cannabisnews.com: Pot Ideas Will Test Acceptance 










  Pot Ideas Will Test Acceptance 

Posted by CN Staff on October 22, 2007 at 05:48:32 PT
By Andy Dworkin, Oregonian Staff 
Source: Oregonian 

Eugene, OR -- Oregonians, prepare for reefer referendum madness. Starting today, signature gatherers will ask Portland residents to put a law on next year's ballot decriminalizing possession of as much as an ounce of marijuana. It's a weird request, as possessing that much pot is already decriminalized statewide. Oregon was the first state to decriminalize a little dope, way back in 1973. Having a little marijuana is now a civil violation, like speeding, punishable by a $500 to $1,000 fine.
Other Oregon pot fanciers want to move way beyond removing penalties. They're aiming for a 2010 ballot measure to legally sell marijuana through Oregon liquor stores, taxing the sales for state revenue -- a law that, if passed, guarantees a war with the federal government. NORML, the main U.S. group backing marijuana legalization, identifies Oregon, Nevada and Vermont as the three states where its legal pot dream seems most possible. "We just had a conference in D.C., and there were so many people from Oregon declaring their intent for this initiative, that initiative, medical marijuana," NORML spokesman Allen St. Pierre said. "I'm not really sure what's going on up there." What seems to be happening is a union of two of this pioneering state's great loves: ballot initiatives and dope smoking. Our ballots have carried more initiatives than any other state: 341 through last year, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute. And more than 1 in 8 Oregonians uses marijuana yearly, the federal government estimates, well above the 10.5 percent national average. Oregon ranks fifth in yearly marijuana use, third in use by adults older than 25. We also have one of the highest rates of people trying pot for the first time and lowest rates of residents who call monthly pot smoking very risky, the federal figures show. "You just draw a line from Seattle to all the way just south of Los Angeles, and 50 miles inland," St. Pierre said. "That is the most tolerant place in the United States for marijuana, bar none." Not that we'll vote for just any pot proposal. Oregonians have a mixed marijuana record. After the state Legislature voted to recriminalize possession in 1997, petitioners sent that law to a vote in 1998, the same election where Oregon's medical marijuana law passed. Voters decided 2-to-1 that low-level possession should remain a civil penalty, like a traffic ticket. But an initiative to make marijuana enforcement the lowest police priority, versions of which passed in Seattle and Denver, failed to get enough signatures to make it onto Portland's 2006 ballot. Parker Bell, the man behind the newest Portland pot effort, worked on that failed campaign and Denver's vote. His new initiative differs, he said, because it doesn't tell police what their priority should be -- though it does ban Portland police from helping state or federal authorities investigate or arrest anyone for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. But Bell said the main thrust of his law is to erase fines or any other penalties for a bit of pot. "We're no more criminals than the people who take a couple of shots of Jameson at the end of the night," said Bell, who must gather 27,255 legitimate signatures by July 7 to make November 2008's ballot. The language of Bell's ordinance doesn't seem to match his intent, however. It says adults "shall be excepted from the criminal laws" for low-level possession, ignoring that criminal laws don't cover that. The ordinance doesn't erase the fines or civil penalties. It might make a few changes, though, according to Portland lawyer Leland Berger, who helped draft the medical marijuana law. It would change the way police weigh marijuana (seeds and stems would no longer count toward the 1-ounce limit) and make police who confiscate bigger stashes leave an ounce for the owner. The text also seems to invalidate a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to possess less than an ounce of pot within 1,000 feet of a school, Berger said. And it might bar Portland police from helping arrest people dealing small amounts of pot, Berger said. Bell said that's not intended, but the language is unclear on that point. Barring Portland police from working with state and federal authorities could be a problem because local police get federal money to work on state and federal drug task forces, Portland Police Bureau spokesman Sgt. Brian Schmautz said. Otherwise, Bell's law would have little practical impact, he said: Police don't seek people possessing small amounts of marijuana. They write those citations only if they find a little pot while investigating another issue. Portland police cite fewer than 1,000 people a year for holding less than an ounce of pot. The legalization drive would have much bigger effects, said Madeline Martinez, executive director of Oregon NORML. It would let farmers grow hemp for fun and fiber. Adults 21 and older could buy pot in Oregon liquor stores. And the state could tax that pot, making many millions of dollars, she said -- though she doesn't have estimates yet. The law also "sets us up for the federal battle" that would inevitably follow a state legalizing marijuana, said Martinez, a retired California prison guard who takes medical marijuana for chronic pain. Martinez needs almost 83,000 signatures to get on the state ballot. She says that's possible. "When we get ready to start gathering the signatures, I really do believe the people will be ready for this," she said. "Americans' roots are hemp roots, and I think we should go back to those roots." Note: Drugs - Signature gatherers want to change marijuana laws in Oregon, which has a high rate of users.Source: Oregonian, The (Portland, OR)Author: Andy Dworkin, Oregonian StaffPublished: October 22, 2007Copyright: 2007 The OregonianContact: letters news.oregonian.comWebsite: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/Related Articles & Web Site:Oregon NORMLhttp://www.ornorml.org/Medical Marijuana Is On The Oregonian Hit Listhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23426.shtmlA Few People Get Uncle Sam's Weed http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23425.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #58 posted by whig on October 25, 2007 at 20:47:31 PT
FoM
I don't think MBC is in California, one of her major problems has been getting medicine.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by FoM on October 25, 2007 at 16:04:50 PT
greenmed 
I just got home and saw your post. I thought that too but MBC is in California I think and Robin was in Montana.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by greenmed on October 25, 2007 at 09:40:26 PT
Hope, FoM --- and MBC
The thought that MBC might have been Robin makes me sick, too. MBC might be visiting family and be unable to access the www is the thought I hold to. The alternative, well...MBC - please respond as soon as you're able! We miss you and care about you!
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #55 posted by FoM on October 25, 2007 at 08:31:57 PT

Hope
Maybe we will convert to the Euro if our dollar keeps sliding. I have no idea if that is a good or bad idea though. Since we got rid of the gold standard, and I don't know when that happened, it has allowed this to happen. There is no way to go back to the gold standard I have read because our system where it is now would collapse. We should have never let it happen but it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle I've read.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #54 posted by Hope on October 25, 2007 at 07:45:09 PT

FoM, Comments 43 and 44
44: FoM, you said, "Money spent doesn't seem to register with me very well because if they need more they will print more I think. It would only take a few days to use up that amount compared to the cost of the war."That's just the point of what Dar said over at USA Today. "Take this subsidy. That is effectively $1.4B ripped out of the hands of American households. People are doing without. They have to make choices without that. They optimize and scrimp, but in the end have to make choices they would not have made otherwise. Maybe a particular family will put off buying tires. In the end, this $1.4B will cost almost 300 lives. If the government went out and got 300 people randomly and put them into a machine to convert them to money that is sent out of the country, the headlines would cry with outrage, but as it is, $1.4B, ho hum." You got the "Ho hum" reaction. Most people do. But like the proverbial "Goose that lays the golden eggs"...which is what taxpayers are to them... it takes something out of us. The geese should at least squawk at them about their increasingly higher demands on us. "In the end, this $1.4B will cost almost 300 lives." That's what Dar was trying to get across. "Take this subsidy. That is effectively $1.4B ripped out of the hands of American households. People are doing without. They have to make choices without that. They optimize and scrimp, but in the end have to make choices they would not have made otherwise. Maybe a particular family will put off buying tires." Sending that money out and wasting money like they do is costing Americans, some of them dearly. The money is coming from our households, our lives and that lack of having that money, to spend on things our families may really need, shouldn't be being dropped down a well of corruption, which it is. The government taking that much money and sending it out of the country on spending binges, is significant and serious, for some families more than others.Comment 43. I do hope MBC answers your e-mail, or posts soon. The longer she takes the more I am worried that MBC might have, in fact, been Robin. That just makes me sick.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #53 posted by FoM on October 25, 2007 at 06:28:07 PT

Medical Marijuana Far from High Profile
Snipped Source:October 25, 2007http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-9/119331649443720.xml
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #52 posted by FoM on October 23, 2007 at 17:38:34 PT

Whig
I agree with comment 47.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #51 posted by FoM on October 23, 2007 at 17:24:08 PT

 Taylor121 
I know that it devalues the dollar but that is what they do. It's like a credit card with no limit.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #50 posted by whig on October 23, 2007 at 16:40:37 PT

Piles of cash
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1734939,00.html
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #49 posted by whig on October 23, 2007 at 16:39:32 PT

Devaluation
Printing money only devalues the dollar if the printed bills aren't taken out of circulation as quickly as they enter. Right now we're sending piles of money (literally, piles of bills) to Iraq for bribes and other purposes. It's ridiculous.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #48 posted by whig on October 23, 2007 at 16:37:35 PT

Taylor121
"I also don't see my advocacy of legalizing marijuana as an endorsement to go out and smoke cannabis. I think the issue is the law doing more harm than good, not about pot being something every person should start doing."That's where I think we have a difference of opinion. My advocacy of cannabis is precisely that it is a better choice than alcohol, tobacco or hard drugs and it should be something more adults use in preference to those more dangerous drugs.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #47 posted by whig on October 23, 2007 at 16:36:00 PT

FoM
I agree that people who want to legalize heroin should stop talking about cannabis while doing so. We don't need to lump them together. They are totally different things. I'm not in favor of legalizing heroin at this time.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #46 posted by Taylor121 on October 23, 2007 at 16:30:05 PT

Printing money
"Money spent doesn't seem to register with me very well because if they need more they will print more I think."Printing more money devalues the dollar . In other words, the more money you print, the less one of those dollar bills is worth. Printing too much money will hurt the economy (devaluing everyone's savings) which is why we have to be really careful with spending. The war on marijuana costs a fortune.Maybe you weren't talking about this. I think I may be confused?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #45 posted by Taylor121 on October 23, 2007 at 16:25:35 PT

Yes, I do understand
Hope pretty much covered what I wanted to say. I just wanted to emphasize that I don't use nor do I advocate harder drug use. That's not what reform is about.I also don't see my advocacy of legalizing marijuana as an endorsement to go out and smoke cannabis. I think the issue is the law doing more harm than good, not about pot being something every person should start doing. With that said, I only brought up harder drugs because others seemed to have a problem with mentioning them in the context of marijuana and I just wanted to defend that position.This site should always remain focused on cannabis only issues, and once again a thank you to FoM and others who are taking action to reform these laws by donating money and time to reform efforts.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #44 posted by FoM on October 23, 2007 at 12:44:39 PT

Hope
Money spent doesn't seem to register with me very well because if they need more they will print more I think. It would only take a few days to use up that amount compared to the cost of  the war. I heard it was around 300 million a day or close to that.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #43 posted by FoM on October 23, 2007 at 12:38:50 PT

Just a Note
It took me a while but I did locate an e-mail for MBC and sent her a short note. Hopefully she will post or e-mail me back.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #42 posted by Hope on October 23, 2007 at 10:39:54 PT

This USA Today article was posted
on this or another thread yesterday.It's about the $1.4 Billion dollars to be sent to Mexico for the Drug War.In the comments, after the article, I thought the commenter Dar made a very good point.http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-10-22-mexico_N.htmDar said, "Drugs kill. Drug wars kill. Take this subsidy. That is effectively $1.4B ripped out of the hands of American households. People are doing without. They have to make choices without that. They optimize and scrimp, but in the end have to make choices they would not have made otherwise. Maybe a particular family will put off buying tires. In the end, this $1.4B will cost almost 300 lives. If the government went out and got 300 people randomly and put them into a machine to convert them to money that is sent out of the country, the headlines would cry with outrage, but as it is, $1.4B, ho hum.(That is just the cost of the funding. Whether the drug war saves lives or costs lives in itself is another issue. Whether it makes sense for Washington to be in Mexico is another issue. Whether this funding is even Constitutional is not addressed either. This simply looks at the real cost of funding: lives.)"
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #41 posted by FoM on October 23, 2007 at 10:39:27 PT

Just Another Comment
Sam allowing different organizations to specialize seems fine to me and that wouldn't railroad cannabis reform. What I see is articles sometimes that mention marijuana in the title and then when you get into the article drug legalization is mentioned. I would rather drug legalizers just forget even mentioning marijuana and concentrate on the drugs they are interested in and let us get on with cannabis law reform. I'll stay out of drug issues if they only would stay out of cannabis issues. It would help so much and not set us up to go backwards.PS: Years ago when I talked with Joyce in e-mail she didn't at first want to believe me that I wasn't a drug legalizer but I told her I am not interested in that at all. I think she believed me then.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #40 posted by Hope on October 23, 2007 at 10:27:51 PT

Cannabis legalization and consequences...
I sincerely believe that when different strains of and high quality cannabis is legal and available that hard drug use will decrease dramatically.Some strains of cannabis are magnificent stimulants...that don't hurt you...and many people who feel they need a stimulant will be happy to switch to a good sativa for their stimulant. Many "downer" people will be more than happy to switch to good and available indica if they need it instead of something that could kill them. The legalization of cannabis will, indeed, be the dawn to a much more civilized and safe world than what we have now. I have no doubt about that. The only hitch could be if the government regulates it to death and say's you can't have a high quality or strong cannabis. That would not help hard drug users switch. Godspeed the day that we can see all this good happen because of cannabis legalization.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #39 posted by Sam Adams on October 23, 2007 at 10:15:39 PT

all illegal drugs
It's OK for Nadelman's group talk about legalizing hard drugs; MPP exists solely to focus on cannabis. They have different missions, it seems like a good setup to cover all the bases.I pretty much agree that it's important to push to reform cannabis reform by itself. The case is so much stronger for cannabis. There are many, many more users of cannabis than the other illegal drugs. I believe there are only 2 million people addicted to hard drugs, while there are scores of millions of regular cannabis users.I'd like to point out that before the 1920s, there was no concept of illegal drugs, it was a totally foreign idea, everything was totally unregulated.And, at that time, there was absolutely zero violence caused by anything to do with illegal drugs. Federal taxes were virtually nothing, around 1 or 2%. Many church and other philanthropic organizations did rehab work for "addicts" of drugs and alcohol seeking help.  I say "addicts" with quotation marks, because at that time the medical concept of addiction didn't even exist. Sigmund Freud was injecting cocaine every morning! Most major league baseball players were using cocaine.Most importantly, the percentage of the population addicted to hard drugs was exactly the same as is now, with all our murders and violence, foreign wars and meddling, and sky-high taxes.Look at the way our federal government has introduced violence and anarchy into Iraq and Afganistan, with Turkey and Iran in the on-deck circle to be destabilized. Now peaceful people in those countries are being murdered and killed, while we have an additional $300 billion per year in defense spending.The WOD at home is almost the exact same thing. Massive increase in law enforcement and prisons, and the total ruin of many neighborhoods by violence.It's all a big boondoggle folks. It's all the same, the conquest of the taxpayer by the government. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #38 posted by Hope on October 23, 2007 at 09:50:17 PT

"...very violent and hateful people".
And even though most of them send out others to do their violence, they are still the perpetrators and they are still violent people...whether they do the actual violence with their own hand or not. It's in their hearts and they are the instigators. They are responsible for unleashing the violence.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #37 posted by Hope on October 23, 2007 at 09:46:50 PT

Me, too! Only, it's mentioning the other.
"One thing that I have always felt is that if I disagree with people who believe in total drug legalization I'll get jumped on...." In this place, C-News, we have enough respect for each other that we know how to disagree without attacking.I knew this was going to be hard, dealing with prohibitionists, when I started and it is. But I really had no idea that they, as supposedly thinking human beings, could make themselves as impervious to reason as they have. It's "all or nothing" for them and there is no reasoning at all, as far as they are concerned. They do literally JUMP on you if you disagree with them and try to even stop you from thinking, much less speaking your ideas. Prohibitionists' sense of entitlement, authoritarianism, arrogance, and self-righteousness is truly astounding, and their sense of morality is warped because of it. Prohibitionists are very violent and hateful people. They are even able to delude themselves into thinking they aren't. They are like dangerous children, spoiled brats, because of their undeveloped sense of reasoning, who have no respect for others and their opinions and understanding. As far as I'm concerned, they can feel that way all they want in governing their own lives. That's fine with me if that's the way they want to treat themselves and, sadly, their families. Prohibitionists can beat themselves and their "loved ones" with their "big stick" all day long if they want to...but damn it... they have to stop swinging that "stick", their punitive and draconian laws, at everyone else. That stick swinging and beating other people into submission to their whims is wrong and has, most assuredly, got to be stopped.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #36 posted by ekim on October 23, 2007 at 09:22:52 PT

Dutch "coffee shop
over at Richards site is news of Dutch tour
http://www.marijuananews.com
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #35 posted by FoM on October 23, 2007 at 08:51:52 PT

Hope and Afterburner
Thank you. One thing that I have always felt is that if I disagree with people who believe in total drug legalization I'll get jumped on so I avoid as best as I can even talking about it. I hate being yelled out and my nature is to withdraw from the whole issue. Afterburner thank you for your comment. It makes perfect sense to me.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #34 posted by Hope on October 23, 2007 at 08:28:06 PT

Tim
I so understand where your strength comes from on this issue, FoM. And I understand why you don't want a bit of it wasted on lack of focus. It's going to be accomplished, for Tim's sake, Robin's sake, and the sakes of many others. I pray that we, you especially, live to see that goal accomplished.I keep Tim's picture in my pictures. I can easily imagine his spirit smiling on your great efforts.Focus on.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #33 posted by Hope on October 23, 2007 at 08:22:51 PT

FoM
I do understand why and what you are doing. I think Taylor does, too. This conversation, though, didn't start about defending or wanting hard drug use. It started about why some people's scope and view is even wider than the cannabis laws. It started about defending and understanding the position of those who care about the deadly effects of the entire prohibition, not defending certain drugs. I'd like for you to care about it all, but I fully understand that you, personally, don't, and that you feel very strongly about it.It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting or defending or liking a drug. It's changing the whole drug law scenario to something sane and reasonable before more lives are lost to a foolish and wrong headed endeavor.This conversation is not about defending any drug or drug use. It's about trying to explain why some people's focus is wider. For me, as I've said before, it's not about any drug...or any herb...it's about what they, the prohibitionists and government are doing to people and our way of life, our society, because of their attitude about it all. I do care abut the whole dang thing and all the people it effects, too. Esequiel Gonzalez, Alberto Sepulveda, Ashley Villareal and many others would be alive and going to school or work and doing all the things that kids and normal people do, if deranged thinking on the part of government and prohibitionists hadn't infected the thinking and attitudes of law enforcement officers. I care about raids and dynamic entry on American homes. So I understand what the idea is behind those who want to rearrange the whole dang mess. I understand the focus of those who care only about what is happening to cannabis users. The laws against cannabis and cannabis users are the most outrageous and egregious thing I've ever seen, personally, in my life, being done to people on such a wide scale in this country, outside of racism and classism. They are hideously wrong.We, Taylor and I, have stated that defense of that view, and there is no reason to carry the conversation any farther...or to upset you or anyone else. God knows we need you on this front and I don't want you to worry that we are trying to subvert the focus of C-News. We're not. And if this whole conversation explaining a slightly different view and stance is disturbing...I'm more than willing to drop it right here.K-thunk. (That's the sound of "dropping it".)
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #32 posted by afterburner on October 23, 2007 at 08:15:04 PT

Gives New Meaning to 'Oregon or Bust'
"Hard drugs and Cannabis are opposite ends of drug use." -FoMThat's the whole idea behind the Dutch "coffee shop" tolerance experiment: separate cannabis from hard drugs. That stops access of the hard drug pushers to a broad number of cannabis afficianados. That makes it easier for the cops to stop predatory sales to minors. That makes it easier to provide healthcare for hard drug addicts. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #31 posted by FoM on October 23, 2007 at 06:25:47 PT

Hope
I know you understand where I am coming. I think your suggestions about other forums to talk about hard drugs is a smart and wise thing to say. We don't all have to care about the whole drug war. Hard drugs and Cannabis are opposite ends of drug use. Someday people who really like doing hard drugs will be able to change the laws but it's going to take many years and I would move on after Cannabis was legal and get involved in earth related issues before I would put my energy and passion into anything else. I believe that cannabis can help a person get off of hard drugs including alcohol. Cannabis is a good herb and would help people if it were only legal.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #30 posted by Taylor121 on October 23, 2007 at 06:00:01 PT

Exactly Hope
"I think Taylor is just defending his, mine, and Ethan's stance, since it was mentioned."That's why I mentioned it. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #29 posted by FoM on October 23, 2007 at 05:55:24 PT

Taylor121
I was one of those people back in the 70s that was using Meth very heavily for about a year. My experience is from being on the inside and seeing more then I ever wanted to see in my life and that is what has formed my opinions. I never and I mean never would have gotten involved with reform at all if I felt that it wasn't for cannabis. It was my son's being denied cannabis when it might have helped him keep a little food down that spurred my activism. Is that a bad thing to feel that way? I want to see treatment not jail for addicts but that is as far as I can go into caring.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #28 posted by whig on October 23, 2007 at 00:23:21 PT

Hope
Of course I care about what is happening due to the war on drugs in general. A war on addiction is a war on a medical problem no matter how you slice it. War on sick people is stupid and cruel.We should help people be able to make safer choices and to reduce the harm of drug use and abuse.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #27 posted by Hope on October 22, 2007 at 23:29:20 PT

Whig
Of course they can be considered separately. But surely there's a way to do that and still care about what is happening because of the other prohibitions.I think Taylor is just trying to remind us that we shouldn't forget the suffering and injustice caused by the prohibition of other drugs and perhaps shouldn't be overly critical of those who think we should do something about those situations, too. We all know that the cannabis prohibition is the most ludicrously egregious...and the medical prohibition just adds insult to injury. It's paramount in the situation, I guess you could say, because of that extreme ludicrousness.I understand FoM's desire, too, to keep this forum focused on cannabis...and perhaps to a certain extent, medical cannabis. Although I am very much for ending the idiocy of persecuting any use of the herb. We do have other forums for that, like DrugWarRant and LEAP... and I do understand her issue with it. But I do think the other prohibitions should be changed, too...although I don't consider this forum to be the place to dwell on that, other than, perhaps, if allowed to do so, mentioning that in general. I would think that those of us interested in a better way all around should be able to defend that stance to a certain extent on occasion. I do realize that this is a cannabis forum, though. I think Taylor is just defending his, mine, and Ethan's stance, since it was mentioned.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #26 posted by Hope on October 22, 2007 at 23:14:53 PT

I know what you mean, Taylor
We can't all agree about everything, but I do agree with what you've said. I don't think being concerned about the damage caused by the prohibition of the real drugs hurts our case either. If anything, it may help, I believe.Many times, I've had people that just a short time ago where against legalizing anything say something to the effect of "Well, I don't know about those other drugs...but I think we should probably legalize marijuana."It's a contrast that's easy to see and more people see it everyday. I do, most definitely, agree with you that the prohibition of the other drugs is causing far, far more harm than legalization and regulation would. I would say that many lives that are lost now, could be saved under a legal system of regulation. A legal and regulated distribution system would end the deaths that are caused by violence related to prohibition... innocent bystanders, law enforcement, and those on the wrong side of the law. In addition to those lives, lives would be saved because purity, strength, and the fact that a person or people could seek help if they got in trouble without fear of being arrested or despised.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #25 posted by whig on October 22, 2007 at 23:08:42 PT

Taylor121
Can't we consider each drug separately? Why should we legalize all drugs all at once? Can you tell me why?Ending cannabis prohibition would take care of a lot of the problem but it isn't everything. I agree with that. I just see no need to legalize other drugs at the same time that we end cannabis prohibition, which is unconstitutional anyhow.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #24 posted by whig on October 22, 2007 at 23:04:42 PT

Taylor121
I'm focused on cannabis, personally, because I think it is a safer, better choice for people.I agree that the war on drugs is a stupid thing that should be ended. But heroin is still bad stuff, as far as I'm concerned. I think that many drugs that are currently prohibited should be reconsidered, and rescheduled, and regulated in better ways.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #23 posted by Taylor121 on October 22, 2007 at 21:58:26 PT

one last thing
I'm not the least bit angry, just wanted throw some ideas out there. And once again I'm not accusing anyone of anything specifically on my post below. It was just an impression I got overall from many posts I have read here.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #22 posted by Taylor121 on October 22, 2007 at 21:50:08 PT

This doesn't apply to everyone
I'm not accusing anyone specifically of this, but some of you leave an impression on me.The impression is that you only care about pot (and maybe you are for pot legalization for the wrong reasons), and I'm not sure you realize how much damage is being done from not just our pot policies but our entire policy on drugs. There is a lot of suffering going on out there, and I agree 100% that pot should be taxed and legalized, but to just accuse others that talk about addressing the serious problems of other drug prohibitions as hurting the marijuana movement... it just seems selfish and self-centered. People like Ethan of the Drug Policy Alliance have helped lobby to get medical marijuana passed and lobby for decriminalization and legalization of marijuana (he's done more for legalizing pot than any single poster here, 99% sure), yet we are going to question his motives on this when he is truly an expert? Their organization is not pot focused, it is drug focused. They will talk about other drugs because they are working towards alternatives to prohibition and harm reduction. These are not bad things and they do not hurt our movement to legalize cannabis. Harm reduction includes marijuana legalization like it or not and the DPA does a ton to help our cause. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #21 posted by Taylor121 on October 22, 2007 at 21:39:35 PT

FoM
"I don't follow that particular organization. He says the same things he has been saying for years now with no results that I've noticed. Society isn't ready for cannabis yet. We are making progress with cannabis as far as people starting to not fear it like they did but that doesn't go for hard drugs. I talked to two people recently one that works in social services which includes drug treatment and the other that just knows alot about hard drugs and the deaths they have caused. I listened to them at separate times and they both seem to feel the same way. The one person won't allow a person in his program that is strung out on Meth because they cause so much trouble. What can anyone do? "You say there are no results, how about the proposition in California that has put thousands of drug addicts through treatment? How about needle exchange the prevents diseases from spreading? If you don't see any results, then you simply have not looked hard enough.What about the deaths that the drug war itself has caused? How has complete prohibition helped anything? We should look at changing our policies towards at least some of these other drugs. As for the people you talked to, that's one person on meth, not every person on meth. There are plenty of meth addicts that have recovered through treatment, and not every hard drug user becomes addicted. Yes, they are more severe and dangerous, but how does prison help them? You think it's hopeless based on your personal experiences. What if I told you that I know people that have known people with a dependence on cannabis whom can't quit and it's ruining their lives? Would that make it acceptable to prohibit marijuana and arrest responsible users like yourself? No, because the vast majority of marijuana users do not have such problems and use responsibly. Those that do have problems should receive free treatment, not jail time. Harder drugs are worse, but drug prohibition is the worst. We have to come up with alternatives to prohibition, and that's what Ethan is talking about. He's trying to help, not hurt.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #20 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 20:45:54 PT

OT: White House Pledges $1.4B for Mexico Drug War
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-10-22-mexico_N.htm
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #19 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 20:19:59 PT

Taylor121
I want you to know I am not angry but I am a person who is patient but for going on 10 years and no change I generally give up because I can only hope for so long and then it becomes a dead end street to me so I move on.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #18 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 19:29:35 PT

Taylor121
I don't follow that particular organization. He says the same things he has been saying for years now with no results that I've noticed. Society isn't ready for cannabis yet. We are making progress with cannabis as far as people starting to not fear it like they did but that doesn't go for hard drugs. I talked to two people recently one that works in social services which includes drug treatment and the other that just knows alot about hard drugs and the deaths they have caused. I listened to them at separate times and they both seem to feel the same way. The one person won't allow a person in his program that is strung out on Meth because they cause so much trouble. What can anyone do? 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #17 posted by Taylor121 on October 22, 2007 at 19:20:32 PT

Whig and FoM
"We don't need to legalize cocaine, it's already Schedule II. We don't need to legalize heroin, morphine/oxycodone/etc. is already legal.We need to end cannabis prohibition.I don't like it when Ethan Nadelmann tries to bring in every other illicit drug however harmful. Cannabis is not harmful to anyone. It's beneficial for adults. Let's stop making it seem like we have to legalize heroin in order to end cannabis prohibition."They do it because the drug war as a whole is harmful. We are dumping pesticides on poor farmers in other countries to try to control cocaine. We are locking people up with addictions and letting criminals run away with billions of dollars. A legalization scheme for a harder drug would look different than it would for cannabis, but it needs to be talked about.Legalizing marijuana is a good thing for society, but other drugs need a new approach too. Sorry if it bothers you, but Ethan is trying to discuss a new approach to drugs as a whole.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #16 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 19:13:45 PT

whig
Did he bring up that? I can't get the video to load at all. I tried a couple times. I don't understand why they do that. I guess it doesn't matter how long it will take. I'll be in the great beyond before changes like that could happen. I'm not planning on going to the great beyond for a long time I hope. I want to see the laws changed on cannabis as soon as possible.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #15 posted by Hope on October 22, 2007 at 19:10:16 PT

Kucinich
I'd love to vote for him. I think he could be a very good president and very good for the country.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #14 posted by whig on October 22, 2007 at 19:07:40 PT

Toker00 #9
You're doing good. I like that.Impeach Cheney.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #13 posted by whig on October 22, 2007 at 19:05:30 PT

FoM #7
We don't need to legalize cocaine, it's already Schedule II. We don't need to legalize heroin, morphine/oxycodone/etc. is already legal.We need to end cannabis prohibition.I don't like it when Ethan Nadelmann tries to bring in every other illicit drug however harmful. Cannabis is not harmful to anyone. It's beneficial for adults. Let's stop making it seem like we have to legalize heroin in order to end cannabis prohibition.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #12 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 19:00:57 PT

Toker00
Oh Dennis is just fine with that difficult issue. He is Pro-Choice. I really like him. I know he can't win but I hope he gets a really good position when the Democrats are in power as long as the election is fair. I don't count on it being fair so I hope they win by a big margin.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #11 posted by Toker00 on October 22, 2007 at 18:44:40 PT

Re-run?
I think what I saw was a re-run, but his performance is being passed all over the Internet! He is reviving his initiative to Impeach BUSH, too, not just Cheney. Has any other candidate done either AND supports ending the Drug War? FoM, I don't know what his stand on abortion is and I know how much that means to you and millions of other women, but the man is running on the Platform of Peace and Love! No war with Iran! No preemptive war against anyone. His support is rocketing just like Ron Paul's did.Here's the ticket: (Kucinich/Paul). Because it would put the power of President in the right hands, Democrats, and with BOTH of them Constitutionalists, would there be a better ticket than Kucinich/Paul? In this make believe World, I mean. Toke.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 18:05:44 PT

Toker00
Is Dennis on tonight? Or did I miss him? We seldom watch Colbert but I would like to see Dennis Kucinich on the show.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #9 posted by Toker00 on October 22, 2007 at 17:52:09 PT

Kucinich on Colbert! Plus, action alert.
Was he cool or what? :)This is a key organizational alert that will cover a broad array of 
new initiatives, so please read each section to find the actions you 
would like to participate in the most. Thanks to your activism, two 
more members of Congress (now 22) have signed onto H.Res. 333 to 
impeach Cheney, the only thing that can ultimately stop the planned 
premeditated bombing of Iran late next spring. You may have heard the neocons are planning a slick marketing 
campaign to try to sell their sick new illegal war. But thinking 
about this with a good winning attitude in our minds, this of course 
means that they know that they still have NOT sold their new quagmire 
to the American people. And if we will have anything to do about it, 
they won't. We know what our job is for the next six months. And that 
is to countermarket! Starting next week, we are going to start mass distribution of new 
11x17 Impeach Cheney posters on college campuses all over the 
country. The posters will say in big bold red letters "If They Bomb Iran You Get Drafted" See what the poster will look like here: New Impeach Cheney Poster Campaign: 
http://www.usalone.com/impeach_cheney_poster.php Do you think that will get the attention of the college kids? Ya 
think? And then the poster gives them two ways they can instantly get 
involved and speak out. 1) a cell phone based "text to" option where all you have to do to 
speak out is to text the word "Impeach" to 30644, a function heavily 
used by college students to communicate among themselves, and 2) an invitation to visit the new "Voices" application on Facebook, 
where we have now ported our entire real time message to Congress 
system into the Facebook platform, the hot as a firecracker social 
network that virtually all college attendees are already tied into. We are going to make a commitment tomorrow to print the first run of 
10,000 full color glossy posters, and with your help and support we 
want to distribute upwards of 100,000, to literally blanket every 
college campus in the country. If you can make a donation to 
contribute to this initiative please use this page. New Impeach Cheney Poster Campaign: 
http://www.usalone.com/impeach_cheney_poster.php By the way, just for contributing we'll send you a free "Impeach 
Cheney?" cap. If you already have one, give one to a fellow activist. 
Or uncheck the box and donate anyway. The second thing you can do to help, and this is the most important 
thing, if you are anywhere near a college campus yourself, whether 
you're a student or not, we need motivated activists to put the 
posters up around those campuses. All you have to do is look for 
places where such postering is welcome, to drop them off in local 
bookstores to be handed out for free, things like that. If this is 
something you would like to join in helping with, please email us 
back and tell us what college you think you can cover some part of, 
and we'll assemble teams for every college and university in the 
country. We'd like to say some more about the Facebook application. You can use it yourself to make your own action pages on any issue of 
your own. There is a brand-new search function you can use to find 
action pages already started. And you can use it to alert all your 
friends and see what actions they have submitted, created and are 
watching themselves. So if you are already on Facebook, please get 
the "Voices" application and spread the word about this new resource. Facebook Voices Application: http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices If you already have the application, check out all the powerful new 
features we've just added. Or check it out anyway and see what all 
the buzz is about. In the meantime, the "Impeach Cheney?" cap distribution project is 
still going strong. We've put 15,000 on the street so far, and those 
already using their cap as a mobilization and conversation starting 
tool are collecting thousands of new voters for the National Cheney 
Impeachment Poll, now with more than 113,000 votes. If you already have a cap, especially one of the large proportion we 
sent to you entirely for free, please get some vote gathering sheets 
from this page. Impeach Cheney Votesheets: 
http://www.usalone.com/cheney_votesheet.php and carry them with you everywhere. All you have to do is bring in 
200 votes and you get a free Impeach Team varsity letter, a fancy 
full size chenille award letter, just like you would earn for 
outstanding achievement in college team sports. If you are already doing that and want to get some extra caps to sell 
while you are doing it to support your own activist work, please use 
this page to get some stock to work from. Impeach Cheney Caps: http://www.usalone.com/impeach_cheney_cap2.php Or just email us, and we'll set you up with some extra caps too. 
That's what we are here for, to support your own activist work any 
way we can. It's so easy. After people vote in the poll, you just ask 
them, "Would you like a cap like the one I'm wearing?" Anybody can do it. Just get out there. A compelling majority of the 
American people are ready to speak out on the impeachment issue now, 
if we just reach out to them to show them how easy it is and how 
effective their voice can be when joined with all the others. They 
know in their hearts, as we do, that only impeachment can stop the 
even bigger war disaster in the making. They know as we do that only 
impeachment can save our constitution and our democracy. There was a new documentary aired last week on the PBS show 
Frontline, further exposing the insidious way that Cheney has 
undermined our entire government with signing statements, fed to Bush 
by Cheney's right-hand man, David Addington. They are literally and 
brazenly defying the law. They are contemptuously ignoring the law 
right now, even on torture where the Senate produced a veto proof 
90-9 majority. They are not going to follow the law no matter what 
else Congress does. Only impeachment will stop them. And after we have built the base of this impeachment movement, would 
it surprise anyone to see some ferocious primary challenges in just a 
couple months against members of Congress who still would not listen? 
Do you think that might get their attention? Ya think? It's not our 
purpose here to advocate for or against any particular candidate, all 
we do here is advocate on the issues, but it sure would not surprise 
us. Speaking of which, if you like and appreciate the leadership that 
Dennis Kucinich has provided on the impeachment issue, and based on 
that alone, you want to encourage him to keep standing strong on this 
issue by making a contribution to him, here's a page where you can do 
that. Kucinich Donations: http://www.usalone.com/donations_kucinich.php Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed 
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.Toke.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #8 posted by Sam Adams on October 22, 2007 at 14:31:42 PT

oregonian
In case anyone is wondering, this paper is strongly prohibitionist, it must the Republican paper for Portland or something.While driving around today I saw a woman with a DARE license plate on her car smoking a big cigarette.....I had to laugh.
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #7 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 14:12:39 PT

Video: FPTV: The War Over The War on Drugs 
October 2007 
 
Should drugs like marijuana, heroin, and cocaine be legal? Watch the fireworks as Ethan Nadelmann, author of Think Again: Drugs and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance clashes with David Murray, chief scientist at the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. URL: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4031
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #6 posted by whig on October 22, 2007 at 13:07:01 PT

Just updated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Tandy
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 12:59:31 PT

Showtime High on Pot
October 21, 2007LOS ANGELES - (Hollywood Reporter) - Showtime, the home of the pot-headed but suburban-neat "Weeds," finds itself trapped in a true-life reefer madness. It's airing a medical marijuana documentary that argues both sides of the nasty issue, though its title, "In Pot We Trust," reveals its unfair and imbalanced point of view.As directed by Star Price, it's virtually impossible to argue persuasively against a pot that helps diminish many manners of suffering.The case here is undeniably compelling, especially when you match it with the righteous death-to-drugs kind of attitude that, after all, there is this war on drugs and no prisoners will be taken, and no sick people either.The producers invoke narrative devices that flesh out the debate, including the lone and lonely lobbyist for medical pot, Aaron Houston. We watch him circulating "the Hill," ambushing congressional folks to win their support. They are mostly reluctant and move away, but Houston nonetheless sees some improved hope.The producers also introduce us to some people who have multiple sclerosis and other maladies. They do some pot and explain how it brightens their life and makes their lives livable.Reuters/Hollywood ReporterCopyright: 2007 Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSN2225824320071022
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #4 posted by whig on October 22, 2007 at 12:56:33 PT

Buh bye
Just so sad to see her go...
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 12:53:18 PT

freewillks
Thank you for the information. 
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #2 posted by freewillks on October 22, 2007 at 12:42:33 PT

DEA Chief Karen Tandy resigns 
Drug Enforcement Administration Chief Karen Tandy said Monday that she's resigning to take a job with Schaumburg-based Motorola Inc.Tandy's resignation today ends her four-year tenure as the first woman to head the DEA.A DEA spokesman says Tandy told employees she's leaving to take a job as a senior vice president of Motorola.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-071022moto,0,3989406.story?track=rss
[ Post Comment ]







 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 22, 2007 at 10:36:23 PT

'Bong Hits' Game Seeks to Educate Students
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/102207/loc_20071022016.shtml
[ Post Comment ]










  Post Comment