cannabisnews.com: Nation's Drug Czar Speaks Out Against Pot Question Nation's Drug Czar Speaks Out Against Pot Question Posted by CN Staff on October 14, 2002 at 10:26:49 PT By Terri Russell Source: KOLO -TV Nevadans who go to the polls next month will cast their votes on quite a few ballot questions. Perhaps the most controversial is Question 9. It allows for, among other things, the legal possession of three ounces of pot, and calls for the cultivation, taxation, sale and distribution of Marijuana.Opponents of Question 9 brought in the big guns Friday, encouraging people to vote no. Visiting Reno was U.S. Drug Czar John Walters to talk about his objections to Question 9. Walters says he was asked to come to Nevada by law enforcment and drug rehabilitation counselors.He says they're having a tough time combating what he calls "distortions" of Question 9, as well as the millions of dollars being pumped into Nevada by backers of the pot initiative."I call this refer madness, madness," Walters said.This was Walters' second speech in two days blasting Question 9, Nevada's marijuana iniatiave which allows for a resident to possess three ounces of pot and provides for a system of state regulation to cultivate, tax, sell and distribute the drug."If you are going to tax this, you are going to have to put it under the control of the state, and the people of this state will be accepting liability that I say you cannot even begin to calculate," Walters said. "For being a party to marketing a substance that is more dangerous than tobacco in terms of the carcinogenic effect but also in terms of the other predictive and psychological effects of marijuana. What state would take on that liability in the face of what we just say in the devastating consequences of cigarette smoking and the liablity attritubed to the tobacco industry?"Walters says proponents of the bill warned that people like himself from Washington would arrive in Nevada -- a state Walters calls the most independent-minded state in the country. He counters by saying those who finance the pro-advertising and publicity of this bill are a small group of millionaires who have no ties to Nevada."Harrison Ford is a pot smoker, and he's a millionaire," said Michelle Burns, a Question 9 proponent. "Woody Harrelson is a pot smoker, and he's a millionaire."Admitted pot smoker Burns, accompanied by her young son, was the only one outside the training facility protesting Walters' visit today. Burns says she's upset Walters wasn't more public with his appearance, and that he probably would have heard more opinions like her own."We have a drug czar here telling us that we shouldn't be able to have that choice," Burns said. "That doesn't shout 'freedom' to me."Walters is traveling to two other states -- Ohio and Arizona -- that also have Marijuana Initiatives on their ballots.Question Nine, he says, is the most radical and far-reaching initiative he's seen.However, if Question Nine passes this year, it doens't automatically become part of the state consititution. It has to pass again in 2004 to become part of the constitution. The details of the amendment would then have to be hammered out by lawmakers when it comes to cultivating, selling and taxing marijuana.Regardless of what voters do, it will still be against Federal Law to possess, sell, or smoke marijuana.Newshawk: canamanSource: KOLO-TV (NV)Author: Terri RussellPublished: October 12, 2002Contact: trussell kolotv.comWebsite: http://www.kolotv.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/An 'Out-of-State' Campaign http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14448.shtmlQuestion 9 Backers Speak Outhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14431.shtmlDrug Czar Says State Faces Liabilityhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14418.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #13 posted by observer on October 15, 2002 at 01:37:38 PT This Sums it Up -- ''Regardless of what voters do, it will still be against Federal Law to possess, sell, or smoke marijuana.''Our fascist government doesn't care what the people say or do. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on October 14, 2002 at 22:58:16 PT Nuevo Mexican Very nicely done. Thanks for posting your letter. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Nuevo Mexican on October 14, 2002 at 14:05:57 PT My LTE re: Gov. Johnsons 'Coca Mama' talk Read first: http://www.taosnews.com/db/Daily.php3#1167A response to an article by Rick Romancito:Title of article by Romancito about Drug reform discussion one-sided! Oct. 13 Taos NewsWho, what, when, where, why!An analysis of psuedo-journalism regarding the 'war on drugs that compete with pharmaceucital industry':What journalism classes has this reporter from the Taos News attended, and did he get passing grades for presenting opinions disguised as facts? The headline for his 'review' of Gov. Gary Johnsons doesn't discuss why he was here, (jailing 700,000 people a year in the U.S. for smoking Cannabis, while alcohol and tobacco are sold legally), but that the talk was one-sided (as Law Enforcement wouldn't show up to a debate on drug reform they surely knew they would lose, or they would've attended). Subheadline reads: Taos Mountain Film Festival panels 'fails' to 'lure?' enforcement response. What does 'fail to lure' enforcement means? Shouldn't you be clearer? Should they have been 'tricked' into attending? And whose responsibility is it to guarantee that opposing views where shared? The opposing partys', duh! They were invited, but chose not to attend. Obviously, a discussion about drug reform is impossible from a prohibitionist' point of view, as propaganda and platitudes are all that can be offered, the same old rhetoric, over and over again, through the complicit and willing print and televised media. Reefer Madness Revisted, 2002 version!Who: A lame duck Republican governor who said his clout today is "exactly zero" due to his support of national drug reform, Gary Johnson continued to maintain that harsher sentences are being handed down to common substance abusers than to murderers and rapists. Comment: Okay! Stop right there! Do you have a problem with rapists and murderers being treated more leniently than someone who chooses to use Cannabis for purposes of relaxation, medication, and communing with the Creator? I hope so, if not, why? This statement gets no further investigation, and it is the crux of Gov. Johnsons platform to end the profitability of prohibition. Is this journalism, or journalism-lite? I think a topic like the incarceration of 700,000 Cannibis users warrants a more in-depth look at Gov. Johnsons views than Romancitos' article does here, as millions of Americans lives are affected by prohibition, to the tune of billions of dollars spent locking up U.S. Citizens for their constitutionally guaranteed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!What: TMFF director Jonathan Slator was put on the defense early on when an audience member asked him why no one from the law enforcement community was present. Slator said numerous attempts were made to invite individuals, including members of Congress, who support of the current "drug war" but that none accepted. comment: Why would no one in the law enforcement community feel it neccesary to provide their views, probably because they new that Romancito and the Taos News would provide cover for their absence, as has been done nicely! But somewhat transparently!Now for the body of the story: Johnson reiterated points he has made on nationally televised talk shows and print media regarding his views on why and how drug reform is needed, suggesting that fewer dollars are being spent for treatment, while millions are being wasted on an unwinnable drug war. They were made following a screening of a documentary video titled "Coca Mama," which was about how drug interdiction efforts have harmed the lives of indigenous people in South America.Comment: So Gov. Johnson only had two things to say, one, millions are being wasted on an unwinnable drug war, and two, not enough on treatment. No details, no quotes, no discussion, just a movie detailing the tragic effect our laws have on indigenous people, such as death by aerial fumigation, poverty, paramilitaries etc, not worthy of further mention! Thanks Rick, your version of journalism leaves everything to be desired. It is called Bad Journalism, the legs of the table that prop up prohibition. The real question Rick, should sick and dying people be put in jail for using Cannabis to ease pain, or when used as an alternative to alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs with harmful side effects. Should we outlaw sugar because of all the current diebetics? I know you don't think so, but your article leads me to believe otherwise! Here is what real journalists' would do when reporting on the issue of drug reform: Released Sept. 4, 2002, our neighbor to the north, Canada, and its' Senate released a 2 year study on the effects of Cannabis and Cannabis prohibition. The rest of the report can be read at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=85The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs today released its final report on cannabis. In an exhaustive and comprehensive two-year study of public policy related to marijuana, the Special Committee found that the drug should be legalized. The 600 plus page Senate report is a result of rigorous research, analysis and extensive public hearings in Ottawa and communities throughout Canada with experts and citizens. "Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue", said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, Chair of the Special Committee.After you've read the report, I'd like to read what your headline might be now. Your obvious bias, as expressed in your 'one-sided' discussion headline, demonstrated this well. If it were the editors of the Taos News who are to blame, shame, shame, shame! You should know better! Thank you, NM [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Nuevo Mexican on October 14, 2002 at 13:59:45 PT Gov. Johnson speaks on Drug Reform Drug reform discussion one-sided Taos Mountain Film Festival panel fails to lure enforcement response http://www.taosnews.com/db/Daily.php3#1167Unfortunalely, I missed Gov. Johnson yesterday, as I attended Congressman Dennis Kucinichs' speech at Santa Fe High School to an audience of 15-2000 people. As I drove by the Taos Mountain Movie Festival, the line was huge and the message well recieved in Taos, but the writer of the article was completely one-sided as he accused Johnsons discussion as 'one-sided' since 'law-enforcement' wouldn't show their faces at this forum. Dennis Kucinich was awesome, speaking truth to power, and he has his spiritual perspective on life to guide him and us through these times of constitutional destruction and murdering madness. Shirley McClaine was there, she says hi to all my friends! We can stop the war on Cannabis, and we can stop the war in Iraq, and we will! An angry Mother Earth spoke at the gathering, channeled through Ashtar, and man was she pissed! Kucinich was gentle, understanding and profound! Easy to approach and very polite when meeting strangers. My 'Kucinich for President' poster made the front page of the Albuquerque JOurnal, but you have to subscibe to see it unfortunately! We are winning! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by afterburner on October 14, 2002 at 12:43:06 PT: "refer madness" "I call this refer madness, madness," Walters said.Wally's head is stuck back in 1937. BTW it's not a referendum; it's an initiative. Too bad we don't have national referendum rights, so that we could vote to repeal unjust federal laws, or at least federal initiatives. Initiative & Referendum Institute [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on October 14, 2002 at 12:09:51 PT Jerr-man I saw that too. There isn't any initiatives about marijuana just drug treatment in Ohio. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Jerr-man on October 14, 2002 at 12:05:23 PT lte from Ohion Hello Terri Russell,This letter is for clarification of a recent article (Oct. 12,2002)regarding Question 9.In this article it is stated "Walters is traveling to two other states -- Ohio and Arizona -- that also have Marijuana Initiatives on their ballots".I believe this information to be incorrect.If this statement is referring to the adding a section 24 to amend Article IV (4) of the Ohio Constitution,it certainly is not a Marijuana Initiative as stated.The Ohio initiative is about treatment instead of incarceration for individuals charged with illegal possession or use of a controlled substance.Although Cannabis Sativa (marijuana) is a controlled substance, I would consider this to be more of a treatment initiative.Treating non-violent "criminals" (i.e.. drug users) in a compassionate,caring way instead of locking them up is what this boils down to.We must start treating the people who have abuse problems instead of herding them into state prisons or local jails.I believe families and society will be better off with a "health related " view instead of a "criminally related" view regarding the treatment of those in need.Thank you for your time.Respectfully,Jerry AndersonAs an added note to John Walters,Please Do Not come to Ohio!! We will not be duped by propaganda.Stay in Nevada so we can see your expression when the "PEOPLE ARE HEARD"!j-m [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by canaman on October 14, 2002 at 12:02:27 PT Who's paying for your trip, Mr Walters? If you use one penny of federal tax dollars to come out west and argue against these cannabis issues you are worse than a common thief. Because a common thief at least uses the money he steals for himself and not against the victim of the crime. I resent my tax dollars being used to advocate against me. At least the so called "group of millionaires who have no ties to Nevada" use their own money. Do You? [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by p4me on October 14, 2002 at 11:59:56 PT The political process is all regged The issue that the 7 candidates' debate raised with me here over the weekend was this= Is a majority required to be declared winner or is the one with the most votes declared winner. Now currently Brazil is getting ready for a second election, because their election laws require 50% plus 1 vote to be declared a winner. The French had a runnoff election for President because a majority did not support the incumbent President in the election just a few months back. But this is not a novel idea and I might speculate that Columbia even had a runoff. It is called majority rule.Well, we ain't got no majority rule here. Surely, some states do but it should be a universal concept that there is no consensus and there is no winner until someone has 50+% of the vote. Otherwise, the Republicans and the Democrats can have there favorite corporation put forth their favorite middle age white guy to say he wants lower taxes, affordabe and excellent education, clean air and water, jobs for everyone with higher wages, and a crackdown on crime. Well, the Replicrats that eliminate the drug laws from debate in the elections and eliminate third-party candidates from debate have fixed it so you don't need no stinking majority to win. You just need to control the brainwashing mechanisms to get the most votes.I just called the Board of Elections and asked about the US Senate race that has the Corporate Party of America with Elizabeth Dole as their voting robot and Erskine Bowles. There is a third party candidate that I would automatically vote for if a run-off were required if a majority winner were required for selection to the Senate. But no, a vote for Libertarian Hugh is not a vote against the Corporate Party that wants permanent tax cuts and Ashcroft clones appointed to all available judgeships immediately if they take the House and Senate with Dumbell there in the White House ready with his ink pens. No, a vote for a Libertarian candidate for the important Senate race is an aid to Dole who flew in on her Kansas broom to do commercials to tell us she is wonderful.The whole dam thing is rigged so the broken system keeps the people broke and struggling for a savior that can say we want majority rule you crooked bastards.We have all been brainwashed. We have all been fiddled. We all are in one hell of a mess.1 [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by DdC on October 14, 2002 at 11:54:55 PT Reading D.E.A.th Dribble Can Cause Eye Warts! The Columbus Project http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionstuff.showMessage?topicID=16.topicMY COUNTRY 'TIS OF THY PEOPLE YOU'RE DYING http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionfrm13.showMessage?topicID=26.topicNOW THAT THE BUFFALO'S GONE http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionfrm13.showMessage?topicID=28.topicFarben's Bushit Circus http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/politics/media/39/39401.gifThugczar Wally http://www.cannabinoid.com/boards/politics/media/35/35838.gifD.E.A.th Deceptions http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/DEAth.htmlU.S.Al Qaeda! http://www.cannabinoid.com/boards/politics/media/39/39670.gif [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by krutch on October 14, 2002 at 11:45:19 PT: No Doubt Sam I am addicted to the stinking things myself. The most addictive drug in the world is legal. To me it is moot anyway. In a free society we make people aware of the risks and let them make their own decisions. When I started smoking the word was out on the risks. If I get lung cancer tomorrow it is my own damn fault. I won't be suing anybody over it. The reason the tobacco industry got into trouble is that it knew about the dangers long before it warned its customers. Smoking anything (pot,tobacco,cloves) is at your own risk. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on October 14, 2002 at 11:34:43 PT La-la-la-LIAR Krutch, one other fact that might be of scientific interest is that Tobacco kills 400,000 per year and Cannabis zero. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by krutch on October 14, 2002 at 11:21:58 PT: More Poor Arguments by this Moron I live in Pennsylvania. Liquor is distributed by State Stores here. The state collects tax on the Liquor sales. I have never heard of anybody suing the state because they blew out their liver on Jack Daniels. Ethyl alcohol is carcinogen. It has psychological effects that are far more debilitating than MJ.The idea that MJ use is a greater cancer risk than tobacco use is a non-scientific assumption. They have taken reseach that shows that it has more tar than tobacco smoke and twisted it into this. They do not consider the fact that MJ users do not generally smoke 20 to 40 joints worth a day. Cigareete smokers tend to smoke this much tobacco. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment