cannabisnews.com: Myths Abound in Question 9 Debate Myths Abound in Question 9 Debate Posted by CN Staff on October 13, 2002 at 12:17:03 PT Opinion Source: Reno Gazette-Journal Sift through the emotion and rhetoric of the Question 9 debate and one fact emerges. Whether Nevada should legalize possession of marijuana is not a battle being fought amongst Nevada citizens but by outside interests. For that reason and a few others, Question 9 should be voted down.Question 9 would legalize possession of up to three ounces (about 250 joints) of marijuana by people over the age of 21 and build a state system to produce and distribute the drug. It would not make it legal to sell marijuana to juveniles, smoke it in public or drive under the influence. Nevada law already allows patients prescribed marijuana by a physician to grow their own and use it at home. Possession of up to an ounce is now a misdemeanor; first offenders face a fine, and if the judge sees fit, drug treatment.Question 9 would fix a fundamental flaw in current law, allowing the 200 or so medicinal marijuana smokers approved by the state to get the drug legally. Currently they must grow it, which is difficult, or buy it from street dealers. It’s shameful that people have to break the law to get their hands on a drug they lawfully are allowed. Yet, Question 9 goes beyond medicinal use. While many people recognize marijuana may not be the most lethal of drugs, many of those same people would have a tough time arguing that the state should grow and sell it.Opponents make a less than compelling case against Question 9, which they argue is a con on Nevadans who naively believe the measure is only about medicinal use. This insultingly assumes voters can’t see through the smoky rhetoric, that they don’t know that out-of-state interests are pushing it or that it has broader implications than medicinal use.Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2002/10/12/25849.phpSource: Reno Gazette-Journal (NV)Published: October 12, 2002Copyright: 2002 Reno Gazette-Journal Website: http://www.rgj.com/Contact: rgjmail nevadanet.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Question 9 Backers Speak Outhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14431.shtmlDrug Czar's Visit Prompts Rallies http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14425.shtmlDrug Czar Says State Faces Liabilityhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14418.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #21 posted by FoM on October 14, 2002 at 16:04:15 PT Thanks Richard I appreciate it. It seems like it should be ok but I'm not a lawyer. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by Richard Lake on October 14, 2002 at 15:55:08 PT: OK, FoM, I will ask However, don't expect an answer quickly. I will have to draft a note aimed at the legal team, which will then be reviewed by the board members authorized to discuss it with the team (folks who have met in person with the team) who will insure it is written well and that the question is easy to understand (remember, this will be entirely new question for them). And then we wait on responses.Probably take more than a few days, based on previous experiences. I will make sure that you get copies of emails involved, FoM.Richard [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by FoM on October 14, 2002 at 12:45:42 PT Richard Since CNews is 100 percent non profit maybe doing it that way might be a good idea. If you would check with the Lawyers that would be best. I have already almost figured out how to do it. Dissect the article and comment on different paragraphs in the article and then I would post it as an analysis of an article rather then just the article. That would give up and coming writers an opportunity to try out their writing skills. Just on snipped articles though. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by canaman on October 14, 2002 at 12:45:12 PT It's a double edged sword I wonder if chain news people realize how much exposure they get from CNews and Mapinc ect. Personally I would never have heard of some of the news sources if I hadn't seen them here. Links to the actual site is probally better for them, but we really need to get the drift of the article or who will follow up? If the writers have unions they should step in and tell the lawyers to back off. They are limiting the writers audience. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Richard Lake on October 14, 2002 at 12:39:32 PT: FoM's Idea FoM wrote:I want to wait to do anything until tomorrow. It is giving me an idea on how to get around it. Maybe some of you would want to analyze an article that is snipped. I'm just throwing this out as an idea. I think there is no problem if we would do it that way. I could then post comments in the article itself and highlight the analysis maybe. Let me know if you or anyone would like to do that. I would want the name to be the persons initials if they don't feel comfortable using their name but other then that I know on my end I could do it. This is just an idea I've thought about on and off for quite some time. -------Hmmm. To the best of my knowledge we have not asked the legal team specifically about doing as suggested above. OTOH I know Richard Cowan strongly believes that if you comment enough, which for him is a whole lot, you are legally OK. He comments with references and links on almost every paragraph of an article he posts. While his site is not is popular as CMAP it is popular enough, and commercial at that, so that I would hope that he is well aware of the risks. I don't know if any legal demands have been made on him.FoM and Friends. If you all decide to do it along the lines of what Richard is doing, please let me get it before the legal team first. You have my email address.And please look carefully at what Richard Cowan is doing so you will understand how much work going that way really is.http://www.marijuananews.comRichardp.s. I know that for various reasons some of you may not like Richard Cowan or his work. Personally I have mixed feelings about it being a commercial site, but that is his choice. I know Richard well. He was the keynote speaker at our last DrugSense dinner. I know that he respects FoM's work, too, because he said so. Richard Cowan's Marijuana News [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on October 14, 2002 at 12:28:23 PT Richard I just want to say thank you for explaining so I don't need to figure out what to say or what not to say. I hate confusion above almost anything. I just want to do NEWS! I love doing NEWS! I do avoid using snipped papers if I feel it isn't really important just on the basic principle of this whole situation.PS: I love Cannabis News contributors and that's why I was upset. I am protective of them. They mean a lot to me.PSS: Our society has been deeply hurt by not getting the news like Mapinc. and CNews both give to the public to read. In a free society we need the truth out there. We can't depend on the news on tv so we are it and I don't want to fail people who want the truth. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Richard Lake on October 14, 2002 at 12:15:55 PT: Sorry! Didn't mean to be rude, just worried! I agree that my post was out of line in it's tone. I know FoM and everyone tries to do their best.FoM has a list of papers where lawyers have made written take down demands, on CNEWS or MAP, which are seen as the same by the lawyers.Basically or top flight legal team is backing the snipping of those sources down to two or three paragraphs, no more. Enough so that you have an idea what the article is. AND it is then OK to provide a link to the actual article.While one chain has been unhappy about even that much, at this point they have backed down for now.The legal case record is not on our side, so our legal team wants to work carefully. We want to avoid being hauled into court on their grounds and let other cases carry the issue until the dust settles and we are really ready. It all takes time, a lot of time.So at this point we are honoring all legal written requests from source lawyers, and trying to do our best to act as above.Yes, you can see a list of which papers are included fairly easily. Go to:http://www.mapinc.org/media.htmYou may need to use one of the dropdowns, by alphabetical or by location, to find a specific newspaper.If in the right hand column it says "Excerpts" this is one of the newspapers that has made legal demands on us. It would be there if it was a demand specifically because made because of CNEWS or MAP postings, or both.Like FoM I try to stay out of the legal stuff, but from time to time Matt or I have to explain to our legal team how things actually work so I do become aware of their thinking.One of the points they make is that the less said in public places, like here, the better. Don't want the other side learning any more than possible before there is any need, for sure.Again I am sorry if I seemed short last night. Tired, and having just talked in a conference call with our lawyers a few days ago, worried.Between CNEWS and MAP we really rule in the area of getting the news out to the reform community. Years ago we were hardly noticed, but that is not the case now. As we have grown we have become a bigger target.You should know that it is not the editors and reporters who are starting the legal demands on us. It is lawyers, at the top of the chains. Reporters love us! Nor is it a plot by the prohibitionists. Chain lawyers have gone after sites like ours for years, it is part of their job.Enough said, I think.Richard Richard's little webpage [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on October 14, 2002 at 08:18:20 PT p4me I don't post most snipped papers. I personally only was contacted by a few papers for C News. Map gave me a list and I check it if I'm not sure about a paper. I am not included in any of the discussions about the copyright issues so I'm in the dark too. I just try my best to do what I'm told. That's all I can do. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by p4me on October 14, 2002 at 07:59:39 PT Well, I tell ya The snipped thing is no big deal. The thing about including the rest of the article really has to do with Cnews as an archive. As long as the link to the entire article is up the record is complete. It is only the fact that they take down links that causes a small need to record the whole article. Now in this snipped article it really was not clear the conclusion that would be made and the most important line in the article was the last one- "Vote no on Question 9."But if you want to know the truth, if I were really concerned with stepping on one of these ragheads toes, I wouldn't even put an article up. It is all but saying boy you guys are important. I might put up the link, but if they are up tight about someone acknowledging their work, I would move on to the next article and maybe give them a link. Now that is just me.But, my question is really about how you select which articles to snip. Is there a list of newspapers or is it by company- say Knight Ridder? So if it is no big deal to me if an article gets left out because the newspapers are snippy about their not so valuable content, I surely don't care if a snipped portion gets put up.But, in direct response to what you were saying about commenting on snipped portions, I would think if someone has something to comment or if something is worthwhile, it would get mentioned. Most articles could just say "Pothead blahblahblah" and that is enough for me.But copyright stuff is a big deal. Even on those Messiah disks, I wonder about if you gave them to a politician if they could turn around and bring charges against you for pirating someone else's articles. If the Man wants to harass you and you give him a reason, there you are. So, there is a job out there of making a disk of medical studies that can be circulated without fear of being prosecuted for violating someone's copyright. That compilation is badly needed. A disk that is circulated with copyrighted material could really end up hurting someone at sometime.1 [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on October 13, 2002 at 21:29:33 PT p4me I want to wait to do anything until tomorrow. It is giving me an idea on how to get around it. Maybe some of you would want to analyze an article that is snipped. I'm just throwing this out as an idea. I think there is no problem if we would do it that way. I could then post comments in the article itself and highlight the analysis maybe. Let me know if you or anyone would like to do that. I would want the name to be the persons initials if they don't feel comfortable using their name but other then that I know on my end I could do it. This is just an idea I've thought about on and off for quite some time. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by afterburner on October 13, 2002 at 21:28:12 PT: FoM: snipped articles What about including a link to the whole article? [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by p4me on October 13, 2002 at 21:18:38 PT FoM Well, it seems like the thing to do is remove the rest of the article and maybe put a simple reminder not to do that anymore. 1! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 13, 2002 at 21:05:37 PT Richard You know I respect you but saying with friends like that we don't need enemies wasn't kind to say. I am very proud and respect the people who post here and contribute day after day. I was under the impression it was ok or they wouldn't do it. We talked about this on the phone, no? [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on October 13, 2002 at 20:55:09 PT Richard I thought that was ok as long as I didn't do it. Sorry if I didn't understand it correctly. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Richard Lake on October 13, 2002 at 20:46:24 PT: Posting "The rest of the article" danger to C FoM snips articles as she must so that CNEWS isn't hauled into court and shut down.The link is there to the rest of the story.Then along comes someone and posts the rest of the story.With friends like that we don't need enemies!Please, I am sure that those who are doing it don't see the harm. But they are not talking to the legal team. The risk is really huge. Yes CMAP gets take down demands. So far posting only a small part from these sources that FOM snips has kept us out of court.We have the best legal team available, superb experts, working pro bono - for free. But if we blow it they will be gone, and so will CNEWS.That is fact!Richard [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by idbsne1 on October 13, 2002 at 16:34:32 PT Thanks p4me... for mentioning Steve. Not many know of the unfair hardships Steve has gone through...even at the hands of "friends" of the movement. Unfortunately, there are "vultures" in even our movement who are making their place in the legalization game, just as ruthlessly as big business politics....under the guise of "cannabis freedom".They have kicked him to as low as I can imagine, yet he still goes on through God's will. Thank you God for taking care of him.I shall call him today and let him know we are thinking of him. Thanks p4me....idbsne1 [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by p4me on October 13, 2002 at 13:58:45 PT We are one of the few that know the story of .... Steve Tuck. I think his story as worthy as any human story going, but the Fascist media won't tell the world about him or the injustices that haunt and hunt him. I just want to put up some links about the media. More and more people are coming to understand we are being fed propaganda by the irresponsible corporate medias and it shows in articles out today. I will say that if a person has time, their are at least 10 good articles up at CounterPunch. For those that are busy a few chosen paragraphs from those Bad Journalist that let MJ prohibition survive.-------------------------------That William Rivers Pitt is really doing the country a service with his articles. I would not put this article up with the top five at CounterPunch today, but the guy deserves some credit for his recent body of work and needs to be pointed out with a journalist that can speak in realities instead of propaganda and mythology. I did not record the best paragraph I read today, that said we have the best propaganda machine the world has ever seen. The issue of Bad Journalism is alive and growing on the Internet, so now that it is catching on I will not keep raising the issue. Here is Pitts article: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.14A.wrp.byrdsong.htm--------------------I had typed something earlier I lost again because I hit submit and was not going to proofread it and it never made it to the screen.For the same reason, I stated for saying 1 and 2, I now condense 1,2, and DAD-D into 1. I never want to quit saying those things but like the prisoners that assigned numbers to their jokes, I will assign 1 to my main phrases. I leave you with,11."Congratulations! It's a War!" by BEN TRIPP There are two consecutive paragraphs worth reading:Why is this so awful? At least it will settle Bush down, one way or the other. Let him wage war, if it means he'll stop trying to cut down the forests, arrest all the cancer victims who smoke cheeba, and take away a woman's right to choose. I'll tell you what the problem is. (You didn't think I wouldn't, did you?) While the halls of government ring with preposterous speeches about despots who compulsively hate our freedoms and attractive lifestyle, our real enemies are gathering strength, and our allies are growing weak. When we scoff at the UN, however wretched that body may be, we rob it of the blunt, peg-like teeth necessary to enforce world peace and diplomatic aims. When we threaten to attack sovereign nations, however stinky, we are breeding terrorists out of the young men who know they cannot win, except by suicidal vigilante actions. When the United States announces by resolutions such as the one passed today in the Senate that it intends to do whatever its President damn well pleases, despite its own citizens, despite the Constitution, despite the world, even despite the lessons of history and the legacy of the future, one cannot help but say, "oy". But there's a bigger problem than that, even. Bush subverted our election. He subverted our prosperity. He subverted our freedoms. And now he has subverted, with the help of a couple hundred Democrats, the entire government-- all three branches on the withered, leafless tree. The coronation is complete. How could the Democrats in Congress allow this to happen, to give up their authority in the ultimate matter of national affairs, the right to declare war? That's a silly question. I'm embarrassed. There's a midterm election coming, and it could be the most important midterm election in modern times: if the Democrats don't prevail in the House and Senate, and the Republicans take control, then George W. Bush will have absolute power, a power he has demonstrated a thirst to use for outrageously narrow interests. The Democrats calculate if they appear to be tough and brave, like the Republican chickenhawks, the Republicans will have nothing to run against- after all, the Democrats are already favored on the economy and domestic matters. So to show they're powerful, the Democrats support handing Bush the power to wage war. But wait! Doesn't that mean he now has absolute power? Oops.2.The Politics of Fear by CAROL NORRIS: http://www.counterpunch.org/norris1012.htmlThis is also not an apologia for those who "don't get it," who don't know of the complexities and the issues involved. I'm a big proponent of people taking responsibility for and educating themselves about the issues. But the ever-conglomerating, tow-the-line corporate media certainly doesn't make it any easier. I simply think those of us who work for social, political and environmental change [and anybody, for that matter] would do well to keep the politics and mechanisms of fear in mind. It's one thing to preach to the converted choir, but it's another to get the message across to Aunt Matilda who is scared shitless in Conservativetown, USA. Preaching to the choir is quite important in its own right and should continue full steam ahead. It keeps people energized and informed. And I find it great fun. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by DdC on October 13, 2002 at 13:31:58 PT Those who straddle fences... Ouch!Indicating that police here have thrown countless pot smokers into prison. Not true; most marijuana users are sent to rehab with prison space reserved for drug traffickers and high-volume dealers.Are responsible citizens treated differently for using cannabis,than citizens using prescribed Pharmaceuticals, legal booze or tobacco? YES Were 735,000 cannabis possessors arrested and made into criminals last year and almost as many every year since Klintoon started? YESIs forced "Treatment" for what many millions believe is fine as it is, any less humiliating, costly or degrading to users, stigmatizing and assulting American citizens. YESIs non-psychoactive hemp a schedule #1 narcotic comprising 99% of the "marijuana"eradications and the cops time. YESIs hemp and ganjameds kept from farmers and the free enterprise system under prohibition? YESMost in prison are for growing and trafficking, yet as noted, many medicinal patients must go to the streets. To these trafficers and growers. Legitimizing this process with Q9 would end the suffering of the patients/citizens. And allow adults an alternative to legal, deadly, disease causing alcohol. This the writer deems appropriate to incarcerate in a "treatment" program, pay a fine and court cost, lost wages if the job is still there. Lost housing by forfeiture even before the trial or if using public assistance. Lost food stamps for life, when even welfare fraud doesn't, especially corporate welfare fraud. Still punishment for doing something safer.Still not receiving benefits from the sales. Especially the $250,000,000.00 in hemp sales last year. $Millions saved by patients in reducing the black market prices or by legally growing it at home. Saving Medicare and Social Security funds. Get real, you might like it.I don't believe a non-resident can initiate a state initiative. I do believe you're half right including the outsider Wally and his minions of D.E.A.th.The rest is pond scum, boring and not even a firm grasp of the obvious or reality. Yup, wez in trouble America. Our leaders and messengers are all insane.Peace, Love and Liberty or the Crazy D.E.A.th Propagandist....DdC [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Robbie on October 13, 2002 at 13:12:15 PT It is not disingenuous to want marijuana and others drugs legalized. No one in the reform movement is advocating for reform because they want to use drugs without interference. They're doing it because it's wrong and it must be opposed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by st1r_dude on October 13, 2002 at 13:04:37 PT it's getting fascinating, indeed... looks like the prohibitioners are letting loose a few shots this way, heheh -seems they're a bit panicky - nice battle tactics, but -they're history...literally, heheh (really bad history)st1d [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by p4me on October 13, 2002 at 12:25:19 PT The rest of the article This is the rest of the article and the first paragraph has some repetition from what did not get snipped to keep the paragraph whole. Copy follows:Opponents make a less than compelling case against Question 9, which they argue is a con on Nevadans who naively believe the measure is only about medicinal use. This insultingly assumes voters can’t see through the smoky rhetoric, that they don’t know that out-of-state interests are pushing it or that it has broader implications than medicinal use. Opponents also scare residents into thinking the feds would strip our state of all federal aid should voters pass this initiative when federal officials admit they don’t know what the fallout would be for Nevada.There is massive research to support either argument, and both sides have been disingenuous in this debate. Proponents call themselves Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, indicating that police here have thrown countless pot smokers into prison. Not true; most marijuana users are sent to rehab with prison space reserved for drug traffickers and high-volume dealers.Opponents are equally guilty when they proclaim marijuana a gateway drug: Many experts agree cigarettes and alcohol are just as much a gateway to substance abuse. Critics say allowing adults to use marijuana will lead to more broken families and abusive homes. By that logic, alcohol should be made illegal. The truth is that on a given month in this country 55 million people use cigarettes, 100 million use alcohol and 16 million use drugs (56 percent of which are marijuana-only users).Whether you think marijuana is a dangerous drug or not, Question 9 is a dangerous proposition. It would enshrine one drug — and one drug only — in the Nevada Constitution, where it would be difficult to remove later if necessary. Amendments to the Nevada Constitution should reflect fundamental truths for our government, not someone else’s national agenda. Vote no on Question 9. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment