cannabisnews.com: Illinois Bill Criminalizes Marijuana Information! Illinois Bill Criminalizes Marijuana Information! Posted by FoM on April 08, 1999 at 18:18:17 PT On The Internet! Source: Marijuana News April 8, 1999, Springfield, IL: The state House of Representatives unanimously approved legislation that would impose criminal penalties on those who transmit information pertaining to marijuana on the Internet if they "know that the information will be used in furtherance of illegal activity." NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup, Esq. called the proposal one of the "dumbest" he’d ever heard. "First, it illustrates the phobia many legislators hold toward marijuana," he said. "Under this measure, someone could legally transmit information about potentially violent activities like building bombs, but face criminal prosecution for posting messages about the documented medical uses of marijuana. Second, this is an attempt to circumvent the first amendment guarantee of free speech by turning the transmission of certain factual information via the Internet into a ‘thought crime.’ Proponents of this type of legislation are the equivalent of modern day book-burners."House Bill 792, introduced by Rep. Gerald Mitchell (R-Rock Falls), seeks to make the transmission of "information about cannabis by the Internet" a Class A misdemeanor if the provider is aware the information could be used for an illegal activity. The Senate Judiciary will hold hearings on the proposal next Wednesday.The House approved the measure 114 to zero. For more information, please contact either Keith Stroup or Paul Armentano of NORML (202) 483-5500. To read more about H.B. 792 or additional pending state marijuana legislation, please visit the NORML website at: http://www.norml.org/laws/stateleg1999.htm. Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #8 posted by observer on December 06, 2000 at 19:34:04 PT re: Hey (1) Hey, think for a second!!We do, and that is what prohibitionists dislike the most. Because when we think about the reasons that people are locked up for using cannabis now, the prohibitionists' excuses are shown to be false.C'mon now.... does everybody who visits this site unquestionally buy into all this hype? That's a silly question, and loaded with false insinuations, too. This site carries news items from all points of view, with over 20,000 accesses a day by readers. So how would you expect to say that "everybody who visits this site" all think the same way? (This is the internet, not the latest freshman DEA class at Quantico.) As for all those readers "unquestionally" thinking this or that, well, unless you're generalizing from your own attributes, I'm not sure the many readers taht hit this site daily would accept anything "unquestionally". So I really am not sure what you're trying to communicate with that rhetorical question, other than to ask it simply for effect. It is obvious to me just by reading the quote regarding the passed legislation and comments by NORML Executive Director Stroup that some definite spin is being put on the whole matter.Oh it is "obvious to" you, is it?It wasn't So obvious to Wired News, here's another item on HR 792http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,19125,00.htmlHere's a Wired item in Aug 1999, following the Senate bill that is more sweeping:Reefer Madness Hits Congress http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,21152,00.htmlThe article details the so-called, "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" S.1428 that goes beyond HR 792 in that it ciminalizes links to naughty sites. It hasn't gone away...http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:s.01428:Read the quote. Prosecution would be faced by those who "...know that the information will be used in furtherance of illegal activity."Oh yeah: that's really comforting. Relying on a prosecutor to read the minds of the people who ostensibly "know" this or that. No problem there. Just like when the prosecutor-judge charges people with "intent to distribute" simply because "intent" is defined as "greater than 28 grams" (for cannabis in many places for example). "Intent" really has nothing to do with it, any more than this "know that" pro-forma language. We both realize that's just window dressing to sell it to those holding out with qualms over civil liberties. The police state lobby that wrote these bills can come along and "reaassure" the hold-outs not voting for this police state measure that, "Prosecution would be faced by those who know." Just like "distribution" only means those caught "selling", right? Sure. I'm sorry, but this doesn't refer to just anybody who posts information regarding documented medical uses of marijuana. There is a definite burden of proof to prove someone knowingly provides information that will be used to further illegal activity.Not really any burden of "proof" there, once the precedent is established (or simply made explicit in the text of the bill itself), then simply having the naughty information there will be considered prima facie evidence of "knowledge", in exactly the same way as having over a certain amount of a substance is (euphemistically) called "distribution" even though no distribution took place. So your point falls apart when we consider some real life examples. Now maybe there are some people out there providing information under the guise of "medical marijuana use" while in reality the underlying motivation is "recreational use". I think these people might possibly be among the targets of such legislation, Thanks for admitting that. So yes, it would be up to the prosecutor-judge to decide who's "underlying motivation" (read: thoughts, i.e. thoughtcrime) is pure, and who is politically heretical. Good point. but only if they are in some way connected to the illegal cultivation, sale of MJ (or its seeds), etc. Huh? The bill didn't say that. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by observer on December 06, 2000 at 19:33:30 PT re: Hey (2) We enjoy many freedoms in this country Got that right. Even though they are under constant attack from those with a police-state mentality, we still have a few, shrinking, freedoms left. One of those freedoms is to be able to study issues (freedom of the press), and change the laws. Why is it that drug warriors only see problems when citizens attempt to change laws to restore freedoms, traditional freedoms once shared by all Americans? Why is it just those laws bother prohibitionists? No, it is the duty of citizens to raise tehir voices against proposed bad law, that it may not be enacted; and it is their duty also to get bad laws repealed. I think that's pretty obvious, to most people. and I think we should be grateful for the liberties that we have rather than whining about unfavorable MJ legislation. Do whatever floats your boat. We can be "grateful" for the liberties that police-state cheerleaders haven't stolen yet, by fighting to preserve those liberties.Obviously there are a number of people who have used MJ in an irresponsible fashion which has made it an illegal substance in this country. How can one person be so wrong about so much, as you are here?Cannabis was made illegal via lies, stealth (a backdoor tax act), and blatant racism. I'm surprised you don't know about that already. See:The history of how the Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the landhttp://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm(to get a quick flavour of the lies told in the 30's to make marijuana illegal, see also this 1937 article by Narcotics Bureau Director Harry Anslinger: http://www.redhousebooks.com/galleries/assassin.htm ) Let's not kid ourselves and say that, "Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone". Can people do stupid things with marijuana (like smoke all the time and not go to school or work)? Sure. But that can happen with anything from sports to food to TV to rock climbing to sex to beer to jogging. Is there a reason to imprison adults who use cannabis? No, not any more reason after 1937 than before that time. The "hurt", if any, is far less than that of tobacco. This is not a reason to imprison people, any more than we imprison people for tobacco. (And the knee-jerk prohibitionist retort to that, "Well, 'we' don't want to have another 'poison' like tobacco." isn't a reason why we don't imprison tobacco users for using tobacco, either.) I know firsthand that it can be very destructive. I don't. I know that prohibition is destructive, however. I know that the laws against marijuana users do more harm than marijuana alone could ever do. I also know that prohibitionists like to blame the problems caused by prohibition itself on the drugs that are prohibited. (Like, "Marijuana is harmful because you could go to prison for using it.") They forget that the police and prison part come from prohibition. I understand the legislatures reasoning for such laws even if I don't wholeheartedly agree with them. Oh sure: I understand their reasoning too. It is the reasoning of demagogues that need to constantly keep their perceived constituents "concerned" about a "crisis" so the politicians can appear to "do something" about the "scourge", etc. We've seen this pattern repeated ad infinitum.When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader. -- Plato Be bigminded and step outside the little box you usually think in and give some consideration to why such laws exist. Your insults would have some bite ... if you'd get your facts straight, and weren't so obviously full of apology for tyrannical laws.Now, why don't you go along, and read some of the history behind the anti-marijuana laws (there are some nice links for you, above), and when you read some, and learn of the racism and lies told to make cannabis illegal, then maybe you can discuss it intelligently? Think for Yourself, a Drug Policy Reading Room on the Drug War [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by dddd on December 06, 2000 at 17:01:04 PT WHAT I'm shocked to hear a fellow guitar player suggest that;" know thatthe information will be used in furtherance of illegal activity." ,is no big deal....Where the heck do you live?You must be from the somewhere else.Do you think that if they make some such insane law,that they will take your word for it when you say,"I didnt know".The "futherance of illegal activity" could mean ANYTHING that someone did from planting a seed,rolling a joint,to some sort of 'misuse of the internet ' charge......Wake up and smell the Constitution.They could possibly put your ass in jail just for submitting a comment here. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by guitr_plyr on December 06, 2000 at 15:56:20 PT: Hey, think for a second!! C'mon now.... does everybody who visits this site unquestionally buy into all this hype? It is obvious to me just by reading the quote regarding the passed legislation and comments by NORML Executive Director Stroup that some definite spin is being put on the whole matter.Read the quote. Prosecution would be faced by those who "...know that the information will be used in furtherance of illegal activity." I'm sorry, but this doesn't refer to just anybody who posts information regarding documented medical uses of marijuana. There is a definite burden of proof to prove someone knowingly provides information that will be used to further illegal activity. Now maybe there are some people out there providing information under the guise of "medical marijuana use" while in reality the underlying motivation is "recreational use". I think these people might possibly be among the targets of such legislation, but only if they are in some way connected to the illegal cultivation, sale of MJ (or its seeds), etc.We enjoy many freedoms in this country and I think we should be grateful for the liberties that we have rather than whining about unfavorable MJ legislation. Obviously there are a number of people who have used MJ in an irresponsible fashion which has made it an illegal substance in this country. Let's not kid ourselves and say that, "Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone". I know firsthand that it can be very destructive. I understand the legislatures reasoning for such laws even if I don't wholeheartedly agree with them. Be bigminded and step outside the little box you usually think in and give some consideration to why such laws exist. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Deboah on June 15, 2000 at 12:04:39 PT: Illinois lawmakers I agree with John R. Bills, these law makers are way out there. I think they are on some heavy drugs. What are they so afraid of? Losing money????or winning the War On Drugs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Stu. M on April 14, 1999 at 17:50:26 PT Illinois Are they stuck in a time warp in Illinois. or what? It's like reefer madness all over again. Duh!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on April 10, 1999 at 08:53:33 PT Lawmakers subversion of the constitution Isn't that the truth! Thanks for your comment! It really does seem that someone is asleep behind the wheel! Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by John R. Bills on April 09, 1999 at 18:04:41 PT: Lawmakers subversion of the constitution I cannot believe that the people of the state of Illinois would allow lawmakers to subvert their constitutional right to free speech. Could anyone please re-read the first amendment to those imbiciles in the Illinois house? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: