cannabisnews.com: National Issue Hits Home 










  National Issue Hits Home 

Posted by CN Staff on December 26, 2003 at 17:53:48 PT
By Jeremy Browning  
Source: Craig Daily Press 

The defense attorney for a Hayden medicinal marijuana user is questioning the ethics of a local drug task force, which appears to be ignoring a court order to return some of his client's property.The Grand, Routt and Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team (GRAMNET) has until Monday, Dec. 29 to return marijuana plants, marijuana pipes and two ounces of marijuana seized in an October raid of the home of Don Nord, 57, of Hayden.
Nord is registered as a legal user of marijuana under Amendment 18 of the Colorado constitution, which allows individuals suffering from certain debilitating conditions to use the drug.GRAMNET has returned a grow light and other property seized in the raid, however Nord's medication has not been returned, despite the court order.GRAMNET does not intend to return the property because it is a federal agency, and marijuana possession is a violation of federal laws.That's where Nord's attorney, Kristopher Hammond, finds an ethical dilemma.GRAMNET may "technically" be a federal agency, but it uses numerous local (state) resources to do its job.All three counties (Grand, Routt, Moffat) in Colorado's 14th Judicial District contribute to the agency. All three counties staff the task force with local officers. Local officers from all three counties participated in the raid on Nord's house, according to Hammond. And GRAMNET only employs two officers who are strictly federal agents.The local officers, including personnel from the Craig Police Department and the Moffat County Sheriff's Office, have sworn to uphold the Colorado Constitution -- and that means upholding Nord's right to grow, possess and consume marijuana, Hammond said."Every local officer takes an oath to uphold the Colorado Constitution," Hammond said. "When they become GRAMNET, they abandon part of that oath. That's what makes me mad."Craig Police Chief Walt Vanatta said GRAMNET became a federal agency "last year."The move came after officials had "concerns from a jurisdictional standpoint," Vanatta said.The agents assigned to work for GRAMNET may be called to work outside their jurisdiction, such as when a GRAMNET officer doubling as a Craig Police officer works in a neighboring county.GRAMNET's federal status alleviated one jurisdictional issue, but may have raised another.Officers assigned to the federal agency may be required to act in ways that contradict oaths they have taken to uphold Colorado law.How can that be reconciled?"I don't know that there is a reconciliation. I think there are always times when contradictions (will arise)," Vanatta said. "That's why you proceed with some things and let the courts settle them out."In Nord's case, the court ordered GRAMNET to return the property. As of Friday, GRAMNET was not in compliance with that order.Hammond has said he will take GRAMNET to court if it fails to follow the order.He may use a recent federal appeals court decision to bolster his argument.On Dec. 16, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of two medicinal marijuana users who sought to insulate themselves from the sort of raids to which Nord was subject.It was widely viewed as a blow to the federal government's war on medicinal marijuana.The court ruled that private, medicinal use of marijuana does not enter the stream of commerce and that federal laws do not supersede state laws in such cases."(The decision) is not binding on a state court judge, but it's all we have," Hammond said. "And I'm not aware of any contrary decisions.""This case seems to suggest they can't hide behind federal laws," Hammond said.Note: GRAMNET, attorneys disagree over application of law.Source: Craig Daily Press, The (CO)Author: Jeremy Browning Published: Friday, December 26, 2003 Copyright: 2003 The Craig Daily PressWebsite: http://www.craigdailypress.com/Contact: http://www.craigdailypress.com/site/feedbackRelated Articles:Sick Man Raided for Pot Can't Understand Reason http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17962.shtmlPot Sparks Showdown With Feds http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17950.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #68 posted by John Tyler on December 28, 2003 at 15:57:19 PT
westnyc II
You are normal, but you are feeling the effects of the Drug War. It is not good for the people, and it is not good for the country.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #67 posted by westnyc on December 28, 2003 at 14:22:42 PT
I think it is only the US
I know for some occupations in other countries they do indeed do some form of drug testing; but, it is very rare and mostly in Western Europe. Soon we will be forced into hair testing away from Urine; however, Saliva testing is the cheapest and least invasive form of drug screening - you can't sub with these; and, a positive result can definately be backed-up with a GSMS. What's odd is it is so much cheaper and also measures current impairment; which, is really the most important component of any form of alcohol or drug screen; and, the only factor that should be considered. One must ask the important question then, "Why don't they start doing saliva since it will save employers bundles of $$$ and is non-invasive with no chance of adulteration?" "Urine testing is a 'Cottage Industry.'"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #66 posted by DeVoHawk on December 28, 2003 at 13:17:38 PT
FOM-Everybody must get stoned
I thought I knew my way around BBC. Funny how animals like to get high. Thanks for the links. I understand that drug testing at companies everywhere else in the world is basically zero; does anyone know if this is true? Perhaps moving to Canada is the ideal way to avoid drug testing.The state of Kansas does not drug test for the majority of the jobs. You merely sign a form stating: you will not do drugs or carry them at work and if you get arrested and convicted you need to report that. You can be tested if you crash a state vehicle so it is wise to drive your own. This includes the state University's.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #65 posted by freedom fighter on December 28, 2003 at 10:35:16 PT
Whizznator
works everytime for my son. Got 6 more months to go with this stupid probation.(possesion of 8 oz of weed or less)Whizznator does work. Do not even have to get someone else to piss for you. So, what does that mean??Drug Testings is just a scam. Biggest scam ever fostered on Americans. There is a boss I knew who knew that his son smokes weed. So he found someone who's clean to do the pissing for the entire crew, just so he can get paid.In my field(residential construction), it is not very smart to try to do drug test unless one gets into a very bad accident. If they tried to force my company to do drug testing,   least 90% of the employees will fail this test. Our company did millions dollars worth of building houses in Colorado. I know what's like to be forced to take piss tests in front of a stranger. It is a form of sexual abuse. ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #64 posted by FoM on December 28, 2003 at 08:33:25 PT
There's a Time for Every Season Under The Sun
Sometimes we abstain for particular reasons and each one of us must follow our own convictions I believe.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #63 posted by FoM on December 28, 2003 at 08:26:00 PT
Links To 3 Articles
Instead of posting these articles here are the links. Medical pot user says law of little help: http://www.centralmaine.com/news/local/278817.shtmlMarijuana law leaves officers in quandary: http://www.centralmaine.com/news/local/268195.shtmlMaine law at odds with federal policy: http://www.centralmaine.com/news/local/278869.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #62 posted by westnyc on December 28, 2003 at 08:20:22 PT
John Tyler
I couldn't agree more that "use is not abuse." I have relatives and friends who enjoy cannabis and not a single-one of them should ever be called "drug abusers."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #61 posted by westnyc on December 28, 2003 at 08:16:52 PT
Sorry I disagree!
I'm sorry but I don't think the problem is me. I love my profession and have worked many years in order to obtain it. I also neither do any kind of drugs nor do I smoke or drink. This is a "patriotic issue" to me. The problem isn't people like me; rather, it is the people behind this type of unconstitutional enforcement and an overwhelmingly apathetic general public. Personally, I feel the problem is people who simply quit or refuse a position because they do not want to submit to an unfair search; instead of standing-up for their rights and fighting back. That is all I am trying to do or say. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #60 posted by John Tyler on December 28, 2003 at 06:58:21 PT
wesrnyc
Maybe a change of employment is in order for you, unless you are a pilot or something and love it. Show biz, PR, stock market, real estate, arts, graphic arts, I.T., state government, (except police and prison guards)are some places to burrow in and find kindred spirits and happiness. Of course, you still have to do good work. Testing is low to none. Paranoia is low to none, but be discreet. At least, that has been my experience. This is a great place to exchange ideas. There are some brilliant people that contribute their remarks here. (I'm not one of them, I benefit from them though.) FOM does a wonderful job and we are all very grateful. Stay awhile and see how normal people view the world. Oh, one more thing, please don't think use is abuse. Good Luck.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by jose melendez on December 28, 2003 at 02:26:44 PT
don't work for the pee testers
" I do not trust an industry that assumes you are guilty till proven innocent. "Then stop selling them your sweat and urine.
action portal: Criminalize prohibition here!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by CorvallisEric on December 28, 2003 at 00:10:17 PT
Drug tests
Eric's evil twin says Hey dudes and dudettes, Party on Friday night and pass your pee test on Monday - Try the ***Speedball*** - John Belushi's favorite - Available from your friendly neighborhood distributor, the one who used to sell pot before everything became "drug-free" - Only a few percent risk of death. [or did he say "a few dozen?" I'm not sure].He also assures me he's working on a "fix" for the upcoming hair-test generation.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by billos on December 27, 2003 at 22:34:30 PT:
Drug tests.....
..Do ruin lives, even for false positives. They DO follow you around. Employers are starting to ask if you will consent to them getting a hold of your previous medical record as condition of employment. The feds PAY corporations to adapt the "Drug-free Workplace" policy which is leading to random tests even in non-safety sensitive and non-DOT positions. And now the feds are PUSHING for tests to be done via hair samples because they are wise to people cheating on urine tests. We need to WAKE up. This is all being done in the name of their "WAR on Cannabis" and it's really getting INTRUSIVE.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by westnyc on December 27, 2003 at 22:23:32 PT
I wish I had answers
I don't have to worry about failing a drug test; however, I do not trust an industry that assumes you are guilty till proven innocent. If you enter these clinics usually the first thing you will notice is their psuedo, mock medical environments where (1) a security wand is used to ensure you are not concealing anything; and (2) you must wash your hands and leave all outer clothing before entering a stall where a mock medical professional listens to your bodily functions with a stopwatch timing you. What I find most astonishing is professionals from all "walks of life" patiently standing and waiting their turn and thinking nothing of having to submit to an astounding humility and constitutional violation. It's interesting that one day - hair testing will become the norm; and, I can guarantee that when this is realized - all subjects will be required to grow at least one patch of hair somewhere on their body or it will be considered a refusal to test which is actually worse than failing since it also indicates insubordination. Kind of like a person's inability to urinate for whatever reason is currently perceived.I believe in the power of the Bill of Rights; however, those whose job it is to interpret (non partisan) our Constitution, therefore: Clarence Thomas, William Renquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David Souder, Jean Paul Stevens, Steven Bryer, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy - sold-out the American People when they decided that "The Bill of Rights does not pertain to the workplace or At-Will employees." If one's urine isn't considered private under the 4th Amendment - well, what in the hell is? Our current justices do not deserve their respected places in history.Personally, I am actually afraid to come into this site and speak my mind simply because I have no idea who "out-there" in "Orwell Land" may be watching; and, what they could do to my life because they disagree with my opinions. I really don't think Big Brother (Big Business) is coming soon - I think they may have already arrived.Perhaps I'm just paranoid!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by Virgil on December 27, 2003 at 22:11:06 PT
The Playboy article
I would say that this is the most important article to appear at Cannabisnews this year- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread17211.shtml It is the Playboy article that tells the story of Rainbow Farms. Rainbow Farms was the big event of 2001, even above the opening of the Dutch Experience a few weeks later in Stockport, Manchester in the UK. What made it big was that it happened the way it did with 50 FBI agents on the scene within days of 9/11 AND the fact that it was ignored by the media. That is what makes the Playboy article so important. It tells the story that should have been told in September of 2001 and when that story was not told in September of 2001 it became the most important story of the year. It is not that the Playboy had some great effect when it came out. It is that the story was reported and now archived here so that for some time to come we can recite it as the definitive piece on Rainbow Farms.It is like if someone ask you to explain how the elections were stolen in the 2000 election. You need a definitive piece of work that can explain it in the fullest with the fewest words possible like this- http://www.lumpen.com/coup2k/coup2k-all.htmlThis was the big Playboy article in 2001- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread13091.shtml It says the drug test industry is worth $5.9 billion. I guess that means the value of their stock and not expenditures per year.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 22:09:48 PT
DevoHawk
I think I found what show you saw. I saw it too. Here is a video of cats that is good.Short Video Clip About Cats and Catnip: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/weird/video/preview6_potions.ram BBC: Weird Nature: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/weird/
Post Where I Found This Information
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by DeVoHawk on December 27, 2003 at 21:54:23 PT
FOM-Alcohol is also natural
The previous comment header used in for is.Peace to everyone
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by DeVoHawk on December 27, 2003 at 21:51:04 PT
FOM-Alcohol in also natural
FOM,I saw a show on TV about drunk animals once. There is a tree with fruit which must ferment on the tree.The monkeys in the tree eat the fruit, get drunk, and throw the fruit to other animals. They showed drunk elephants, monkeys, some big cat, and a plethora of other animals. They were all drunk and falling over and amazingly there was no fighting or ill will between the animals.The funniest part was the hangovers the next day as the animals began to wake. I wish I had the name of the show. Next time I see it I'll be sure to post it here as it was funny.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by Virgil on December 27, 2003 at 21:35:39 PT
SGD
There is nothing but nothing to hide your use of cannabis. Marijuana.com was and probably still is sponsored by a company selling something to help pass a test. You can look on the left side of the homepage and see an entire section about halfway down on the left side devoted to drug testing questions- http://cheaptalk.marijuana.com/420/Cheaptalk is a messageboard for everything cannabis and then some on everything except growing- http://cheaptalk.marijuana.com/420/ The most common thing when I used to read it concerned the "Will I pass" question. I imagine they are pretty fed up with it by now. The front page should tell you anything you want to know about drug testing and if you want to know more you can do a search in the Cheaptalk section using the search engine.The only way to really beat a drug test when you have been consuming is to use someone else's urine or your's when it was clean. I used to know a woman that carried it a rubber in her bra and I knew a guy that collected pee in a beer bottle at a bar and put that in a rubber.If you lost all body fat so that the THC were not stored in the first place, it would lower the time to get clean. There is nothing that binds with THC in the fat cells to remove them, so all you can really do is a little flushing and dilution up to a point as too much dilution by drinking liquids will cause a failure also.That is why it is all playing games. It also pushes people into drug use that can be addictive, because they can take it on Friday's party and deliver a smiling pee come Monday. Drug testing in its present form also probably does more harm than good even if you exclude the $5.9 billion it adds to the cost of everything as reported in the Playboy article from well over two years ago. If I were up on my bookmarks I would put up the Playboy article from about August in 2001 as it was one of the top articles of the year and had it preceded an excellent Rolling Stones article, I might say it was the most important article that appeared here in 2001. Rainbow Farms was the big event of 2001, but it did not have an article of impact. That came this year in another Playboy article which I would say is in challenge with the article announcing that GW extracts would not come this year. The article is more important but as an issue the GW extracts story is probably bigger than the Summer of Freedom and the Supreme Court ruling and event the 9th Circuit Court ruling because of its narrow scope and the context in relation to an ongoing trial.Playboy could well claim to have the best articles concerning cannabis in both 2001 and 2003.Does that answer your question on drug testing?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 20:33:18 PT
SystemGoneDown
I don't know of any way around testing. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 27, 2003 at 20:22:24 PT
FoM
What is the most potent way to counter-attack these "randoms" for the many responsible pot smokers out there who live completely normal lives, but are totally discriminated by the laws(and drug tests)?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 19:51:11 PT
SystemGoneDown
What westnyc said is true. We have to deal with this issue all the time. My husband was randomed 3 times last year. It isn't just getting employment it's keeping it so you can't fail a random either. They don't give you much time with randoms.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 27, 2003 at 19:11:52 PT
westnyc
I see. That's kind of a scary thing to tell me. I'm considering working for an airlines, but how do I pass drug tests? I've tried everything from "drinking lots of fluids", stop smoking for a month or so until the test, or even taking "Niacin"(which doesn't work by the way).....I hear all these methods but Im to a conclusion that there is no magic way to clear your system.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by westnyc on December 27, 2003 at 19:01:33 PT
Random drug tests do indeed destroy lives
Systemgonedown - If you are working in a profession governed by the DOT and you fail a random drug test such as an airline; most will immediately fire you after the positive results are confirmed through a Mass Spectometer. After that, you are marked as a "red flag" when you go and apply at another industry within the Dot. Positive test results must be turned over to the DOT; and, if you have no other skill or profession - you will not be able to return to the only profession you may know. There are incidences of people (like the cops in NJ) who actually killed themselves after failing a drug test shortly before retirement and losing everything they ever worked for. If I was to fail a drug-test it would most certainly ruin my life. I can't imagine having to go to my father and tell him that I was fired for abusing drugs. Even if it was only one joint smoked two-weeks prior on my vacation to Jamaica.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by sukoi on December 27, 2003 at 17:40:01 PT
NOT A PARTY DRUG!!!
CorvallisEric, you are definitely right about that! I would caution anyone contemplating the use of SD to NOT BE ALONE!!! Preferably be with someone with some experience. For those who think that it might be an MJ alternative, think again. SD is nothing to take lightly, it is definitely NOT a recreational substance and it is nothing like MJ or anything else for that matter, it is simply NOT A PARTY DRUG!!! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by CorvallisEric on December 27, 2003 at 17:14:55 PT
Salvia divinorum again
My evil twin ;) is wishing that after the DEA bans it, it gets widely publicized and erupts into the "menace" of the decade, supplanting ecstasy. Even though IT'S NO PARTY DRUG. Wouldn't the Hell's Angels, etc, love that?Right now there's probably a delicate balance between reasonable information and obscurity that keeps it from being a large-scale health and safety concern. The govt and media could blow it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by jose melendez on December 27, 2003 at 16:58:01 PT
war of convenience
'GRAMNET does not intend to return the property because it is a federal agency, and marijuana possession is a violation of federal laws.'Think pot's dangerous? Look what gets decided over A CUP OF COFFEE!" . . . he was the Pentagon's No. 3 civilian and the first to argue that letting Saddam Hussein remain in power was a mistake. In the current Administration, he was the first to push Bush to topple Saddam in the wake of 9/11 and he did so just four days after the tragedy. Over coffee at Camp David, Wolfowitz privately broached the idea with Bush, who pulled him aside during a break and urged him to bring it up at a later meeting."from http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/poywolf.html
poison is legal, just not pot.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by CorvallisEric on December 27, 2003 at 16:49:00 PT
Instead of drug testing
Impairment testing meant for vehicles but could maybe be adapted to simulators in workplaces or roadblocks? Excerpted paragraphs from: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1112081,00.htmlA device, developed by a neuroscientist at Manchester Metropolitan University in England, will establish if a motorist is unfit to drive because they are too drunk or have taken drugs.The device, which costs around £40,000, measures the co-ordination between hand and eye. It uses an eye-tracker and a sensor that monitors steering wheel movements. An infra-red camera locks on to the driver's eye when they get into the car and can determine where the driver is looking through the windscreen.The device can also detect if a driver is suffering from tiredness, after taking sleeping tablets or drugs such as cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by sukoi on December 27, 2003 at 16:43:58 PT
p4me and MotavatingKnox42897
http://www.delriolive.com/langtry/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=national&Number=5391&page=&view=&sb=5&o=I'd just like to thank you two for weighing in on this even though you don't live here. You are helping to get the American people thinking. This is a small battle, but a battle for the cause none the less. Wars can be won on the outcome of small battles, so if anyone has a small battle that they are fighting, post it!!! We'll help, or at least I will! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by sukoi on December 27, 2003 at 16:24:09 PT
Salvia Divinorum
"Not so for Salvia divinorum which is under review by the DEA (I think) and already banned in Australia and maybe elsewhere." Yes it is indeed under review by the DEA. Salvia Divinorum is very different than most people think, and it is not for everyone like cannabis is. SD doesn’t alter the mind per se; it rather removes the body from the mind so that the mind can be free! I hope that makes sense. It can be quite powerful, but it affects different people in different ways.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by Virgil on December 27, 2003 at 16:21:34 PT
Cannabis Cup pictures up at Hemp City
Hempcity just updated their website when they changed servers. It has some pictures up from the Cannabis Cup of last month- http://www.hempcity.net/hempcitykl.gif You may want to check out the front page for the 3 hour movie that is coming and the movies on the grinder and who can roll the fastest joint- http://www.hempcity.net/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 16:20:46 PT
SystemGoneDown
Failed drug tests can cause future employment problems. When asked in an employment application if a person does or ever did drugs or was convicted of drug use and they don't tell the truth it is grounds for being fired. If they did do drugs and tell the truth they won't get hired more then likely. This is just my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 27, 2003 at 16:04:01 PT
Drug Tests...
How do failed drug tests(from marijuana) ruin someone? I think it's only if they get fired that they are ruined. What about pre-employment failed tests? That's not really fired if you were never technically hired.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 16:03:16 PT
A Note
Alcohol isn't even a plant. It has to be made. So ironic. Nature bad! Man made good! That's just not true!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by CorvallisEric on December 27, 2003 at 16:00:13 PT
Other plants that aren't illegal
Some plants are both highly toxic and have psychoactive properties: Amanita muscaria (related to the death cap) and Datura (Jimson weed). These are probably safe from the blue meanies because the fun-to-danger ratio is too low. Not so for Salvia divinorum which is under review by the DEA (I think) and already banned in Australia and maybe elsewhere. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #34 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 15:51:27 PT

westnyc 
We have other poisonous plants growing wild around where I live but they aren't an issue. It has to do with if a plant makes a person happy that is the big concern not if it has health risks. Fun just isn't allowed. That's not nice to say but unless it's alcohol it isn't ok. I still don't know how there can be laws against cannabis. I never figured it out.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #33 posted by westnyc on December 27, 2003 at 15:35:38 PT

very good question
Yes, this is a good observation. If you walk-out in the woods behind my home you will find thirty varieties of deadly mushrooms growing everywhere. Why don't the "nannies" in our government go and destroy those varieties so that we naive (poor souls who don't know better) Americans can be even safer.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #32 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 15:28:36 PT

Why Are't Death Cap Mushrooms Illegal?
If our health is the real concern why don't they go after this mushroom? http://members.aol.com/basidium/deathcap.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #31 posted by westnyc on December 27, 2003 at 15:21:15 PT

BTW
This is all I know from what I have been told by others. Personally, I have never tried mushrooms so I can't vouch for anything other than what I have been told. Unfortunately I suppose, I came-of-age in the "Just say NO" genre; and, I have been a professional for some years where using a drug, even for an expirimental purpose, would cost you your entire livlihood and reputation. I've seen lives destroyed by failed drug tests and I have been personally indicated in this "modern day witch trial," in which I proved my innocence. That's why I am here today. To make a short story - I had a difference in opinion with a fellow employee who as a result requested that management give me a drug-test. I guess disagreeing in today's age must mean one is probably on drugs. Considering I have never done any drug or smoked marijuana - It "pissed-me-off" more than I can ever allow. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #30 posted by westnyc on December 27, 2003 at 15:05:24 PT

About Mushrooms
Psylocybin (forgive the spelling) is the active ingredient in mushrooms, aka shrooms. They are listed as a Schedule I Substance (therefore extremely harmful with no medical value and a high-level for abuse) just like Marijuana. However, I know for a fact that one can pass a medtox drugtest. I've known several people that imbibe while on layovers in Amsterdam, where, by the way, they can be purchased legally almost anywhere. I always find it interesting that those who drink alcohol excessively can't perform their duties to standard the following day; whilst, those who have shroomed or done other stated "dangerous drugs" seem just fine the next day with no incurring hangovers. I believe that shrooms can be detected in a drug screen; however, they rarely test for more than the standard nida5 schedule of drugs.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #29 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 14:57:33 PT

SystemGoneDown
I agree that herbs are not a drug but they are natural and come from the earth. Some herbs have mind altering properties but some don't. I never knew how herbs could be made against the law. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #28 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 27, 2003 at 13:59:55 PT

Natural herbs used as a drug...
How illegal is magic mushrooms? Also, what are other natural drugs that are illegal? (I think anything natural was put on earth for a reason, regardless of how high it gets you.)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #27 posted by Flatbush on December 27, 2003 at 13:58:59 PT

Didn't understand your question?
"The link didn't work but why would CNews be on the link to begin with?" said FoM.I don't understand what you are asking? I wanted to provide the link so other people will know that I didn't make this up, someone else did.Here is the link sorry that it didn't work
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i1488
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #26 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 13:26:18 PT

Link
The link didn't work but why would CNews be on the link to begin with?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #25 posted by sukoi on December 27, 2003 at 13:20:28 PT

Flatbush
The link does not appear to be working. I get a "file not found" error!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #24 posted by Flatbush on December 27, 2003 at 13:13:18 PT

Limbaugh A Drug Lord, Dental Records Show
Rush "ScarTooth" Limbaugh, Click the link to see Rush holding a M-16 with a caption underneath that reads,"Won' you say diddos to my lil' friend."Good boys, Good boys, Whatcha gonna do when the Drug Lords come for you!
Limbaugh A Drug Lord, Dental Records Show
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #23 posted by sukoi on December 27, 2003 at 12:45:06 PT

Virgil
Doesn't Pot TV already do that? I wouldn't know because I am on slow dial-up and haven't really watched it. What you suggest would be great for broadbanb satellite and cable users, but it's not very good for people with dial-up. I'd like to see something like you suggest on satellite/cable TV because I think that more people not searching for such information would more likely view it. The way I see it, it's easier for people to thumb through TV channels rather than search the internet. This approach might get poeple more interested that otherwise wouldn't be and maybe change some minds! You know, a wider audience! 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #22 posted by Virgil on December 27, 2003 at 12:27:09 PT

In my infinite (circular) thinking
There is no doubt that there is a huge cannabis community across the globe that could be united by a television show. Well, actually it needs to be a show on the Internet so that it might span the globe covering the wide world of cannabis consumers.There is a need for such a show and in Canada you would think advanced nutrients and other interested parties would be interested in producing a quality weekly show. Even if it is the summer when the reruns are on they could have a program "Around the world in 80 days" that would present the current situation around the world and bring the personalities that have long fought for freedom to the world stage.They do not need a show every day, but the world is too big and the prohibition is breaking and there are advertisers for support of a quality show. There is a need and it is a race to see if the coffeehouses in Holland unite to do such a thing or Canada or someone else launch a project to be viewed in a downloadable form on the Internet. There is a hunger for the truth and a profit to be made. It seems inevitable.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by Virgil on December 27, 2003 at 12:02:15 PT

Kinda slow isn't it
What I wonder most about is pot-tv. All kinds of people have DVD burners now and could send in contributions. I would especially like to hear from AIDS patients in California on the recent ruling and what cannabis does for them. I would like a correspondent to ask them if they would support an iniative for complete withdrawal from the insane war on laughing grass.I also wonder if they will ever branch from streaming video where broadband users can download a better quality picture, to the point of DVD.I just wonder what public officials would do if contributors to pot-tv were confronted by someone not so mamby pamby with the questions and wanted a real discussion away from questions that are always answered with boilerplate.There is no news. We are another day closer to the end of prohibition, whenever that is. That would be a good question for a real journalist to ask the politicians- "How long do you thing the injustice of cannabis prohibition will last in America?" 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by westnyc on December 27, 2003 at 11:57:29 PT

I Think!
Perhaps history will repeat itself. I think cannabis prohibition will end after Americans finally wake-up and realize that all this has lead to a "Kent State" type of execution against cannabis users, party goers, or reform advocations. Eventually, the government will go to an extraordinary extreme; and, this will finally get the attention of the American People to finally wake-up.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by FoM on December 27, 2003 at 09:24:07 PT

sukoi
Here's the one on CNews. They re-released the article. They do that sometimes when the news is slow but here it is.http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread17973.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by sukoi on December 27, 2003 at 08:57:44 PT

To toke or not to toke?
"I see next year as the year that we truly advance our understanding of marijuana as medicine," he said.
 
"In terms of recreational use, I have no confidence the government will return to their proposal. I'm not very confident the Supreme Court of Canada will do their dirty work for the government, and I do see a bit of a backlash in the initial months as public officials reassert their authority in this area." 
http://www.cp.org/english/online/full/family/031226/U122602AU.html

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by goneposthole on December 27, 2003 at 08:41:42 PT

let them drink booze
let them use pharmaceuticalslet them shoplet them use tobaccolet them eat mad cow beeflet them be subject to body cavity searcheslet them remain sicklet them become servants and consumerslet them continue a somnabulistic stuporlet them die in Iraq two to four per day
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by jose melendez on December 27, 2003 at 08:33:31 PT

hits home
Suddenly I feel . . . obsolete. Not really, but read on:http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5133446.html?tag=st_lh
school hit squads
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by sukoi on December 27, 2003 at 08:15:37 PT

jose melendez 
I wish, wouldn't that be something! But every time that I bring this issue up in our local furum, that's the kind of response that I get. I have had the same response at Americas Debate, although I don't know where those who responded that way live.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by jose melendez on December 27, 2003 at 07:55:43 PT

sukoi
"They feel that legalizing cannabis would take away a large part of that “business” and that many would lose their jobs."Can you get them to say that on the record?
for the record: drug war is illegal
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by sukoi on December 27, 2003 at 06:30:00 PT

CorvallisEric
“On the other hand, I have little doubt how the average American views this: paranoid fantasy.”I really think that how people view the economic impact largely depends on where they live. For example: I live in a city of about 50k on the Texas/Mexico border. The largest employer in the area is law enforcement of one type or another (DEA, INS, Customs, Border Patrol, FBI, local police and sheriff’s departments and a large correctional facility (Wackenhut)). They all view cannabis as a large part of their “business”. They feel that legalizing cannabis would take away a large part of that “business” and that many would lose their jobs. I see it differently, I think that they would simply turn their efforts in a different direction, cocaine, heroin, real crime, etc., as there’s plenty to go around. I would think that a law enforcement agency say in the middle of Montana would take an entirely different view. They would probably see it as an opportunity to focus on more important issues. So a “paranoid fantasy”, yes I think so! 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by jose melendez on December 27, 2003 at 05:26:24 PT

got treason?
from Ann Coulter's "Don't do drug legalization"http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter092900.asp" Let me just ask: Before he serves you, would you prefer that your bus driver or investment banker had consumed a hamburger, a cigarette or marijuana?"Of course, the answer is yes. I WOULD prefer that my bus driver or investment banker had consumed a hamburger, a cigarette or marijuana, because any one item (or combination thereof) would likely have been consumed as a normal reality of life, and would likely be whatever the professional worker used to function properly.Note that Ann specifically avoided a six-pack, or a double martini from her list. I feel confident she is female, not sure how that came up, but she could be a closet former stoner, and speaks as if she has had many discussions with folks who she knows breaks the law, but would not want to have arrested. Ahem, Ann. See the link below.
Got TREASON?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by CorvallisEric on December 27, 2003 at 05:07:04 PT

The economic argument
I don't know how much of the economic argument I believe, probably very little except Hearst's selling newspapers with lurid stories 80 years ago. But I want to learn more when I have time (yes, I know where to look).On the other hand, I have little doubt how the average American views this: paranoid fantasy.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by jose melendez on December 27, 2003 at 05:04:47 PT

re: comment #2 (and by extrapolation, #7)
As I recall, Rush Limbaugh espoused such an argument about cigarette manufacturers, and how many they employ, tax dollars, etc.
what if YOUR drugs were illegal?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by jose melendez on December 27, 2003 at 05:00:53 PT

turnabout: fair play
"That's why you proceed with some things and let the courts settle them out."http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1987/a06.html?397http://my.marijuana.com/article.php?sid=8239&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0
Write office holders . . . or run for office yourself!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by sukoi on December 27, 2003 at 04:56:33 PT

JR Bob Dobbs 
I hope that you don't mind, but I loved your line about the unemployed Nazis, so I used it! There's some great stuff floating around here!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 27, 2003 at 04:45:03 PT

Yipes
Sukoi, that argument is like saying we shouldn't have fought World War II because now all the Nazis are unemployed. The problem is, the economic argument generally seems to have more force than the moral argument in the real world. Confounded reality!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by CorvallisEric on December 27, 2003 at 04:02:07 PT

Still more
I think it's easier to fake conservatism (of either the moralistic/religious or libertarian type) than it is to fake liberalism. Both types of conservatism are based on pre-defined absolutes and lend themselves well to rehearsal. Liberals need endless debate and fine tuning. Their position unravels easily if it isn't genuine and highly intelligent and very well thought out. I think this is why they do so badly in commercial radio compared with written media.Also, I should have used "transgendered" instead of "female impersonator" in comment 5.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by CorvallisEric on December 27, 2003 at 03:24:26 PT

More on Ann Coulter
This is a pretty silly story and I'll understand if FoM wants to delete it. I saw her on TV a few months ago (Larry King, I think). The instant I saw her, she seemed like a female impersonator - mostly her face and voice, also her broad shoulders and facial expressions, though quite attractive for either sex. Later, I learned there seem to be others who suspect likewise (though perhaps no more than random searchable internet noise).Anyway, the point to all this nonsense is that if I had the brains and looks and charm and believed absolutely nothing but simply wanted to make the biggest media spectacle of myself, I can't imagine anything better than her act. And on that basis I find E_Johnson's statement (comment 3) plausible, in spite of her public position as of Sept. 2000 (link in comment 4).
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by CorvallisEric on December 27, 2003 at 02:35:32 PT

Coulter on marijuana?
Try this (it's 3.3 years old - could she have changed?): http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter092900.asp
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on December 26, 2003 at 23:53:08 PT

What I read about Coulter
She and Matt Drudge are both pro-legalization but keep their pie holes shut about it pretty much in public. I got that impression from an interview that he did with Camille Paglia.I can't stand to read Coulter's writings so I don't know if this is contrary to her public opinions.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by sukoi on December 26, 2003 at 21:24:10 PT

You guys…
…are going to love this response that I just received: “if government makes it legal, think of all the people who live in del rio that would loose their jobs(dea, border control, pushers, trafficers, city police, judges, attorneys, wackenhut)---and think of all the revenue the government would loose. if it became legal, the tobaco companies and alcohol producers would be hard hit. more forces against legalization.”
The rest is here: http://www.delriolive.com/langtry/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=national&Number=5420&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1This is the kind of stuff that I get all of the time living on the law enforcement infested border. I’ll do a little reading and respond to this guy tomorrow. If anyone can give me any suggestions, I’m all ears and if you wish to weigh in on this yourself, registration is free. 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on December 26, 2003 at 19:14:57 PT

Question away, but don't look to them for answers
The defense attorney for a Hayden medicinal marijuana user is questioning the ethics of a local drug task force, which appears to be ignoring a court order to return some of his client's property."The ethics of a local drug task force"- There is something contradictory there like American justice. Do you think they have ethics tests to be on a task force,Sure they do because I have some of the questions.When breaking in a house how many seconds will you say were waited after a knock before kicking down the door?A) It depends on the actual time elapsed.B) You have to make sure there is no unfriendly video, before you say 20 seconds.C)It was at least 20 seconds, but it seemed like the longest minute of my life.D)You will ask the team leader for the answer after all is quite.You are told the drug suspects have a poodle and you must subdue it. Do youA)determine it is a threat to your safety, and plan on emptying a clip at close range to execute it.B)determine it is a threat to your safety, and plan to shoot it where it will be two-legged or three-legged and still live to incur huge medical bills for the known suspects.C)determine it is a threat to your safety and shoot it only once in the side so that it will die an agonizing and sure death while the known suspects are handcuffed beside it.After you destroy the door, your main objective isA)to do as much damage to the property as possible as an immediate lesson in becoming a known suspectB)determine if planted drugs are needed before a camerman is given a message of safety.C)Instill fear and induce maximum embarrassment and as much personal injury as possible so that punishment will have been rendered should the known suspects get off on a technicality.There is nothing like ethics on a drug task force to ensure an ethical raid. If they had ethics they would not be on the task force about the way Christians would not be on the hate-filled religious right that worship Rush and Coulter.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment