cannabisnews.com: Smokin' Airwaves Smokin' Airwaves Posted by CN Staff on November 20, 2003 at 08:55:32 PT By Dennis Myers Source: Reno News & Review Marijuana reformers are not finished with Nevada yet. The Marijuana Policy Project, the group that contributed funding to Nevadans promoting the initiative petition campaign that placed marijuana legalization on Nevada's 2002 ballot, is now running television commercials in Nevada comparing high teen marijuana use here with lower teen use in the Netherlands. The commercials use a split screen showing Nevada teens on the right side of the screen wearing shirts reading "67%" and Dutch teens on the left in shirts reading "28%." Using statistics on teen use from the White House Office of Drug Control Policy and the Center for Drug Research, the TV spots argue that well-regulated but legal marijuana in Holland produces fewer teen users than the current policy of outright prohibition in the United States. The spots are running heavily on most northern Nevada television stations. Nevada twice voted for medical marijuana in first- and second-round voting in 1998 and 2000. In response, the Nevada Legislature reduced the penalties for marijuana use and created a marijuana health use and research program. Building on those successes, the Marijuana Policy Project last year funded the Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement's push to make possession of three ounces or less of marijuana legal. The measure failed in the 2002 election, though 40 percent of voters supported it. The measure was defeated after highly publicized pre-election vehicle fatalities in both Clark and Washoe counties in which marijuana use was allegedly a factor. MPP focused most of its resources in that campaign on Clark County in southern Nevada, but its television campaign spots are running only in Washoe County, though the reach of those stations is across the northern portion of the state. The ads were created by the MPP's non-profit educational arm, the Marijuana Policy Project Foundation. MPP spokesperson Bruce Mirken says the run of spots is a "test run" to see if his group can address what its opinion polls showed was one of the principal concerns of voters last year. "We found that voters were voting based on a lot of assumptions that were not true, [including] that the current system or something like it is needed to keep kids from smoking marijuana," Mirken says. The advertising campaign suggests that prohibition itself fuels teen use and that a Netherlands-style "system of strict regulation and I.D. checks tightly controls marijuana and keeps it away from teens." MPP commissioned opinion surveys of northern Nevada before the schedule of TV spots started running and will poll again after the spots stop running at the end of this month. "They're running to provoke a discussion on the issues of marijuana use, so people will think about things they've accepted without question up to now," Mirken says. That leads to the question of whether the spots are being used to soften Nevada up for a second initiative petition campaign. "The answer, frankly, is we don't know," Mirken says. "This is a test run." He says there have been strategic discussions in his organization over what went wrong in last year's initiative campaign, but no decision has been made about mounting another one. In the meantime, the television commercials are regarded as an educational effort to try to dispel myths about prohibition. If another campaign is launched, MPP would likely step away from the effort. Nevada State Medical Association Director Lawrence Matheis, who has been critical of the previous marijuana initiatives in Nevada, says the television commercials with their teen-usage message are a necessity if the group intends to launch another initiative petition. "I think they would have to address it [teen use] because it was one of the major issues" in 2002, Matheis says. " But I simply don't think it's credible on the face of it that Nevada has the bigger usage over Holland. ... Being disingenuous is better than having nothing to say." Matheis says MPP should not again portray a legalization initiative as a medical-marijuana measure, as was done in 2002. MPP is a Washington, D.C.-based organization, but two months ago it opened a West Coast office headed by Mirken in San Francisco. The group has also set up a Web page at www.stopteenuse.com, where the Nevada commercial can be viewed and the documentation for the commercial's claims can be examined. The MPP was established with funding from billionaire investor/philanthropist George Soros, who has given away $4 billion of his fortune over the last two decades. Soros has been attacked for supporting drug reform by defenders of drug prohibition such as White House drug czar John Walters. While campaigning against the marijuana legalization ballot measure in Nevada last year, Walters challenged Soros to come to Nevada in person. "These people use ignorance and their overwhelming amount of money to influence the electorate," Walters said. "You don't hide behind money and refuse to talk and hire underlings and not stand up and speak for yourself." A screenshot from the MPP's education Web site at: http://www.stopteenuse.com/ In related news, Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick, a principal opponent of last year's marijuana ballot measure, recently said on KRNV's Nevada Newsmakers program, "Medical marijuana makes me shiver because there is no such thing. Marijuana is marijuana is marijuana. Neither the American Medical Association nor the Food and Drug Administration has recognized marijuana to have medical effect." However, according to the American Medical Association, the group has a long history of recognizing the therapeutic value of marijuana while also drawing attention to its dangers. A 1981 AMA report shows that the organization opposed the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, which imposed the first federal restrictions on use of the drug. "At the time," the report says, "the AMA was virtually alone in opposing passage of this Act. The AMA believed that objective data were lacking on the harmful effects of marijuana, and that passage of the Act would impede future investigations into its potential medical uses. Furthermore, the AMA's Committee on Legislative Activities recommended that marijuana's status as a medicinal agent be maintained." In fact, marijuana continued to be listed in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia (the annual volume of recognized medicines) until 1942, five years after the drug was made illegal, and is still listed in the British Pharmacopoeia. Since 1937, the AMA has regularly reasserted its support for marijuana as a medicine, including one effort in 1956 when a joint AMA/American Bar Association study called for less restrictive marijuana policies. In 1981, the AMA called on the National Institutes of Health to use its influence and resources to support development of an inhaled but smoke-free form of marijuana. (A pill form promoted by federal drug warriors is available, but it delivers its dosage of medication to a patient's system with a jolt, often causing the nausea it is sometimes prescribed to prevent. Inhaled marijuana delivers the dosage gradually.) The same AMA report listed 155 studies of the medical uses of marijuana, ranging from breast cancer to spinal-cord injuries. Gammick also pointed to the Food and Drug Administration's failure to sanction medical use, apparently unaware that it is illegal for the FDA to act on marijuana. The FDA was stripped of authority over the drug seven presidents ago. Acting on a recommendation of President Lyndon Johnson in 1967, Congress transferred authority over marijuana to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, which evolved into the Drug Enforcement Administration. Note: Marijuana decriminalization advocates stoke up a TV ad campaign in Nevada.Source: Reno News & Review (NV)Author: Dennis Myers Published: November 20, 2003Copyright: 2003 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.Contact: renoletters newsreview.comWebsite: http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #18 posted by Jose Melendez on November 21, 2003 at 07:56:18 PT spraySheets advertise here:http://www.freewayblogger.com/also those nylon and mylar car window shades that pop open can be tied to a pole blog this [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by The GCW on November 20, 2003 at 21:13:05 PT about druid's post / #3 "So far it's only programmed to detect cocaine. But Hunt says it could be developed to sniff out other drugs, anthrax, bombs, chemical agents and even cancerous cells."This device can be used to sniff out cancerous cells, but I suspect that will be disregarded and instead they'll put it to use sniffing out cannabis instead. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Treeanna on November 20, 2003 at 15:05:09 PT kaptinemo One good thing about that forum though...there were a few cops that seemed pretty fair....http://realcpd.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7566022531&f=8826018761&m=8326073784&r=7936055494#7936055494Gives me some hope. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by FoM on November 20, 2003 at 13:29:50 PT darwin I agree with you. Ads are very expensive. Maybe it's just me but this year might be our lucky year. Normally in November I think well what will happen now until after the first of the year or so but I told my husband the other day I don't see it slowing down much because of all the intensity we've seen in the news. Also quality organizations are jumping with with both feet. It's like it's urgent. I feel urgency and I think others do too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on November 20, 2003 at 13:21:23 PT: Treeanna, thanks for the link Though I have to say, it was just as I expected. But what especially proves my point is, the 'public servants' most defensive about the actions at Startford were also the rudest ones towards their 'civilian' paymasters on the board who were asking for an explanation...seemingly forgetting where their paychecks come from. And also forgetting that they were not dragooned into the field; they weren't asked to become police.They need to be reminded...a trip to the unemployment line is in order for some of them... [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by darwin on November 20, 2003 at 12:32:05 PT TV ads Why don't we see more ads on TV? Because it costs a lot of money, and there are no big corporations that would benefit. Without corporate sponsers, ads have to be paid for by altruistic donations. Also, who owns the airtime that shows that 70's show and are they on our side, their side, or unbiased? These networks are selective in who they allow to advertise. All we can do is help the MPP with donations and hope their support continues to grow. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Dan B on November 20, 2003 at 12:07:02 PT AMA: A Political (NOT Medical) Association However, according to the American Medical Association, the group has a long history of recognizing the therapeutic value of marijuana while also drawing attention to its dangers. A 1981 AMA report shows that the organization opposed the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, which imposed the first federal restrictions on use of the drug. "At the time," the report says, "the AMA was virtually alone in opposing passage of this Act. The AMA believed that objective data were lacking on the harmful effects of marijuana, and that passage of the Act would impede future investigations into its potential medical uses. Furthermore, the AMA's Committee on Legislative Activities recommended that marijuana's status as a medicinal agent be maintained." Really? The AMA opposed the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act? What, then, are we to make of this? Dr. William C. Woodward, for instance, who was both a physician and an attorney for the American Medical Association, testified on behalf of the AMA. He said, in effect, the whole fabric of federal testimony was tabloid sensationalism! No real testimony had been heard! This law, passed in ignorance, could possibly deny the world a potential medicine, especially when the medical world was just beginning to find which ingredients in cannabis were active. Woodward told the committee that the whole reason the AMA hadn’t come out against the marijuana tax law sooner was that marijuana had been described in the press for 20 years as “killer weed from Mexico.” The AMA doctors had just realized “two days before” these spring 1937 hearings that the plant Congress intended to outlaw was known medically as cannabis, the benign substance used in America with perfect safety in scores of illnesses for more than one hundred years. “We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman” Woodward protested, “why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the profession, that it was being prepared.” He and the AMA* were quickly denounced by Anslinger and the entire congressional committee, and curtly excused.3 When the Marijuana Tax Act bill came up for oral report, discussion, and vote on the floor of Congress, only one pertinent question was asked from the floor: “Did anyone consult with the AMA and get their opinion?” Representative Vinson, answering for the Ways and Means Committee, replied, “Yes, we have. A Dr. Wharton [mistaken pronunciation of Woodward?] and [the AMA] are in complete agreement!” With this memorable lie, the bill passed, and became law in December, 1937. Federal and state police forces were created, which have incarcerated hundreds ofthousands of Americans, adding up to more than 14 million wasted years in jails and prisons—even contributing to the deaths of individual Americans—all for the sake of poisonous, polluting industries, prison guards unions, and to reinforce some white politicians’ policies of racial hatred. * The AMA and the Roosevelt administration were strong antagonists in 1937. It looks like the AMA has been caught in a lie: they didn't agree with the law, but Representative Vinson lied to Congress to make it appear that they did. For more on the 1937 situation, see The Emperor Wears No Clothes at the following webpage on the Electric Emperor website: http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/04/MECH04_10.HTM#AMA [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on November 20, 2003 at 12:02:38 PT I Say Put a Commercial On That 70's Show The 70s show is very popular particularly because of the smoking scenes. It is pot friendly and a perfect show to make a point. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Treeanna on November 20, 2003 at 11:59:59 PT Link to the LEO bords regarding Goose Creek I wanted to post this link in the hopes more of our people and the public will go and read up on how the cops are dealing with the situation we have all seen on video.Be warned!!! While some of the LEO there seem to be great folks who really care, there are numerous real jerks :(http://realcpd.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=7566022531&f=8826018761 [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Necriol on November 20, 2003 at 11:56:59 PT: Why don't we have this all over the country? Obviously the drug legalization lobby does not have the funds to sponsor national advertisement campaigns, but really you don't see much of anything on TV that attempts to refute the ridiculous claims of the government's anti-drug friends. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on November 20, 2003 at 11:55:52 PT RasAric Very upsetting story. I posted it in a comment because of the young man's name being mentioned and respect for what his famiiy must be going thru now. Choking to death on plastic has to be a hard way to die. It isn't a quick way to go. It is very tragic. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread17830.shtml#8 [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Virgil on November 20, 2003 at 11:54:39 PT Cannabis Enthusiast So tell me, why shouldn't the U.S. go Dutch with regards to cannabis sales to adults? It would send a mixed message. Think of the children. Don't you know marijuana is a dangerous drug and is the gateway to even worse drugs? That is the answer and the chants. It neglects truth and the solution to the cannabis issue, but that really is the answer from the Nazis.The real answer to the question of course is that it should and it doesn't because Nazi power trumphs reason and freedom. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by RasAric on November 20, 2003 at 11:48:25 PT Breaking News From CNN:An officer pulled over to assist(yeah right)a driver who was fixing a flat tire. When the driver saw the cop, he swallowed a bag of pot and died.I think it's safe to say this was do to choking on the plastic bag rather than any "kind" of THC overdose.(and another victim in this bullsh*t drug war) [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Cannabis Enthusiast on November 20, 2003 at 11:22:01 PT U.S. should go Dutch One of the arguments my girlfriend makes against going with the Dutch model for cannabis in the United States is that marijuana hasn't been around here in the states as long as in Holland. Exactly the opposite is true, as MPP proves. Marijuana is more commonly used in the U.S. than in Holland.So tell me, why shouldn't the U.S. go Dutch with regards to cannabis sales to adults? [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on November 20, 2003 at 10:40:45 PT: More high-tech tomfoolery A 'sniffer chip', eh?So, it's really senstive, huh? Well, unless all US currency is dry cleaned every hour, it'll still have the famous 'dirty money' scent of cocaine all over it. With sensitivites as high as that, you wouldn't have to shake too many bills in front of it before it slagged itself or had a nervous breakdown.Technical Tyranny, one step at a time... [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by druid on November 20, 2003 at 10:31:42 PT OT: New Machine Can Detect Drugs Like Dogs ATLANTA (AP) - A new invention can sniff like a dog, find drugs like a dog and help police catch criminals like a dog. But can the so-called "Dog on a Chip" replace the police officer's best friend?Georgia Tech researchers have developed a machine that can instantly sniff out cocaine and other illegal drugs without the hassle of feeding, training and interpreting a police dog."This works the same way as the dogs," said Bill Hunt, the electrical engineering professor heading the project. "They're picking up on the vapors coming off the cocaine."From a few feet away, the device can "smell" microscopic amounts of a particular substance - as little as one-trillionth of a gram. So far it's only programmed to detect cocaine. But Hunt says it could be developed to sniff out other drugs, anthrax, bombs, chemical agents and even cancerous cells.The machine is a rectangular plastic box slightly smaller than a phone book attached to a cube with a chip inside it that detects substances. Two antenna-like tubes protrude from the cube - one sucks in air, the other spits it out.Electronic nose technologies have been around since the 1980s, but none has been as sensitive as a dog's nose. And of course, chips lack a certain animated quality."Dogs are more fun," said Dan Gordon, a private investigator and owner of Homeland Security Dogs in Palm Springs, Calif. "You can throw a Frisbee with them." [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on