cannabisnews.com: Got Pot? 





Got Pot? 
Posted by CN Staff on October 03, 2002 at 11:31:51 PT
By D. Brian Burghart 
Source: Reno News & Review 
The woman--we'll call her June--hands me her pot pipe, and I'm impressed. This pipe has had so much marijuana smoked in it that the resin has impregnated the pipe's very metal. Instead of shiny silver, the surface is a burnished gold. Other than the color, the pipe's fairly nondescript--about four inches long, small bowl, a screw-on receptacle in the middle of the stem in which a small amount of weed can be placed to serve as a filter and a supercharger.
I can see a charcoaled bud on the top, but the pipe is unlit. We sit in a living room, joined by two other people. It's quite warm, womblike; there are American Indian blankets on just about every chair. The TV in the corner is turned on but soundless; CSI: Crime Scene Investigation plays on Channel 2, violent crime images flickering surrealistically against a '70s décor backdrop with a fiberoptic lamp, crystals and feel-good artwork. A fountain burbles in the background. The room, as my college dorm resident assistant would have said, reeks. In practically one breath, the woman first tells me how she came down with pneumonia, and the doctor told her to quit smoking. She had to admit to her doctor that, while she'd try to quit smoking tobacco, she smoked something else that she wasn't so sure she could give up. "I said, 'It's confession time. I smoke pot, and I don't know how I could function without it.' ... The doctor said, 'I'm not going to say a word about the pot. Just don't smoke any more cigarettes. I don't care what you do with the pot.' " While this sounds like addiction to me, June then makes an assertion that really perks up my ears. "I can put it down anytime," she says. At age 51, she's been smoking it for 30-odd years, since she came down with Crohn's disease, a disorder of the bowels, when she was pregnant. She couldn't eat. She couldn't keep anything inside long enough to digest it. She couldn't sleep. She was prescribed an opium drug, but it didn't work, and it made her unable to work. Her friend suggested marijuana; she put down the harsher prescription and picked up her pipe. She's not registered with the Department of Agriculture as a medicinal marijuana user. What's the point? Marijuana is still against federal law, and all signing up for it does is tell the cops where you live. "Medical marijuana registration isn't safe," she says. "It's not real. The FBI could still come in and bust you. And here's some guy who can't eat because of radiation or chemo treatments or something, and he needs his marijuana, but the government just wiped him out. They said it was legal and medical, but it doesn't make any difference, it's still illegal. If they want to bust you, you will be busted." Of course, a card that prevents arrest would come in handy, but as long as she keeps her stash in the house, she feels safe. She says that Question 9, a constitutional amendment to legalize three ounces of marijuana, is just what the doctor ordered. Nevada voters will get to choose on Nov. 5. Of course, if it passes on Election Day, it would require another vote in 2004, so don't start ransacking the attic for that old Apogee bong just yet. June believes it's time to end the prohibition on marijuana. She isn't quite sure what got it prohibited in the first place--maybe the government wasn't making enough money from it--but she thinks it's time that people recognize pot as the relatively non-menacing boon to mankind that it is. "How many people have you ever heard of who smoke pot at home, go out and get a gun and go shoot somebody or rape somebody or go kidnap somebody?" she asks. "The worst thing they do is raid the icebox, fight over the remote and laugh at stupid things."There's a lot of opinion in this story. That's one purpose of a first-person narrative, the writer stands in for the reader and offers honest, subjective observations, hopefully to better get at the truth of something and to offer an eyewitness account. This is a story about the legalization of marijuana in Nevada, and as such it's a story about public policy. But stories about public policy are generally boring, and there's no way that a story about pot should make the reader's eyes glaze over. There are many characters in this drama. Taking the lead on one side of the conflict is law enforcement, led by Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick and assisted by such supporting actors as Deputy District Attorney Tom Gregory. On the other side is Billy Rogers, the spokesman for Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, the group that spearheaded efforts to get Question 9 on the ballot. In the middle are the extras, the 150,000 Nevadans like June who say they smoke pot--if you believe Rogers' numbers. The problem is that the issue is so emotionally charged that I can't swallow anyone's numbers. I don't really believe anybody. Everyone involved in this conflict has agenda layered on agenda layered on agenda. They're skewing the statistics and the anecdotal evidence in order to support their own cases and undercut opponents'. Nobody lies, exactly, but nobody is telling the whole truth either. Some numbers are indisputable. NRLE collected 109,048 signatures to put pot legalization on the ballot. Think about that. There are only 828,319 registered voters in the state today, though voter registration increases as elections approach. That means about one registered voter in seven signed the petition. Let's throw another number into the pile, the 236,117 voters who turned out for the primary election. Those 109,000 signatures represent a huge support base for a vote on marijuana. If it's true that everyone who signed the petition wanted marijuana legalized for everyone 21 and over, it's actually possible that people will be legally sparking up as soon as Jan. 1, 2005. I was one of the 74,740 legitimate voters who signed the petition. The problem is, when I was approached outside of Kmart to sign the petition, I was told that the petition was to make it easier for people who needed medical pot to get it. I was misled; the signature gatherer told me only part of the truth. He didn't lie, but I signed under false pretenses just the same. Get it? At a recent staff meeting here at the paper, of the four people who'd been approached by people collecting signatures, all had been told the same thing. None had been told the whole truth. Yes, the text of the measure was on the ballot sheet. No, I didn't check to see if the signature gatherer was lying. My bad. As Rogers of the NRLE pointed out to me, anybody who wanted to have his signature removed could--all he'd have to do is call the Secretary of State's Office and become the one person out of 109,048 who wanted his signature removed. Of course, his privacy would be a thing of the past, but that would be a tiny bit of collateral damage in this drug war. Now here's the fundamental conflict for me. I don't smoke pot--haven't for years--but I don't think marijuana should be illegal for adults. But do I think marijuana's status should change, when I and others were duped in order to get it on the ballot? Here's the question that Nevadans will be voting on, so there's no confusion about the issue."Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow the use and possession of three ounces or less of marijuana by persons aged 21 years or older, to require the Legislature to provide or maintain penalties for using, distributing, selling or possessing marijuana under certain circumstances, and to provide a system of regulation for the cultivation, taxation, sale and distribution of marijuana?" Don't let anyone bullshit you. Most recreational users don't buy three ounces of marijuana, for a couple of reasons: It costs too much, and three ounces is far more than they need. The NRLE says three ounces of marijuana is equal to four packs of cigarettes. OK, 20 cigarettes to a pack would be 80 cigarettes. Joints are generally smaller than cigarettes, so I can accept the assertion made by the DA's Office that three ounces of pot is 80-100 joints. A joint of average weed would get four people buzzed. For high-quality sinsemilla, a joint will get six people stoned to the gills. But let's go in the middle and say a joint will get five people high. Using averages, three ounces of pot is enough to get 450 people stoned. (Or more likely, enough to get a couple of people high several times per week for a long time. Whoever put out a joint just because they were already baked?) Let's talk prices now. These numbers came from Frontline, PBS's public affairs series. Frontline says that during the first six months of 1996, commercial-grade marijuana ranged from $200 to $4,000 a pound, though it typically sold for $800 a pound. The price of sinsemilla ranged from $700 to $8,000 per pound, though the sale price typically did not fall below $1,300 per pound. Just like buying tuna fish at Albertson's, the cost per unit decreases as the amount purchased gets larger. Marijuana has a four-for-three rule of thumb; in other words, you buy three ounces, you get four. If someone is selling pot in order to get a personal stash, he or she can sell three ounces and keep the fourth. But the bottom line is that, in the 21st century, many recreational users buy their pot by the eighth of the ounce. One user, whose marijuana comes from Humboldt County in California, says his "basic bud," not ditch weed but not sinse, costs between $50 and $75. June, our local toker, says she gets hers for about $60 an eighth. If that sounds preposterous, put down your pipe and pick up your calculator. Here's a fun one. How much pot would it take to supply 150,000 pot smokers with three ounces of pot? About 28,000 pounds sounds about right. Now, for homework, figure out how much 14 tons works out to in real dollars. Every single pot smoker I talked to for this story had the same inclination I did. The initiative's amount of "three ounces or less" is intended to protect the friendly neighborhood dealers, those guys who buy an ounce, sell it in eighths and keep the profits for a personal stash. Fine. Why doesn't somebody just say so?I've talked to several law enforcement officers about this topic, most notably Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick and Deputy District Attorney Tom Gregory. There is a subtle but understandable underpinning to their arguments. Pot has been illegal for as long as they've been enforcing the law. That means it's bad. It's not going to become good just because it's not illegal anymore. It's the exact mirror to the argument on the bumper stickers you see hereabouts, "When guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns." But nobody says that. What they do say is pot should remain illegal for, essentially, seven reasons: 1. No one, not the American Medical Association or the courts, has scientifically proven pot has medicinal benefits. 2. Marijuana's addictive. 3. It's a gateway drug. 4. Marijuana use and possession would still be illegal on the federal level. 5. Three ounces is not a small amount of marijuana. 6. People aren't being arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana anyway. 7. It would still cost law enforcement a lot of money for prosecution of such things as driving under the influence, public use, selling or giving to children and others. "I'm not a doctor, and I'm not an expert, but we have experts that we can rely on who say that marijuana is a dangerous drug," Gregory says. "I'd point specifically to the American Medical Association, which says it is a highly addictive drug and a dangerous drug. I'd also look to our state Board of Pharmacy, which sets the schedules for drugs. They have found that marijuana to be a Schedule 1 drug, which is the most serious." Gregory tells me that there was a recent survey of drug court offenders. The survey said a couple of things. First, 84 percent of the people who wind up in drug court started their illicit drug use with marijuana--it's the gateway drug of choice. Of those, 85 percent experimented with marijuana when they were 18 and younger. What bothered me about this assertion was my own experience. I know that far more people start their drug use with alcohol. In fact, I'd be willing to be bet that most had been drinking alcohol when they first tried marijuana. Gregory acknowledges my suspicion. "The way the question was framed, they did not ask about alcohol," he says. "The question was, 'What was the first controlled substance that you experimented with?' Actually, alcohol could be considered that, but my guess is that most people didn't think of it. In all fairness, this statistic doesn't include that." Gregory promises to fax over the results of the survey, but despite several calls, it never arrives. Alcohol, to belabor the obvious, is a controlled substance, particularly for people 18 and younger. Again, it's a question of public perception. Alcohol, since it's legal for adults, is good. Marijuana, since it's illegal, is bad. Gregory also makes the point that few people are busted for having small amounts of marijuana in their homes, the very law that Question 9 seeks to change. "Another big myth that supporters of Question 9 put forward is that law enforcement is spending all of their time dealing with people who possess small amounts of marijuana in their home. That simply is not true." A person has to be arrested and prosecuted for a felony drug offense to get into drug court. Possession of a small amount of marijuana is not a felony offense in Nevada, and hasn't been for a while. So the question becomes, if the DA's Office isn't enforcing and prosecuting the use of small amounts of marijuana in the home--and none of the main objections are enough to get the law enforced--why should it be illegal? It shouldn't, says Rogers of the NRLE. "The Washoe County District Attorney's Office has more myths than Greek mythology," he says. "All this initiative does is protect responsible adults who possess small amounts of marijuana in the privacy of their own homes or under the care of a doctor." Rogers says that the DA's Office is lying when it says that small amounts of marijuana aren't prosecuted. "What I can tell you is, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, 3,742 people in Nevada were arrested for simple possession of marijuana in the year 2000," he says. "That's a fact. That's for possession of marijuana." The implication is that those 3,742 people weren't busted for dealing, driving under the influence or other pot-related crimes. The problem is that possession of marijuana became a misdemeanor crime in Nevada in October 2001, so the numbers are misleading; all those people were arrested before the new law went into affect. Finally, though, Rogers makes a point that seems to be irrefutable. "There are 214 people in the medical-marijuana program right now," he says. "You can't go to the pharmacy to get your marijuana. If you are suffering from cancer, and you are going through chemotherapy, do you know what the state law says you have to do to get your medicine? You have to go into the criminal marketplace, you have to endanger your life, and you've got to go to a drug dealer." That's a disgrace. A Nevada Department of Agriculture representative verified the truth of Rogers' assertion. I simply can't imagine my dad or grandma ever having to go to Nick Gotspeed to get medicine. This lack of government assistance goes against two votes of the Nevada people. If Nevada government had set up a program for medical-marijuana patients, NRLE never would have gotten a foot in the door here. And now it's confession time. Despite talking to many of the players involved, despite looking at more Web sites than I can count, despite the arguments made on either side of the issue, I still don't know how I'm going to vote on Question 9. When I regularly smoked pot two decades ago, I quit for a reason: It was making me stupid--affecting my short-term memory, blurring my attention to detail. These days, I certainly don't want my children around the stuff. Still, I've seen far more damage done to friends, family and myself though alcohol and tobacco use. Just because alcohol and tobacco are legal doesn't make them good. If a cancer patient needs to get high in order to feel better, he or she should be able to--Nevada voters say so. I've got other fears. I'm afraid of what will happen if the state government is put in charge of providing "a system of regulation for the cultivation, taxation, sale and distribution of marijuana." If there's a weak point in the proposed constitutional amendment, it's this. I also imagine that pot smokers will move to the state in droves if pot becomes legal. Pot-intoxicated drivers will undoubtedly increase. My children will come into contact with more children who have "responsible" parents (who possess small amounts of marijuana in the privacy of their own homes) and who have more access to dope. I don't know. I look for answers, but I can't see through the smoke of rhetoric. I just wish someone would tell me the whole truth. Note: The RN&R takes a skeptical look at both sides of Question 9. Source: Reno News & Review (NV)Author: D. Brian Burghart Published: October 3, 2002Copyright: 2002 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.Contact: renoletters newsreview.comWebsite: http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/Related Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Marijuana Possession: Records Show Few Jailed http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14334.shtmlQuestion 9 Enjoys Potpourri of Supporthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14311.shtmlWe Could Go Up in Smoke Over This http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14310.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #11 posted by observer on October 04, 2002 at 08:14:59 PT
Can't Have It Both Ways
Mr Burghart was misled (we are told by him) because he didn't read the one-paragraph description? He undercuts his argument that he didn't understand this or that: the question is just one short paragraph. Oh, those bad naughty marijuana-people! They let him sign a petition! And he never read it! Boo hoo hoo! We have his axe-grinding agenda-based word, that the naughty petition-person mentioned medical marijuana! And, now, get this: it must be true because he asked some of his buddies did they get all confused about the medical issue? We have their word on that too, says he, so therefore it must be true. re: ''...and three ounces is far more than they need.''Mr Burghart is the B.S.er again here. What is the time period we are talking about? Three ounces a day? A month? A year? Burghart forgot to say. He doesn't know; he doesn't care. The US Federal Government mails a quarter pound (that is over 100 grams) PER MONTH to the handful of US IND MMJ recipients. Those are the Federally legal US tokers. I think ol' Mr Bungheart there is full of it.re: '' 6. People aren't being arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana anyway. ''Um ... if this were the case, then what's the big deal for codifying that into law? Let's face it: cops, bureaucrats and other assorted statists hate laws like the Bill of Rights that limit their power; those laws are fought tooth and nail by police and prosecutor. They love and lustily enforce the laws that give police and government *more* power. Those are the laws that are enforced. Government and police are not here to protect *your* rights.)Of course, the facile assertion that "People aren't being arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana anyway" is another lie. They are. Arresting people for possessing small amounts of marijuana is the mainstay and bread and butter of the police/prison industrial complex. To make sure the charge is not technically "possession alone", the police state uses paraphenalia laws, infinite school zones and things like presence of baggies in the house to "prove" that "distrubution" happened and to generally inflate and pile on the charges (read: double jeopardy). re: ''and become the one person out of 109,048 who wanted his signature removed. Of course, his privacy would be a thing of the past, but that would be a tiny bit of collateral damage in this drug war.''Oh hey: not to worry. "People aren't being arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana anyway," Burghart assures us. So what's the big deal?Burghart is wrong. People are being arrested and JAILED for possessing small amounts of marijuana anyway. The police state and their toadies can't have it both ways. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by p4me on October 03, 2002 at 19:28:28 PT
LTE
I really don’t know what is in your mind as many people alter their words from what they really perceive because of an agenda. I just want to help you if you are sincere in the statement: “I just wish someone would tell me the whole truth.”My perception is that marijuana is a miracle plant. I think that the prohibition of cannabis is a denial of freedom and it is perpetuated because of corruption. Now that is an opinion formed by reading thousands of articles at CannabisNews.com and other places on the Internet. I personally am not confused on the issue. I see no reason to express personal views when a few months of reading the news and comments at CannabisNews would transform even a novice on the subject to a well informed person. One of the leading cannabis author/physicians in the world , Dr. Russo, comments regularly, if not nearly every day. Personally, I believe that the corruption of government and its lies are reason enough to abolish prohibition of cannabis even if it actually could result in an overdose death, which it cannot do.. Actually you could go to CannabisNews.com and read the articles and comments from the 30 articles and click a button for the previous 30 and then the 30 before that. and so on. After one day of reading, I think you would see the world in a different way.If you are really interested in cannabis as medicine there is a section on the home page on the articles related to the medical issue. There are many categories. If I wanted to figure things out on anything cannabis I would sincerely do the 30 articles thing and work backwards until I came to a general perception. Of course, one should expect everyone there to be for relegalization. After all, they are informed on the issue.You may be interested in the comments that appeared under your article at CannabisNews. Just click here: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread14343.shtmlDAD-D,1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by afterburner on October 03, 2002 at 18:46:21 PT:
Again???
"I just wish someone would tell me the whole truth." It looks like he got his wish. Thanks JR for answering for US. I'm too tired today to refute all those lies again myself.In community is strength.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by canaman on October 03, 2002 at 17:17:16 PT
The Reno News & Review
Is a free rag and is widely distributed in the Reno/Sparks Carson City areas. It's generally quite liberal (almost always pro cannabis) and DOES print most if not all LTE's. Same people do Chico News and Review and Sacramento News and Review. The story may be in all three.Sacramento, Chico, and Reno News and Reviewhttp://www.newsreview.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on October 03, 2002 at 15:28:28 PT
LTE - Seven lies that won't die
Sirs,  Mr. Burghart lists seven reasons he thinks the war on marijuana should continue. Here are seven reasons I believe it is in our best interest as a nation to end this harassment of our own citizens."1. No one, not the American Medical Association or the courts, has scientifically proven pot has medicinal benefits."  The debate over its medical value is too highly politicized to go into here. However, just because something does not have a proven medical usage is no reason to arrest people who use it. Tobacco has no medicinal benefit, yet it is legal."2. Marijuana's addictive."  We could also argue whether it is or not, but so what? Tobacco is addictive, yet legal."3. It's a gateway drug."  The old logical fallacy "if before then because". As George Carlin said, "Mother's milk leads to EVERYTHING." Why are only the illegal drugs considered gateways? Sugar, beer, and caffeine are never cited as gateways, even though most people are exposed to them before they get to illegal drugs."4. Marijuana use and possession would still be illegal on the federal level."  True. But no reason to make state officials complicit in the insanity."5. Three ounces is not a small amount of marijuana."  There is no legal limit on the amount of alcohol or tobacco you can own, so why should their be any limit on the amount of cannabis you can own? Well, to ensure people aren't selling it, of course. But is there really still a thriving black market for alcohol, or did the 21st Amendment put an end to that?"6. People aren't being arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana anyway."  However, the police still have the power to arrest someone for it. People who smoke marijuana have a negative attitude towards people in the law enforcement profession, because they see them as the enemy. If the war on marijuana was over, the police would have a lot easier time interacting with the public. "7. It would still cost law enforcement a lot of money for prosecution of such things as driving under the influence, public use, selling or giving to children and others."  We ended alcohol prohibition, and the police still have to deal with people driving under the influence, public drunkenness, minors in possession, etc. But they no longer have to deal with catching bootleggers and investigating gangland wars over liquor turf.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by DdC on October 03, 2002 at 13:48:37 PT
These Numbers Don't Add Up in WoD Either
And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more. (Ezekiel 34:29)Welcome to Reality
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/index.htmlAnd the earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:12)Hemp Food Association
http://www.hempfood.com/In the later times, some shall speak lies in hypocrisy commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine. (Paul: 1 Timothy 4:1-6)D.E.A.th Deceptions
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/DEAth.html(Jesus:) "Blessed are the peacemakers,for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are those persecuted for righteousness' sake: For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:9-10)FARMaceuticals
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/farmaceuticals.html(Jesus:) He saith unto them, "Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him.... That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man." (Mark 7:18-20)Sacramental Cannabis 
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/Sacramental.html(Jesus:) "Beware the scribes which desire to walk in long robes and the highest seats in the synagogues and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long prayers: They shall receive greater damnation." (Luke 20:46-47)JC/DC
http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/politics/media/40/40295.gif(Jesus:) 'Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethern, ye have done it unto me." (Matt. 25:40)Fiber
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/Fiber.html"The King shall answer and say unto them, Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part. (John 19:33) F.E.A.R.
http://www.fear.orgThese six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue and hands that shed innocent blood; An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief; A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethern." (Prov. 6:16-19) Fuel 
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/Fuel.htmlMy people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you,that you will be no priest to Me for I desired mercy and not sacrifice.(Hosea 4:6, 6:6)Rainbow Farm Massacre 
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionwhyitstimetolegalize.showMessage?topicID=292.topic(Jesus:) "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: And with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matt.7:1-4)America was NOT founded on Christianity nor was Jesus a Member! 
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionstuff.showMessage?topicID=83.topic
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by legalizeit on October 03, 2002 at 13:02:11 PT
Maybe he can't handle the truth
This piece seems a bit strange to me. It started out almost pro-legalization but ends up with the same old "children exposed to pot" rhetoric. I think poor Mr. Burghart is really mixed up. He does seem to devote more article space to the antis, even enumerating their lamebrained reasons to vote down the initiative. Yet he included some good statements in there including the fact that legal drugs are not included in the "gateway drug" formula.As for his statements that allude to the three ounce limit being in place to protect dealers, I don't understand. If cannabis is completely legalized in NV and is cheaply and readily available at (liquor stores etc.), the black-market dealers won't have any relevance in cannabis sales there.>"I'm not a doctor, and I'm not an expert, but we have experts that we can rely on who say that marijuana is a dangerous drug," Gregory says. "I'd point specifically to the American Medical Association, which says it is a highly addictive drug and a dangerous drug. I'd also look to our state Board of Pharmacy, which sets the schedules for drugs. They have found that marijuana to be a Schedule 1 drug, which is the most serious." Why not just train a parrot to spew Reefer Madness drivel and point to it when it squawks? Just because some anal doctors and bureaucrats declare something doesn't mean it's true or can be relied on. If Gregory is neither a doctor nor an expert, he should just shut up!Burghart must be quite blind to not be able to see through the lame smokescreen that the antis are putting up. His personal smoking experience should tell him that pot is not something that the cops should be citing or throwing people in jail for. He admitted that the only bad effects he had were stupidity and lack of attention to detail, traits which millions exhibit without smoking anything! If that's the case let's lock up half the country for stupidity. Hopefully the rest of Nevada's voters won't be so confused.If he wants the truth he should come right here to C-News! :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on October 03, 2002 at 13:01:47 PT
You're not ready for the truth!
This guy is a weasel. He's totally comfortable in defining himself as a hypocrite. As a younger adult, he used cannabis regularly. But now that prohibition doesn't affect him directly anymore, he wants to continue to punish others, apparently for having more that an eighth of an ounce. Cannabis smokers are now so demonic that he won't even tolerate his children being in the presence of someone who uses cannabis.If he's ever been in possession of more than 1/8th, he should immediately turn himself in.Of course this is a ridiculous statement, but it shows how much cannabis prohibition has warped our whole society. It's now totally normal to be a practicing hypocrite - all our leaders are. It's totally normal for 1/3rd of the population to be defined as criminals, and to be hiding in their homes, afraid of getting arrested. The author thinks all of this is swell. Why shouldn't he, it's been this way his entire life. And we know reporters are completely incapable of "thinking outside the box".Hell, most wine drinkers don't need more than 1 or 2 bottles. We should ban buying cases of wine. Obviously these "connoisseurs" are really the friendly neighborhood alcohol dealer. Yes, despite the fact that anyone can walk into a licensed liquor store and buy cases of wine, the whole system is just a front by the alcohol legalizers - our permissive liquor laws were created to actually HELP the neighborhood wine dealers.Nothing worse than these smug little jerks - it's becoming a more and more common theme - "I used to smoke weed, so I'm a real bad-ass type guy, I know better than all these cops and legalizers, because of my experience livin' on the edge, baby. You can listen to me for the inside word". What a joke. Me and the other 75 million potsmokers are laughing our ass off, pal. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by CorvallisEric on October 03, 2002 at 12:54:51 PT
We need his vote
If you write, please don't attack or accuse.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by knox42897 on October 03, 2002 at 12:15:33 PT:
Question 9 passing
Hello Everyone,
I wanted to let everyone know that question is passing in the polls at the NRLE. I went and voluntered some time doing phone polling. There are more yes votes than no votes. Its still very close, but the polls have question 9 ahead. I am also placing question 9 signs where ever people can see them. I started thinking maybe these will actually become collectors iteams?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by p4me on October 03, 2002 at 11:59:10 PT
Related but not on the head of the nail links
There are a lot of good articles related to our runaway capitalism for those with capital. This article at CommonDreams is titled, “Perils of Capitalism? Think Water Distribution” and is by Molly Ivins. The article is printed in the Chicago Tribune this October 3rd. It is an attack on those that attacked Bill Moyers for reporting on those fighting for the money that water can bring. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-03.htmAnother CommonDreams article from the October 1 edition of the Toronto Star praises Bill Moyers program as a truthful voice in a controlled media. The article is titled “American Media Keep the Liberals Invisible: There's little media time for critics of U.S. culture” and is by Antonia Zerbisias. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1001-07.htmWilliam Rivers Pitt sounds the alarm for the City of the Tea party when Busch comes to Boston. In the two years since Busch came for the first Busch/Gore debate, the country has gone to hell at the hands of a bunch of extreme religious fundamentalist. The article is at http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.02A.wrp.boston.htm and contains my paragraph of the day where our Attorney General asked for the indefinite suspension of habeas corpus. This article is a 10 and I hope you read it all because it just about says it all. Paragraph follows:“Before the smoke had cleared in Washington and New York, the Bush administration had decided that the best possible way to defend freedom was to restrict it as much as possible. The PATRIOT Anti-Terror Act was drafted - the original version carried a provision from Ashcroft to suspend habeas corpus indefinitely, but was wisely deleted by the Senate - and in its core lay the tools of a new, fearful domestic statecraft. Americans could be detained without access to attorney or trial for an indefinite period. Access to attorneys would be monitored and recorded. Searches of private homes could be performed without notification. Religious and political groups could be put under surveillance with no justification. Mr. Ashcroft proclaimed to Congress in public testimony in December of 2001 that anyone who disagreed with these new policies was aiding terrorism, or were terrorists themselves.”There is the first mention of a plan to divide Iraq into 3 regions. Baghdad and the ethnic population related to Jordan could be joined with Jordan. One region would become autonomous and a third region could be autonomous or be joined with Kuwait: http://onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Conover100302/conover100302.htmlGore says why AttackIraq before the election when the economy needs immediate attention. From Al Gore the bore’s website: http://www.algore04.com/news/gnn/EpFFVlpkVFUcrOLFuk.shtml Well maybe he did not read Reuters parroting of the government position that a war destroying Iraq would help the world economy. It leaves out the benefit of increased casket and embalming fluid sales: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&ncid=578&e=19&u=/nm/20021002/ts_nm/iraq_usa_boost_dc
I began a folder titled “Fascism” a few minutes ago. This article titled “Talking to Your Kids About Fascism” by GARY LEUPP is my first entry. It is a CounterPunch article from this October 3rd: http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp1003.htmlFrom http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ “ FRONTLINE kicks off its 20th anniversary season with "The Man Who Knew," the extraordinary saga of FBI Special Agent John O'Neill. As the bureau's top counterterrorism agent, O'Neill-- who investigated the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole--came to believe the United States should kill Osama bin Laden before Al Qaeda launched a devastating attack on America.” The website dedicated to this person that became security director and was killed in the WTO collapse has a website dedicated to his memory: http://www.rememberjohn.com/ The Frontline show will air 9PM this Thursday night.DAD-D,1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment