cannabisnews.com: Marijuana, Again? Marijuana, Again? Posted by CN Staff on January 02, 2004 at 09:05:17 PT Editorial Source: News-Miner Alaskans learned this week that they will once again be asked to vote on the state's curious, and perhaps still-developing, relationship with marijuana. This latest initiative, which followed a contentious path through the lieutenant governor's office and the court system, would decriminalize marijuana possession for people age 21 and over.It is the third ballot measure regarding marijuana use following the 1990 initiative that recriminalized the drug. Prior to that measure's easy passage, people over age 18 could possess less than 4 ounces of marijuana in their home or in some other private place. Alaskans should not want a return to those days. The new initiative's proponents, who expect to begin an advertising campaign, will likely make the argument that theirs is a friendly plan. Theirs would allow all hemp products to be regulated like alcohol and tobacco, would allow laws to be set prohibiting marijuana-intoxicated people from operating vehicles and heavy equipment, would allow marijuana's use to be banned from public places, and would not overrule laws barring its use by, or sale to, minors.None of that changes the fact that they will be putting people in jeopardy--even with laws that might be enacted to prevent such risk.Alaskans may have had that in mind in 2000, when they last voted on a marijuana measure. In that vote, they overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that sought to legalize the use of marijuana by people age 18 and over, grant amnesty for those who had been convicted of a marijuana crime, and create--of all things--a panel to consider restitution for those people who had been convicted.Yet voters have also indicated that their sentiments on marijuana are not absolute. In 1998, voters by a substantial margin approved a measure allowing the use of marijuana by people suffering from certain debilitating medical conditions, provided a doctor agrees.The ballot measure coming before voters in November, however, has no such element of compassion. Rather, it is a measure based solely on the pursuit of private pleasure without regard to the costs and risks that society might incur.The sponsors of the initiative conclude their proposed legislation for enactment of the measure, should it be passed, with this statement:"It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this initiative involves in the highest degree the economic, social, environmental and moral well-being and the safety of the citizens of Alaska and the state."Their very words, however, tell exactly why this ballot measure is so wrong for Alaska.Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (AK)Published: Friday, January 02, 2004 Copyright: 2004 Fairbanks Publishing Company, Inc.Contact: letters newsminer.comWebsite: http://www.news-miner.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Free Hemp in Alaskahttp://www.freehempinak.org/Alaskans To Vote on Pot Legalization in '04 http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18067.shtmlPot Prop May Go On '04 Ballot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17408.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #19 posted by jose melendez on January 03, 2004 at 07:47:32 PT write! from:http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:emcclt1wLbEJ:www.missouri.edu/~rrb964/peacefiles/whatif(goering).pdf"Of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But... it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and de-nounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the coun-try to danger. It works the same in any country." --Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials, 1946 from "Nuremberg Diary," by G. M. Gilbertsee also:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n007/a07.html?397 What if YOUR drugs were illegal? Drug war is TREASON! [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by John Tyler on January 03, 2004 at 07:22:16 PT RE #7 A friend of mine is a great carpenter. He loves being a carpenter. He never went to college. He can do fractional math and geometry in his head thirty feet above the floor and have it come out right. He can tackle and complete incredible building projects. Not everybody wants or needs to be a doctor or lawyer etc.. People have different interests and skills. We need people that know how to do things and be given the respect they deserve. Even the trash collection person provides a useful function. Who are these snooty upper crusters that do silly studies like this going to call when their roof leakes or their beamer won't start. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by FoM on January 02, 2004 at 20:58:52 PT Check Out The Poster! http://www.kucinich.us/concerts/willie_20040103/austin_concert_2004jan3.jpg [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on January 02, 2004 at 20:53:51 PT ekim I read your comment and had to ask my husband about the DWI plates because we have had them for years. He told me he hadn't seen any for a while so maybe they stopped them and started them back up again. I will watch the Willie Nelson Benefit Concert tomorrow. I hope we can get it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by ekim on January 02, 2004 at 20:49:22 PT i wonder just what the odds are in Vegas on Dennis FoM i heard on the radio that Ohio is now making dwi offenders use a special licence plate on there wheels. Speaking of the radio NPR will be interviewing the Dems next week and they want you to send in questions to them -- maybe someone has the info. Kapt interesting about Cleveland and arrests. LIVE in Austin Jan. 3 - Willie Nelson and Friends Watch here LIVE online 8-10 p.m. Central Time. Featuring the world premier of Willie's new song: What Ever Happened to Peace On Earth. http://www.kucinich.us/Kucinich: Democrats Need Ohio to Win 1/2/2003 "Ohio is the mother of presidents and the state which chooses presidents. The last member of the United States House of Representatives elected to the White House, James Garfield, also came from Cuyahoga County and won an upset victory at his party's convention, just as I intend to do in this nominating process. Ohio is bound to play a critical role at the Democratic Convention." [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on January 02, 2004 at 20:36:55 PT From Comment #5 I copied this out of the article and wanted to say that prohibition causes most of these effects. ****Additionally, the majority of heavy users (66-90%) reported a "negative effect" in rating the subjective effects of cannabis on cognition, memory, career, social life, physical and mental health and quality of life. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by ekim on January 02, 2004 at 20:28:01 PT do you know what they mean by this question Additionally, the majority of heavy users (66-90%) reported a "negative effect" in rating the subjective effects of cannabis on cognition, memory, career, social life, physical and mental health and quality of life------like being proud of who one is. feels accomplished in being able to invent using ones mind. going futher by supporting oneself in business. having respect from others. playing and thinking are the quality of life. but wait oh no its agaisnt the law you must feel quilt. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by sukoi on January 02, 2004 at 16:40:36 PT This article isn't worth the time it took to write it nor the paper that it was published on. Max, you nailed exactly how I personally feel dead on in comment #7. No one should be restricted in any way from living their life as they see fit. Unless of course they are harming someone else in the process. I don't pay the government to tell me how to live my life, I pay them to protect me from those who may want to take my life. Apparently they see it the other way around. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on January 02, 2004 at 13:53:34 PT Here's a Related Article Alaska Court: Drug Ban Unconstitutional: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread17184.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by WolfgangWylde on January 02, 2004 at 13:47:16 PT Psssttt.... ....Yo, dorkwad editor, possession in the home is ALREADY LEGAL in Alaska. Check with your State Supreme Court. Cripes, do journalists do journalism anymore? [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by CorvallisEric on January 02, 2004 at 13:06:23 PT A question "It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this initiative involves in the highest degree the economic, social, environmental and moral well-being and the safety of the citizens of Alaska and the state."Does this strike anyone else as pretentious and embarrassing? [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Max Flowers on January 02, 2004 at 12:46:00 PT High Society I just looked closer and saw that this "study" comes out of Harvard. Need I say more? [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Max Flowers on January 02, 2004 at 12:24:40 PT About the article in comment #5 "However, despite the similarities observed in familial income and education, heavy users reported significantly lower educational attainment (P Here again we have a fundamental cultural blindness as the basis of a study's conclusion. Let me try to make it plain, doctors: NOT EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY ASPIRES TO GREAT HEIGHTS OF INCOME AND EDUCATION! Can you "upper-crusts" ever understand this?? Contrary to your small-minded perspective, there are a lot of people who would just like to enjoy life, as it comes, on a modest and even level, without great wealth and status, and do not feel the drive and the need to get 2 degrees, and buy two houses (or even one necessarily), and an SUV, and a stock portfolio, etc etc.! What you consider "lower educational attainment", I call living the way I want to live, and I don't see it as some brand of failure, even if you do. I have never been to college, a choice I made consciously (cannabis did not make it for me as you would like to think), yet I consider myself more than adequately intelligent to live my life THE WAY I WANT TO LIVE IT, and under the Constitution, I am free to live it that way. I don't consider myself some kind of loser or second-rate citizen, no matter how much you would like to paint me that way. I believe this goes for millions of my countrymen and women as well. This study is republican-engineered garbage.MF [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 02, 2004 at 11:44:34 PT Another Drug Bust U.S. Navy Seizes More Drugs in Persian Gulf : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107257,00.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 02, 2004 at 11:40:37 PT Here's Something To Check Out Heavy, Long-Term Use of Cannabis Might Be Linked to Numerous Negative Features in American Users:http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/8525697700573E1885256DFF00352004?OpenDocument&c=Psychiatry%20Other&count=10 [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on January 02, 2004 at 11:09:15 PT: I just now came across this, and it's fascinating I frequently visit Lew Rockwell's site (thank you, Observer for pointing me there!) http://www.lewrockwell.com/Today, I found something that explains a question I've had in my mind for the longest time; namely, why the seeming preponderance of what accounts for very minor social infractions being treated so forcefully by police, while their effectiveness in combatting REAL crime seems ineffectual?Here's an answer, perhaps; they were never really intended to. The REAL reason has to do with class stratification, and the fear of the upper class of the lower ones:The Demand for Order and the Birth of Modern Policing by Kristian Williams http://monthlyreview.org/1203williams.htmFrom the article:*Whether or not crime was on the rise, after the introduction of modern policing the number of arrests increased.9 The majority of these were for misdemeanors, and most related to victimless crimes, or crimes against the public order. They did not generally involve violence or the loss of property, but instead were related to public drunkenness, vagrancy, loitering, disorderly conduct, or being a “suspicious person.”10 In other words, the greatest portion of the actual business of law enforcement did not concern the protection of life and property, but the controlling of poor people, their habits and their manners. Sidney Harring wryly notes: “The criminologist’s definition of ‘public order crimes’ comes perilously close to the historian’s description of ‘working-class leisure-time activity.’”11 The suppression of such disorderly conduct was only made possible by the introduction of modern police. For the first time, more arrests were made on the initiative of the officer than in response to specific complaints.12 Though the charges were generally minor, the implications were not: the change from privately-initiated to police-initiated prosecutions greatly shifted the balance of power between the citizenry and the state.*and further on:*The Cleveland police offered a limited test of this hypothesis. In December 1907, they adopted a “Golden Rule” policy. Rather than arrest drunks and other public order offenders, the police walked them home or issued a warning. In the year before the policy was established, they made 30,418 arrests, only 938 of which were for felonies. In the year after the Golden Rule was instituted, the police made 10,095 arrests, one thousand of which were for felonies.14 Other cities implemented similar policies—in some cases, reducing the number of arrests by 75 percent.15 Cleveland’s example demonstrates that official tolerance can reduce arrest rates. This suggests an explanation for the sudden rise in misdemeanor arrests during the previous century: if official tolerance can reduce arrest rates, it makes sense that official intolerance could increase the number of arrests. In other words, during the nineteenth century crime was down, but the demand for order was up—at least among those people who could influence the administration of the law.*and, very, very damning here:*Once established, the police themselves may have helped to raise expectations. In New York, Chief Matsell actively promoted the panic over public disorder, in part to quiet criticism of the new police.20 More subtly, the very existence of the police may have suggested the possibility of urban peace and made it seem feasible that most laws would be enforced—not indirectly by the citizenry, but directly by the state.21 And the new emphasis on public order corresponded with the religious perspective of the dominant class and the demands of the new industrialized economy, ensuring elite support for policing......So, contrary to the crime-and-disorder explanation, the new police system was not created in response to spiraling crime rates, but developed as a means of social control by which an emerging dominant class could impose their values on the larger population.*In other words, cops talked up crime to scare people...into hiring more cops, and paying those who were already on the force more...whether there was actually any rise in crime or not. To the benefit of those who sought to socially control those who were deemed by the 'upper crust' to be 'undesirables'.We have witnessed EXACTLY this same process in the War on (Some) Drugs. Cops are now armed to the teeth to deal with hypothetically heavily armed dealers, who were supposed to be toting around 40mm grenade launchers, .50 caliber sniper rifles, and the tanks were on order.Yeah, right. As I've mentioned here before, those much feared firefights between outgunned police and Light Antitank Weapon (LAW)-rocket-packing dealers NEVER HAPPENED. And now we have police forces that resemble foreign armies treating their civilian paymasters like an invading host would the conquered indigs.And, finally, the main point revealed:*With the birth of modern policing, the state acquired a new means of controlling the citizenry—one based on its experiences, not only with crime and domestic disorder, but with colonialism and slavery as well. If policing was not in its inception a totalitarian pursuit, the modern development of the institution has at least been a major step in that direction.*Take a look around, friends, take a *good* look around. Just one episode of COPS tells you there's something wrong.Very wrong... [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 02, 2004 at 10:35:55 PT kapt I know why they hate Cannabis. It makes people too darn sensible. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on January 02, 2004 at 10:30:52 PT: Another unsigned, anonymous editorial My, such strength of conviction! What bravery! What boldness!What horse manure. It's interesting to note that the unknown author of this rant has not sought to explain *why* the possession of less than 4 ounces in the privacy of a person's home was soooooooo terrible. Maybe because thay weren't buying liquor, and maintaining the booze industry? Maybe because by consuming it at home responsibly, the cannabists weren't frequenting bars, getting tanked up, trying to drive afterwards or pick a fight with someone? Maybe the author's grousing because the cannabists just stayed home, enjoying the company of good friends, 'shooting the bull' and raiding the frig, instead? (I'm sure snack food producers were quietly very happy about that.)Or, maybe it's not that. Maybe the author was afraid that by responsibly exercising their legal rights, the people of the (beautiful beyond belief) State of Alaska might start to get ideas. Like telling the Feds to stuff more of their stupid legislation back up that dark, wet and smelly place where it came from.Maybe *that's* the real reason for this editorial. Some LEO feeling the tightening of the purse strings every State is experiencing and realizing the gravy train is over? And passing theis pathetic attempt at propagandizing along to their pet media whore? Who prints it in hopes of continuing getting crumbs from the police blotter so he doesn't actually have to hunt down the news...and maybe tick off those same cops?Sure looks like that to me, friends. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by DeVoHawk on January 02, 2004 at 09:46:53 PT: Please - Tell me how to think "people over age 18 could possess less than 4 ounces of marijuana in their home or in some other private place.""Alaskans should not want a return to those days.""None of that changes the fact that they will be putting people in jeopardy"Good to see balanced journalism in 2004 [ Post Comment ] Post Comment