November 20, 2003 at 10:05:20 PT: Oh, jeez, this is getting to be too much! *The MPP was established with funding from billionaire investor/philanthropist George Soros, who has given away $4 billion of his fortune over the last two decades. Soros has been attacked for supporting drug reform by defenders of drug prohibition such as White House drug czar John Walters. While campaigning against the marijuana legalization ballot measure in Nevada last year, Walters challenged Soros to come to Nevada in person. "These people use ignorance and their overwhelming amount of money to influence the electorate," Walters said. "You don't hide behind money and refuse to talk and hire underlings and not stand up and speak for yourself."*But...but...but...Johnny Pee, that's EXACTLY what YOU are doing. What else would you call the ONDCP's efforts in sending it's staff and you ON GOVERNMENT EXPENSE to lie to the electorate of Nevada? How much of the public's money did you use? How many millions that could have gone into a school lunch program was spent by you and your footmen in trying to defeat a democratically fostered plebiscite? How many of the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars have been wasted these past 23 years in like endeavors?If any of Soro's money was wasted, at least it was HIS to waste, not the taxpayer's. A pity Johnny Pee can't make the same claim.Oh, Johnny, I thought you were smarter than that - in a low, cunning, animal way, that is. You've stepped in it but good, this time. Because you will eventually be backed into a corner and forced to put up or shut up. With a man who could buy almost any nation in a single afternoon.BTW, Soros has given only a few million to the MMJ movement, not the billions that the article implies but never completely comes out and says. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 20, 2003 at 10:00:21 PT News Article from Snipped Source Judge Gray, a Drug-War Foe, Will Run for Senate Now a libertarian, the longtime advocate of legalization will challenge Boxer in 2004. By Claire Luna, Times Staff Writer November 20, 2003 As crusades go, Judge James P. Gray's fight to legalize drugs has been a long and lonely one. His advocation of treatment instead of jail time for drug offenders has gained some converts, but Gray's views remain largely on the outskirts of acceptability. Some of his closest friends disagree with his opinions, and his most vicious opponents accuse him of being a biased, negative role model. But Gray is dogged in his long-held belief that legalization is the only way to solve what he says is an increasingly unsuccessful war on drugs. He lectures at least once a month on his views, this week to a county bar association, next month to a group of Alaskan Libertarians. In the latest chapter of the conservative judge's uphill struggle, Gray has become a Libertarian and announced Wednesday that he is running for the U.S. Senate. The odds of unseating Democrat Barbara Boxer in next year's election are long, but the opportunity to show the major parties that his message resonates with voters is victory enough for him. "Every single vote I get will legitimately be seen in favor of repealing drug prohibition," said Gray, 58, the day before announcing his candidacy at the Old Orange County Courthouse in Santa Ana."The other side is going to want to get my votes, and to do that they'll have to change their drug policy. If that happens, I'll have won."Gray is hoping to get 15% of the vote, a longshot for a third-party candidate. His campaign slogan targets the apprehension that mainstream voters might feel: "This time, it matters."A lifelong Republican, Gray said he switched this year because the Libertarian message of greater individual freedoms better aligns with his own.Libertarians in California are looking to Gray's candidacy to bring legitimacy and an improved turnout for the party, which traditionally draws between 1% and 2% of the vote in U.S. Senate races."He brings with him the gravitas of his position," said Mark Selzer, southern vice chairman for the California Libertarian Party. "He's going to take our party to the next level in terms of the respect people have for us."One of Gray's longtime friends, Costa Mesa Police Chief John D. Hensley, disagrees with the judge's views but still came to Wednesday's campaign opening to lend moral support."He's a good man and an ethical judge, and I wish him all the best in his campaign," Hensley said. "Still, since his thinking is well outside the mainstream, he's going to have some difficulties."That's an understatement, Boxer campaign spokesman Roy Behr said. "A huge, huge majority of voters will be opposed to that position," he said. "There is no significant support for that platform."Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gray20nov20,1,5024361.story Judge Jim Gray [ Post Comment ] Post Comment