cannabisnews.com: Legal Pot: Are Hard Times Leading To Higher Times?










  Legal Pot: Are Hard Times Leading To Higher Times?

Posted by CN Staff on March 13, 2009 at 11:33:50 PT
By Marcelo Ballve, New America Media 
Source: AlterNet 

New York -- In 1977, President Jimmy Carter asked Congress to decriminalize marijuana possession (it never did). The next year, the Ladies Home Journal described a summer jazz festival on the White House's South Lawn where "a haze of marijuana smoke hung heavy under the low-bending branches of a magnolia tree."The late 1970's may have been the high-water mark for permissiveness regarding marijuana. But advocates of decriminalized pot believe a confluence of factors, especially the country's economic malaise, are leading to another countrywide reappraisal of the drug.
"There is momentum of the sort I haven't seen since I've been involved in this," says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, which supports easing marijuana laws.He says incidents like then-candidate Barack Obama's early admission of pot use or the flap over Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps's bong-smoking may lead to initial public hand-wringing, but in the end they tend to legitimize pot use. So does the growing recognition of medical marijuana.But, he adds, "the economic crisis is the single most important factor" in this new shift in perceptions.That's because the ailing economy is triggering a scramble for new government savings or sources of revenue. Nadelmann compares today's marijuana laws to alcohol prohibition, approved during prosperous times in 1920 only to become unpopular during the Great Depression. Prohibition was finally repealed in 1933, in part due to the cost of reining in illegal booze and the need to recoup lost tax revenue in tough economic times.As he signed a law easing prohibition, President Franklin Roosevelt reportedly quipped, "I think this would be a good time for a beer."Is our recession-plagued present a good time for a joint? Legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana, would pull the rug out from under pot dealers in urban America, and create a crisis for them, but it would likely prove a boon for state budgets. In an oft-cited 2006 report on U.S. marijuana production, expert Jon Gettman used "conservative price estimates" to peg the value of the annual crop at $36 billion--more valuable than corn and wheat combined.Three national polls this year showed a surprising number of Americans think marijuana should be legal. Zogby, CBS News and Rasmussen all recorded support for legalization hovering at around 40 percent. Nadelmann of the DPA believes support would have been higher if the question was whether or not marijuana should be taxed and regulated.California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has proposed a bill to tax and regulate legal marijuana, which he says would generate $1 billion in revenue for the Golden State's anemic budget. Ammiano, who represents areas of San Francisco, says his proposal, unveiled last month, is "simply common sense," considering the unprecedented economic emergency. The measure would also save California an estimated $150 million in enforcement costs.Rising support for decriminalization has also come from drug war-ravaged Latin America. Former presidents of Colombia, Mexico and Brazil headed the 17-person Latin American Commission on Drugs, which included intellectuals and statesmen. It issued a report last month calling the drug war failed. It called, among other changes, for the personal use of marijuana to be decriminalized.Currently, marijuana is already decriminalized in some form in 13 U.S. states, including California and New York, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Typically in these states, marijuana possession in small amounts is reduced to a minor offense punishable by a low fine. Alaska has a particularly liberal law, allowing possession of up to an ounce of pot at home without penalty.Some eight additional state legislatures are currently considering decriminalization, or the expansion of already existing allowances, according to NORML.No other state has gone as far as the sweeping "tax and regulate" plan Ammiano proposed for California, but all this talk of legalizing pot has Eric Voth, M.D., deeply worried. Voth, chairman of the Institute on Global Drug Policy, believes advocates of legal marijuana are exploiting the country's economic insecurities to advance their agenda, despite evident risks.Pointing to alcohol and tobacco, which are taxed, he argues the resulting revenue hardly compensates for the social and public health damage wreaked by both substances, including spillover use among youth. In the 1970s, when marijuana use was at its peak, some 11 percent of high school seniors used marijuana daily, whereas today only between two and three percent do so. If marijuana were legal, more kids would smoke it and face health, addiction and learning problems, says Voth, who advised the White House under Republican and Democratic administrations. "I'm not a prohibitionist, I'm a physician and I've seen those problems face-to-face in the trenches."But, as Voth himself admits, the lobby to decriminalize marijuana is increasingly organized, with a strong presence in state capitols and Washington, D.C. When Ammiano announced his California plan, he enlisted the DPA and the Marijuana Policy Project to back him up. "High Times," the popular pot enthusiasts' magazine, has spearheaded its own "420 campaign" for marijuana legalization. Libertarian organizations, like the Cato Institute, tend to be skeptical of pot prohibition, too.But there are legal questions over states' efforts to decriminalize. Lenient state laws (not to mention Ammiano's legalization plan) clash with separate federal laws on marijuana, which are strict, calling for up to a year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine for possession of any amount, even if it's a first offense.Last year, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), sponsored legislation to decriminalize marijuana federally, earning a handful of co-sponsors, but the bill quickly stalled in committee.Ammiano says his plan isn't radical, since pot would simply be taxed just as tobacco and alcohol are now. But for his opponents that comparison sets off alarm bells.Both industries have a bad record of facing up to the adverse health effects of their products and its availability to underage users. A legally sanctioned marijuana industry, opponents say, would open the door to another powerful, cynical, corporate dispenser of legal drugs.Source: AlterNet (US)Author: Marcelo Ballve, New America MediaPublished: March 13, 2009Copyright: 2009 Independent Media InstituteContact: letters alternet.org Website: http://www.alternet.org/URL: http://alternet.org/drugreporter/131522/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #105 posted by John Tyler on March 16, 2009 at 19:42:29 PT
getting by
I’m sure we could get by very nicely with domestically grown products, but it would be really be great to have emporiums that would/could stock cannabis products and accessories from around the world.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #104 posted by Hope on March 16, 2009 at 10:14:17 PT
John Tyler
"It seems like a guess to me, just something to put in print."A wild guess is all that is available when there is prohibition of a product. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #103 posted by FoM on March 16, 2009 at 06:17:48 PT
A Question
Does anyone think we would need marijuana brought in from other countries if it was legalized? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #102 posted by John Tyler on March 15, 2009 at 22:25:44 PT
south of the border
I have noticed a couple of things about the Mexican violence. One is that no one knows what percentage of the Mexican cartels income is derived from cannabis. Some articles say as low as 40% and some sources say as much as 86%. That is a wide variance indicating a lack of real information. It seems like a guess to me, just something to put in print. Another thing is that the law enforcement in Mexico is reputed to be corrupt and is as much of a danger to the public as the criminals are.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #101 posted by FoM on March 15, 2009 at 20:37:43 PT
rchandar 
I like your ideas in comment 99.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #100 posted by tintala on March 15, 2009 at 20:14:55 PT:
DONT FORGET INDUSTRIAL HEMP AS AN IMMEDIATE GOAL
Please for the sake of our economy and farmers across the USA (me) need INDUSTRIAL HEMP , this should also be on the priority list! HEMP WOULD MAKE DUPONT OBSOLETE AS WELL as the oil companies. THe DEA needs to redeem HEMP now or Obama congress needs to get on it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #99 posted by rchandar on March 15, 2009 at 19:14:56 PT:
Our Immediate Goals
1) Decriminalize pot possession in as many states as possible.2) Drastic reduction in the number of arrests for marijuana possession, cultivation, distribution.3) President signs the abolition of mandatory minimum sentences.4) Legalize medical marijuana in as many states as possible.5) Begin, and sustain, hearings before Congress to end marijuana's Schedule I status.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #98 posted by rchandar on March 15, 2009 at 19:05:18 PT:
FoM
touche! still, i think your plea will be sadly misused. As in: how many people will lose their jobs doing drug enforcement, border patrol, DEA, etc., etc.? That's what my mother always says. That's where jobs were created--from our Crime Bill.in all seriousness, it's a fair complaint because lots of women--and children--have lost their men to the WoD. But though I share sympathy with what you're saying, still I disagree. In a tax- and regulate- legalization plan, all those guys who are "drug runners" could grow their own MJ. Or in a decrim setting: at the least, they would be risking less when they carry or smuggle substances. Most of these guys--if we were to break them down completely--don't love their "jobs." They regret and resent not being able to get a mainstream job. Most of them, too, should we break them down, don't understand WHY what they do is illegal to begin with--they are our warriors, they believe in the healing powers of our medicine, usually with a stronger faith than the rest of us. I don't think keeping weed illegal helps them at all--they may make lots of money, but let's face it, for most of them the time is short.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #97 posted by FoM on March 15, 2009 at 18:20:13 PT
Washington Times: Inside the Beltway
Monday, March 16, 2009Excerpt: As five congressional panels held hearings in recent days on Mexican drug cartel violence and border security, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had one thing to say about legalizing marijuana in hopes of easing the bloodshed: "It won't work."http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/16/inside-the-beltway-31204648/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #96 posted by runruff on March 15, 2009 at 16:26:11 PT
"Thanks for the posting of the Lafferty idiot,&quo
What do Lafferty and Rip Van Winkle have in common?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #95 posted by FoM on March 15, 2009 at 16:22:48 PT
rchandar 
I don't look at things the same way as others might. Maybe it's because I am a woman and women often think differently then men about issues. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #94 posted by rchandar on March 15, 2009 at 16:08:20 PT:
FoM
...that argument doesn't work. It doesn't work for any of us. A "job" should be some entity that allows us a stable, reasonable living. "Jobs" are not that which could land us in the slammer....that's a common argument, and the mafia will use it productively. People who "lose their jobs" will have to find another way of earning a living. We should always remember that here is one of the most important CIVIL RIGHTS issues of our time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #93 posted by e-dub on March 15, 2009 at 14:14:31 PT
comment 89
too true about the nipping comment!instead we seemed to sink into a government state of fear of the unknown.people will accept religion as a basis of faith in the unknown, but when the government paints the picture it turns into fear of prosecution.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #92 posted by Sam Adams on March 15, 2009 at 09:54:03 PT
letter
Thanks for the posting of the Lafferty idiot, it was the first thing I read this AM when I rolled out of the gutter to get breakfast. btw, "Bio-Dome" was not a stoner movie, it was a BAD movie. Any actor that appeared in Bio-Dome should be embarrassed.From reading the transcript I thought Ron Paul did one of his best appearances ever. That he could be a doctor from a conservative state and do this is inspiring to me. When momma said "just because everyone else is doing something doesn't make it right" RP was listening!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #91 posted by FoM on March 15, 2009 at 08:49:20 PT
I Wonder What Will Happen
Obama is a man that knows how to use words and his words appear to me to be that a different direction is needed. As far as Mexico goes it is beyond a drug war anymore in my opinion. It's a war. I think they waited way too long to deal with that particular issue. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #90 posted by Hope on March 15, 2009 at 08:40:55 PT
John Tyler
"...this situation could have been nipped in the bud decades ago with sensible laws and policies."I keep thinking the same thing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #89 posted by John Tyler on March 15, 2009 at 08:06:04 PT
sensible policies still needed
The media and the political elite now seem to be noticing a problem that has been growing for the last three decades and it is all the result of the US world wide Drug War. The arrogance and stupidity of both the Republicans and the Democrats is responsible. I won’t go into recent history, but this situation could have been nipped in the bud decades ago with sensible laws and policies.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #88 posted by FoM on March 15, 2009 at 07:09:48 PT
A Failed Drug War's Rising Body Count
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/03/14/INHQ16CJB0.DTL
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #87 posted by FoM on March 15, 2009 at 06:34:30 PT
It's No Longer a 'War' on Drugs, So To Speak
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-nutexwatch_15nat.ART.State.Edition1.4ac7748.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #86 posted by MikeC on March 14, 2009 at 20:55:42 PT
Comment #78
FoM...I am not sure if Mexico has a food stamp program. I would imagine that if they do it probably doesn't add up to much per family.I am certain that the cartel would just move onto some other type of criminal activity, however; I hate to see people dying over what ought to be an individual personal choice regarding what they put into their bodies. Drugs being illegal is light years worse than the drugs themselves.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #85 posted by John Tyler on March 14, 2009 at 20:45:46 PT
not an issue in South America
The daughter of a friend of mine spent some time in Chile as part of some college study program. She said that the people there aren’t really concerned about people using “drugs”. It’s not an issue for them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #84 posted by Dankhank on March 14, 2009 at 20:13:58 PT
decrim ALL drugs ...
no consumption of ANY drugs should be a legal matter.
Leave any illegal and smuggling will continue.I missed this thread since I have been traveling all day and am now ensconced in the Bay Inn and Suites hotel 'bout 20 miles south of Atlanta. NO,, not in a suite ... Heading down to Warner Robins, GA where my dear 78 yr old mom and spouses 75 year old dad abide.Doing a techo invasion, flat panel monitors for both of their computers, we got some sweet ones on a sweet deal.Mom also gets my cast-off VCR, hers kicked, and a Phillips DVD player that supports DivX and about 35 movies in DivX.gonna spend a few days here, then, head for Dallas for spouse's business meetingHectic week, but fun.Man, the drive from Birmingham to Atlanta was surreal, fast and wet... and fun.gonna turn in ... long day and now full of a "Mellow Mushroom" pizza.MM is a hippie-ish pizza place ... got a Magical Mystery pizza, Ringo's favorite. I'll share more later if I get time..Peace to all and decrim ALL drugs
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #83 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 18:23:16 PT
Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/opinion/14morales.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #82 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 18:20:36 PT
Heavy Duty Conversation
This is interesting for me. I very seldom come to any conclusion that doesn't have a side effect. I always am connecting dots. Sometimes I wish I didn't.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #81 posted by charmed quark on March 14, 2009 at 18:14:37 PT
wish I knew
once these monsters are created, they take on a life of their own.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #80 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 18:07:48 PT

charmed quark
I read a good portion of the article. My goodness what is the answer. What will happen if all the money dries up? When a war begins it has pure motives or so they say but after time war becomes personal after a soldier watches a fellow soldier get killed. Soon they don't know what the issue is that they are fighting for and it can turn into kill them all and let God sort them out. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #79 posted by charmed quark on March 14, 2009 at 17:44:15 PT

American Tourists Kidnapped for Ransom
It's not just drugs. It's gangs after money.Whole families vacationing in Baja California have been kidnapped for ransom. Recently, there have been kidnappings on the US side of the border.This is a good article on what is going on:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26435119/the_making_of_a_narco_state/print
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #78 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 17:40:38 PT

MikeC
Does Mexico have a food stamp program for their poor? Legalizing might stop the cartels but they'll move into some other area like human trafficking or some other illegal activity. Cartels won't go away they will just morph into something else like the Mafia did when alcohol prohibition ended. That's what I believe.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #77 posted by MikeC on March 14, 2009 at 17:31:36 PT

Comment #70...
FoM ...Well, I would hope that just like here taxing and regulation would remove the criminal element from the drug business. As far as "How would drug dealers feed their families if drugs became legal?" I can't answer that question but it would go a long way in stopiing the cartel wars and all the murders/beheadings that are going along with it.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #76 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 17:00:30 PT

Hope
That's good to know. I wish there was an easy answer but every action has a reaction. If we could find the silver lining for the poor Mexicans if cocaine and marijuana was legalized it could work. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #75 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 16:55:00 PT

Beheadings.
Not that I'm aware of. I hope not.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #74 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 16:51:18 PT

Hope
To be more precise. Have any Americans state side been beheaded? I haven't heard that yet.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #73 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 16:48:01 PT

Hope
I meant the beheadings. Have they beheaded people on state side?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #72 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 16:47:09 PT

 rchandar 
Thank you for your input. This is a issue with so many problems attached to it.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #71 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 16:45:47 PT

Comment 60
"Will it spill into the states?"I believe it did some time ago, so it has, already. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #70 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 16:45:44 PT

MikeC
Let's say they legalize cocaine and marijuana. What would happen in Mexico if the drug income dries up for people who smuggle drugs and need the money to feed their family?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #69 posted by MikeC on March 14, 2009 at 16:25:15 PT

Cocaine...
I understand that it is more plentiful, purer, and cheaper than ever. Some job the hundreds of billions we've spent on the "War on Drugs" did!I don't advocate the usage of drugs like cocaine but they too have to be decriminalized. Locking people up is NOT the answer. Keeping these drugs in the hands of the cartels is the reason all these terrible things are happening in Mexico.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #68 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 16:11:47 PT

One More Question
Is Cocaine still a popular drug like it was during the Disco era?  I saw on the news because of an abundance of cocaine Mexicans are getting strung out since it is affordable now.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #67 posted by rchandar on March 14, 2009 at 16:08:47 PT:

Hope
Even if you're right, Obama can do wonders for us. Especially--getting the number of arrests to go down. That'd be a big help for everybody.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #66 posted by MikeC on March 14, 2009 at 16:05:27 PT

FoM...
First of all cocaine is not grown in Canada...South America is where it is grown. In the Andes is where I understand that it is grown from. I suppose it could come across the Canadian border but it has to get there from South America first.Second...yes lots of companies went there but it was for the cheap labor. I don't believe that the Mexican citizens are getting rich off of companies that went there. Also, I thought I once heard that there are something like twenty-five million people in Mexico City alone. I don't believe that those jobs go very far in employing all those people. There are tremendous amounts of people living in poverty there. Desperate situations like that cause people to do terrible things to make a living. I have also heard that drug cartels will force people to do their dirty work with threats of harming or killing their families if they don't comply. Well, that's what I have heard in the media anyway and I generally don't believe what they report.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #65 posted by rchandar on March 14, 2009 at 16:05:01 PT:

Mexico
Yes, it's a desperate situation there. I can't see how they can justify the current situation, or the WoD. Some movement should step in, because its a totality of viciousness and wrongheaded psychology that continually valorizes criminality, makes it a very test of the human spirit.I don't think we can ignore it, because those problems come to us. Vicente Fox was very smart in proposing legalization: I believe this is the only way to humanize a terrible reality that only gets worse over time.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #64 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 15:59:29 PT

Mexico
I checked and they have over 100 million people in Mexico compared to only a little over 30 million in Canada. If people feel trapped they can react different then people who have some breathing room I think.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #63 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 15:36:54 PT

Another Question
Doesn't cocaine ever come from Canada? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #62 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 15:34:11 PT

MikeC 
Thank you. Desperate people can do desperate things. Why is their economy so bad? Many of our good jobs went to Mexico. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #61 posted by MikeC on March 14, 2009 at 15:25:58 PT

FoM...
I just think that things are so much more desperate in Mexico which in turn causes this type of behavior. Also, there are tons and tons of cocaine involved equaling much higher stakes. I am sure that the corruption in their government and military aren't helping either.Just my thoughts.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #60 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 14:57:42 PT

Hope
It's the violence that I don't understand. Drugs come from Canada too but it doesn't have people being beheaded. It seems way more to me then a drug war. It's seems to me and others up this way that it is a war within the country and money from illegal activities is fueling it. Human trafficking doesn't happen at the Canadian border. What drives the anger? Will it spill into the states? If it does we will have a war on the border I'm afraid to say but that's what I think.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #59 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 14:52:16 PT

It's disconcerting.
Terribly so. To say the least.The tentacles of the black market entrepreneurship are long, complicated, and powerful.I'm very afraid of what this latest major prohibition of a substance or substances hath wrought. Thousands are murdered, yet they, the apparent "Deciders", decide to keep up the very thing that got us here to this widely spreading, heinously murderous, and hideously violent place. It's hard to understand their reasoning.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #58 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 13:23:15 PT

Hope
I am watching CNN and they are talking about the drug war in Mexico. They mentioned decriminalizing marijuana. What do people think will happen down your way in the near future?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #57 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 13:22:18 PT

This thing is moving....
There's so much to keep up with now. I can't read that whole thread. I have other things I have to do. There is so much going on now that there is no way I can keep up with all of it. I used to pretty much keep up with all there is to keep up with, pretty easily, but there's no way, now.Probably a lot of you are feeling that way. It's amazing. I'm grateful. There is still so much hatred and fear out there, though. We have to be watchful.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #56 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 13:12:32 PT

Comment 53
Comment thread here that I'm liking the answers, and comments, so far, that Mr. Greenwald, himself, is contributing to the thread.http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/14/portugal/view/?show=all
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #55 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 12:56:52 PT

Families of chemo therapy patients
that Charlie helped need to stand up for him.Obviously, from last night's 20/20, some already have. If it hadn't been for his dispensary you would, perhaps, have been at the mercy of the black market..."The Streets", as they say.If you were grateful for his work, at all, support him before they haul him away.Please.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #54 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 12:52:48 PT

Medical Marijuana Patients in California
that were helped by Charlie Lynch's dispensary efforts need to step forward and support him being included in that new "American Policy" toward medical marijuana users we are supposed to have.They know who you are anyway.Has Mr. Lynch's prosecution and persecution helped you?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #53 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 12:21:51 PT

The Success of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal
URL: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/14/portugal/
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #52 posted by MikeC on March 14, 2009 at 12:13:01 PT

Stephen Baldwin
He ought to stick to what he does best...playing an idiot in bad movies.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #51 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 11:47:13 PT

News Article From Raw Story
Ron Paul: Congress 'Drinks a Lot of Alcohol' But Won't Legalize PotURL: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ron_Paul_Stephen_Baldwin_debate_marijuana_0314.html

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #50 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 11:07:13 PT

I love your response, Paul.
You sound so calm, cool, vindicated, and RIGHT!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #49 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 10:56:48 PT

Paul Armentano 
Your answer is outstanding. Very, very well done. Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #48 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 10:53:11 PT

Here's the original letter, Sam.
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/letters/ci_11850828
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #47 posted by paul armentano on March 14, 2009 at 10:31:15 PT

Sam Adams: Lafferty's original letter
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/opinion/ci_11850828Wrong on marijuanaPosted: 03/06/2009 07:43:13 AM PSTThis letter is directed primarily to the sophomoric stance of the author who advocates legalizing marijuana and is so sincerely dedicated to his noble cause, has even written a book ("When will we learn that pot should be legalized?" -- Paul Armentano, Feb. 16).Who is the publisher of this drivel? Truly, everyone should buy the book when it is published to understand the principles behind the theory that a little education is a very dangerous thing. His writings, based on simplistic arguments and shallow reasoning, prove the exact opposite of his intended purpose. And this, my friend, is a very good thing because legalizing marijuana is the first step into very serious chemical addiction, a path to total and absolute destruction.He stated that Michael Phelps' indulgence "is making international headlines, though it is difficult to understand why." Well, he said it best -- he cannot understand why. Sir, if you want your child to become an athletic super hero, a financial guru or to just blend into a group of his peers who choose to "enhance relaxation," to be able to "manage the challenges and demands of living in contemporary modern society," you would approve of your child using pot? That is pathetic -- you don't have a clue.There are more toxic chemicals and poisons in marijuana than are in nicotine. You stated that "70 percent of current marijuana users are gainfully employed" but you fail to mention that the remaining 30 percent, three times our currentADVERTISEMENTunemployment rate, are in rehabilitation clinics or laying in doorways or the gutters.
As a retired law enforcement officer, I can personally attest to the peace and ffreedom riots in Berkeley during the Vietnam War, the drug lord Tim Leary in San Francisco and how thousands literally lost their minds and their lives by experimenting with LSD. I have visited their rural campsites in Northern California and Oregon. These people share one thing in common: Marijuana. A very large percentage of all pot heads end up using more serious chemicals and become alcoholics, and the vast majority of our enormous prison population are seriously addicted to one chemical or another. Additionally, nearly 90 percent of our teenage suicides involve marijuana or some other drug.If I were you, I would write another book, because you are advocating a most destructive course of action for our young adults. It does not matter how many punks use marijuana, regardless of their stature in life. Charles Manson and his blood-thirsty group were constant users of marijuana. And believe it or not, our laws are designed to protect people like us from people like you. Good luck -- you need all you can get.Lyndon E. LaffertyVallejo
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/opinion/ci_11850828
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #46 posted by Sam Adams on March 14, 2009 at 10:02:46 PT

paul
where is the original Laffety article? thanks
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #45 posted by Sam Adams on March 14, 2009 at 10:01:27 PT

frustration
What bothers me is people like the Sheriff in CA featured in the Stossel piece - the guy that went after Lynch.He is nothing but an evil tyrant - a bully in a uniform. This case shows that all the ballot quesitons and legal changes don't mean anything unless we ALL confront the bullies. I'm talking about Obama, he's a black man for christ's sake.We can talk up all the reform we want, if the economy fails these guys will still be waiting for us with their guns and jails. If our government can't get control of the runaway power-grab and militarization of domestic law enforcement then our way of life is doomed. We will be the next Soviet Union. Which means economically poor with a government of violent thugs.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #44 posted by paul armentano on March 14, 2009 at 09:45:34 PT

Hope...
Since you asked about this previously, here's a link to my LTE responding to former officer Lyndon Lafferty's ad hominem attack on me. My letter was published today.http://www.timesheraldonline.com/letters/ci_11912840

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/letters/ci_11912840
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #43 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 09:37:02 PT

Hope
If you look at how long it's been since Nixon ramped up the war on drugs and where we are today it shows it takes a long time to bring change. Many people are becoming tolerant of marijuana issues and don't think jail will help an addict but treatment might help. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #42 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 09:31:41 PT

Probably,
you got it right both times. Different versions.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #41 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 09:28:37 PT

I do admire your faith, FoM.
From where I am, it looks like you're walking on water!:0)My faith, or confidence, in Obama and crew, is relatively weak. I'm hoping he's building support for his policies in Congress and the nation and then he will bring up the prohibition that hurts and bothers so many people. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #40 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 09:23:08 PT

Hope
I got that wrong I think.Faith is the substance of things hoped for. Without faith we wouldn't try to do anything in life I believe. We would go what's the use. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #39 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 09:05:42 PT

Hope
That's where our faith comes in.Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #38 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 09:04:12 PT

Or maybe...
Our glass is brimming full.It's hard to see sometimes.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #37 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 09:02:56 PT

Half full or half empty?
I think our glass is probably one third full.:0)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #36 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 08:56:21 PT

Hope
It does depend on all of us but at least we have a President that will listen this time. He is a people type President. Our glass is half full or half empty and the choice is ours as to how we see it. Clinton let you down but Obama is no Clinton. He's a Chicago grassroots organizer with fire in his belly about injustice I think.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #35 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 08:52:21 PT

We exist.
Paul Armentano for President!Some sweet day.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #34 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 08:46:14 PT

I think they're going to push hard 
and keep destroying lives and treating people like "scum bags".There is something deep and nasty going on in prohibitionists' minds.I hope you're right, FoM. I so hope you're right. I'd like to be enthused, but I still feel the prohibitionist power and deep hatred, and it's obvious it's being closed in on, but it's still hugely hateful and powerful. Americans want to be free of excess government coercion. Some of them, anyway. We've not got our hands on enough compromise, even, to feel that people are safe from their harsh, cruel, and violent ways. They seem more Talabanish than they do Puritanical.God knows I hope you're right, FoM. But, I just can't let myself hope that much. That feeling reminds me of what I felt about Clinton once. I'd hoped Obama would help, but I have never been confident of it.But no one can deny, can they, that anti-prohibitionists are being heard and sometimes, and occasionally, even respected, and that's huge.We're still moving and we are making obvious progress, and guess what? It doesn't really depend on Obama. It depends on all of us.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #33 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 08:45:05 PT

Sam
What he said in the statement I posted out of the article is he is carefully opening the door to another way of approaching the war on drugs. He is good at opening doors and letting the Grass Movement grow from the bottom up. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #32 posted by Sam Adams on March 14, 2009 at 08:30:34 PT

words
Hey, talk is talk - he can pontificate all he wants, we'll be watching his actions.  They can move cannabis out of Schedule I quietly in some budget amendment, that's fine by me.But treatment of real addiction is MUCH cheaper than arresting and incarcerating the person. It really bugs me that as everyone is getting laid off and watching their retirment savings vanish, law enforcement still thinks their money shouldn't be cut at all. If our society is to continue, someone MUST tell law enforcement that they're getting less money.The best thing we could do is have 2-3 referendums in 2010 to decriminalize in more states, that would keep constant pressure on Obama & Congress.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #31 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 08:19:15 PT

Obama's No Wuss! LOL!
I like looking thru rose colored glasses! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #30 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 08:18:14 PT

Sam
I liked that he said this.Excerpt: And then the other approach would be sort of a public health, decriminalization approach.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #29 posted by Sam Adams on March 14, 2009 at 08:17:24 PT

decrim?
I guess he is sort-of mentioning decrim here - I don't understand why he has to be such a wuss in talking about it, MJ decrim is supported by most of the population.  To me it looks like he's cowering in fear of law enforcement, he keeps promising again and again not to take their money away, yet how does he expect to get those people in Dallas and Chicago their treatment? Gotta take the money away from someone else."I think traditionally the debate is either interdiction, criminalization, longer drugs -- longer prison sentences for not only dealers, but users; that's one approach. And then the other approach would be sort of a public health, decriminalization approach."
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #28 posted by Sam Adams on March 14, 2009 at 08:12:45 PT

uh oh Obama
was not happy to see this - looks like he's fully backed off his decrim endorsement and now wants only to spend more on treatment.....note that he tried to weasel out of speaking on MJ decrim specifically....so much for all his BS websites and public feedback....from yesterday:
http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6317:interview-of-president-obama-by-regional-reporters&catid=1&Itemid=88889791Q If decriminalization of the marijuana laws --THE PRESIDENT: I think what gave me pause on that question was I think you -- I'm not sure it's accurate to say that I -- well, the implication was somehow that I think we should weaken our drug laws. That's never been my position. I think that what we do have to -- I think the approach that we do need to take is to make sure that we have a both/and approach as opposed to an either/or approach.I think traditionally the debate is either interdiction, criminalization, longer drugs -- longer prison sentences for not only dealers, but users; that's one approach. And then the other approach would be sort of a public health, decriminalization approach.My attitude is we do have to treat this as a public health problem and we have to have significant law enforcement. And, you know, if we can reduce demand, obviously that allows us to focus more effectively where interdiction is needed, where we've got to go after serious drug dealers and narcotrafficking.Right now I think that we're fighting with one hand tied behind our back because our effort to lower demand is grossly underfunded, not as effective as it needs to be. The average person who is seeking serious substance abuse treatment in a big city, like Dallas or Chicago, typically has a three-, four-, six-month waiting list to get enrolled in a program. I think that's a problem and most law enforcement officials I think would agree that it is a problem.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #27 posted by Hope on March 14, 2009 at 07:59:33 PT

This is fine. Look, we have wheels!
This thing is moving!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #26 posted by FoM on March 14, 2009 at 07:41:39 PT

Sam and Everyone
This is it! It's happening finally. I love it! We've worked so hard to bring change. We have been through so much together. I will never forget this journey we all have been on and are still on including the good, the bad, and the ugly. I have expanded my mind in these last ten years or more. I know what I believe and I know what I don't believe. It is amazing. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #25 posted by Sam Adams on March 14, 2009 at 07:34:57 PT

denial
yes, it is great to see someone like Voth saying "I am not a prohibitionist!" we are close to winning. How long did Nixon last after the "I am not a crook"? Couple years?Things are definitely heating up, we haven't had this much momentum since 2000-2001 when Canada was doing the Senate commission and most of Europe decriminalized.Except this time all the noise about legalization is coming from within the US, not Canada.Maine is going to vote on medical dispensaries in November, RI will likely pass it this year. Dispensaries will be opening in New Mexico. CT, NH, VT are all considering decrim.And they all know that there won't be any bitter retribution coming from Washington! Going to be very interesting the next few years.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #24 posted by John Tyler on March 14, 2009 at 06:18:14 PT

the public debate
There is definitely a shift in the public debate about cannabis taking place now. Even the prohibitionists are using the word prohibition when describing the people who are against cannabis legalization. Slowly and steadily we have dominated defining the terms and framing the parameters of the “debate”. We now have several brilliant, and attractive spokespeople who can articulate a position based on science, logic, justice, history, and common sense that anyone that hears them can understand. The prohibitionists, by contrast, fall back on the usual lies and hysteria. In these difficult economic times it is becoming more and more apparent, even to some Republicans that the Drug War is an expensive budgetary item that can and should be eliminated.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #23 posted by The GCW on March 14, 2009 at 01:40:26 PT

Zogby and other polls indicate 40% but...
I think the poll would be higher in California where there is great talk of RE-legalizing the economy fixing superplant.It realy puts it into perspective to realize cannabis is the #1 crop in Cal. and other states yet the stupid government refuses to regulate it.It is here, folk. It aint going away. Government has spent billions and even trillions to exterminate cannabis AND IT IS STILL HERE AND ALWAYS WILL BE.The money is changing hands either way.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #22 posted by afterburner on March 13, 2009 at 23:51:03 PT

weed, not week - see #21
Voth - not a viper in the 1930's weed smoker, nor the 1940's pot-dealer sense (3. & 4.)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by afterburner on March 13, 2009 at 23:47:33 PT

Voth - Snake-like, treacherous person (1. & 2.)
Voth - not a viper in the 1930's week smoker, nor the 1940's pot-dealer sense (3. & 4.){
1. Viper. 
 A venomous snake having a single pair of long, hollow venom conducting fangs and a thick, heavy body. There are about 200 species of viper in the world. They eat small animals and hunt by striking, then trailing their prey. Most are terrestrial, and a few are arboreal. 2. Viper.
 A person regarded as malicious and treacherous. 1. "If a viper lives in your room and you wish to have a peaceful sleep, you must first chase it out." Buddha 2. Terra was a viper, always spreading malicious gossip and backstabbing her so-called friends. 
3. viper. 
 1930's term for a person who smoked weed. So called for the hissing noise produced by the joint when smoked. 3. the viper dreamed about a reefer 10 feet long 4. viper. 
 a term used in the '40s for a pot-dealer particulary associated with the social circles of jazz musicians. 4. Milton Mezzrow was a premier viper in the scene. 
} Urban Dictionary: viper
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=viper [numbers added]

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by FoM on March 13, 2009 at 20:06:32 PT

Sam
I'm really looking forward to seeing the show on Sunday with Al Roker. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by Sam Adams on March 13, 2009 at 19:56:50 PT

al roker
Wow, the Al Roker piece looks to be devastating to prohibitionists, at one point he says "this smells just like a tea" no kidding! They look similar too - they're both plants! He's a really nice guy and he's from New York, I predict it's going to be a great show Sunday.It's amazing to me to see what happens when laws are removed and freedom blossoms - in the trailer you can see the "Farmacy" and they have tinctures, lollipops, cake, even cannabis gelato.Big Pharma gives you your meds one way: pills. Recently after 80 years they did innovate and come up with a new one: patches! Great job guys, really looking out for the customer
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by FoM on March 13, 2009 at 19:38:33 PT

Charlie Lynch
It was good but it needed to go into more details. It was too short for people that aren't familiar with his case or medical marijuana.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by fight_4_freedom on March 13, 2009 at 19:32:47 PT

I loved it
Great Report.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by Hope on March 13, 2009 at 19:22:43 PT

Charlie Lynch
Sorry. Not Gage... but Lynch. Don't know where that came from.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by Hope on March 13, 2009 at 19:21:25 PT

20/20 segment about Charlie Gage
Fixing to start after commercial.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on March 13, 2009 at 18:29:07 PT

ekim
I'll check back later on then to see if it is on. Thank you about Stick. He is doing much better. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by ekim on March 13, 2009 at 18:20:17 PT

Hi FoM
it will probalbly be the last segment as it was pitched in that order.over on cnbc they are replaying marijuana inc for the umteenth time saying that it is the most watched show they have ever hadhappy trails to Stick 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by FoM on March 13, 2009 at 18:12:51 PT

ekim
I switched from Rachel Maddow to Larry King to check it out but they are talking about Anna Nicole Smith. Maybe they bumped it because of the news about her case.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by ekim on March 13, 2009 at 18:05:15 PT

Larry King tonight
has segment on legalizing with Ron Paul and Alex Baldwin
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on March 13, 2009 at 17:53:24 PT

fight_4_freedom
Thank you. We are planning on watching it tonight. Al Roker has a show on Sunday night too.Al Roker Reporting: Marijuana Inc. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036750/
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by fight_4_freedom on March 13, 2009 at 16:05:48 PT

Reminder
"On Friday, ABC’s John Stossel looks at medical marijuana and the appalling prosecution of Charles Lynch."I believe this is the 20/20 show that they are referring to. Which begins at 10 p.m. eastern timehttp://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=7041286&page=1Melissa Etheridge, who was a patient at the dispensary, is interviewed as well.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by FoM on March 13, 2009 at 15:41:01 PT

observer
We can't let what happened in the 70s happen again. We can't let drugs like cocaine get mixed up with marijuana law reform or it will happen again. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by observer on March 13, 2009 at 15:34:28 PT

Now is the Time 
federal laws on marijuana ... a year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine for possession of any amount, even if it's a first offense.We can't drift into complacency like we did in the 70's, if we want to really get it legalized. Now is the time to press harder to not let political grandstanding and demagoguery get in the way of simply letting adults grow sell and use cannabis. The prevaricating Voths of the world need to be met and countered at every turn. People need to have explained, and re-explained and re-stated the case for simply not jailing people who are involved with cannabis. We can't assume it will be done until those awful Federal laws that jail people simply for involvement with the cannabis plant are repealed. That's the stake through the heart of this thing. Then states will be free to go their own way on this issue. Now is the time to do everything you can think of to effectively end cannabis prohibition. Don't take your eye off the ball! 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by Hope on March 13, 2009 at 15:17:55 PT

Observer
Exactly!Not a prohibitionist? Good grief.Sorry, Konagold. That had to have been so hard.Not a prohibitionist? What does he think "prohibition" and "prohibit" mean?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by observer on March 13, 2009 at 15:02:55 PT

Voth, Epitome of a Prohibitionist
Eric Voth: "I'm not a prohibitionist"Sounds familiar.Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook"http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/voth1.htm :

"Dr. Voth, who is a vehement opponent of the legalization of marijuana..."
A vehement opponent of the legalization of marijuana is a prohibitionist, by definition. more:http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/eric-voth.asp?cycle=08 http://www.ecad.net/activ/EPVoth.htmlhttp://www.waitingtoinhale.org/voth.htm (pic.)

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by konagold on March 13, 2009 at 13:22:50 PT

Viper Voth
Eric Voth testified against me in my trial for the religious use of Cannabis in 1997he makes a fair income for professionally testalyingin other words he is a paid liar for the WOD of course he is a prohibitionist 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on March 13, 2009 at 12:08:19 PT

Good Dr. Bullship
 If marijuana were legal, more kids would smoke it and face health, addiction and learning problems, says Voth, who advised the White House under Republican and Democratic administrations. "I'm not a prohibitionist, I'm a physician and I've seen those problems face-to-face in the trenches."Prohibitionist.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on March 13, 2009 at 12:07:12 PT

Correction
>>>The late 1970's may have been the high-water mark for permissiveness regarding marijuana. But advocates of decriminalized pot believe a confluence of factors, especially the country's economic malaise, are leading to another countrywide reappraisal of the drug.Uh, no, actually the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s would be the most "permissive" time.Come to think of it, from 10,000 BC until 1920 was the "most permissive" time.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by HempWorld on March 13, 2009 at 12:00:26 PT

Marijuana prohibition is a racist policy that was 
first initiated in Texas in 1914 against Mexican workers.All the people who want to keep this prohibition in place are racists and they know it!
On a mission from God!
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment