cannabisnews.com: Drug Law Reform Still on US Agenda





Drug Law Reform Still on US Agenda
Posted by CN Staff on November 07, 2002 at 10:00:27 PT
World News
Source: Financial Review
Voters in Nevada, Arizona and Ohio have rejected attempts to ease marijuana laws but all was not lost in the campaign to relax drug laws. A referendum in San Francisco urged city authorities to consider growing cannabis for sick people while in the capital, Washington, the population approved a measure allowing for treatment instead of jail for marijuana possession.
Nevada, which made its name on gambling and tolerates prostitution, scuppered a proposition to allow private possession of up to 85 grams of marijuana in a referendum carried out alongside mid-term Congressional elections on Tuesday. Supporters of the marijuana referendum vowed to keep on fighting to liberalise use of the soft drug. "A lot more conservative voters than normal turned out this time because of a same-sex marriages proposition on the same ballot," said Nevada state Representative Chris Giunchigliani, who sponsored the initiative. The state electorate voted to uphold a state ban on gay marriages. Under the Nevada proposal, people over 21 would have to buy marijuana in state-licenced shops so that the state could impose taxes. "We may not have won tonight but our campaign will be back in some shape or form if not in Nevada in some other state because the only way you change our federal government is through the voting booth," Mr Giunchigliani said. US government anti-drug campaigner John Waters had opposed the referendum with the federal government and law enforcement officials. They warned that legalisation would encourage widespread use of other drugs. But the Washington-based Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), which heavily backed the referendum, said the public had been victims of an official disinformation campaign by Walters and other officials. MPP executive director Robert Kampia said "Yet we still received a record setting vote, despite the federal government's blizzard of fear-mongering and lies". In neighbouring Arizona, voters dismissed a local initiative to downgrade the punishment for marijuana possession and to establish a register of people allowed to use soft drugs for medical purposes by 57 per cent to 43 per cent. The move would have reduced the penalty for possession of the drug from a jail sentence to a fine. In the eastern state of Ohio, a bid to force judges to sentence drug offenders to rehabilitation treatment rather than jail was quashed by 67 per cent against to 33 per cent in favour. But in San Francisco, 63 per cent of voters opted for a measure that could make it the first city in America to provide cannabis for the sick, putting the city on collision course with the federal government. The decision to order city officials to examine the possibility of growing and distributing cannabis means residents could one day be allowed to cultivate their own marijuana crops. "We think it sends the wrong message to the country as a whole that the city of San Francisco will get into the business of growing marijuana," said Richard Meyer, a special agent in the US drug agency's San Francisco office. California passed a law in 1996 allowing doctors to recommend cannabis for some patients, a move that saw medical cannabis dispensaries spring up across the city that once spawned the pot-fuelled summer of love. The legalisation efforts in Nevada, Arizona and Ohio as well as another in Washington DC, were backed by a trio of millionaires through a Washington-based body. Financier George Soros, billionaire John Sperling and multi-millionaire Peter Lewis provided more than $US1.6 million ($2.86 million) in funding for the campaigns through the Marijuana Policy Project. Source: Financial Review (Australia)Published: November 7, 2002Copyright: 2002 Australian Financial ReviewWebsite: http://www.afr.comContact: http://afr.com/misc/feedback.htmlRelated Articles & Web Site:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/After Voting, Dreams of Legal Pot Go Up in Smoke http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14685.shtmlMarijuana Backers Pledge Continued Effortshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14680.shtmlState Voters Reject Legalizing Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14671.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by DdC on November 07, 2002 at 14:48:52 PT
Analysis: So.Dak. Hemp vote
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 08:23:39 -0700
From: "Bob Newland" newland rapidcity.comSubject: Analysis: So.Dak. Hemp voteThis is a wrap-up of the 2002 industrial hemp election in South Dakota.
posted by Bob Newland
http://www.SoDakHEMP.org/Two years ago we conducted a poll of South Dakota voters. (You can see the poll script and the results at http://www.sodakhemp.org/poll.htm)
The results showed that, given a little explanation, voters would overwhelmingly (85%) support the production of industrial hemp in South Dakota.Tuesday, the ballot issue presented to voters lost; 38%-62%.This is what voters saw on the ballot: Title: An initiated measure adopting a law relating to industrial hemp (cannabis).Attorney General Explanation: Initiated Measure 1 proposes a law that would make it legal under state law, but not under federal law, for a person to plant, cultivate, harvest, possess, process, transport, sell or buy industrial hemp (cannabis) or any of its by- products with a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of one percent or less.A vote "Yes" would adopt the state law.A vote "No" would leave state law as it is.We think that the phrase, "but not under federal law", inserted into the language we circulated on the petition which put the issue on the ballot
(see http://www.sodakhemp.org/petition.htm), probably had a confusing, therefore negative, effect on those who were not familiar with the proposal. That, of course, leads us to another problem -- getting information to the voters.If you read our poll script, you'll see that we really presented a push-poll to those we interviewed for the poll. It was necessary at that time, since public awareness of the issue was almost nonexistent. At the polls, voters didn't have the benefit of someone explaining the absurdity of govt policy on hemp. What they saw was a vaguely contradictory statement devised by the Attorney General.County-by-county, the "Yes" vote percentage varied from a low of 20% in Douglas Co. (1733 total votes, a little county in southeastern SD farm country) to a high of 70% in Shannon Co. (comprised entirely of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, home of Alex White Plume). Interstingly, Jackson Co. (also comprised entirely of the Pine Ridge Res.) voted only 39% for hemp.Todd Co. (Rosebud Sioux Res.) went 56% for hemp. Buffalo Co. (Crow Creek Res.) went 51% for hemp, and Dewey Co. (Cheyenne River Res.) voted 49.999% for hemp.Two things were at work in these areas:1. The Indian tribes in So. Dak. have all discussed re-legalization of hemp in much greater detail than has SD at large.2. All summer long, Bob Newland and Ron Holton conducted a two-hour radio show every Tuesday on KILI radio (Pine Ridge Res.) which was relayed to tranmsmitters on all the SD reservations.3. The "Lakota Journal" newspaper, published in Rapid City SD, strongly supported hemp.(We'll post the county-by-county vote breakdown at sodakhemp.org soon.)Most who receive this message are familiar with Alex White Plume's hemp farming activities on the Pine Ridge Reservation, and the feds' unconscionable destruction the crops of a citizen of a sovereign nation.
(see http://www.sodakhemp.org)In spite of the fact that the SD Farmers Union endorsed hemp unanimously at its 2001 Convention last December, the Farmers Union directorship worked steadily and under the radar to discourage people from voting for hemp. I think we can look for some changes in that directorship during the next year or so, although I don't really understand the politics of that organization.In sum, the results of the campaign for and the vote on the proposed "So. Dak. Industrial Hemp Act of 2002" can be analyzed thus:1. Not enough money to publicize the issues.2. Consistent opposition by "major" candidates in SD, based on ignorance and party political corruption.3. People who were informed better than others (SD's Indian population) voted as could be expected among informed people on this issue.4. Farmers, especially, are so used to feeding on the unhealthy scraps dumped off the table to them by the feds, that even those who know better intellectually and philosophically don't know how to feed their families if they stop eating them.5. The cumulation of 80 years of govt-sponsored lies, and the recent upsurge in such disinformation, is difficult for a few people to overcome.There are lots of people I'd like to name as having devoted time and energy to educating voters on the industrial hemp issue. Can't name them all. But I will mention that Jeremy Briggs is a name all hemp activists nationwide will be hearing from. This young man destroyed the opposition in two "debates" I observed. One was a Highway Patrolman, who signed off on the the opposition statement in the voter guide distributed by the SD Sec. of State. The other was a SD state senator. Jeremy also was responsible for the content and distribution of our voter info magazine titled "VoteHEMP2002 So. Dak.", which we distributed statewide during the past two months.
See http://www.state.sd.us/sos/2002/02GBQpamphlet.htm for pro/con statements on all the ballot issues on the SD ballot.Randee Peterson, of BlackHills.com (our ISP), was also an immense help. 
See http://www.BlackHills.comAndrew Kneip, Ron Leeper, Kelly Brown, and Tony Kellar are a few other names of folks who were quite visibly supportive of, and who campaigned for, industrial hemp in SD. The entire Libertarian slate also campaigned for hemp, with the exception of pseudo-Libertarian Kurt Evans, who defected to the Republicans just in time to put the Democrat Tim Johnson back in office (but that's another story).That's my take on things, without very much editorializing on the contemptible and wilfully-ignorant stances taken by most of SD's political establishment (but the majority of SD's politicians are hardly unique in that category).Best regards to all -- even to those who voted to continue the enslavement of South Dakota's family farmers to the political/prison/military/industrial complex.Bob NewlandRelated...Pine Ridge 8
http://www.cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Pine+Ridge&H=40&SM=on&T=B
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment