cannabisnews.com: Waiting To Inhale Waiting To Inhale Posted by CN Staff on August 06, 2004 at 14:53:38 PT By Joel Beck Source: North Shore Sunday One of the North Shore's worst-kept secrets was officially unearthed last week. Sadly, few were around to witness this pseudo-historic event - just a Sunday reporter and anyone who happened to be hanging around the water cooler inside the Community Newspaper Company's offices in Beverly late on a Friday afternoon. All those within earshot not only caught a glimpse of Georgetown attorney Steve Epstein once again making his case for the decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts - a cause which he has personally overseen for more than two decades as a leader with the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition (Mass Cann) and the organizer of Boston's annual pro-pot festival, "The Freedom Rally" - they also got to hear Epstein reveal a not-so-surprising tidbit of personal information. "I've smoked marijuana," Epstein nonchalantly announced. "I enjoy marijuana." Really Steve? We never would have guessed. Considering his ever-increasing reputation as one of the state's most outspoken marijuana advocates, conversations with Epstein leave little doubt that he likes to spark up on a regular basis. In fact, after noticing the rolling papers that peek out of his front shirt pocket and the odorous smokiness that emanates from his pores - seemingly indicating that he's at least been smoking something recently - there's a question that's hard to banish from your mind while talking to Epstein: "Geez, do you think he's high right now?" Smoking pot may be Epstein's thing, but make no mistake, his mind couldn't be clearer or more passionate when it comes to his thoughts on the state's current marijuana laws. Otherwise, how else could you explain the amount of support he's helped drum up in recent years from Massachusetts voters, the majority of whom appear to agree with Epstein that the time has come to reconsider marijuana possession as a criminal offense. Not only does Epstein maintain marijuana is a far less dangerous drug than most people would have you believe, he also says decriminalizing it would create a major economic boost in Massachusetts. So far, the voters seem to agree. In 2000, Epstein and the folks at Mass Cann used their persuasive efforts in the 2nd Middlesex Senate district and the 4th Essex, 6th Middlesex and 4th Barnstable Representative districts, where voters supported a non-binding ballot question asking their representatives to introduce legislation that would decriminalize marijuana possession, instead making it a civil violation - much like getting a traffic ticket. A similar ballot question passed in 2002 in more than 20 representative districts - including the 1st, 2nd and 18th Essex districts, where the question passed with more than 60 percent of the vote. This year, Epstein and Co. are at it again, despite the fact that legislators didn't step up to the plate on either previous occasion that their constituents asked them to rethink the state's marijuana laws. This time, voters in the 2nd Essex, 3rd Essex and 3rd Middlesex Senate districts - which include communities like Beverly, Danvers, Peabody, Salem, Marblehead, Lynn, Nahant, Saugus and Swampscott - will have their chance to chime in with another non-binding question that will appear on this November's ballots. With recent history on his side, Epstein is understandably confident that the ballot question will pass yet again. He is less confident, however, about the prospect of any politicians on the North Shore - or anywhere else in the state for that matter - stepping forward and actually supporting his cause. It becomes especially harder to envision with legislators like Brad Hill, an Ipswich Republican who was a vocal opponent of the idea of decriminalizing marijuana when the issue surfaced in his district in 2000, standing in the way. Hill did file an obligatory bill on Epstein's behalf after the 2000 vote, but he recalls the legislation quietly dying in committee and doesn't see new life being breathed into the marijuana cause anytime in the near future. "Right now, I wouldn't see it passing anytime soon," says Hill. "Does that mean in four years it won't pass or in 10 years it won't pass? I can't answer that question. I do know that there hasn't been a huge turnover in legislators in the past two or four years and right now, the appetite to pass legislation decriminalizing marijuana just isn't at the top of people's priorities." Still, with each time his ballot questions pass, and the will of the people shows a desire to reform the state's marijuana laws, Epstein says sooner or later the politicians are just going to have to listen. "We hope it will be in January of next year that they're finally going to listen," says Epstein. "And we have no reason not to believe that we'll get 60 percent of the 'yes' votes again. "Politicians keep thinking that (supporting marijuana reform) is going to hurt them and we keep showing them that there's no way it's going to hurt them," Epstein adds. "But we continue to be optimistic that eventually the politicians will wake up. We feel we're much closer." Not to mention higher. Stirring the pot If you ask Gary Insuik, the worst thing that ever happened to marijuana was when it became labeled as a drug. Is it a mind-altering substance? You bet it is, says Insuik. But certainly no worse than anything that comes in a six-pack - and we're not talking about Coca-Cola. "Why isn't alcohol linked to the name 'drugs?'" wonders Insuik, a Salem resident and member of Mass Cann. "I think the stigma of (marijuana) being called a drug is what keeps it illegal. If alcohol is legal, I can see absolutely no reason marijuana shouldn't be. It's a far less powerful substance." While people like Insuik and Epstein will enthusiastically debate the potency of alcohol vs. pot with anyone who comes their way, Insuik's point about marijuana immediately being lumped together with harder drugs is instantly evident the minute you start to talk about it with some North Shore politicians. For example, when asked her thoughts on the continuing effort to decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts, Peabody state Rep. Joyce Spiliotis admits she hasn't given much thought to the issue, but quickly points out the growing problem with the drug OxyContin on the North Shore. Meanwhile, Ipswich's Hill - although he says he remains open to the discussion about the possibility of decriminalizing marijuana - continues to maintain that marijuana can lead to more lethal substance abuse down the road. "The only concern I ever had - and I can show you just as many reports as (Epstein) can show me - is that it's a gateway drug," says Hill. "That's my only concern in all of this." Some candidates for public office are quick to weigh in on the issue, saying they could never support an effort to lessen any restriction on laws they believe exist to protect the health and well-being of their constituents. When it comes to marijuana, the message is a familiar one: Drugs are bad. "I absolutely do not want to make a partial legalization or a decriminalization for marijuana simply because of the poor example it gives to young people," says Bob Finneran, a Republican candidate for state rep. in Epstein's own 2nd Essex District. "I don't want to sacrifice our young people and I'd be shocked if the people in the 2nd Essex District voted otherwise." But people in districts all across Massachusetts have indeed recently voted otherwise. And Epstein acknowledges the number of people who believe marijuana is a far less dangerous substance than most other drugs has increased far beyond the usual collection of hippies and potheads. In order for marijuana to actually kill someone, Epstein says, something truly drastic - or cartoonish - would have to take place. "I think a bail of it would have to fall on top of you," says Epstein. "You just can't consume enough marijuana for it to kill you. "The question you have to ask is, is this something the government should be involved in while supposedly creating an environment where people are free to pursue their own concept of happiness?" continues Epstein. "I can see prohibiting citizens from owning nuclear warheads, but I can't see prohibiting citizens from growing a plant. It just doesn't make sense." Let it grow It's not that Insuik has lost all hope in his longtime effort to make marijuana laws less stringent. It's just that he kind of hoped he'd be able to light up a joint on the subway by now. Okay, maybe Insuik never really envisioned a world that relaxed in its views toward marijuana, but he certainly thought they'd be further along in their cause than they are now. Complete legalization always seemed like a stretch, but Insuik says there are days he believes Mass Cann's work is all for naught. "Every year that it doesn't get done, I figure it will just be longer until it actually does get done," says Insuik. "We're so close, but if we can't get it done now, then why? Do we have to wait for a whole generation of lawmakers to die off? Hopefully we can get a generation in there that has some thoughts of their own. You get a little tired of this politics by party." Other than some gains that have been made in making medicinal marijuana available to ease the pain for chemotherapy and glaucoma patients, Insuik laments the fact that they are no closer to decriminalizing marijuana than at any previous point. Part of that, Epstein says, comes from the fact that most people can't differentiate between legalization and decriminalization. For the number of times he's confronted people who are dead-set against loosening the government's grip on marijuana laws in any form, Epstein says he meets just as many people on the other end of the spectrum - the people who think marijuana should be, as he calls it, "legal as lettuce." The real solution, he contends, lies somewhere in between. "What's difficult is getting someone who wants to see the marijuana laws changed and convincing them that the only way we're going to get there is through incremental steps," says Epstein. "The hardest part is convincing those people that their neighbors don't think marijuana prohibition is a good idea." But again, if recent ballot question results are any indication, the next-door neighbors aren't the ones preventing the decriminalization of marijuana - unless of course your next door neighbor happens to be a senator or a state rep. But Epstein honestly believes that if you rounded up all the politicians on Beacon Hill and swore to them their true feelings on the issue would never be revealed to the general public, you would discover a vast majority who privately believe marijuana laws are too strict. Whether that means the tide will soon turn on this issue remains to be seen. But if a vote on the North Shore this November shows the voters still want a change, the voices may become too loud for legislators to ignore. And that's not just blowing smoke. "I have no particular opinion one way or another about it, so this is one issue where I'd be greatly swayed by my constituents," says Marblehead state Rep. Doug Petersen. "I think any legislator would have to seriously think about that." Related Article: Drug Money By Joel BeckFriday, August 6, 2004 To the North Shore activists who are anxiously waiting for legislators like state Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich, to suddenly reverse their longtime opposition to decriminalizing marijuana in Massachusetts, here's some sound advice: Pull up a chair. It looks like you're going to be waiting for a while. On the other hand, even Hill - who in 2000 told the Gloucester Daily Times that only a "huge majority" of the voters could possibly sway him to consider proposing a marijuana decriminalization bill - appears to be bending ever so slightly on the issue. Though he says he still sees marijuana as a dangerous gateway drug, Hill says pot activists like Georgetown lawyer Steve Epstein raise some valid points about the economic impact decriminalizing marijuana could potentially have. That issue, he says, is the one that could eventually persuade even the most conservative legislators to rethink their argument. "Court-wise, time-wise and money-wise, it's a lot of money to spend for one person who makes a mistake," says Hill. "I am certainly always open to discussion." Meanwhile for people like Epstein and his fellow advocated at the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition (Mass Cann), it's a discussion that can no longer be ignored. Epstein is quick to point to a report compiled by Boston University economics professor Jeffrey Miron which shows that marijuana legalization would save Massachusetts more than $120 million a year in government expenditure on police enforcement of prohibition. On top of that, Miron's report also estimates that legalization would bring an annual tax revenue of $16.9 million. The way Mass Cann's Gary Insuik sees it, people are going to buy marijuana anyway, so why shouldn't the state make the most of it? "I'm of the personal opinion that if it's legalized and taxed, it becomes a heck of a revenue stream," says Insuik. "It's a fallacy to believe that they're actually stopping it now. All they're doing is artificially increasing the value and keeping the black market strong." Not to mention, Epstein says, the strain he believes is put on local law enforcement officers who are still forced to treat marijuana as a criminal offense. Not only is that expensive in the long run, he says, it also seems rather unnecessary. "I think the federal income tax is probably one of the greatest injustices there is, but this is right up there," says Epstein. "As far as the number of people affected, we're talking about more than 650,000 nationwide who are handcuffed, brought to the station and face a judge in a criminal situation. That's not a good use of resources."Related Article: Blodgett Just Says No By Joel BeckFriday, August 6, 2004Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett has heard all of the arguments for decriminalizing marijuana. He doesn't buy any of them. "I have yet to be persuaded that it's for the public good," says Blodgett, who has worked in recent months to intensify the fight on drugs such as heroin on the North Shore and says marijuana shouldn't be treated any differently. Blodgett says that for all the arguments pot activists make to show that marijuana is a relatively harmless substance, he can dig up just as much evidence to prove just the opposite. "I think that medical research has finally caught up with some of these issues," he says. "It has shown that there are negative, long-term effects to marijuana use. Also, I do believe that marijuana is a gateway drug. The kids who start smoking marijuana at an early age will often graduate to other, more harmful forms of drug use." That may be true, but some marijuana supporters insist that if the road to hardcore drugs is indeed paved with marijuana, the relationship between the two is indirect at best. "It's my personal opinion that the only way it's a gateway drug is that people are willing to break the law," says Gary Insuik, a Salem resident and member of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition (Mass Cann). "That's the hardest decision. But once you get used to breaking the law, you'll continue to break the law."Source: North Shore Sunday (MA)Author: Joel Beck Published: Friday, August 6, 2004Copyright: 2004 CNC and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems, Inc.Contact: jbeck cnc.comWebsite: http://www2.townonline.com/lynnfield/Related Articles & Web Site:MassCann NORMLhttp://www.masscann.org/Legalizing of Marijuana Use May Head To Ballothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19281.shtmlMassCann’s ‘Hempfest’ Attracts 50,000 http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17373.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #10 posted by FoM on August 07, 2004 at 20:50:45 PT Hope That was a good article. I almost posted it but it's a snipped source and it didn't have a title and I wasn't sure how to do it so I made it a link. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Hope on August 07, 2004 at 19:06:20 PT FoM: Jon Carroll That San Francisco Chronicle column is amazing. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Max Flowers on August 07, 2004 at 13:32:33 PT Great news: Brian Epis is about to be freed From the Berkeley Patients Group:=============================== Hello, members and friends of the Berkeley Patients Group. Today, I am writing with some really great news. We have been working hard to defend your right to medical cannabis and stop the federal government's attack on patients and caregivers. The last few years have seen slow, but steady progress towards this end.This week, we passed a major milestone in our efforts. Medical cannabis patient Brian Epis will finally be reunited with his wife and daughter after serving more than two years in federal prison for growing medicine. Brian was initially sentenced to 10 years in California's first federal medical cannabis trial in Sacramento. This week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered him released on bail pending reconsideration of his case. The order came in the wake of the recent US Supreme Court decision to hear a major challenge to the federal government's jurisdiction over medical cannabis in California (Raich/Monson vs.. US, 2004). Legal observers are optimistic that Brian will be freed from custody in light of the Supreme Court decision and his highly disproportionate sentence. This case may signal a major turning point in the campaign to secure medical cannabis rights at the federal level. If federal prosecutors can not get convictions or long sentences, they may opt not to prosecute medical cannabis cases. This would make enforcement of federal cannabis laws ineffective. That means the beginning of the end for the federal prohibition of medical cannabis!I know we are all looking forward to the time when we can grow our medicine and use it with out fear of arrest or harassment. We are a little closer to that goal. Every day, our friends at Americans for Safe Access (ASA) are working to make this a reality. They have been working with Brian's family and leading the media campaign to free Brian since he was arrested in 2001. This is no time to let up. We must take advantage of the momentum right now and push forward with the ASA campaign for medical cannabis. I know many of you have already given your time and money to ASA. I hope you will consider making a special effort to help them right now. Please visit www.SafeAccessNow.org to find out what ASA is up to and how you can help. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Virgil on August 07, 2004 at 10:26:31 PT Canabian Day II Aug 21 is Cannabian Day. There is a request to put up banners to promote the Toronto-Hamilton-Niagara Falls event. Any mention of their website- www.canabianday.ca - or the event will help the cause.It is still my belief that there are no laws against possession or cultivation in Canada. Speakers have plenty to be upset about concerning the 100,000 convictions during the era of freedom between August 1, 2001 and October 7, 2003. Don't you think people should be upset over a conviction for something that is not illegal should upset people. Don't you think people should be upset that the secret was kept out of all media until May, 2003. Did they wipe the records of these people off yet. No. The lawyers want to exploit the situation with onesies and twosies when the government out to clear up the mess of their corruption/incompetence. A lot of truth could get told at Cannabian Day. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by The GCW on August 07, 2004 at 08:55:28 PT Good One, mayan! Aspartame, anti-depressants and Bush...NO 420 for bushes.We need a bigger toilet for that loaf.God must hate Bush and their filty ilk.God has gotta hate bush. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Virgil on August 07, 2004 at 06:55:12 PT Plain stupidity the most conservative legislators to rethink their argument. The conservative position is completely against the federal drug war. It is not in doubt. It is not controversial. The conservative opinion as reflected again on the newstands on July 12 with the National Review is completely and utterly against the drug war. The Cato Institute not only is against the War For Prohibition, they question its constitutionality. Someone should answer their question, and say flat out that the drug war is unconstitutional as it steps all over the Bill of Rights and abuses the limits of the commerce clause while employing tyranny and media disinformation, distraction, and silence to rob people of their unalienable rights. The guy does not even know the basics. What a dope. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on August 07, 2004 at 05:19:12 PT: Always the money angle It never ceases to amaze me; talk about the damage done to society by cannabis prohiubition, and pols blithely wave it off dismissively with a "Yeah, yeah, right" attitude. But start talking money? The pols eyes light up and the dollar signs can be seen glowing through their corneas:*Though he says he still sees marijuana as a dangerous gateway drug, Hill says pot activists like Georgetown lawyer Steve Epstein raise some valid points about the economic impact decriminalizing marijuana could potentially have. That issue, he says, is the one that could eventually persuade even the most conservative legislators to rethink their argument. "Court-wise, time-wise and money-wise, it's a lot of money to spend for one person who makes a mistake," says Hill. "I am certainly always open to discussion."*People rotting in jail, being raped and infected with HIV and HepC and dying in droves? Not worth their time. But talk about saving a few million or billion? They're all ears. Disgusting. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by mayan on August 07, 2004 at 04:34:40 PT Good One, FoM! The war on "drugs" is truly insane.Here's some more on our wacked prez and what just might be wackin' him...Aspartame, anti-depressants and Bush http://onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080604Mazza/080604mazza.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on August 06, 2004 at 22:13:50 PT News Article from The San Francisco Chronicle Jon Carroll Friday, August 6, 2004 Sometimes, when my tiny head is spinning with disinfotainment and other artifacts of the mediasphere, I try to think what archaeologists and social historians 2,000 years from now might make of our particular little epoch. How, for instance, would they parse the word "drug"? Is a "drug dealer" a pharmacist or a petty criminal? When we talk about "reasonably priced drugs for seniors," are we discussing marijuana or Lipitor? What would they make of the fact that the last four administrations have declared a "war on drugs" while taking money from drug companies? Why is it bad when residents of Colombia build mansions from profits on the sale of drugs, but it's good when residents of Newport, R.I., do the same thing? Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/06/DDGIJ7OAF91.DTL [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by mayan on August 06, 2004 at 17:08:20 PT "Bought & Sold" "Politicians keep thinking that (supporting marijuana reform) is going to hurt them and we keep showing them that there's no way it's going to hurt them," Epstein adds. "But we continue to be optimistic that eventually the politicians will wake up. We feel we're much closer."The politicians know very well that supporting cannabis-law reform won't hurt them. It's just a matter of these "bought & sold" politicians representing the special-interests that profit from the prohibition of cannabis. Freeing the weed is no longer the dreaded "third-rail" for politicians. Maintaining the status-quo of cannabis prohibition is.The way out is the way in...Whistleblower explodes 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=381&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0The Sort of Patriot Act - Like Surveillance We Would Like to See: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/87149/11 Miracles and Wonders: http://www.nypress.com/17/30/news&columns/AlanCabal.cfmForeknowledge of 9/11: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.htmlWas 9/11 Allowed to Happen? http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg [ Post Comment ] Post Comment