cannabisnews.com: Boost for Medical Marijuana Boost for Medical Marijuana Posted by CN Staff on December 22, 2003 at 09:54:09 PT Opinion Source: Press-Telegram To all the narrow-minded and misguided government agencies from Long Beach to Washington still persecuting medical marijuana patients, we'll put this as succinctly as possible: Stop. It is time for you to give up this cruel and pointless fight against good citizens who are suffering and simply seeking relief from an effective, relatively benign and potentially free drug. Last week's ruling from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could not be clearer: The federal government cannot continue prosecuting medical marijuana patients in California and the six other states whose voters overwhelmingly, in most cases approved propositions decriminalizing marijuana for medicinal use. Patients are now free to grow their own or obtain it without cost with a doctor's recommendation, something the voters of California tried to establish seven years ago when they passed Proposition 215. But the nation's drug warriors, clinging to outdated, Nixon-era policies that wrongly classify marijuana as having no medical benefit, have fought against the will of the people at every possible turn. Enough, already. Even the hesitant U.S. Supreme Court has begun to take the side of reason against the federal government's cruel medical marijuana battle. In October, the conservative court sided with the liberal 9th Circuit court to reject one of the most draconian tactics of overzealous White House drug warriors, who had threatened doctors with jail for suggesting that marijuana could help some of their patients. Doctors are no longer censored, fortunately, from providing whatever medical advice they believe is correct. Long Beach cases have been just as misguided as the federal government's, though on a smaller scale. The Long Beach branch of the L.A. District Attorney's office has arrested and aggressively prosecuted medical marijuana patients in four cases, all but one of which were dismissed by judges. The other was overturned on appeal. These local cases, along with numerous federal ones, have amounted to a complete waste of court resources, police time and taxpayer money. One involved a disabled septuagenarian veteran who was arrested after growing some immature plants with a doctor's recommendation. The man was forced to pay attorneys' fees in more than two dozen court appearances while the case was tried, refiled and dismissed three times. Since the plants were immature, he hadn't even smoked any of them. The government's battles against medical marijuana have always been pointless and cruel, but now, with terrorism and street crime increasing, it is an irresponsible and dangerous waste of resources. The federal court has now established parameters for Proposition 215. It is time past time for local and federal governments to finally uphold the will of voters and let sick people grow, possess and use marijuana for medical purposes without fear of prosecution. Note: Court ruling sends a clear message to government agencies. Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA)Published: Sunday, December 21, 2003Copyright: 2003 Los Angeles Newspaper GroupWebsite: http://www.ptconnect.com/Contact: speakout presstelegram.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Raich v. Ashcroft in PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/ruling.pdfOther Views: Dope Distinctions http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18020.shtml Where’s The Compassion?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18003.shtmlFederalism Wins - National Reviewhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18002.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #28 posted by jose melendez on December 22, 2003 at 17:47:18 PT Walters lies using carefully worded mantras. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n832/a02.html" Of the 4.3 million Americans who meet the diagnostic criteria for needing drug treatment ( criteria developed by the American Psychiatric Association, not police departments or prosecutors ) two-thirds are dependent on marijuana, according to HHS."Excuse me, but unless they are involved with the 'justice' system, how many of those 4.3 million NEED treatment for marijuana?? FACT: drug war IS crime, drug war IS crime, drug war IS crime . . . [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by FoM on December 22, 2003 at 17:07:28 PT DevoHawk Thank you for the compliment about CNews. That makes me smile. I agree Prohibition is dieing. Sometimes change happens will bells and whistles going off and sometimes it's more like a slow process. We have witnessed very wise decisions by different judges over this past year and soon everyone will understand. They might not approve but they are realizing the laws are worse then the substance itself. Slowly we are seeing logic taking hold. It's fascinating to watch it happen. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by Max Flowers on December 22, 2003 at 16:33:42 PT arthur, are you in central CA? I just realized you had an email link on your name, I moused over it and the domain is charter.net. To my knowledge that is a San Luis Obispo, California area ISP. However, I know very well how conservative that area is, and it would not surprise me to learn that doctors there would be too timid or anti-cannabis to give a recommendation. The SLO county sheriff's office is rapidly gaining a reputation for brutality as well.As a medical cannabis patient who would use but not grow, that area is still pretty safe however. I'd like to hear what the doctors you asked said and on what grounds they refused you. If you really want to find compassionate, serious doctors you may need to travel to the bay area or the L.A. area to find one. I could certainly recommend a few in the bay area.Please post again with more info. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by Dan B on December 22, 2003 at 15:27:51 PT Regulation of Intake Folks, it appears that things are getting darker on one front in the pursuit of liberty for all: the government now wants to regulate your food choices. Now, I can understand why they want to provide healthier choices in schools (I visited one school in Texas where kids were given soft drinks and candy bars along with their "staple" lunches of burgers and fries; it's disgusting how we have let big business poison our kids in this way), but the article that I have linked to below spells out a much broader scope of the proposed new government health programs. Consider this excerpt:With the U.S. Surgeon General calling obesity an epidemic, legislators nationwide are offering measures to encourage healthy food choices and ban the worst temptations.Skeptics say government should stay away from trying to legislate something as personal as what we eat. But supporters say they can't ignore a growing public health problem or how it drives the ever-rising cost of health care.It is one thing to provide a variety of choices, including healthy and not so healthy ones, but it is quite another to ban certain foods just because they are deemed "unhealthy." Now that the government has lost the war on drug users, it wants to apply the same stupid logic that fuels that war toward obese people. What are they going to do? Start having mandatory weigh-ins at work? Stop your cars at checkpoints and make you get out to step on the scales if you look like you might be overweight? Revoke driver's licenses and student financial aid for fat people?I know this doesn't have a lot to do with cannabis prohibition, but I think it should be important to us here nonetheless. It involves the same kind of government overreaching that all other forms of prohibition involve, and the end result will be not fewer fat people, but fewer freedoms for everyone. That is wrong.Dan Bhttp://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20031222/D7VJMOT00.html The Government Wants to Dictate Your Food Choices [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 14:57:17 PT The myth of "harmless" marijuana ....by John WaltersHas anyone read this entry he wrote with this title? [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by DevoHawk on December 22, 2003 at 14:51:26 PT Rendezvous in Montreal Sam Adams, what a wonderful idea. It will look like Germany when the Berlin wall fell. There has been much good news this year in Cannabis prohibition. Mass-Profit-Media seems to see the writing on the wall, Prohibition is dieing. Thanks FOM, CN is the best.I'm not trying to push any particular company but good raggae can be streamed from http://www.bigupradio.com. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by sukoi on December 22, 2003 at 14:48:48 PT Arthur Castro I'm certainly sad to hear of your situation and wish you well. I have found a few web sites that may help you get the information that you are looking for (there are many more out there). Max Flowers and The GCW bring up some important points to consider, what is your state, expenses, legality, etc... I'm sure that there are people here who can give you more direct information, but here is a start:http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/resources.htmhttp://www.cannabismd.org/http://www.mikuriya.com/http://www.mercycenters.org/http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/links/medicalmarijuana.htmlhttp://www.yahooka.com/pages/Health_and_Medicinal/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by The GCW on December 22, 2003 at 14:32:33 PT Cloud 7, & Bruce Mirken & Ford in Africa??? That was My question when I read the E-mail.Why can't We just take a machine gun and hose 'em down?Nuke the crapin' law, and let's get on with the business of loving Our brother.420(& Bruce Mirken SPLITS THE ARROW!)Canada: PUB LTE: Pot MisinformationPubdate: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 Source: National Post (Canada)Re: Softer Marijuana Law Worries Partsmakers, Dec. 11. Windsor-based auto parts makers fearing they will be subject to some sort of draconian quarantine should Canada soften its marijuana laws might assuage their fears with a four-hour drive to the east. There, they will find the state of New York, which for well over two decades has had marijuana laws considerably more liberal than the law proposed by the Canadian government. New York stopped jailing marijuana users in the 1970s, and maintains fines for marijuana possession lower than those now being contemplated in Canada. And yet New York's borders are not sealed off for fear that some New York cannabis will be smuggled into Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont -- or Ontario, for that matter. Indeed, New York actually has lower rates of youth and adult marijuana use than nearly all of its neighbouring U.S. states. U.S. government officials, desperate not to be the last regime fighting a futile war against marijuana users, are spreading fear and misinformation as rapidly as they can. Do what sensible Americans do: ignore them. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications, Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. 420If I remember right FoM ran an article (about 1 year ago)about the Ford Motor Co. in Africa, I think, that showed the different cultural attitudes... if the African Ford plant, were to ban the superplant, they would not have enough people to run the money machine. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by cloud7 on December 22, 2003 at 14:24:50 PT question? "If the Supreme Court rules in their favor, it could strike down the laws, and would most probably give parliament a year to enact new legislation that would not involve jail sentences for the possession, and possibly cultivation and small sales."Does this mean that the Supreme court could rule in our favor, but still have cannabis be illegal with only fines allowed as punishment? [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by sukoi on December 22, 2003 at 14:14:21 PT For those of you who don't get this mailed to you, here is a special breifing from DRCnet that I just recieved:Special to Drug War Chronicle: Briefing on Marijuana Cases Before the Supreme Court of Canada http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/canada/Phillip S. Smith, psmith drcnet.orgAt 9:45am Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 23, the Canadian Supreme Court will release its decision in a trio of linked cases that pose a comprehensive challenge to the country's marijuana laws. All three challenge Canada's pot laws as infringing on their rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. David Malmo-Levine, Chris Clay, and Victor Caine argued that marijuana use or possession does not rise to the level of social or personal harm to be a crime under the Charter. If the Supreme Court rules in their favor, it could strike down the laws, and would most probably give parliament a year to enact new legislation that would not involve jail sentences for the possession, and possibly cultivation and small sales.Legal Background:Similar to the US Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights guarantees "the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Section 7, which is the basis for the constitutional claim against the marijuana laws, reads: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."What is at stake is whether the "principles of fundamental justice," as developed in Canadian constitutional law, allow a person to be deprived of the rights mentioned above for a marijuana offense. Determining what is fundamentally just is a balancing act, wrote one Canadian jurist, "a determination of the balance to be struck between individual rights and the interests of society." That is where the question of marijuana's harmfulness comes into play.Caine, Clay and Malmo-Levine argued that in determining the principles of fundamental justice, the court must use the "harm principle" as a standard. Derived from 19th Century British political philosopher John Stuart Mill, an appeal court hearing two of the cases described it as arguing "that the State has no right to interfere with the personal freedom and liberty of an individual unless that individual causes harm to other persons or to society in general. Therefore, the State has no right to imprison individuals for activities that only cause harm to themselves. The appellants argue that possessing or smoking marihuana may in some cases have harmful effects on the smoker, but it does not harm others. Imprisoning a person for possessing marihuana would thereby violate the "harm principle" in the same way as imprisoning somebody for consuming caffeine or fatty foods."The decision does not come in a legal vacuum. In 2001, Ontario's highest court declared the marijuana possession laws invalid because they did not provide for medical marijuana users. The court gave parliament one year to change the law; instead, Health Canada issued administrative guidelines that many patients complained were impossible to work with. As a result of further legal action, courts in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island ruled the marijuana possession law null and void for a few months this summer. But Health Canada has since been more responsive, and Canada now has a working -- if problematic -- medical marijuana program.Political Background:The pending Supreme Court decision comes against a background of political turmoil over Canada's marijuana laws. With acceptance of marijuana use widespread in Canada, a growing movement to legalize or at least decriminalize marijuana possession has made significant inroads in the political sphere. Last year, in issuing a comprehensive review of the subject conducted after months of hearings and reams of testimony the Canadian Senate Select Committee on Illicit Drugs called for the outright legalization of marijuana (http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=85), while a House of Commons select committee recommended decriminalization.The government of recently retired Prime Minister Jean Chretien introduced a marijuana decriminalization bill this fall, but it died before being acted on when he adjourned parliament last month. But Chretien's successor, Paul Martin, announced last week that he would reintroduce the bill, although reportedly in a slightly tougher form."Decriminalization is the shadow of a first step," said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, chair of the Senate committee that recommended outright legalization. "Public policy must be structured around guiding principles that respect the rights and responsibilities of individuals who seek their own happiness while respecting the rights of others," he told Drug War Chronicle in an interview earlier this year (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/286/claudenolin.shtml). "This is the pillar of our thinking, and from this it became quite easy to conclude that, for cannabis, legalization under a properly regulated system was the only sound public policy."Pressure to liberalize Canada's marijuana laws has come from an increasingly vocal and organized cannabis movement, as well as civil liberties, health, and other groups. It is also supported by public opinion. A survey conducted by the Canadian polling firm Leger & Leger this summer found only 14% wanted pot to remain illegal, while 43% supported legalizing it for medical use, and an additional 40% wanted it totally decriminalized or legalized. Another poll, conducted in May by Ipsos & Reid, found that 55% did not think smoking marijuana should be a criminal offense, with support rising to 63% for a system of fines, not criminal charges.But there is opposition to liberalization of the marijuana laws, not only among conservative politicians, law enforcement, and segments of the health profession, but even within the ruling Liberal Party. Randy White, a Canadian Alliance Member of Parliament from British Columbia who is the opposition shadow spokesman on criminal justice issues, has been reduced to haggling over whether the decrim bill should set a limit at 5 grams, 10, or 15.Some of the loudest squeals of disapproval have come from south of the border. John Walters, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, has repeatedly lashed out at Canada for considering changes in its marijuana laws, as has US Ambassador Paul Celluci. Walters has been warning for months that Canadian decriminalization would cause a boom in US consumption. "It's a multibillion-dollar industry and most of the production is headed south," he said in May. At the time, he praised countries such as Mexico and Colombia, which supported eradication, but "Canada seems to be going in another direction." A few days later, he weighed in again. "We'll respond to the threat," he told a cable news show. "What we have to do is protect Americans and right now, this is out of control."Cellucci, meanwhile, has raised ominous concerns that decriminalization could tie up the busy US-Canadian border, of key importance to the Canadian economy. He was at it most recently in Edmonton, Alberta, December 10, telling reporters decrim could mean problems. "Our concern is the perception of this is that this is a weakening of the law... that it will be easier to get marijuana in Canada," he said. "Our customs and immigration officers, they're law-enforcement officers. If they think it's easier to get marijuana in Canada, they're going to be on the lookout for it. That's going to put pressure on the border at a time when we've been trying to take pressure off it. We don't want to have a lot of young people having their vehicles inspected when they're crossing the border."Canadian politicians, however, don't think much of such rhetoric. In an interview published 11/14, Vancouver, BC Mayor Larry Campbell, formerly a narcotics officer with the Mounties then Vancouver's coroner, told Drug War Chronicle, "[John Walters] is probably the most misinformed person in the whole United States" (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/311/campbell.shtml). In July 2002, following a visit to Canada by US Rep. Mark Souder, Member of Parliament Libby Davies, responding to Souder's claim that marijuana is as dangerous as cocaine, told the Canadian Press, " My God, what is this man talking about? We can't be subservient to the ridiculous rhetoric coming out of the United States."In fairness to Canada, it should be pointed out that two-thirds of the US population lives in states where marijuana possession has been decriminalized. In Ohio, for instance, possession of up to a quarter-pound is punishable by only a fine. According to Mayor Campbell, in fact, " [m]ost US states have more liberal policies on marijuana than we do."The Cases:Caine: Chris Caine and a companion were sitting in Caine's van in the beachfront parking lot at White Rock, British Columbia, when two passing RCMP officers noticed "a strong odour of recently smoked cannabis (marihuana)," as the court put it in its summary of the facts. Upon questioning, Caine produced a partially smoked joint and was arrested for marijuana possession. The amount of pot involved was a half-gram, and all parties stipulated it was for his own use.Caine was convicted, and he appealed, arguing that the laws against marijuana possession violated his rights under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights. The possibility of serving a jail sentence threatened his "right to human dignity and personal autonomy; his the right to privacy; and his the right to physical liberty (freedom from the threat of imprisonment)."David Malmo-Levine, who described himself to the court as a "marijuana/freedom activist," and who publicly lit up before arguing his case before the justices, helped operate the East Vancouver Harm Reduction Club, a co-op that educated its members about pot and provided marijuana to them at cost. Police raided the operation on December 4, 1996, and seized 316 grams, most of it already rolled. Malmo-Levine was charged with and convicted of possession with the intent to traffic. He appealed, raising issues similar to Caine.Chris Clay was owner of the Great Canadian Hemporium, where in addition to hemp products, pot pipes, and marijuana leaf logos, he also sold marijuana seedlings. After a police undercover agent bought clones from Clay, he was raided and charged with marijuana possession, trafficking, and cultivation. He, too, appealed, again using similar arguments.Related Links:Canada Supreme Court summary of cases http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/hearings/spring/spring_e.aspReport of the Canadian Senate Select Committee on Illicit Drugs http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=85Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy http://www.cfdp.caDrug War Chronicle Interview with Senator Nolin http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/286/claudenolin.shtmlDrug War Chronicle Interview with Mayor Campbell http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/311/campbell.shtmlVideo footage of DC "Out from the Shadows" press conference with Senator Nolin, Member of the European Parliament Marco Cappato, and Arnold Trebach http://stopthedrugwar.org/shadows/video/ial-04-29-03.htmlDrug War Chronicle report on the press conference, "Senator Nolin Comes to Washington" http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/285/senatornolin.shtml-----------------------------------------------------------DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be made by credit card at http://stopthedrugwar.org/donate/ or sent by mail to P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036-8402. Donations to the Drug Reform Coordination Network are not tax-deductible. Deductible contributions supporting our educational work can be made by check to the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, same address.PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail drcnet drcnet.org.Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.*********************************************************** DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet ***********************************************************JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://stopthedrugwar.org/donate/ SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://stopthedrugwar.org/WOLSignup.shtml UNSUBSCRIBE OR UPDATE mailto:listhelp drcnet.org DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org DRCNET HOME PAGE http://stopthedrugwar.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Max Flowers on December 22, 2003 at 13:31:33 PT Arthur Castro Sorry here also to hear about your multiple ailments. Now down to business. What state are you in? That's the first info we need to help you.If California, it will be no problem. If you are in a state that has no medical cannabis laws, that's a problem, and if I were in your situation and able to, I'd move to CA.So tell us what state you live in and I'm sure you will get a lot of help right here.Hang in there. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by The GCW on December 22, 2003 at 13:21:20 PT Arthur Castro I hope You can get better info here at C-news than what I offer, but I would question whether or not to get a doctor.It cost money, and then in most states it cost money to get a card to use it after the doc. reccomends it. In Colorado that is about $160, just to get the card.Then You have to wait. Perhaps only a week, but I don't know... and again that's Colorado.If I was sick and wanted to use cannabis, I would skip the doc. On the other hand, if You want to grow YOur own, the doc's recomendation may save the additional headaches of getting busted growing the criminal plant.Actually the greatest doctor is the one who created cannabis and said it was good on literally the very 1st page of the Bible. Let that by Your doctor.Otherwise consider contacting NORML, the closest one to You and request info for a doctor.Ask a doctor to recommend one...I do believe someone here can give better advice on Your question though.I wish You comfort.The Green Collar WorkerAnd I know this isn't going to help instantly, but,if You haven't heard: Democratic Presidential nominee, Dennis Kucinich, put in writing that as PRESIDENT He WILL: "DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA" -"in favor of a drug policy that sets reasonable boundaries for marijuana use by establishing guidelines similar to those already in place for alcohol." (POSTED ON His website!)http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17917.shtml http://www.kucinich.us/issues/marijuana_decrim.php A President Kucinich will end the headaches You have for generations to come. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Sam Adams on December 22, 2003 at 13:18:40 PT O Cannada! Tomorrow is the day! I've been enjoying reading the great comments from all the new posters lately. So this is it! I hope everyone is ready to rendezvous in Montreal for the big celebration next month!I wonder, what time is the decision being announced? What's the best media source to watch? [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 13:13:49 PT fearful.........WOW... Alls I gotta say is...........PASS DAT SH IT!!!You musta been on some home grown sticky, good for you man...Also: You know what the USG should watch........the scene on Half Baked......."Hello everyone, my name's Thurgood and I'm here cuz I'm addicted, to marijuana"............and he got BOOED OUT..........So wait, wait, wait....Cannabis smokers aren't accepted in the drug free community(the USG's 'so-called' drug free) nor are they accepted in the drug community... I agree, cannabis has been persecuted much like a religion. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on December 22, 2003 at 13:13:47 PT arthur castro I'm sorry to read that you have serious health issues and I'm also sorry that I don't know the answers to your questions. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by arthur castro on December 22, 2003 at 13:03:05 PT: finding a doctor to recomend marijana iam 64 years old i have inoperable prostate cancer,glacoma,hepatitis c and high blood presure. i have kaiser medical insurance. kaiser does not give prescripton for medical marijuana. i can't aford another medical insurance. i need to find a doctor to prescripe medical marujuana. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by fearfull on December 22, 2003 at 13:00:04 PT Something I started writing while stoned one day Cannabis, Religous Persecution, and Cultural GenocideReligions have been persecuted for thousands of years. The Jews, Early Christians, Quakers and on and on. People are afraid of the unknown. Cannabists are, weather you realize it or not, another persecuted religious sect. We all know that cannabis is a relatively benign substance. People who use cannabis are generally good people, and are representative of the general population on the whole. For over 6 decades the United States Government has demonized, harassed, and persecuted cannabis users. Yet more people than ever have tried cannabis and continue to use it on a regular basis. Why? Because we see it for what it really is, just another substance that God has placed on this earth for our use. Used in moderation as all things should, cannabis offers us another way to commune with God. People have been doing it as long as there have been people. Catholics eat bread and drink wine, the Native American Church eats Peyote, all in order to commune with God. When will people open their eyes and see that Cannabists are no different? If I wanted to drink a glass of gasoline because I believe that it will allow me to commune with God, I am free to do so. If I wish to eat my house plants because I believe that they will allow me to commune with God, I am free to do so. But if I wish to smoke cannabis in the privacy of my own home, because I believe that it will allow me to commune with God, I am a criminal. Why? Because the Government says so! Would gasoline hurt me? Yes. Would my house plants hurt me? Probably. Will cannabis hurt me? Probably not. Why then am I a criminal? Because the government says so! And for no other reason at all. Well, we are told that we aren?t allowed to claim religious status, because they had outlawed it before some one thought to try that, too bad. Peyote eaters were doing their thing only a few hundred years before their sacrament was outlawed for the rest of the world. Cannabists have been communing with God for thousands of years, it?s just no one thought to claim it for what it really is until it was too late. Like the early Christians we are tenacious, we refuse to give up. They jail us, they destroy our families, they take away our worldly possessions, they force us to go to indoctrination facilities. Still like the early Christians we don?t go away. It may take a hundred years, but we will, like the early Christians, not be exterminated. Has any attempt at cultural or religious genocide ever been successful? Only in forcing the oppressed underground. I wonder how shocked the Romans of old would be to see Christianity so widespread as it is today. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by The GCW on December 22, 2003 at 12:15:00 PT More boost, from Cannabis Culture http://www.hempbc.com/articles/3240.htmlDemocratic presidential candidate opposes war on pot Courageous congressman Dennis Kucinich needs grassroots help...Cont.Cannabis Culture publisher Marc Emery is urging all Americans who share a pro-marijuana, pro-freedom agenda to back Kucinich with their money and by volunteering to assist his campaign. Emery urges American voters to check out Kucinich's website at www.kucinich.us, and to work hard for the candidate as soon as possible."The 2004 election year will be a critical one for the United States. Kucinich is the only candidate who could turn America around and make it less of a threat to the world," Emery said. "I am sending Pot-TV reporter Loretta Nall to interview Kucinich, and am asking everybody in the US to do what they can right now to help him win the primaries and become the Democratic Party's choice to oppose George W. Bush in November, 2004." [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by agog on December 22, 2003 at 12:07:12 PT Virgil... let's take it even further You are right on target (pun intentioned) about the corruption... I'll save the phrase about absolute power.. we have all been touched in some manner by the corruption of "The System" Whether it be the unnatural skewing of economic factors through Federal subsidies, and the coerced socioeconomic goals that go along with them or the perpetuation of bad science through the ridiculous process of seizing our bodily waste products for scrutiny... just in case we may have ingested something that is "banned"...Trouble is, until we reach the point of freedom... ie, nothing left to lose(My thanks to Janis) Who among us will sound the cry and lead the charge against such insanity? The mechanisims of the "marginalizaiton machine" are well oiled with lots of spare parts and juice.. we are but a rag tag bunch of well intentioned souls whom for one reason or another have found we can no longer remain completely silent. I wish us all well.... and I sure do hope that something positive for the cause will come from these latest rulings, and that we get some truly miraculous news when the Canadian Supremes ruling is made public.I'm still...... Agog [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Max Flowers on December 22, 2003 at 11:59:08 PT greenfox Do you really think that availability of prostitutes is the key factor determining how many rapists are present in a given population? Rapists are formed long before that, by psychological elements in the rapist's childhood, adolescence, early adulthood... it's not current environmental pressures (i.e. not enough prostitutes!?) that turns men into rapists. According to your logic, even good, caring, psychologically healthy men, put in a place without any hookers, would turn into rapists, which is absurd. (I'm *not* talking about prison either, which is obviously a different culture altogether a completely different set of factors)If the Dutch have way less rapists per capita (pop. adjusted) than America, I would submit to you that it has far more to do with their culture as opposed to ours; in other words, they are much more often raising their male children better, with less broken homes and abusive fathers and mothers (which is the real maker of rapists---psychological damage done in childhood that makes men feel they need to dominate women to feel good about themselves).You may have studied country vs country stastics in your numerous research papers, but I don't see any hint from you that you understand what makes men rape psychologically. It sure ain't the realization that "hey I'm getting super horny and there aren't any whores around." Gimme a break. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Virgil on December 22, 2003 at 11:39:17 PT How could you not agree? To all the narrow-minded and misguided government agencies from Long Beach to Washington still persecuting medical marijuana patients, we'll put this as succinctly as possible: Stop.The attack by the USG is not a disease, it is a symtom of the disease. It is an attack against reason, an attack against science, an attack of free speech that are the symptoms of the disease of corruption. The author should be calling for the surgical removal of the corrupted politicians by the voter. They are not ignorant of facts just because they ignore them. The key word is not mistaken. The key word is WRONG. The public is WRONGED by the corruption. But the author is right in saying this all must STOP.Pot-tv already has the banners everywhere for their webcast that will begin 10 AM EST and 7AM Pacific. That makes it 1025 minutes by my calculations. The Supreme Court is going to do surgery on the corruption in Canada by ending Cannabis Prohibition which has been around four score too many. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 11:37:58 PT Sam Adams.........about the Nazis... These "war criminals" were recruited after WWII, by the U.S. government for their expertise on propoganda and mind control. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Sam Adams on December 22, 2003 at 11:33:07 PT SGD - indictments? Indictments of drug warriors? I doubt it. Considering that Nazi war criminals were recruited from Nuremberg prisons directly into the US military, CIA, and Republican Party after WWII. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by greenfox on December 22, 2003 at 11:20:26 PT A reply to Max Flowers OK Max, if what you said is true, let me ask you this: why is it, then, that the Netherlands has a rape rate which is EXTREMELY lower than that of the US? THis rate adjusts per capita, mind you, so there is no population excuse. I can find the exact figures and the source, if you wish, but I am positive of my claim. I have done numerous research papers on this very subject, and people in the Netherlands are, by far, safer from rape than ANYONE (male or female) in the US. In FACT, the US has more PRISON rape than the Netherlands has in their entire country. Which reminds me... STOP PRISON RAPE- NOW!!! (http://www.spr.org/http://www.spr.org/) [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Max Flowers on December 22, 2003 at 10:57:45 PT greenfox, let me clear one thing up for you Rape is in general definitely not a crime that happens because men get too horny and there's no prostitutes around to help them take off the pressure! Rape is a crime of violence and control-trip, perpetrated by sociopathic individuals with really serious mental and emotional problems. If a rapist encounters a prostitute he'd be more likely to rape her and not pay her, and beat her up, than pay her and say "thanks, I was almost ready to rape someone, I was so horny." [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 22, 2003 at 10:46:10 PT SystemGoneDown Someday that could happen but not until the book is written and closed. What I mean by that is there will be drug warriors that really believed they were right and did what they felt was best for the time. It will take years after the laws are finally changed until history itself will show sociey how to respond in this area. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by greenfox on December 22, 2003 at 10:42:58 PT Answer to SystemGoneDone: Well, to be honest with you System, when it comes to prosecuting and the powers held within, it is not so much a matter of what is law and what is not; rather, the ability to prosecute lies with those that already have power. Therefore, the people responsible for prosecuting others will not likely go after people that they consider "friends". After all, most drug prohib's are people already responsible for going after non-medical users, (ie police, etc.) So it would have to take a great public outcry for anything like this to happen.Meanwhile, in the Netherlands (where I have been so many times it's gone past silliness,) people continue to smoke pot and hasish in many places not only in Amsterdam but in the rest of the country as well. Also, smart shops sell "legal" herbs such as Peyote and San Pedro (which is one of the few that is still legal here), Salvia D., and of course 'magic' mushrooms. And, of course, hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin remain stricly controlled. It's amazing, because this government focuses on rehab and health issues, and not punishment, and everyone is fine with it. In a country where victimless crimes are legal (such as prostitution, and pot smoking,) REAL crime like rape and beating people up and murder go down, down, down. After all, why rape someone when sex is available legally and CHEAPLY? I don't think Amerikkkkkka will ever understand. The sheeple are too interested in protecting the "CHILLLLLL-DRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN" to be concerned with silly little things like, oh, rape and murder. After all, there's an EVIL WEED which is making people VIOLENT...er...wait...that's beer....well.. it's making people DIE...er...wait...that's nicotine......well.. it's making people all SPEEDY and F****'d up...er..wait....that's coffie.....what does pot do again? That's right. It makes people peaceful, mellow, and non-confrontational.... hmmm .... the fine people of Holland realized THAT decades ago. And WE are the smartest and most advanced people on the globe?!?!? HAH!?!!!! Such self-pompus nonsense. OH well just my $0.02Sly in green, foxy in kind,-greenfox [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 10:21:49 PT Drug Warriors... Does anyone know if there is a possibility that any of these brutal "drug warriors" could face some sort of indictment? Prosecuting sick people who use cannabis is harsh to say the least. But more importantly, wasn't it illegal for them to prosecute these individuals when what they were doing was clearly legal, as written in state law? They use this "interstate commerce" excuse, but that couldn't fool a 10 year old let alone a U.S. judge... This ridiculous excuse disregards the law of federalism, and their attempt to undermine it should not go unrecognized... It's about justice. SOMETHING should happen to these wicked fascists and doing so would ensure a less probobility of things like this happening in the future. What do you guys think? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment