehaling process. The rleigous students put things like prayers and other holy symbols as a humble attempt to aid said process. again, I'm an atheist, but I don't see the problem here. Some deal with grief through Religon, others though Humor, not my palce to choose for them, I can only choose for myself. But the School board disallowed the tiles becuase of the seperation of Church and State rule. Now, I wasn't happy about this, but it sort of made snese. Didn't mean I had to like it mind you, but again, not my job. But here's where I got REALLY pyssed. They said, and I THINK this is the quote. If I'm off correct me, "If we allowe dthe symbols of Chrsitianity, Judiasm, Islam, Wicca, and Buddhism, we'd have to allow Swasitkas, burning crosses and swear words." HOLD UP! This is one of the dumbest things I ever heard in my life! Of course it DOESN'T! If a tile endorses one religion over another, fine. Take it down. If it endorses religon period, go ahead. rmeove it. But if it's just someone painting a Cross and the words "I Beleive You're In A Better Place. We Miss You," who ••••••• cares? Not this Atheist! There is such a thing as discretion. Such a thing as common sense! Common sense that someone using their Religion to grieve and pary for lost loved ones is fine, nazism isn't! That this school is so •••••• as to equate the two is beyond me! But it is that all or nothing at all mentality that I was tlaking about earlier at work Peter. And besides, they're just tiny little tiles! No one is going to have the time or desire to read all of them anyway! This school had it heart broken. I think we can let a few crosses, stars, and paryers slide through, 'kay?

Again, suicidal idiocy is nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one is saying we should ban ropes or cats.

I agree we shouldn't. I was exagerating to make a point. Your belief about the legality of hemp wasn't my concern, becuase a lot of people share it. MY problem was with the REASONING behind it. Suicidal Idiocy is at the very core of the discussion! My point is, if the dumb of the Earth want to make themselves sterile or otherwise rmeove themselves from the gene pool, as long as they don't take anyone else with them, I say let the moron go, you know? It sounds callous sure, but then again so does "Fags Aren't Normal humans!" See where I'm going here? Of course we shouldn't ban ropes! And most assuredly not cats! If Cats were illegal I'd have been in jail since I was 4. The point is, don't you read the Darwin Awards, and laugh? Don't you think that anyone who swallows a pill that can kill them deserves any worse treatment than the dingbat who decides it's a good idea to use a cigareete lighter to peek into the gas tank of his car? I say no, becuase both peopel are follwoing the laws of natural Selection. Darwin says it's about physical strenght, I disagree. The Smart will continue on-ward, the Brainless won't. UNLESS people like you interfere, with your "You must have achild and you're selfish if you don't!" or "Don't smoke that joint! You'll get fat!" speeches. You aren't saving society by letting these shcmucks live Peter, your damning it. I for one will never play God by getting in the way of a dumbass who wants to see if he can bounce off the pavement when he jumps off a bridge.

Brian, I simply stand by the existing laws. There is no point in making things illegal if they are not immoral. I don't propose any new things being made illegal.

Ah but if we make everything immoral illegal, then what morality do we use? Christian morality? The jail population is too big as it is! A man or woman who dares to look a litle long at a picture in the Sears catalog will be a criminal in the law's eyes then (Lust is alledgedly a sin). So will people who wear clothing made of two fabrics, etc. I have a Bible in my house (actually I have a Koran, a Talmud and a fe wother Holy Books but let's not get into that). What about Wiccan morlaity? As logn as you aren't causing doing could be destroying the planet thus leaving the Huamn race doomed to extinction. Jewish morality? Bye bye Bacon Cheeseburgers! I could go on for hours, but I think, I HOPE, you get what I'm saying.

As for saving society, your perhaps overblown phrase disguises the real point which is that Conservatives in fact want only to build the better society. I think the vast majority of normal people would agree that a society where drug-taking is seen as a dangerous crime which should be punished is better than one where drug-taking is a normal, legal part of growing up and everyday life.

Save society? Save it? They want to throw people into a situation where they could get raped, killed, or even wrose, turned INTO a monster by monsters for siting in a dark room and being dumb. This is not for the love of society. Not even for the love of god. That is for the hate of Freedom. My theory is, Republicans have been so blinded by hatred of Liberals, their beleif that liberals are criminals, they want to convict as many epople of Felonies as possible, since Felons can't vote. The rational for this is beyond me. I dout someone who would wilingly rape and murder fifteen women is not likely going to spend time in a ballot box doing anyhting other than jerking off, but I digress. We aren't saving america by throwing everyone we can get our hadns on in prison Peter! Statitstically, it's been shown that 1 our of every 12 people serving sentences in Prison are innocent? How does that make you feel Peter? That we're doing a good job? That justice is being served? What planet are you from to think that? You talk about me blowing things out of porportion, but you sem to think that is drugs are legalized, or at least decriminalized (NOT the same thing, but let a law expert tell you cause I'm too tired) people will just be shooting up all the time on corners everywhere. How dumb does one have to be to think that? Do you really guys like you and me are so weak minded thta if Coke is legal and easy to do in safe houses we'll jaunt down to give it try? That's as insulting to yourself as it is to any of us. Poeple who aren't going to do it, AREN'T GOING TO DO IT! PERIOD! And just because drugs might be legal doesn't mean parents wills top doing their jobs. Oh, wait too late. American parnts already expect an uncaring Governemtn to raise their children. They do bad jobs as parents then try to blame songs or video games when their kids wind up climbing a Texas bell-tower with a high-powered sniper rifle. But again, I digress. My point is, Cigareetes, and Alcholol, the WORST drugs of them all IMO, are legal. But does every single person in the Free World do them? NO! Why? Well for some it's a lack of interest. For others, experience. They've seen waht such things have doen to loved ones, so they choose not to go down that road, and to them i say "Good boy! Have a cookie!" But for others it's because their parents actually parented, not depending on a Governemnt that won't want the kid unless he's a fetus or at Military age, or a may-may not exist deity. If you look at history Peter, most if not all of societies ills can be traced back to one thing. BAD PARENTS! The good parents will do their best to protect their children from things that may hurt them, legal or otherwise. And normal, normal is subjective Peter. There ar epeople that consider someone who base his entire life on a book that was old before his great-grandparents were born abnormal. There are some that would consider talking on the Internet to a bunch of people he hates abnormal. And certianly there are those who would see reducing peopel's points and beliefs to such words as 'nonsense' and 'garbage' with no real evidence other than personal poltics abnormal. Adn some of those people I mentioned, are Christians.

How in the hell can someone go to jail for being gay? How often do people actually get sentenced for the offence of smoking pot? If only they did, society might be a lot safer and more decent. Graffiti is not "art" and to claim it is is to support vile and mindless vandalism which ought to be opposed. None of these things are going to lead to a prison sentence, although things might be better if the last two did.

Well, right up until the 1960s, anyone caught having consensual Homosexula states, especially in the South, was thronw in jail on 'Sodomy' charges. The same law that allows Florida to keep orla sex between two consenting, soemtimes MARRIED adults illegal. Of course these alws are rarely enforced anymore but the fact that they at one point were scares me! What if one day, I'm in massecheusets for whatever reason. I decide, in the privacy of my hotel room, to go down on my wife of 15 years. Someone hears her screams of pelasure, and calls the cops. If that law were in existence in Mass., we could hypothetically go to jail. And before you say a d@mn word you've used plenty of hypotheticals yourself, some even LESS plausible than mine, and mine is pretty unlikely. As for smoking a joint, it happens in America my friend. Sometimes,not always but sometimes, just having known a Drug Dealer in grade school cna be enough for police to come knocking on your door. Souns like abuse of power to me. As for Grafitti Art, ever been to a meuseum? I've seen the Grafitti art exhibit. Basically these guys are like Monet but with spraypaint instead of a brush. Now I was exagerating yet again, and you missed it yet again. My point was, of course vandalism is a crime, but most vandals are doing it for one of two reasons. Idocy and political decent. Let's not worry too much about the seocnd one right now. let's focus on Idiocy. Idiocy, is when a kid tries to joina gang, and tries to impress these thugs by spary-painting his name on a statue in the middle of Chesman Park. Should the kid be punished? Yes. Should he be locked in a tiny cell with someone who killed 37 peopel adn could easily either kill the kid or teach said kid how to kill people with his thumbs for when he gets parled in six months? NO! NO NO NO NO! I can't say NO enough on this one. The kid should be punsihed as I said, but making him WORSE, turning a doofus with a spraypaint can into a mosnter wih homicidal tendencies is NOT what I call saving society. Something that people like you forget Peter, is that a human being who does something awful is still a human being, wether we like it or not. And becuase of that, we have aduty to at least TRY to help them. If we can't, give 'em Life without parole, and make them work. Not slave labor mind you, nothing back breaking, but like a plan I pitched in my Senate run board (the first one). LWP+R. I don't feel like re-posting so feel free to look it up. My point is, yous aying Liberals are Pro-Crime over and over agian isn't going to make it true. All I want is a palce where the punsihment fits the crime. Where judges and juries can actually tell the DIFFERENCE between malice and moronics. Only then, in my opinion, can society be saved. Just throwing everybody behind a metal door, ain't gonna cut it, no matter how much one might hope and pray it would. As for your blanket statemnet about 'none' of these thing sleading to a prison sentence, do us all a favor and pull your head out of the sand. Myabe in Britian Judges show a little more compassion for the dumb and save contempt for those who actually deserve it. But in America, the phrase Land of the Free is just a suggestion at this point.

This is garbage. Decent people will not become "cold blooded, heartless murderers". To condemn prison in this immature way is ridiculous.

Ridiculous to someone who has chosen to blind hismelf to the world maybe. Ridiculous to some one who mericsfully lives where this isn't a problem most assuredly. I think you are both Peter. Both fortunate and ••••••. Perhaps a man who was an almagamation of my cynicism and your geography could be the next Jesus, but let's not concern ourselves with such hypothetical things. Fact. A rapist in Colroado last year was sent to jail for 90 days for driving a bicycles, or rather trying to, drunk. On his own property. People who've been to Colorado will have doubtlessly guessed correctly that this happened in Boulder county where thinking about how much cheese it would take to make a New York City sized omlet is illegal (A joke, Peter!). He shared a cell with someone who was awaiting trial on a rape charge. The man does his 90 days, gets sent home to go back to his normal life. A month later, the man who prior to his sentencing wouldn't watch ER because it was too violent, raped and murdered a young woman. My point? Segregrate prisons. It worries me more than a little that Guys ins uits in for skimming alittle money off thta top at a brokererage frim can get slammed into the saem cell as a guy who likes to carve people's eyes out with a broken plastic spoon. If that poor embezzler makes it out alive he should be considered lucky. If he comes out as non-violent, as unwilling to rape or murder or another violent crime, it's ••••••• miraculous! I know it's a fictional TV show Pete, but you may want to try watch the TV series OZ. It's a fairly exagerated, but sadly accurate image of what American prisons are like. In one epsidoe, a French immigrant who stole a pair of shoes for his daughter after his greedy landlord threw him out for being one losuy day late with Rent that he could've paid had he not been evicted wound up being beaten and eventually driven to suicide by members of the Russian Mob that were interred there. Of course the Russians, one by one got knocked off, but that's a happy story for fans of the show to share. Now again, keep in mind that the show is merely an EXAGERATION of life in America's prisons. If that's the Exageration, Reality must be pretyy sucky too wouldn't you think?

A little pice of advie 'fore I go Pete. Kindly stop calling those unfortunate enough to have a difference of opinion wiuth you 'morons,' 'not normal' or some other sort of derogatory krap. It jsut makes you look like an @$$hole. Good night, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite, and for ••••'s sake find a website with people who think like you so you can hopefully leave and leave us to our nerdy little fun sessions. I so miss the days when we just sit around the computer, swapping Ally McBeal jokes, slamming the Voyager writers, and wodnering what a movie version of underground comic fave Sandman would be like. In my opinion, if Neil Gaiman were charge of the daptation it would at elast be non-offensive to the fans. But who would you cast to play Sandman? That's a pretty tough call if you ask me. You see, I think-----

People who are so selfish that they sell and consume drugs that melt away their minds and eliminate their concern for the world as it really is are the sort of scum who mug the elderly for their next hit. -- Peter

I agree. Bartenders should be executed. Oops! Wrong drug. Sorry. Alcohol is OK.

---

Quote:

"The American Cancer Society and the US National Multiple Sclerosis Society are unanimous: cannibis is not a useful drug."

---

Uh huh. It comes from Monday Morning Blues by Peter Hitchens, page 72, as do most of the other facts. Don't even start your "can you find a source for that source, okay well now find a source for the source for the source" nonsense. Paranoia is not a way to win arguments. I am sure both organisations have web sites you can check or email to confirm this yourself.

Brian, your message was silly and over-long. If you are actually interested in arguing those separate points on another board go ahead, but I would rather stick to the medical "benefits" of legalising cannibis over here, which you didn't bother with.

William, you are more intelligent than you pretend, and you know exactly the difference between a substance that is harmless and healthy in moderation and those which harm and poison in whatever quantities they are taken.

Peter.

---

Quote:

Don't even start your "can you find a source for that source, okay well now find a source for the source for the source" nonsense. Paranoia is not a way to win arguments...Brian, your message was silly and over-long....William, you are more intelligent than you pretend...

---

---

Quote:

I am sure both organisations have web sites you can check or email to confirm this yourself.

---

---

Quote:

In a March 24, 1997, letter, the AMA also urged the NIH to consider the institution of policies designed to facilitate well-designed clinical research into the medical utility of marijuana in patients who have serious conditions for which the bulk of anecdotal evidence suggests possible efficacy, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) wasting.

---

Alright, Mark. I don't remember making any specific claims about the Holocaust, except to point to one article by a Jewish critic of the current way the Holocaust is being used as a sort of industry. In any case, you were equally sceptical about the claim that the unborn child - sorry foetus, wouldn't want to provoke the consciences of any hedonist - was a human being, which is not only a scientific fact, but the most basic common sense.

Nor, incidentally did I make any claim about the AMA. I was talking about the United States Multiple Sclerosis Society and the American Cancer Society, which have both said that marijuana is a medically useless drug.

Peter.

Bah. I should stop skimming. It's just tiring to try and find the meat in all the bickering between you and Webber.

Which is too bad, because the AMA evaluated the medical evidence pretty thoroughly and came to this conclusion (PDF; Google cache, what would we do without google?)

---

Quote:

Since CSA Report 10-I-97 was written, substantial progress has occurred in further elucidating the role of endogenous cannabinoid systems, but this has not been matched by high-quality clinical research into the potential medical utility of marijuana or its constituents. The lack of this evidence base continues to hamper development of rational public policy. Some of the apparently disparate findings on the medical utility of smoked marijuana may be explained by the use of crude plants of variable potency and the inclusion of both experienced and naive smokers in the study. The latter affects the smoking behavior and efficiency of drug delivery by inhalation. Depending on the condition, research questions to be addressed on smoked marijuana include determining (1) whether it is efficacious; (2) how it compares with Dronabinol ; (3) whether it is beneficial when used in combination with standard therapies or in patients refractory to standard medications; and (4) whether it has benefit primarily in marijuana- experienced smokers. Additional concerns in conducting research on smoked marijuana are the lack of data on its safety in older patients and in those with serious diseases, especially involving the respiratory and cardiovascular system. A smoke-free inhaled or sublingual delivery system for whole marijuana extract or isolated cannabinoids would be preferred, and some progress has been made in this effort by the pharmaceutical industry. Based on the current science base, the following conditions continue to merit further study on the potential medical utility of marijuana.

---

Scientific American also has a nice writeup of the issues involved, from June of last year.

Brian, your message was silly and over-long. If you are actually interested in arguing those separate points on another board go ahead, but I would rather stick to the medical "benefits" of legalising cannibis over here, which you didn't bother with.

Which is just your way of saying you ignored everythign I said. No surprise. It mgiht have, God forbid, made you THINK about something. It probably wouldn't have changed your mind. In fact I never expected it would, but I figured it would at LEAST make you think about things.

(Aside: unlike some other skeptics who should know better, I'm no apologist for Sagan's drug use. Learning he used marijuana dropped my respect for him like a stone. He accomplished an amazing amount in his life; how much more would he have done had he not wasted his time with the pot?)

Of course it's not unlikely the MJ opened his mind enough to allow all the knowledge he did accumulate to flow in. In samll doses that can happen. And again, like I told Peter, should we really car eis some dingbat wants to destroy his own brain? Suicidal Idiocy is what Peter called it, and I think it's the single smartest thing Peter has said this month.

MMorgan,

Yes. I expected nothing else from Peter. If you know hit "hot" buttons and you press them you have only yourself to blame. (In case you had noticed his style is a) post his claim b) claim all other claims are from mentally incompetant people.) If I couldn't stand the heat, I know where the kitchen door is.

Peter,

At different times in my life I have been drunk or high. (Yes, M, he will say that explains my posts except I said it here first and he is orginal if nothing else.) If a car was coming at me I'd have a better chance if the driver was high not drunk. Oh, Alcohol is as dangerous, or poisonous, if not used in moderation too.

Of course, Peter, the question is does California have the right to pass laws or will the nanny state protect da wittle citizens fwom demsweles.

Actually, Webber, I think it is highly unlikely I opened Sagan's mind enough for knowledge accumulation.

Did my deed with Morgan; I'm all tapped out at present.

Check back next week.

Well, several people have already made the points I was going to make, so I'll just address one issue.

And to ignore the moral consequences of using drugs on the sick is also rather irresponsible.

What moral consequences, Peter? Could you be more specific? Morphine comes from opium; heroin is made from morphine. Are you saying that we should ban morphine in hospitals, or at least consider its use immoral and try to discourage it?

Juli, what I will do is quote you what Allen Bloom said about the morality of drug-taking in his wonderful (in places, at least) The Closing of the American Mind:

"It artificially induces the exaltation naturally attached to the completion of the greatest endeavours - victory in a just war, consummated love, artistic creation, religious devotion and discovery of the truth. Without effort, without talent, without virtue, anyone and everyone is accorded the equal right to the enjoyment of their fruits.

Drugs break the natural order, which cleverly connects reward with exertion and sacrifice. Without this link, who will want to work, or even think? Drugs also turn the mind inwards. Who will seek justice and liberty, or strive to build for the future, if happiness is available in a muzzy mental orgasm?"

Obviously there is a world of difference between that, which is a despicable immoral action, and using drugs like pain-killers and alcohol.

Peter.

Oops. Remove that comma from between "hospitals" and "or" in the last line.

Obviously there is a world of difference between that, which is a despicable immoral action, and using drugs like pain-killers and alcohol.

So if I am reading you correctly, you deplore the abuse of heroin (as we all do) but support the use of morphine as a pain killer (as we all do), even though they are derived from the same plant.

Now, if research were to produce a method for making a pain killer from cannabis (without the high), are you saying you would oppose its use on the grounds that it was immoral because it came from the marijuana plant, which some people smoke recreationally?

Simple "yes" or "no" answer, please.

No. The moral reasons for objections would be removed with the high. But the health reasons to object would not. There are plenty of good painkillers. No need for any more. As I said, the idea that expensive research is going to find some miraculous solution to anything is fantasy propagated by drug users who don't want the law in their way any more than they want responsibility or family stopping them. Tell me: if some filthy junkies and drug dealers called for the use of arsenic or thalidomide for medical purposes, or research into it, would you support it?

Simple "yes" or "no" answer, please.

Peter.

There are plenty of good painkillers. No need for any more.

There are plenty of good computer designs. No need for any more. No need for the '386, or later, etc.... No need for RISC chips, parallel computer designs, etc...

Peter, that argument (not you, just the argument) is plain wrong.

Tell me: if some filthy junkies and drug dealers called for the use of arsenic or thalidomide for medical purposes, or research into it, would you support it?

Yes.

Although I fail to see what filthy junkies and drug dealers have to do with arsenic, if I were a medical researcher and I kept hearing reports, even anecdotal ones, from all over the country about people accidentally ingesting small amounts of it and having their arthritis clear up (for example), I would at least want to look into it.

As I said, the idea that expensive research is going to find some miraculous solution to anything is fantasy propagated by drug users who don't want the law in their way any more than they want responsibility or family stopping them.

According to Mark Morgan's Scientific American link, GW Pharmaceuticals in Britain has developed a system of delivering a cannabis-derived drug in a spray applied under the tongue. As of that writing, the product had entered Phase Three of the British trials procedure. The article also says that a pharmacologist at the University of Kentucky, with funding from the American Cancer Society, is working on skin-patch delivery systems using synthetic cannabinoids.

I find it very hard to believe that corporations like GW Pharmaceuticals, organizations like the American Cancer Society, and political entities like the state of California could be persuaded to squander their funds or capital on completely useless research just to humor a bunch of drugged-out hippies.

The fact that some pothead group thinks they can use legitimate research as a front to get weed legalized for recreational use does NOT discredit the research. Most likely it will not even help their cause. Morphine is legal. Heroin remains highly illegal. There is no slippery slope here.

I do not smoke pot, nor do I want to, legally or otherwise. I don't want marijuana legalized for recreational use (so you can stop calling Brian Webber a liar now ). My opinion that regulations on medical marijuana should be softened was formed on the basis of reading about the various hormones and antidepressant drugs that doctors have been prescribing me for the past 17 years (as well as a few high school biology and human anatomy classes).

As Scott pointed out, pain relivers, like computer programs, are not perfect. They can always be improved upon, and you can never have enough of them because they vary in effectiveness from person to person, and often a drug that was effective for that person may eventually lose effectiveness.

As we all know, the human body, especially the brain, is complex. Thus, it is difficult and time consuming for researchers to come up with new medications out of thin air. So rather than creating new molecules from the ground up, what they often do is take shortcuts by testing substances that already exist in nature in order to observe their effects on the human body. (Of course, they test on animals and cell cultures first if there is any doubt as to the safety of human experiments.) They then try to isolate and extract the various effective components from the useless or harmful ones, so as to create a product that is easily assimilated by the human body.

One of the more well-known examples of this is the antibiotic penicillin, which was originally obtained from mold.

In the case of drugs like opium or marijuana, it is clear that they affect the brain in a variety of ways (not all of them necessarily desirable, of course). If a researcher wanted to develop a new medicine related to the nervous system, one of these drugs would be a logical place to start, because a good part of the groundwork of building the molecules is already done.

Say, however, that 10 or 20 years go by and no useful drug comes of marijuana research. This is possible. Although it would be a disappointment, it would not be a total loss, because science would still know more about the human brain from observing how it reacts to the various components and derivatives of marijuana, and that information could have important implications in the future. For example, referring again to the Scientific American link, researchers have found that all mammals have their own built-in cannabinoid molecules, as well as receptors for these molecules. They must serve some kind of function within the human body, and it is only a matter of time before we figure out what it is. At the very least, one missing piece of the overall puzzle of the human brain will have been found.

Barring any moral considerations (research on cloning, for example, is a touchy problem), scientists should be encouraged to perform research on any and every substance they can possibly get their hands on. I would really hate for this process of scientific discovery to be hampered by uninformed knee-jerk public reactions.

---

Quote:

There are plenty of good painkillers. No need for any more.

---

---

Quote:

In acute chemotherapy-induced emesis, especially in the high-risk setting, there is no group of patients for whom agents of lower therapeutic index (metoclopramide, phenothiazines, butyrophenones, and cannabinoids) are appropriate as first choice antiemetic drugs. These agents should be reserved for patients intolerant of or refractory to serotonin receptor antagonists and corticosteroids. (Emphasis mine)

---

---

Quote:

Although there have been few formal studies of smoked marijuana, its reported efficacy for complete prevention of acute emesis is less than what normally would be considered sufficient to warrant a formal trial given the efficacy of available agents. Nevertheless, acute emesis is still a problem in some patients receiving either high-dose cisplatin or the intensive chemotherapy regimens used for bone marrow or stem cell transplantation. Furthermore, in some patients the efficacy of 5-HT 3 antagonists in controlling acute emesis may wane over repeated cycles of chemotherapy. Also, delayed emesis continues to be a problem, particularly for patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. Drugs that are useful in alleviating acute emesis, including the 5-HT 3 antagonists, are considerably less effective in controlling delayed emesis. Results of initial clinical trials with neurokinin NK 1 receptor antagonists demonstrate enhanced control of acute emesis with their addition to currently available agents and promising activity in controlling delayed emesis. Neither smoked marijuana nor oral THC have been investigated in combination with 5-HT 3 antagonists in the treatment of acute emesis, nor in the treatment of delayed nausea and vomiting. Research involving these substances should focus on their possible use in treating delayed nausea and vomiting, and their adjunctive use in patients who respond inadequately to 5-HT 3 antagonists. (Again, emphasis mine)

---

It's clear to me that the real problem both hemp advocates and medical marijuana advocates have is being linked to potheads. I said above I'm no apologist for Sagan's pot use--no Brian, I don't think it expanded his mind; I think it fogged up the clear thinking of one of the clearest thinkers of his generation. The advocates of medical marijuana need to put some real effort into distancing themselves from the people who promote decriminalization of pot.

I read an article in my then-local paper about the case for and against hemp as a replacement for paper products. The pro-hemp people made a lot of good points--you can't smoke hemp, you don't obliterate rainforests to make hemp paper. But who's picture was right there in the middle of the page? A dreadlock-convered, scraggly-bearded skinny white local NORML member. Aaargh! He even went off for two paragraphs about how pot is a harmless drug, how being stoned is far from the worst state you could find your kids.

Aaargh again! I can tell you now, nobody in a small town in southern Oregon was going to change their mind about hemp based on that piece of newsprint.

It's pretty clear that medical marijuana (technically, medical cannaboids) suffers a similar serious PR problem. It's hard to convince middle America to support research into the drug when they see news reports of people rolling up a joint and taking a toke.

Addendum: concerning the National Multiple Sclerosis Society's stand on marijuana:

---

Quote:

It is the opinion of the National Multiple Sclerosis
Society’s Medical Advisory Board that marijuana is not recommended as a
treatment for MS. Long-term use of marijuana may be associated
with significant serious side effects. In addition, other
well-tested, FDA-approved drugs are available, such as baclofen and
tizanidine, to reduce spasticity in MS.

---

---

Quote:

That interpretation could be argued against.

---

Hrmph. Apparently, nothing like evidence to kill a thread.

No, evidence doesn't kill a thread. It just gets Peter off the board. Although now that I mentioned his name he might post claiming that only a moron like me would think he shies away from evidence like this link Urwrong@theconserv.times.com/liberalsarestupid%9/html .

Of course now that I've said that he won't post at all to prove me wrong. (Unless of course he posts to prove that last one wrong.)

I'm not surprised this thread died. Too bad, it's an interesting topic, especially in Oregon. We often serve as the social testbed for a variety of ideas, from doctor assisted suicide to tax reform to marijuana research.

Because we're Oregon, instead of those kind of people (Californians), the results are always much more interesting and less reported upon.

Quoth Mark:

Because we're Oregon, instead of those kind of people (Californians),


Hey, HEY, HEY! I resemble that remark!

Well Mark, it probably wouldn't have died if you hadn't made all those posts no one is going to read about irrelevant stuff. I dont't care about drawing useful drugs from marijuana the way useful drugs were drawn from opium. The debate was on legalising cannibis itself for medical use only.

Peter.

Your statement was:

---

Quote:

There are plenty of good painkillers. No need for any more. As I said, the idea that expensive research is going to find some miraculous solution to anything is fantasy propagated by drug users who don't want the law in their way any more than they want responsibility or family stopping them.

---

Mark, tell me, do you believe that marijuana should be available for "medical" use? I don't mean in extracted form, but in its normal form. If so, why? And do you support it being legal in all cases? If so, why?

Peter.

Short form: no, but smoked marijuana and other cannaboids should be added to the schedule of drugs that allow testing and should continue to be so.

I haven't had a chance to look at much evidence; the AMA's evidence and information by the NMSS seem to point to some serious problems with just smoking a joint, including the complete lack of quality control and the fact that you're inhaling a lot of toxins along with the THC. This is akin to my argument against most "natural supplements" like St. John's Wort which supposedly can help depression: because it has no quality control, and no testing. Smoked marijuana seems, at this time, to be a no brainer. I don't go growing opium in my garden to deal with my tendinitis, either.

It should be allowed to continue to be tested in all its forms. It's too early in the process to rule anything out, despite what the massed conscience of the AMA apparently thinks. Because of the unfortunate PR problem marijuana and cannaboids have by being associated with the "legalize pot, it's harmless" lobby, marijuana research is just now getting off the ground. A careful and cautious plan of testing all forms of marijuana is still called for, based again on the limited information I've seen.

This is all completely separate from the question as to whether marijuana should be decriminalized for other reasons. That's a trickier issue I haven't studied at all. After dumping a metric ton of references into this thread, I'd hate to respond wihout any. My gut response is that in this day and age of limited resources to fight crime, arresting most pot producers and users is a complete waste of money better spent elsewhere.

In a perfect world with perfect amounts of money and perfect amounts of prison, drug use is drug use. In an imperfect world, sending helicopter gunships after pot growers (happens in Southern Oregon all the time) strikes me as way over the top.

Peter,

Ever had Marijuana Tea? No lung cancers but you still get the munchies. If a patient has lost his appetite and a doctor says that munchies would help California citizens and California politicians say the doctor can decide. The federal government politicians have decided they know more about it than the doctor. The federal government politicians are not following the clear will of the citizens because Mama State hwas to pwotect hwer wittle citzens fwom demsweleves.

William, William, William...*shakes her head*

You apparently didn't hear about it on Sixty Minutes. Whenever a politician is elected to office, not only does s/he have (presumably) a degree in political science, but s/he also has one in medicine, in medical research, in anatomy and physiology, and they're all specialists in neurosurgery!

Geesh. I thought everyone knew that.

Bah. Politicans are a dirty breed of blood sucking scumbags (worse than lawyers or the IRS), and it shouldn't be illegal to use them for skeet

MJ,

Is that corollary to the action movie rule that the hero "must" know how to fly any helicopters that just happen to be lying around.

William, go to the Kitchen sink. We're discussing those rules now.

Uh, I think you mean the Movie board's Kitchen sink, ScottN.

Whoops!

Ducks, but not quite fast enough. ScottN wipes the egg off his face.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

And the thread dies again. Yipee!

*Wearing a loincloth, the hunter prances around the fire, telling the story of the death of his prey.*

*Slaps Morgan for wearing a loincloth to begin with* Wanna explain to me why you're wearing a loincloth in public, but I can't get you to go shirtless in private?

Mark, are you SURE you want to marry MJ? She seems a little... well... violent.

Oops! Forgot the !

I am not violent, Scott. How could you say such a cruel thing to me?

It's a good thing you're clear down there in Cali, otherwise, I'd be forced to fly out there and beat you senseless.

(Heh. What I should do is point out that while Morgan's first name is certainly Mark, I distinct between Mark Morgan and Mark2 by saying Morgan and Mark, respectively.)

So, Peter, I'll repeat my answer:

---

Quote:

Short form: no, but smoked marijuana and other cannaboids should be added to the schedule of drugs that allow testing and should continue to be so.

---

Not completely on topic, but there is this http://www.mpp.org/states/site/quicknews.cgi?key=1217 and this http://ga1.org/campaign/rave

Wired has an interesting story on legalizing pot.

This proposed law would essentially put marijuana on the same footing as alcohol and tobacco. Note that everyone's favorite strawman (do you want a stoned pothead behind the wheel?) is addressed, as it would fall under DUI laws (just like booze).

Interestingly, the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs supports this measure. Makes sense, they can then spend more time fighting "real" crime.

I heard today that for the first time high schoolers ranked pot ahead of beer and cigarettes in terms of ease to get.

For the first time? Must mean the first time in a poll. When I was in HS (class of 98) that's how we ranked it, easier to get than booze and smokes.

BTW good artical. I hope it passes in navade (even though I know "they" will find a way to stop it)

ScottN,

I heard that pressure from the National organization forced the Nevada Cops to change their position. (Really, what were the Nevad cops thinking. It is easier to arrest a pot head than stop a bank robbery or a rape. Besides, with all the pot heads you can get unlimited OT!)

The debate over marijuana decriminalization/legalization is currently raging in Canada. Generally, the signs point to (at minimum) decriminalization. This week, a Senate committee called for the full legalization of pot smoking, which would make Canada's drug laws among the most liberal in the world:

http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/04/pot_senate020904

General info:

http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/marijuana_legalize.html

Decriminalization is wrong. If planes crash into skyscrapers at least the FBI is protecting me from Glocoma Grannies on Pot in CA. Funds from illegal drug dealers go towards terrorist who grow opium. If decriminalized Wal-Mart will cut out middlemen to maximize their profits and we will lose local terrorists. Decriminalization must be stopped.

You've lost me Blue.

So, what ARE you talking about just now?

I believe the technical term is sarcasm.

What he's talking about is the fact that ONDCP ran some controversial commercials where they said that people who buy drugs are supporting terrorism. They have a point in that columbian drug cartens have used terrorist tactics (assisanating judges and stuff like that) but the idea that the taliban was funded by opium money was wrong. The taliban tried to do they best they could to stamp out the drug trade in their country. They made growing opium a death penelty offence because drugs are aginst their religion. Back in 2001 the US gave them $500 million for their effort in fightiing the drug war, which means that the Bush Whitehouse funded the taliban pre- 9/11. The northern Alliance (remember them they guy's we supported in this little war) did fund their opperations with opium money. Which means that the drug trade can be good for our guys some times. How come they never mention that on the commercials.

BF,

Last I heard they are still at it. (Not running the commercials, but making the legalization argument easier.) If the $5 crack hit has $4.50 going to Al Quida then legalization will increase supply and even if Wal-Mart still pay through the Al Quida connection a crack hit will cost $1 and only $0.90 will go to Bin Laden.

If the Glocoma Grannies on pot reference threw you, the DEA raided a well know medicinal marijuana place I think in San Fran. ScottN probably has better details. (I know that isn't the FBI, but different justice department letters made the arrest. The FBI was too busy cracking prostitution rings I guess.

In a side note I heard on NPR that many afghanis are turning to opium as the best cash crop. Take out the unnatural check on supply and the $10 he could get for an acre of poppies will be about $1. Criminalization of drugs makes growing them more profitable than growing food. Eliminate hunger. Decriminalize drugs.

I live in British Columbia, arguably home of the best marijuana in the world. And EVERYBODY out here except for hardcore churchgoing types smokes the reefer on a regular basis. My parents, friends, co-workers, etc... all indulge in a good toke when it suits them. Are they, as Peter said, "paranoid, brain-damaged vegetables"? Hardly. Marijuana is harmless, much less of a menace to any society than alcohol, and should at least be decriminalized. If the police up here were to try to stop every single person from ever consuming marijuana again, they wouldn't be able to anything else. And what would the benefit be in the end, if marijuana remains illegal? None. People will keep growing it, keep selling it and keep smoking it, regardless of who thinks it's dangerous and illegal. And 2000 years from now, when police stations have long since crumbled into dust, I bet you'll find a nice crop of cannabis growing in the debris. It's just one of those things that people are always going to enjoy doing, regardless of what lawmakers think. So we ought to get on the bandwagon, legalize it and start taxing it. Make it a regulated product like cigarettes and most of all let people make their own informed decisions about it.

I will add British Columbia to my growing list of places to never spend any of my tourism dollars.

I will add British Columbia to my growing list of places to never spend any of my tourism dollars.

Your loss.

btw, D.W., whereabouts in BC do you live? I used to live in Vancouver.

Josh, I'm in Nanaimo, just across the water.

KRW, if you're anti-marijuana you wouldn't be welcome here anyhow. As Josh said, your loss.

Way off topic

An aside about tourism. Vermont legalized civil unions a few years back. Opponents to it got it placed as a ballot question. Their big slogan was "Take back Vermont!" Sales of maple syrup soared as tourist decide to take back Vermont when they went home.

end way off topic story

I will add British Columbia to my growing list of places to never spend any of my tourism dollars.

growing indeed. You'd be hard pressed to find a place in north America that doesn't feature a large pot smoker population these days.

Yet another link to the Onion http://www.onion.com/onion3833/wdyt_3833.html

Josh, I'm in Nanaimo, just across the water.

Ah, the Island's beautiful, especially when you come in to Nanaimo at night on the ferry from Horseshoe Bay.

It looks like we're heading to decriminalization, at least.

This board went Peter, but did it die?

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=608

This also answers Peter's question about why Libertarians don't just vote Republican. John Ashcroft is not "my" man.

Wow! I'm a cartel!

"A chief deputy district attorney in Clark County has suggested
a drug cartel is behind the effort to legalize possession of up
to 3 ounces of marijuana in Nevada.

But a spokesman who is pushing approval of the constitutional
amendment called the statement of prosecutor Gary Booker "an
outright lie, slanderous and libelous."

Billy Rogers, spokesman for Nevadans for Responsible Law
Enforcement, said Booker "ought to have his mouth washed out
with soap."

Booker and more than 15 other witnesses appeared before the
state Board of Health Friday to urge its opposition to
Question 9 on the November ballot. The board agreed, saying the
legalization of marijuana was a "clear and present danger to the
public safety and health" of Nevada.

The witnesses included a Las Vegas mother whose son is in prison
for committing murder while under the influence of marijuana and
cocaine, a mother who said her baby almost died from second-hand
marijuana smoke and a former user who said he hallucinated on
the drug.

Rogers, who represents the group that gathered the signatures
that put the question on the ballot, was not invited to testify.

Board chairman Dr. Joey Villaflor said the legalization would
lead to more young children using the drug and would increase
traffic accidents and domestic violence cases. He said because
of impurities, marijuana would be a 'health hazard" and increase
the problems of those who suffered from chronic lung illnesses.

Booker, chief of the Clark County district attorney's Vehicular
Crimes Unit, suggested the marijuana campaign was tied to people
connected with organized crime -- "In a word 'cartel'."

Is there another drugs board? I've heard about the Bogotá bombing and say there is an easy answer. Legalize it. Instead of getting $5,000 for a crop of coca, it'll be worth about $50. There will be no profit motive to grow it. No drug money to fund the FARQ. No profit motive for the dealer(s) down the street.

It also works on heroin. The field in Afghanistan that can produce $5,000 worth of poppies can now only grow $50 worth. Instead of propping up the Taliban to suppress the supply we can do it ourselves.
The farmer's best interest is in growing wheat or corn or something. The dealer(s) down my street now will see that job at McDonalds in their best interest.

Crime will go down. 1) The biggest set of "crimes" are no longer "crimes". 2) Dealers who are carrying guns (despite whatever laws they are breaking to do so) won't have huge assets (except their guns) and won't shoot each other in fights over "turf" or what not when the "turf" or what not is worth less than the bullets. 3) Many cops who had their time wasted on drug "crimes" will be used in "real" crimes.

Alas we won't go for this because we are too $tupid to end Prohibition.

Copied from an e-mail on medical marijuana. Sorry if formatting is off:

Dear Friend:

Support for medical marijuana in America is taking off. Since the federal trial of California-approved medical marijuana provider Ed Rosenthal, editorials in favor of medical marijuana have appeared in The New York Times, the Sacramento Bee, the Baltimore Sun, and elsewhere. There was also a prominent and extremely sympathetic article in The Washington Post -- the first significant medical marijuana article in that paper in recent memory. All of these articles, as well as others, can be found on the Marijuana Policy Project's Web site at http://www.mpp.org/USA/news.html .

On Thursday, February 6, two of the jurors from the Rosenthal trial appeared on CNN's "Connie Chung Tonight." The lengthy segment portrayed both the jurors and Ed Rosenthal as the victims of a rigged and unjust federal system.

At the same time, more than 7,000 faxes have been sent from our subscribers to their members of Congress. (Please scroll down to see which states are generating the most and the fewest faxes.) This has helped build momentum for medical marijuana in Washington, D.C. If you have not yet sent faxes to your three members of Congress asking them to protect states' rights to medical marijuana and to remove the "gag" that the federal government is placing on medical marijuana defendants in court, please see http://www.mpp.org/USA/action.html, to do so now.

If you would like to be more active in your community, there is a great opportunity coming up. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) has
declared the week of February 15-22 "National Medical Marijuana Week."

On Tuesday, February 18, as part of this week of activism, there will be "Evict the DEA" protests taking place across the country. If you are interested in participating in one of these events in your area, please visit the ASA Web site -- http://www.safeaccessnow.org, -- for more information.

The fallout from the Ed Rosenthal trial was accompanied by a White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assessment of the DEA that
gave the agency a zero on its 100-point "Results" scale. Busy raiding the homes of disabled medical marijuana users, the DEA has been, in the words of the OMB, "unable to demonstrate its progress in reducing the availability of illegal drugs in the U.S." Read the report at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pma/dea.pdf .

======================================================================

The Best and Worst States

Since our last alert, 7,071 faxes have been sent from MPP e-mail subscribers to members of Congress. This is a fantastic display of
support -- but far short of what is possible. If everyone on this distribution list were to take action, we could generate close to 100,000 faxes. In order to inspire activity through a friendly sense of competition, we thought we would tell you which states are producing the most and the fewest faxes.

If you want to see your state move up in the rankings, take action now by visiting http://www.mpp.org/USA/action.html . When you have completed this two-minute process, use our "Tell a Friend" feature to encourage other people in your state and elsewhere to send faxes, too.

Top 10 states (listed along with the average number of faxes sent per House district):

1. Nevada (61.67)
2. Oregon (50.8)
3. Vermont (45)
4. New Mexico (43.33)
5. Washington (35.67)
6. Colorado (31.43)
7. California (30.45)
8. Hawaii (24.5)
9. Montana (24)
10. Missouri (21.11)

Bottom 10 states (listed along with the average number of faxes sent per House district):

50. Nebraska (1)
49. Delaware (3)
48. Mississippi (4.25)
47. Iowa (6)
46. Alabama (6.857)
45. Louisiana (6.86)
43. (tie) Rhode Island (7.5)
43. (tie) Kansas (7.5)
42. Georgia (7.54)
41. West Virginia (8)

In every social movement, there is a moment in time that crystallizes the issue and serves as a turning point. Let's hope that the DEA'soutrageous raids in California -- and the resulting news coverage -- cause Congress to take action finally on this issue. Please visit http://www.mpp.org/USA/action.html to tell your three members of Congress that they should.

Sincerely,

Alexis Baden-Mayer
National Field Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. Please distribute this message widely to friends and family who might be willing to visit http://www.mpp.org/USA to send a pre-written letter to their three members of Congress. Thank you.

not just medical but this is the only drugs board here

like a Christmas Carol

Copied from an e-mail asking for money:

After an intensive lobbying campaign and three committee victories in
Vermont this year, the Vermont Senate passed the Marijuana Policy
Project's medical marijuana bill by a convincing 22-7 vote today. If
enacted, the bill would allow patients and their caregivers to possess
and grow marijuana without the fear of arrest.

The bill now moves to the Republican-controlled House, which passed a
nearly identical bill last year by a vote of 82-59. We expect the
House to pass the Senate bill next month, which will place a great
deal of pressure on newly elected Gov. Jim Douglas (R) to sign the
bill.

During the 2002 legislative session, MPP invested $74,800 in Vermont,
which nearly achieved victory for us, but a last-minute compromise
instead resulted in the enactment of a medical marijuana task force
bill. Then, this past fall, MPP spent $20,000 working with the task
force, which produced a report in January urging the state government
to pass the bill that is now moving through the legislature.

This year, MPP spent $50,000 to retain two lobbying firms that are
coordinating the legislature's committee hearings, our grassroots
lobbying, and the direct lobbying of state legislators in the Capitol.

The final piece of the puzzle is to run TV ads in Vermont to pressure
Gov. Douglas to sign the bill that everyone expects the House to pass.
Pressuring him now will make it less likely that he will coordinate
with his Republican friends in the House to table our bill. In the
next month, we want to run $20,000 worth of TV ads that depict a
doctor attending to a patient, a reference to the 76% public support
for medical marijuana in Vermont, and a call to the governor to sign
the bill.

(Please see our news release below for the governor's conflicting
views on medical marijuana.)

If you would like to help pay for the TV ad campaign that will be
instrumental in staving off a veto of our bill, please visit
http://www.mpp.org/DonateVT to make your donation today. To read the
Vermont bill, please see http://www.mpp.org/VT .