cannabisnews.com: High Times





High Times
Posted by CN Staff on February 23, 2004 at 15:58:55 PT
By Steve Sebelius, Review-Journal
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal 
You could be excused for thinking that the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana was formed only to "establish a comprehensive system of strict regulation to reduce or eliminate teenage access to marijuana, driving under the influence of marijuana, and the smoking of marijuana in public places." After all, it sounds strict. But read further, and you'll get to the heart of the matter: If the committee's proposed state constitutional amendment passes, those age 21 or older will be allowed to toke up, so long as they do it in private, buy the drug only at an authorized retailer and don't drive under the influence.
Deceptive? Not really, especially after the whoppers that were leveled against the ill-fated 2002 amendment that would have legalized up to 3 ounces of marijuana. In that campaign, a deputy district attorney outrageously claimed drug cartels were funding the legalization effort (and then lied about his remark). The number of joints opponents said could be rolled from 3 ounces of marijuana expanded -- loaves and fishes style -- until we were very nearly told that 3 ounces could get every man, woman, child and household pet in Nevada high for a year. (Excluding fish, of course.) This time around, the proponents have learned their lesson. The new constitutional amendment is tailor-made to overcome each and every objection that was lodged against the effort last time. Three ounces is too much, as one feckless politician after another claimed when asked to -- damn the media! -- take a stand on the measure? Try 1 ounce, then. People will drive under the influence, as one did in the tragic traffic accident that killed Las Vegas Sun Vice President Sandy Thompson? This measure would make the DUI laws stricter, with a five-years-to-life prison sentence and fine of up to $20,000 for anyone convicted of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of marijuana, alcohol or any other drug. That's tough. Drug dealers will prosper if marijuana is legalized? This measure would establish a one-to-10-year prison sentence and fine of up to $10,000 for anybody over 18 who sells marijuana to a minor. (Under the proposed amendment, only tobacco retailers that don't also sell booze would be authorized to sell marijuana, and only if they are more than 500 yards from a church or school.) More kids will smoke marijuana if it's legalized? Hardly. According to the drug czar's own report, "more than 67 percent of Nevada high school seniors report using marijuana at least once in their lives." At that rate, there's not many kids left to take up the habit. The problem in trying to answer the critics is twofold. First, it was not the amount of marijuana, or the flaws in the law regarding its use, to which the prohibitionists objected. It was the very notion of legalization. No matter how many logical, reasonable arguments are made to legalize marijuana (and there are precious few reasons to keep it illegal) for some it's simply inconceivable. They would rather live with the inherent contradictions of the law as well as the excesses of the war on drugs rather than admit defeat. And two, if the prohibitionists were willing to stretch the truth to their own ends last time, they're not suddenly going to play fair this time. There will still be lies, exaggerations and the inevitable visit of drug czar John Walters, campaigning at taxpayer expense. But the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana still has the right idea, no matter the changes made to persuade voters that prohibition doesn't work. Maybe this time, the voters will see that. Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. His column runs Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Author:  Steve Sebelius, Review-JournalPublished: Sunday, February 22, 2004Copyright: 2004 Las Vegas Review-JournalContact: letters lvrj.comWebsite: http://www.lvrj.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:MPPhttp://www.mpp.org/Regulate Marijuanahttp://www.regulatemarijuana.org/Pot for Fun Should Not Be Legalizedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18372.shtmlMarijuana Legalization Isn't The Answerhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18369.shtmlEffort To Legalize Marijuana Renewedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18361.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #42 posted by jose melendez on March 21, 2004 at 06:29:04 PT
forbidden to defend
"Judge Thomas McPhee forbade him from presenting medical reasons . . ."I'm still waiting on a well reasoned response from anyone as to how it is legal to bar or otherwise omit factual, relevant material evidence from being presented at trial.Is that not a due process violation?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by afterburner on March 20, 2004 at 14:38:41 PT:
Why Are the Drug-Free Zones Not Applied to Alcohol
Olympia [WA] -- A jury found Monica Ginn guilty Wednesday of charges that she grew and distributed marijuana, sparking ire among medical marijuana advocates. 
Jurors also decided Ginn, 53, qualifies for a more severe sentence because her growing operation was within 1,000 feet of a designated school bus stop. She faces up to five years in jail, but her attorneys promised to appeal the case as high as the Washington Supreme Court. Kevin Johnson, Ginn's court- appointed attorney, said he wasn't surprised by the verdict because an earlier ruling by Judge Thomas McPhee forbade him from presenting medical reasons as his client's defense for growing and distributing marijuana, a controlled substance. McPhee found that Ginn, who claims to suffer from chronic back pain, did not meet all of the requirements to justify using that defense. --Grower Found Guilty in Medical Marijuana Case http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/18/thread18141.shtml"Establishments that are licensed to sell marijuana shall not be within 500 yards of a school or place of religious worship." --proposed Nevada initiativeNot only is this an extreme exaggeration of the 1000 feet laws already passed, but it is also highly hypocritical. In my town there is an establishment that is licensed to sell alcohol right across the street from a Catholic school. There is also an establishment that is licensed to sell alcohol right across the street from a church. But I don't hear anyone beating their chests and wailing about the message that this sends to the children! Is it alright to sell or advertise alcohol to children. What's wrong with our lawmakers?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by afterburner on February 27, 2004 at 08:35:57 PT:
VitaminT 
Or maybe the British estimates are based on the European tradition of mixing tobacco with the cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by VitaminT on February 27, 2004 at 08:15:26 PT
Maybe she's done time?
"And what is one ounce of marijuana? It makes approximately 85 marijuana joints," she [Sandy Heverly] said. One ounce might make 85 Jailhouse Joints, I wonder if this lady has done time in the pen. One thing's for sure, neither she or her joints are wraped too tight.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by afterburner on February 27, 2004 at 07:31:40 PT:
More on Nevada Exaggeration
Even the Brits don't make such an alarmist estimate as 85 joints from one ounce."Canadians caught with small amounts of marijuana will get fines similar to those handed out for speeding tickets under controversial proposed legislation. ...Under the proposed cannabis reform bill, anyone caught with 15 grams or less of cannabis - enough to roll 15 to 30 joints" --Pot Plan Has Critics Fuming http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/16/thread16489.shtmlThe British estimate would be 30 to 60 joints per 30 grams (over 1 ounce). 1 ounce = 28.35 grams. Even the high estimate would be 28.35 X 2 = 56.7 joints per ounce. The Nevada estimate of the number of joints is 50% more than even the higher British estimate. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by afterburner on February 27, 2004 at 06:31:02 PT:
Re #36: Marijuana Legalization Debate Gets Rolling
"And what is one ounce of marijuana? It makes approximately 85 marijuana joints," she [Sandy Heverly] said. 85 joints??? from one ounce??? This is more than double the estimate of responsible journalists.For example, the Canadian decriminalization proposal to ticket 15 grams, approximately 1/2 ounce, makes about 20!!! joints, or 40!!! per ounce!!!, not 85!!!"OTTAWA (CP) — The government reintroduced a bill today to decriminalize possession of small quantities of marijuana, but failed to reduce the maximum threshold from 15 grams....As it stands, the proposed law would not impose criminal sanctions for possession of enough pot to make about 20 joints." --Federal Liberals Re-Introduce Marijuana Bill http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/18/thread18334.shtml#7
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by FoM on February 26, 2004 at 17:37:12 PT
Related News Article from KLAS-TV
Marijuana Legalization Debate Gets Rolling Adrian Arambulo, Reporter Featured Video: 
http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1670016&nav=168XL8BD 
 
 
 
(Feb. 25) -- The latest push to legalize marijuana in Nevada was announced last week. And now an anti-legalization group is speaking out. Sandy Heverly is the group that opposes legalization. "In our opinion, it's not any different at all. It's about legislating now one ounce of marijuana. And what is one ounce of marijuana? It makes approximately 85 marijuana joints," she said. Heverly is with Nevadans Against Legalizing Marijuana. The group was a vocal opponent of legalization efforts two years ago. The group held it's first meeting of the year on Wednesday to start planning their strategy.A pro-legalization group filed an initiative with the state, which if successful, would allow adults over 21 to carry one ounce of marijuana. Heverly says, "A good cross section of our community is very concerned with this issue." The group is devising it's strategy to combat the latest legalization effort, which include commercials like the '67-percent of teens in Nevada have used marijuana...' commericial.Jennifer Knight is with the group that filed the legalization initiative. "We're stating a fact. Our current laws don't work. They're saying essentially, let's keep the laws the same."Legalization supporters believe they learned several lessons from a failed attempt 2 years ago. So this go around they're proposing to lower the amount of the drug a person can carry -- as well as increasing DUI penalties. "You get behind the wheel. You kill someone. You face up to life in prison, Knight stated.But some aren't buying it. "It's all about legalizing marijuana so people can get high off it. It has nothing to do with eliminating access our youth has to marijuana," is Heverly's response. The Nevadans Against Legalizing Marijuana is set to meet again on March 10. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by afterburner on February 26, 2004 at 06:32:04 PT:
#21 E_J & Others Interested: Here's the Transcript
Transcript: Ecstasy Reconsidered 25 Feb 2004 
Chronicle of Higher Education, The (US) 
http://www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n332/a03.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by afterburner on February 25, 2004 at 08:15:03 PT:
Freedom of Religion is a Two-Way Street
The 2004 INITIATIVE 
known as the "Regulation of Marijuana Amendment."
by the people of the State of Nevada contains a clause: "(2) Establishments that are licensed to sell marijuana shall not be within 500 yards of a school or place of religious worship." which seems to interfere with Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"Surely, many prohibitionist churches would see this clause as a protection of their right to freedom of religion, but religions which honor cannabis as a religious and spiritual sacrament might not be opposed to a source of legal supply of the sacred herb within the 500 yard circle of prohibition. Both prohibitionist and cannabist churches deserve the same protection against "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The 500 yard circle of prohibition should be voluntary, that is mutual consent between the licensed marijuana seller and any nearby church.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by Patrick on February 25, 2004 at 07:39:37 PT
No one law says it all
While I said that I wouldn't hesitate to vote for this amendment if I could, I also realize that one law or amendment won't solve every issue on the subject.fearful the important thing in this amendment is... 2. The use or possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by a person who has attained the age of 21 years shall not be cause for arrest, civil or criminal penalty, or seizure or forfeiture of assets.There is a part of this that does address the concern of growers and that is 4. The legislature shall provide by law for a system of regulation for the cultivation, distribution, sale, and taxation of marijuana, such that:... This amendment no doubt would spawn all kinds of court cases to solve every little issue just like everything else. As an example, there are over 50,000 gun laws on the books. Do really need that many gun laws? And its kinda funny with that many gun laws on the books most people can still own gun. But can I have an ounce of cannabis without arrest, criminal penalty, or seizure or forfeiture of assets? Not yet.Perhaps backyard growers may have to get a permit. Granted the devil is in the details. Passage of this amendment would open the door to those possibilities. It's failure just means you'll continue to hear the cops say "Looks like yer goin to jail boy."
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by fearfull on February 25, 2004 at 07:11:50 PT
This dosen't look so good to me...
It looks to me that there is no provision for growing your own. Only goverment swag will be allowed for sale. Also it looks that all the black market dealers will now be under age 18. In addition it looks like employers will still be able to drug test and dismiss any one who fails a test, or should I say discriminate against that cultural group.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by jose melendez on February 25, 2004 at 05:11:42 PT
prediction
If this passes, ATF and DEA will raid tobacco licensees and remove their licenses (to distribute dangerous, defective, deadly as designed filtered delivery devices of nicotine, carbon monoxide Polonium 210, ammonia and other poisonous substances shown to kill millions on this planet every year) over section 4b in the initiative, which creates a catch-22 in Federal law.ALL U.S. Attorneys, D.E.A. agents and O.N.D.C.P. salespeople look the other way while existing laws are broken, and their very paychecks pensions and profits depend on the status quo.Drug war is an unlawful restraint of trade, made possible by the systemic corruption of our Constitutional, antitrust and common laws. Will someone please find me a lawyer so I can file this in court?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by FoM on February 24, 2004 at 20:28:10 PT
Patrick
I'm glad it helped. I still am sick with this cold and I find it hard to absorb what I'm reading very well right now. In a few days the fog will lift and I'll be able to figure it out too. I don't make very good sense when I'm sick either so don't mind me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Patrick on February 24, 2004 at 20:17:32 PT
FoM
Thanks for posting the actual amendment. After reading the whole thing I wouldn't hesitate to vote yes. Too bad I don't live in Nevada. Perhaps California will follow suit if this passes in Nevada?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by FoM on February 24, 2004 at 17:18:06 PT
Since I'm Still Confused I Found This
I really don't understand the Initiative so I found the text and maybe this will help if we look at it. Here it is.***2004 INITIATIVE The text of the 2004 initiative is below.Section 1. This measure shall be known as the "Regulation of Marijuana Amendment."Section 2. The people of the State of Nevada hereby declare that their primary purpose in enacting this measure is to establish a comprehensive system of strict regulation to reduce or eliminate teenage access to marijuana, driving under the influence of marijuana, and the smoking of marijuana in public places. This system of regulation will also permit adults aged 21 and older to use marijuana in private and purchase it from a regulated market, which will generate tax revenues that will be dedicated primarily to alcohol and drug treatment and education programs.Section 3. Article 4 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:Sec. 39. Regulation of marijuana.1. As used in this section, "marijuana" means a plant of the genus Cannabis or its product, but does not include hashish. 
2. The use or possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by a person who has attained the age of 21 years shall not be cause for arrest, civil or criminal penalty, or seizure or forfeiture of assets. 
3. The legislature shall: (a) Establish penalties for the possession or use of marijuana by a person who has not attained the age of 21 years.(b) Establish penalties for a person who does not own or work at an establishment that is licensed to sell marijuana who is convicted of distributing or selling marijuana.(c) Establish penalties for distributing or selling marijuana to a person who has not attained the age of 21 years.(d) Establish a penalty of one to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 for a person who has attained the age of 18 years who does not own or work at an establishment that is licensed to sell marijuana who is convicted of a first offense of distributing or selling marijuana to a minor, and a maximum penalty of life in prison for a second or subsequent offense of distributing or selling marijuana to a minor.(e) Establish penalties for driving or operating heavy machinery while under the influence of marijuana.(f) Establish a penalty of five years to life in prison and a fine of up to $20,000 for a person who is convicted of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance, including marijuana.(g) Establish penalties for the smoking of marijuana in a vehicle or public place, including a publicly operated carrier of passengers, a public park, or a place where gaming is permitted.(h) Establish penalties for the distribution, sale, possession, or use of marijuana on the premises of a jail, prison, or public school.4. The legislature shall provide by law for a system of regulation for the cultivation, distribution, sale, and taxation of marijuana, such that: (a) Marijuana shall be available at low cost to patients who are authorized to use it in accordance with Section 38 of Article 4 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada.(b) Only establishments that are licensed to sell marijuana may sell marijuana.(c) All advertising of marijuana through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, billboards, and the Internet shall be prohibited.(d) A person who has attained the age of 21 years has the right to purchase marijuana from a legally regulated system, rather than the criminal market.(e) Employers shall not be required to accommodate the use, possession, or being under the influence of marijuana in a place of employment.(f) The transport of marijuana into or out of the State of Nevada shall be prohibited unless federal law permits such transport.(g) The license fees at wholesale and retail are the same for marijuana as for cigarettes, the tax for sale at wholesale shall be the same for marijuana as for tobacco products other than cigarettes, and the tax for sale of marijuana at retail shall be the same as the combined taxes on sales at retail of other products generally.(h) The revenues generated from license fees and taxes associated with marijuana shall be earmarked such that:(1) In an effort to eliminate waiting lists for Nevadans who want to receive treatment for their use of alcohol or other drugs, any Nevadan who wants such treatment shall receive it without delay, with priority given to Nevadans who are least able to pay for their own treatment. If revenues generated from the license fees and taxes associated with marijuana are insufficient to pay for the treatment of all Nevadans who want it, the legislature is not required to spend additional state funds on such treatment.(2) Revenues that are not spent on alcohol or other drug treatment may be spent on educating children and the public with scientifically valid information about the effects of alcohol and other drugs, advising the public of the availability of alcohol and other drug treatment programs, and informing the public of what is permitted and not permitted under the system of marijuana regulation that this section establishes.(3) Revenues that are not spent on treatment or education shall be returned to the state treasury.(i) Establishments that are licensed to sell tobacco products shall have the right to purchase licenses to sell marijuana to persons who have attained the age of 21 years, provided that:(1) Convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations, bars, clubs, casinos, or any establishment where alcohol is sold shall not be licensed to sell marijuana.(2) Establishments that are licensed to sell marijuana shall not be within 500 yards of a school or place of religious worship.(3) A person who has not attained the age of 21 years shall not be permitted on the premises of an establishment that is licensed to sell marijuana.(4) A person who owns or works at an establishment that is licensed to sell marijuana shall be sentenced to one to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 if the person is convicted of a first offense of knowingly distributing or selling marijuana to a minor, and a maximum penalty of life in prison for a second or subsequent offense of knowingly distributing or selling marijuana to a minor.5. If any portion, clause, or phrase of this section is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions, clauses, and phrases shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect. 
6. Any statute or regulation inconsistent with this section shall be null and void after December 5, 2006. 
 http://www.RegulateMarijuana.org/04init/index.php?ref=498
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by SoberStoner on February 24, 2004 at 16:58:54 PT
Looks like Johnny P has to start campaigning
I agree that this bill is almost perfect considering the near passage of the last bill.Almost every anti question has been dealt with, although you know now they'll scream that one ounce can make 8 fully loaded 6 foot long joints so even that is too much. Of course, anyone with any sense knows that an ounce can disappear fairly quickly. Oh sure, we may wish it made that many joints, but reality sets in awful fast on that. And way faster than anyone that could grow an ounce of true cannabis straight from the plant. Many recreational users go through an ounce slower than a medical user would. And there has to be a supply line somewhere..I'm not seeing it. It's like the underpants gnomes on South Park:1. Make mmj legal.2.3. Sell mmj at retail.Seems to be something missing there. This does not help mmj patients asmuch as it should.I would love to see an answer for the DUI question as well.  Maybe they think the judges wont realize that many of the people arressted for DUI will be able to tell them how long cannabis stays in the system. After all, are there that many smokers out there that dont know by now how long they need to quit before taking a drug test so they dont test hot? A roadside test will be shot down instantly by anyone who hires a lawyer that can argue the case be thrown out on that fact alone.Cannabis is NOT ALCOHOL!!!!And for further proof this is completely stupid and unneccessary can look for the British study about cannabis users and how they drive.Oh well, I'm fairly certain this can pass, but Johnny P is gonna have to start campaigning early this year. SS
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by VitaminT on February 24, 2004 at 08:47:09 PT
i420
I think it's because a comprehensive policy that actually adresses the concerns of the opposition is really what is needed.Anything that just sets an ammount and age as you propose, would fail to address many legitimate questions about the policy. I think this would be a mistake because it leaves open avenues for "creative" interpretation by an opposition that is willing to lie like a rug to maintain the status quo.The last initive got 39% If there is another 11% + 1 voter in the state who opposed the measure last time because of it's ambiguity about matters of control then this initive could win the day.Personally I doubt it will, but if it gets 46% or so it will have smashed some important barriers and will signal that the game has changed IMO. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by i420 on February 24, 2004 at 08:14:54 PT
Doomed
I think this will be another failed effort. Why do they have to put extra things into the initiative like the retail sales part?? Why not keep it simple with just the 1 oz. for personal use for adults over the age of 18. What does this group have stock in tobacco companies??
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Universer on February 24, 2004 at 08:01:29 PT
Doblin on Ecstacy
A more specific webpage regarding the chat about Ecstacy research.I wish that I were available at 2:00 pm ET Wednesday, but I'll have to settle for reading the archive.
Clicky.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by kaptinemo on February 24, 2004 at 06:42:50 PT:
Another interesting Canuck article
"Too much police time going to pot?"By SUE BAILEY http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040223.wpott0223/BNStory/National/ These are the kinds of articles the antis wish never made it into the public consciousness; raises too many questions concerning the proper use of resources, you see... 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by kaptinemo on February 24, 2004 at 06:37:46 PT:
Another poll, this time Canadian
Poll question:"Police laid a record number of drug-related charges in 2002 and most involved marijuana, Statistics Canada has reported. Should your MP support a bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of pot?"http://www.globeandmail.ca/It was running at 72% For and 28% Against at 0936 hours Tuesday morning...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by E_Johnson on February 24, 2004 at 01:14:43 PT
Alan Leshner's days of glory are near the end
The Chronicle of Higher Education has finally seized on the Ecstasy research scandal and Wednesday they're having a live chat with Rick Doblinhttp://chronicle.com/There goes Leshner's reputation. I subscribe to this so I'm going to try to bring up NIDA's record obstructing MMJ research.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 22:25:30 PT
Patrick
I agree with what you're saying. I know that it's hard to make prohibitionists understand how we feel and I'm really not sure how we can get them to hear what we have to say. The games that are played in politics are hard for me to understand. KISS is how I look at things. What would be wrong in setting an amount like an ounce per person at one time and as long as no sales go on between two people that sharing would be ok. Growing or dealing pot wouldn't be a worry would it? Is that so hard?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Patrick on February 23, 2004 at 22:00:29 PT
FoM
I don't imagine a "drunk" driver would get life for vehicular manslaughter except under the most dire of circumstances. Which is why I question such a sentence for impairment considered "under the influence of marijuana." If one smoked a joint a day for three months and stopped for a week then another week later was involved in a collision perhaps no fault of their own and another person died as a result would a positive pee test or hair test for marijuana be proof of "under the influence" and get one 5 years? life? When obviously such an individual wasn't even "high" at the time of the accident? I think too many unanswered questions could lead voters to stick with the status quo. Otherwise Nevada could set a serious precedent. Perhaps they'll use highometer or stonalyzer? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 20:51:24 PT
ekim
Thanks! This one works just fine!http://www.mmdetroit.org/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by ekim on February 23, 2004 at 20:40:32 PT
try this link
www.mmdetroit.org or Tim Beck at Timmichben aol.com 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by ekim on February 23, 2004 at 20:29:43 PT
Detroit Med bill to be voted on in Aug
Ann Arbor is payen for signers for its Med use bill. Hash Bash is on April 3. MI Norml meeting from 3-5 
http://minorml.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 20:16:59 PT
News Article from NY1 News
Broad Band: http://real.ny1.com:8080/ramgen/real3/00099A40_040223_160341hi.rmDial Up: http://real.ny1.com:8080/ramgen/real3/00099A40_040223_160341lo.rm***City Council Debates Measure To Legalize Marijuana For Medical Use 
FEBRUARY 23RD, 2004The push to legalize marijuana for medical use is getting help from some City Council members. The council's Committee on Health held hearings Monday to discuss a measure proposed by Councilman Phil Reed. Resolution 71 calls on the State Legislature to allow marijuana use for those suffering from certain illnesses. The health committee has not voted on the issue. If the resolution passes, it would go before the full City Council. The state would ultimately have to approve the measure for the law to go into effect. Eight states have passed medicinal marijuana laws. http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=37549
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 20:08:54 PT
Thanks MikeEEEEE
71%! That's great!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by MikeEEEEE on February 23, 2004 at 20:03:40 PT
The results are in
Med. Marijuana in NY.Yes  71%No  29%
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 19:58:46 PT
Questions
MikeEEEEE I voted! Thanks for the poll. Let us know the results if you see them when it's on the news. http://www.wb11.com/Patrick I want to know how they would determine if someone was impaired since drug tests are far from accurate. Possible life in prison is a long time. Is that the penalty if a person accidentially kills someone while under the influence of alcohol in Nevada?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Patrick on February 23, 2004 at 19:40:24 PT
Another question?
This measure would make the DUI laws stricter, with a five-years-to-life prison sentence and fine of up to $20,000 for anyone convicted of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of marijuana, alcohol or any other drug. That's tough.What's "under the influence of marijuana" measured by if life is gonna be the sentence in this case? Hopefully, not my hair follicles 30 days from the last time I smoked? Ok two questions.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by MikeEEEEE on February 23, 2004 at 19:37:40 PT
Med. Marijuana Vote
www.wb11.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by ekim on February 23, 2004 at 19:31:05 PT
time to rethink many things
Today Education Czar Page called the Teacher Union terrorists for talken about the Leave no child behind law.
I have lost respect for Mr Page for loosing his cool. 
I thought it was bad calling Cannabis users this word but to call a respected Union this vial word takes the cake.Criminal dissent 
Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange 02.20.04 - In the early 1970s, Guy Goodwin, a Special Prosecutor working for U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell -- who was soon to become a star player in President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal -- convened grand juries across the country to target radicals, anti-war activists, unions, and others. Goodwin, characterized by the Center for Constitutional Rights as the "grand inquisitor of the politically motivated grand jury," was a man on a mission. Unlike thirty years ago, the convening of grand juries by John Ashcroft's Department of Justice is only one weapon in the administration's anti-dissent arsenal, Michael Avery, President of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) told TomPaine.com in a telephone interview. "This administration is trying to criminalize dissent, characterize protesters as terrorists and trying to intimidate and marginalize those opposed to its policies," Avery said. It has opened the floodgates to all kinds of investigative activities and now "police agencies across the country are actively engaged in spying and compiling dossiers on citizens exercising their constitutional rights." In early February, several decades after Goodwin's salad days, a federal judge in Iowa ordered officials at Drake University to turn over records about a mid-November anti-war forum held on its Des Moines campus. Subpoenas were also served on four activists who attended the forum and the University's chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild. The subpoena, which sought records identifying the officers of the Drake chapter in November 2003, the current location of any local offices, as well as agendas, "has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with intimidating lawful protestors and suppressing First Amendment freedom of expression and association," Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director of the Guild, pointed out in a Guild press release issued February 6. U.S. District Judge Ronald Longstaff also issued an order prohibiting Drake employees from talking about the University's subpoena. Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, told the Associated Press that he was not familiar with any other similar situation where a U.S. university's records were subpoenaed. The case, he pointed out, has echoes of the "red squads" of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters. Within days of the Iowa grand jury story receiving national headlines, the Justice Department withdrew the subpoenas. Bruce Nestor, a Minneapolis attorney and past president of NLG who worked on the case, told TomPaine.com that it was the "tremendous response from across the political spectrum condemning the use of the grand jury," that got the subpoenas quashed. "In the two years since 9/11, we have heard one refrain from the Justice Department every time the executive branch seeks to arrogate more power to itself: 'trust us, we're the government,'" Benjamin Stone, Executive Director of the Iowa ACLU, pointed out. "But, if it is going to be issuing secretive slapdash subpoenas and then rescinding them to save face, how can we trust that more expansive surveillance and investigative powers will be used properly?" "It's really hard to tell what this means in a broader or policy sense for the Department of Justice," Nestor said. "Clearly the FBI memo reported by the New York Times in October, directed the joint terrorism task forces to compile info about political protesters. The actions of the U.S. attorney's office in Iowa appear to be consistent with the directive in that memo. Whether that means that the Department of Justice intends to expand the use of the grand jury to investigate political protest movements is unclear. In this instance they clearly used the grand jury fore that purpose." Nationwide police spying While the convening of the grand jury in Iowa may have been a DOJ trial balloon or the actions of an overzealous U.S. attorney, Nestor believes it is part of "a pattern of events taking place across the country." During the past year, police agencies across the country have not only been gathering information, but have used strong-armed tactics against peaceful political demonstrators. In early April, acting on warnings from the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC), the Oakland, California police department indiscriminately fired wooden slugs at and injured several of non-violent anti-war protesters -- and several non-protesting Port workers as well -- demonstrating at the Port of Oakland. "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that [protest]," CATIC spokesperson Mike Van Winkle said. "You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act." In Atlanta, the city's police department "routinely places under surveillance anti-war protesters and others exercising their free-speech rights to demonstrate," the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. And in Los Angeles, the police department maintains files on anti-war protesters it deems capable of "a significant disruption of the public order." In Miami, the site of the recent police riot during the November demonstrations against the Free Trade Area of the Americas, "police routinely videotape demonstrators and infiltrate rallies with plainclothes officers," Detective Joey Giordano of the Miami-Dade Police Department, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Last year, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Paul Weyrich, widely recognized as one of the "founding fathers" of the Christian Right, suggested that either Tom Ridge, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or Congress, launch a full-scale investigation behind the funding sources of what he termed the "neo-Communist" groups organizing the anti-war movement. While no full-blown congressionally-sanctioned investigation of the peace movement has been initiated, local police departments in cooperation with regional FBI offices have taken it on their own to establish anti-war investigative units. "This administration is using all sorts of tactics to marginalize dissenters," the NLG's Avery pointed out. "They've used pre-emptive strikes, police violence, and have resorted to penning off demonstrators in so-called free speech zones, so that when the president travels around the country people can't get within several blocks of him." As this time, Avery said he wasn't aware of other cases involving the convening of grand juries to go after dissenters. The ACLU, however, pointed out in press release dated February 10 that "the Justice Department's decision to quash the [Iowa] subpoenas comes on the heels of reports... that U.S. Army Intelligence contacted organizers of a seminar at the University of Texas Law School at Austin on Sexism and Islam." Local NLG members were asked by law enforcement officials to provide a list of conference attendees because persons under investigation had been present. The NLG is concerned that the University of Texas could be next in line for a Justice Department fishing expedition. In light of recent events at Drake they have every right to be wary. (c) 2004 Working Assets Online. All rights reserved 
URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16469 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 18:56:28 PT
One More Question
Does this mean that tobacco companies will be the growers if it will be only tobacco retailers that will be allowed to sell? I always have questions it seems.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 18:38:49 PT
What Does Anyone Think About This?
This measure would establish a one-to-10-year prison sentence and fine of up to $10,000 for anybody over 18 who sells marijuana to a minor.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by mayan on February 23, 2004 at 18:17:52 PT
Good Article...
and in the Sunday paper, no doubt? The only way this one won't pass is if they use Diebold electronic voting machines!The way out is the way in...Families Throw Down Gauntlet, Condemn 9/11 Cover-up:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=69&mode=thread&order=0&thold=09/11 Families Issue Bold Challenge over Compromised Investigation:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/34/0d/200402230020.a2abfc2f.htmlWith Hastert relenting, 9/11 panel likely to get extra time:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=68&mode=thread&order=0&thold=09/11 International Inquiry - San Francisco, March 26-28th: 
http://www.deceptiondollar.com/Inquiry911.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 17:21:21 PT
Jose
If cannabis is legalized for adults kids won't be able to have easy access to drugs and it might curb the drugs in school problem and issues like this won't happen hopefully.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by jose melendez on February 23, 2004 at 17:07:49 PT
what prohibition ALWAYS inspires
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/teachpot1.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 16:32:42 PT
OverwhelmSam 
But who would the growers be and how would anyone find out that might be interested in being part of that end and lives in Nevada?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by OverwhelmSam on February 23, 2004 at 16:27:26 PT:
Good Question FoM
I guess there would be intrastate businesses that would grow and distribute it to qualified dealers. Hope it passes this time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on February 23, 2004 at 16:09:33 PT
How Will They Get Any Pot to Sell?
I don't understand.***Under the proposed amendment, only tobacco retailers that don't also sell booze would be authorized to sell marijuana, and only if they are more than 500 yards from a church or school.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment