cannabisnews.com: Clarke Urged Not To Reclassify Cannabis





Clarke Urged Not To Reclassify Cannabis
Posted by CN Staff on January 05, 2006 at 10:12:46 PT
By Times Online and Rosemary Bennett of The Times
Source: Times Online UK
United Kingdom -- Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, was urged today not to restore cannabis to Class B status after he criticised the decision by his predecessor, David Blunkett, to downgrade the drug.In an interview with The Times, Mr Clarke said he was "very worried" about recent evidence suggesting a strong link between cannabis and mental illness. His remarks come just weeks before he must decide whether nor not to execute an embarrassing about-turn and reclassify the drug.
The Home Secretary has been studying a report by a special advisory group he set up to assess the latest medical evidence. Leaks of the report suggest that the committee says use of the drug is clearly linked to mental illness, but stops short of recommending reclassification. Mr Clarke said there was an alarming lack of knowledge about the health dangers posed by cannabis among the general public. He also admitted that many people had been left confused by the law change. Reacting to the Times interview, one of the advisory council members, Martin Barnes, today indicated his opposition to reversing the reclassification. He acknowledged that the evidence of the dangers of cannabis had "moved on" but he said Mr Blunkettís move had lowered use of the drug. "There has been some more recent research that does indicate that cannabis may cause mental health problems, whereas in the past it was accepted that it could potentially worsen existing mental health problems," he told BBC Radio 4ís The World at One programme: "Since cannabis was reclassified there has been much more debate about the harms and actually some indication that the use of cannabis has started to decline. So on that basis I think it would be quite difficult to sort of explain why we have to move it back to B."He was backed up by Dame Ruth Runciman, who chaired the Police Foundation report which first recommended the downgrading of cannabis. She said evidence suggested there had not been a significant increase in the use of the drug.Dame Ruth said the downgrading was a sensible move but had been "very badly handled" creating a huge degree of public misunderstanding. "To re-reclassify is as ill-judged as it can be in my view," she said. "I think it will add greatly to the confusion."The decision to downgrade cannabis to a Class C drug was widely reported but led to a perception that cannabis was no longer an illegal drug. The move was designed to allow police to focus on more serious substances.Asked specifically if the confusion was a result of Mr Blunkettís decision to downgrade the drug, Mr Clarke said: "Yes. People do not understand the impact of the consumption of cannabis well enough, and what the legal consequences of consuming cannabis are." Over Christmas Mr Clarke read the report from a special advisory group he set up to assess the latest medical evidence, and will discuss its findings with colleagues this week before making a final decision. Mr Clarke refused to confirm the reportís central thrust, but said he had already accepted a secondary recommendation, that ministers had to clear up the confusion in the publicís mind about the drug. "The thing that worries me most (about the downgrading of cannabis) is confusion among the punters about what the legal status of cannabis is." "Whatever happens after this, let me reveal one recommendation of the advisory committee, which they make very, very strongly, which is a renewed commitment to public education about the potential affects of the consumption of cannabis, and the legal status of cannabis. That is well made, and I will accept it."  The drug was downgraded in in the hope that it would allow the police to focus on more serious drug abuse. Mr Clarke said it was significant how many advocates of the change had had second thoughts. "Iím very struck by the advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the reclassification of cannabis that they were wrong," he said. "I am also very worried about the most recent medical evidence on mental health. This is a very serious issue." Asked if the downgrading of the drug had served any useful purpose, Mr Clarke paused before responding: "I think it gives it a steer to the citizen on more serious drug consumption." Although an about-turn would be embarrassing, it may cause Labour fewer problems in the long run. Mr Clarke will champion curbs on antisocial behaviour this year, which strategists say is undermined by a soft approach to cannabis. Source: Times Online (UK)Author: Rosemary Bennett of The TimesPublished: January 05, 2006Copyright: 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.Contact: debate thetimes.co.uk Website: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/Related Articles:Three Jailed Every Week for Using Cannabishttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21432.shtmlCannabis Possession Limit To Be 500 Jointshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21344.shtmlBiggest Shake-Up of Britains Laws in 30 Yearshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18261.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #26 posted by FoM on January 06, 2006 at 09:25:14 PT
Yes Sir Kaptinemo
You are so right about this. You said: And that terribly threatens the larger culture deeply, for it stands as a rebuke against it, if only for one reason: most of those who comprise our culture are *happier* than those who subscribe to the greater culture's value system. They know that their happiness is not dependent upon having the latest (sing-song from the commercial) "zoom! zoom! zoom!" sports car, biggest McMansion, fattest bank account, etc. Their happiness lies in family and friends, work that is both socially responsible as well as personally challenging and rewarding...and a chance to slow down and enjoy life. Which cannabis affords.I say:Many years ago we almost lost our farm. I was very sad because of all the years of work we put into it. My husband had been seriously injured when he was hit by a runaway truck and we didn't have any income for many months. One day I went for a long walk deep in the woods all alone and started talking to God. I accepted the fact that we might lose the farm and it was ok. Money is necessary to have necessities. Money is important so we have food to eat and a place to lay our head and keep protected from the elements but more then necessities aren't really important to me. I am not interested in the cars they push on tv or fancy clothes. It means nothing to me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Toker00 on January 06, 2006 at 09:13:41 PT
Cannabis Culture.
Kapt,that was fun. I used to sing and play guitar when I was younger. I just sang that whole song sitting here at the keyboard. That is one of the old staples of our music culture. Thanks.A culture that bases it's roots in Nature will always be Wise and Green. The vacuum of space and the other planets will not support our earthly bodies. Why do we reach up? The volitile innards of the earth will not support our earthly bodies. Why do we reach down? What grows from the earth and what falls to earth reaches a perfect balance. We just need to reach out. That's where everything is. That happy medium. Nature.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Had Enough on January 06, 2006 at 05:58:54 PT
Kaptinemo & Sunshine
Outstanding. And that tune you used has never escaped my thoughts since I first heard it years ago. Perfect summarization. Well done.I would and still do, watch others while this song would be infiltrating the spaces around us. Some get it, some don't.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by kaptinemo on January 06, 2006 at 05:16:13 PT:
'Culture'
Having read the musings of Rev. Jim, Lombar, Mayan and other worthies, I am reminded of something: we are a culture.I've said this before, but it is worth saying *ad infinitum*. I've broken bread (and toked some fine weed) with Rastas and Orthodox Jews, honest and fervent Atheists and equally honest and fervent Believers. I've traveled a fair ways, and met folk from other lands in places like Vancouver and Amsterdam, and I can tell you, yes, we have a culture. We may not have a common language, but we have a culture. An international culture that shares certain characteristics...and one of those characteristics is a lack of interest in consumerism. It just isn't there.And that terribly threatens the larger culture deeply, for it stands as a rebuke against it, if only for one reason: most of those who comprise our culture are *happier* than those who subscribe to the greater culture's value system. They know that their happiness is not dependent upon having the latest (sing-song from the commercial) "zoom! zoom! zoom!" sports car, biggest McMansion, fattest bank account, etc. Their happiness lies in family and friends, work that is both socially responsible as well as personally challenging and rewarding...and a chance to slow down and enjoy life. Which cannabis affords.But the very act of slowing down is also threatening to the larger culture, as it means you can't be stampeded. You have time to think. To question. Especially question. Those that run things right now are a perfect example of why it's important to question authority...as they've shown beyond doubt they don't deserve that authority. And the only way they can maintain the power they have is to keep you on the treadmill and crank up the pace. Slow down, stop, and the world returns to the proper perspective, you get your bearings...and you see who's running the treadmill.There's a favorite old song that I think of whenever this issue comes up: Sunshine
by Jonathan EdwardsSunshine go away today,
I don't feel much like dancin'
Some man's gone, he's tried to run my life
Don't know what he's askin'He tells me I'd better get in line
Can't hear what he's sayin'
When I grow up, I'm gonna make it mine
These ain't dues I been payin'How much does it cost? I'll buy it.
The time is all we've lost. I'll try it.
He can't even run his own life,
I'll be damned if he'll run mine
SunshineSunshine go away today,
I don't feel much like dancin'
Some man's gone, he's tried to run my life
Don't know what he's askin'Working starts to make me wonder where
fruits of what I do are going
He says in love and war all is fair
He's got cards he ain't showin'How much does it cost? I'll buy it.
The time is all we've lost. I'll try it.
He can't even run his own life,
I'll be damned if he'll run mine
SunshineSunshine come on back another day
I promise you I'll be singin'
This old world she's gonna turn around
brand new bells'll be ringin'That's it, right there. To use a popular film as an analogy, the act of using cannabis is tantamount to swallowing the 'red pill'. It makes you realize there's something beyond the corp-rat-ly controlled "Matrix" of consumerism. And as any fan of the "Matrix" series can tell you, the "Machines" don't like that at all...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by whig on January 05, 2006 at 23:51:28 PT
lombar
"Having a 'household' life really interferes with attaining the concentration necessary to acheive full insight."That may as well be, but one may have insight first, and then do the dishes anyhow.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by lombar on January 05, 2006 at 23:33:53 PT
Jim
"Being concious doesn't mean you can't "own" things, it's more that you are aware there are no "things" to own."I was referring to the religous practice that is supposed to lead to enlightenment. It's not a matter of can or cannot in some idea of morality being equivelent to poverty, it is about our attachment to things.From the Dhammapada: 345-346. That is not a strong fetter, the wise say, which is made of iron, wood or hemp. But the infatuation and longing for jewels and ornaments, children and wives ó that, they say, is a far stronger fetter, which pulls one downward and, though seemingly loose, is hard to remove. This, too, the wise cut off. Giving up sensual pleasure, and without any longing, they renounce the world.353. A victor am I over all, all have I known. Yet unattached am I to all that is conquered and known. Abandoning all, I am freed through the destruction of craving. Having thus directly comprehended all by myself, whom shall I call my teacher? The longing for 'jewels and ornaments' (dvd players,cars,diamonds,gold..power) is the tie that binds many to materiality. I recognize these things in myself.. It is only by 'letting go' of these things that we can acheive higher states of consciousness. Our society is composed of 'lardasses' as you say because we are so gluttonous in our consumption. I am just as guilty as the next North American...(well I don't drive...)The trouble comes in when these 'practices' become mixed up with law, like prohibition being some defense against what is perceived as 'immorality'. Thus the coercion to correct the 'improper' behavior becomes worse than the behavior. How can a so-called tolerant society point guns at gardeners, aids patients, and burners of plant matter, who are not doing harm to anyone? Anyone who has real compassion in their hearts(whatever their religion) cannot justify years of time in a gulag(or worse) for a plant for anyone when we spew SO MUCH poison, literally and figuatively, into the environment... and (my favorite) while governments profit DIRECTLY from the sale of tobacco and alcohol...proven killers. Saying everything changes is a simplification of the realizations brought about by analytical meditation. One considers everything in terms of what they call the 'three marks of existence', impermanence(anicca), suffering/stress, and not-self (anataman). Once one realizes this it is called realizing 'emptiness', or the lack of inherent self-existence of anything. That all things are interconnected and One. The sensory data constantly entering our awareness is constantly changing and the 'changing' is a cause of stress, our 5 senses plus the mind in constant flux with no fixed 'I", only an ongoing process. Having a 'household' life really interferes with attaining the concentration necessary to acheive full insight.
Tanhavagga-Craving
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by whig on January 05, 2006 at 22:51:57 PT
Wego
In the end, I think we are just one divided consciousness which is integrating, and cannabis is part of what helps us to do the work, while greed and selfishness are that which resists.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Jim Lunsford on January 05, 2006 at 19:37:25 PT
Celibacy and Oneness
For the Zen Buddhists (I believe this is correct anyway), they are not at the temples their entire lives. Instead, after some number of years (I want to say 20, but I wouldn't bet on it), they leave and finish their lives married or not, but into the world. Being concious doesn't mean you can't "own" things, it's more that you are aware there are no "things" to own. Simply enjoy each moment for what it is. First Nirvana, the washing the dishes. I believe that 2006 is going to be an even greater freakshow than 2005. I feel so priviledged to live in such exciting times. I feel a whole new world of possibilities are available. Part of this feeling came when I watched the future history show at the epic2014museum site. I realized after watching it, that if such a technological world was concievable, then it was indeed a possibility. And one that I hadn't really given much thought towards. I then started wondering how many other futures could be borne from all this change. And by change, I mean the result of instant global information by that now famous word: Internet. We have access to so much information that we can scarcely see the revolution happening around us. A more informed marketplace will direct our society. That is, if it is active in it's own self-interest. Perhaps people will become uncomfortable enough with the system to begin demanding change. Aren't they doing it now? The vote in Denver did it. People from all around the world took note. And many more people started to look into weed a bit more. Maybe not enough to really get the ball rolling, but a few more converts were made. A few more people began to feel that this prohibition will be over someday.Why hasn't it? There seems to be a popular misconception that this movement lacks a leader. I used to believe it myself. Now I wonder though, who would this leader lead? One of my favorite areas to study in college was the conquest of Russia by the Mongols under the leadership of Subotei (the father of modern tank warfare). His army was a group of the finest and toughest soldiers in history. They lived their training. But, once they got in charge, they became big fat slobs and lost everything eventually. But, the Gutenburg Press did come to Europe from China on the trade route the Mongols established. So, it all seemed to work out pretty good all around.Hey, we're a nation of lard asses. We've been conditioned from day one to believe that we are "entitled" to rights. Yeah, right. We are all entitled to the right to take what is yours, but only if you have the balls (or ovaries) to do so. Remember, we get the government we deserve.Half of this country believes that Bush is okay with them for wire-tapping whomever it sees fit. They believe there is an enemy out there waiting to get them. That Bush can somehow protect them from this enemy. They live in a climate of fear. Willing to give away whatever freedoms anyone ever fought for, for someone to promise them they'll be safe. Safe from what?And what can they deliver? Well, have you heard of anything good coming out of the government concerning Katrina? How well did they protect the citizenry there? And what can you expect? Someone else to care more about you than you do yourself? Get real.Fifty percent! That is a cause for concern for me. What does that say about a country when it's citizens choose safety over freedom? Why do we allow ourselves to live in fear? What is there to fear anyway? What sort of general would lead an army that was composed of fifty percent cowards who would run away at the first rustle in the woods? A losing general, that's who.Personally, I think when an army is ready, the leader will arrive. At that point, enough people believe that it is just something to do with their time. That they are willing to do what it takes to get something done. Then, and only then, would a leader arrive. For doesn't a general have to have an army to lead? And of the generals that go to war, the ones with the hungriest armies win. Our army isn't hungry yet. At least not enough. And we're only up against the "Rambo" type idiots of the federal government. Well, coming up over the next few years we'll have about 78 million people retiring. At least the ones who can afford to anyway. That's about a third of the population. That's good news to me. That means that soon they'll die off. Hey, we've got about six billion people on the planet. That's about five and a half billion people more than it needs. Whether or not Cannabis is legal is a moot point when you have a species that has overpopulated their living grounds. We will find a way to thin out quite drastically. I hope that we don't need a forty year hike in the desert to develop the strength to take what is ours for the taking, but it will take the mindset of a population that thinks like a population that did. For me, I would just as soon live in the desert (or more accurately the mountains) than to live a "comfortable and safe" life. But, I am rather fond of the outdoors. It's as useful and easy to live in as you are capable of making it be so. At any rate, I think that the current state of legalization is the direct result of a population which isn't uncomfortable enough with the present state in order to bother changing it. Yet, many police officers are beginning to understand that the "weed smoker" isn't causing any trouble. Maybe apathy is the weapon of the cannabis movement. We just don't care enough about the law to bother changing it. In the end, it's all just opinion anyway. I figure that when people are ready, they will recognize the system is so irrelevant to their needs that it will change automatically. But legalization is only part of all the changes going on. Technology, environmentalism, education, religion, anything and everything is changing. All of it will somehow blend into a new social construct that cannot be predicted, but should be a blend of so many different ideas that it is totally unlike any future we might imagine. But, the internet is only the latest in the information technology groove. One day, if our species survives long enough, there will be something so incredible affecting our society, that it will make the internet revolution seem like the invention of the wheel. Important, but crude.But, that is if we survive long enough. In my opinion though, this life is not really that big a deal. I suspect that the ego doesn't survive death. We are all living a play and all the world's a stage as old Shakespeare once said. And we are as free as our thoughts, for one can not imprison a mind freed.Buddhists also have a saying, everything changes. Yet, only that which does not change is real. In the world of consequence, there is change. Once you go beyond the world of consequence, into the nothingness of Nirvana, there is reality. Your thoughts create your reality. And your mind will find what you think of the most, and with the most emotional content. Most people live in fear, and they get what they fear the most. It's their choice, but not one I make for my life. Whats yours?Rev Jim LunsfordFirst Cannabist ChurchThe Point? The point of most philosophies is that there is no point. One day Cannabis will rule, or it won't. Either way, it's what the people want at that time. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by whig on January 05, 2006 at 19:03:18 PT
kaptinemo
The problem of illicit drugs is that they are illicit. I know that there is a diversity of opinion here regarding so-called "hard" drugs, but they are largely a problem because the incentives to illicit distribution weigh heavily towards concentrated derivatives like crack cocaine or heroin, rather than natural coca or opium. When alcohol was illegal, whiskey of uncertain purity was more common than beer or wine.One of the more interesting recent events is the election of a coca farmer to the Bolivian presidency. I don't think South America is willing to put up with our nonsense much longer.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by FoM on January 05, 2006 at 18:20:45 PT
Related Article from The Telegraph UK
About-Turn on Cannabis 'Would Cause Confusion'***By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs EditorJanuary 6, 2006Reclassifying cannabis for the second time in under three years would cause fresh confusion, campaigners said yesterday.Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, is considering a report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on whether medical evidence linking the drug to mental disorders warrants a change of policy.Cannabis was reduced from a Class B to a Class C substance in 2003 
It is thought that the council has not recommended reclassifying cannabis, which was reduced from a Class B to a Class C substance in 2003.However, it does believe in the need for a more robust education campaign against its use, something the Government intends to follow up.Mr Clarke, who is due to announce this month whether he will reverse the decision of his predecessor David Blunkett, said the indications that cannabis use could lead to, or worsen, schizophrenia was "very concerning".He told BBC radio: "Since that decision, further medical evidence has been developed about the implications of consumption of cannabis on mental health, which is serious."He conceded that downgrading cannabis had left people confused about the potential impact of the consumption of the drug and said it was significant that many supporters of a more liberal regime had changed their minds in the light of the new medical evidence.However, drugs campaigners urged Mr Clarke to retain the current classification, on the grounds that it reflected the relative harm of the drug compared with heroin or crack cocaine.Martin Barnes, the chief executive of DrugScope, who sits on the council, said: "There are encouraging signs that, since reclassification, the level of use has fallen among young people."Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the Government should not restore more serious penalties for cannabis unless there was "strong evidence" to back such a move.Dame Ruth Runciman, who was chairman of the Police Foundation inquiry that recommended downgrading cannabis five years ago, said the reclassification had been "very badly handled" and had created much misunderstanding."To reclassify is as ill-judged as it can be in my view," she said. "It will add greatly to the confusion."Although the classification of cannabis was changed, the drug remains illegal and dealing in it can attract a prison term of 14 years. Users face up to two years in jail.pjohnston telegraph.co.ukCopyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. 
Link:  http://tinyurl.com/cu3sq
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on January 05, 2006 at 17:52:07 PT
runderwo
You're welcome. Jack's site didn't work for me either but when I checked it was back. I don't know why those things happen but they do.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by runderwo on January 05, 2006 at 17:37:28 PT
FoM
Thanks, I must have just been lucky or something.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on January 05, 2006 at 17:11:29 PT
L'affaire To Remember: What Abramoff Taught Me
I checked and we have a few articles by this person in our archives. Oops!http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3565935.htmlhttp://www.self-gov.org/bandow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on January 05, 2006 at 16:15:58 PT:
Whig, I stand corrected
But the primary point remains: to continue to take seriously the advice of the US on how to deal with the 'problem' of illicit drugs - a problem it created with its' intent of preaching it's own version of morailty to other nations (recall it was Christian missionaries in China who were the early promoters of drug prohibition treaties) after showing itself to be inexcusably inept (even as far back as the mid 19th Century we had such as Abraham Lincoln warning against prohibition; all the warnings have been borne out) is tantamount to being led about by the nose by the criminally and violently insane. Does the word 'lemmings' come to mind? It ought to. The nations of the world have seen that when it comes to 'fighting drugs' the US has proven itself to be its' own worst enemy. And the rest of the world does not possess the deep pockets of the US to continue to throw good money after bad; they are, for the most part, too busy taking care of their populace via social programs to be making war on their own people...as WE DO. They see what our approach has done to us. But because Uncle is such a bully, they're too scared or too greedy to say anything contrary. But that might be changing with Holland's debating legalized growing. That's a direct challenge to the Single Convention Treaty, and you can bet other nations are following that with quiet earnest. If the Dutch pull it off, the whole thing will unravel as other nations follow suit. And it can't happen soon enough.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by whig on January 05, 2006 at 14:05:43 PT
lombar
Most "marriages" nowadays are performed by the state, even when officiated by a priest intoning, "by the power vested in me by the state". That's not a marriage at all.Not to say that the set of married people and the set of people with marriage licenses are mutually exclusive, but there is a pretty big difference.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by lombar on January 05, 2006 at 13:59:11 PT
whig
"Frankly, I cannot see how anyone can fully understand divinity without experiencing the one-ness of marriage. I think maybe that's the point of the celibate priesthood, to keep the true church from penetrating into the walls of the cathedral. :)"It is a matter of perspective. I tend to wonder how anyone married, living the household life, can overcome their many attachments and find enlightenment, ie 'experience divinity'. As soon as you have a home, family, possessions, you must spend all your time obtaining, maintaining, and keeping that stuff. A house owner has the stress of hanging on to the house and contents, protecting it, and being attached to it.The reasons for celibacy IMO is to break our attachment to desires of physical gratification and pleasure. Christ was not so strict, he only said "let he who is able...", "some become eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" (bad paraphrase). I tend to believe that many 'churches' misinterperet scripture to gain power over people. A buddhist bhikku has to renounce the world and go off on a hermitage to meditate. It takes years for the mind to calm down and for us to overcome our many attachments. Owning nothing but an alms bowl and a few robes frees one from any other consideration/obligation other than seeking enlightnement. Besides, over 50% of marriages are not about 'oneness' as they end in divorce. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by global_warming on January 05, 2006 at 13:39:24 PT
2006 should be interesting year
5. Former military, intelligence and foreign service officers speak out against the war. Among those who have come out against the war are:- Brent Skowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and deputy to Henry Kissinger in the Nixon Administration, who described the Iraq War as a failing venture.
- General William Odom, a Retired General, Former Head of NSA Under President Reagan, wrote an article "What's Wrong with Cutting and Running?" in which he argued all we fear is more likely the longer we stay in Iraq.
- John Deutch, headed the Central Intelligence Agency from 1995 and 1996 and was deputy defense secretary 1994-1995 called for U.S. troops to immediately leave Iraq in June 2005.
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, describes President George W. Bush's foreign policy as "suicidal statecraft" in a Los Angeles Times commentary.
- Melvin Laird, the Secretary of Defense for President Richard Nixon, calls for an exit strategy from Iraq saying the Bush administration is repeating mistakes in Iraq made by Richard Nixon during the Vietnam war.
- Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and a retired Army colonel in a speech to the New America Foundation and a Los Angeles Times commentary accused Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld of leading a "cabal" that circumvented the formal policy-making and intelligence processes in order to take the country to a disastrous war in Iraq.
- Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a retired four-star general, was Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command (1991-94) and commanded the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war, described the Iraq War as "wrong from the beginning . . .Ē
- Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (ret.) has described Iraq as "the wrong war at the wrong time."
- Edward Peck, the former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Deputy Director of President Reagan's terrorist task force who served in World War II and Korea and then for 32 years as a diplomat describes the Iraq War as "unnecessary, poorly conceived and badly planned." 
Top ten anti-war news stories of 2005 and the underreported stories of the year
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on January 05, 2006 at 13:18:16 PT
runderwo
Jack's site is working for me now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on January 05, 2006 at 12:40:54 PT
runderwo
I checked and it didn't work for me either but the Emperor of Hemp does. Maybe they are having server problems.http://www.emperorofhemp.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by runderwo on January 05, 2006 at 12:35:02 PT
jack herer
What happened to Jack's site?
Jackherer.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by whig on January 05, 2006 at 12:32:01 PT
War on people
It needs to be mentioned from time to time that wars are always against people, never against things. You cannot have a "war on object" because "object" doesn't fight back, you cannot have a "war on idea" because ideas don't have substance. You can have a "war on people who have object", you can have a "war on people who have idea".Framing it correctly, there cannot be a "war on drugs" there can only be a war on people who have drugs ("object"), or want drugs ("idea"). And put in this proper perspective, it's obvious aggression.Does any parent want their child to be the target of a war? Certainly not, but because of misleading use of language, people don't perceive it properly.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by whig on January 05, 2006 at 12:19:29 PT
kaptinemo
"I'd sooner take advice from celibate priests on how to have a happy sex life than rely on 'assistance' from Uncle on how to 'fight drugs'."Technically, celibacy just means being unmarried, chastity means abstinence from sex. The Roman Catholic Church has had quite some scandals with celibate but unchaste priests.Frankly, I cannot see how anyone can fully understand divinity without experiencing the one-ness of marriage. I think maybe that's the point of the celibate priesthood, to keep the true church from penetrating into the walls of the cathedral. :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by ekim on January 05, 2006 at 12:15:19 PT
calling Dr. Russo 
how may in your studies have shown cannabis caused mental illness.In an interview with The Times, Mr Clarke said he was "very worried" about recent evidence suggesting a strong link between cannabis and mental illness. His remarks come just weeks before he must decide whether nor not to execute an embarrassing about-turn and reclassify the drug. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread21437.shtml
 London -- GW Pharmaceuticals Plc has won approval from U.S. regulators to conduct a pivotal Phase III study into its cannabis-based medicine Sativex as a treatment for cancer pain, the British drug company said on Wednesday.
GW expects to start testing the product, which is sprayed into the mouth, in U.S. patients with advanced cancer later this year. The randomised clinical trial will involve 250 people and is likely to last between 24 and 36 months, suggesting Sativex will not be ready for launch in the U.S. marketplace until towards the end of the decade.Canada became the first country in the world to approve Sativex in April 2005, for the relief of neuropathic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on January 05, 2006 at 12:10:01 PT:
And that title tells it all
In a nutshell, as succinct as you could possibly ask for. Many of these countries had culturally normalized their experience with their respective drugs for *millennia*...until the upstart USA decides it absolutely MUST 'teach Grandma how to suck eggs' as they used to say when I was little. Now look at the mess they are in. Colombia. Bolivia. Nepal. Burma. Thailand. On and on and on...places where Uncle has meddled and made things worse. I'd sooner take advice from celibate priests on how to have a happy sex life than rely on 'assistance' from Uncle on how to 'fight drugs'.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by runderwo on January 05, 2006 at 11:41:44 PT
right.
In what way is using cannabis an "antisocial behavior"? Please.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by ekim on January 05, 2006 at 10:18:08 PT
You Had it So Good Until You Tried to Be Like Us 
Ethan Nadelmann Speaking Engagement: The War on Drugs 101 http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm
Jan 21, 2006 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM 
 
Location: St. Paul's Cathedral, 2728 6th Avenue, San Diego, CA 
Contact: For more information, contact Margaret Dooley at (858) 336-3685. 
 
What is the war on drugs? Who wages it? Who is the enemy? Who are the casualties? Is drug use a moral issue? What is our obligation to users and abusers of drugs? Join Alliance executive director Ethan Nadelmann and community leaders in San Diego to explore these questions in "The War on Drugs: 101.". And bring along a friend or family member - this is a great opportunity to introduce someone close to you to drug policy issues! 
 January 27, 2006
London, England 
 Ethan Nadelmann Speaking Engagement: You Had it So Good Until You Tried to Be Like Us Ethan Nadelmann, Alliance executive director, will be a featured speaker at Release's high profile Drugs University V conference "Criminal Justice and the Future of Drug Treatment in the UK." Ethan will compare US and UK drug policies, focusing on the failure of the US model.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment