cannabisnews.com: Marijuana is Target in Battle on Drugs Marijuana is Target in Battle on Drugs Posted by FoM on January 14, 2001 at 07:44:22 PT By Jeff Porter, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Although President Clinton says a little marijuana shouldn't be a crime, arrests for marijuana possession have more than doubled during his administration. Meanwhile, the latest numbers show, fewer drug dealers are being busted. "I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in most places, and should be," Clinton told Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner last November. Nevertheless, during his administration, the war on drugs has turned its focus to marijuana -- both nationally and in Arkansas. And a White House spokesman said Friday that Clinton does not support the decriminalization of marijuana. "The president's major point is that we need to look seriously at our policies of imprisonment and mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent minor offenses and look at other alternatives," said the spokesman, Jason Schechter. "The president believes that we shouldn't have harsh sentences for first-time, nonviolent offenders, and that we can get tough on drug use by getting tough on drug testing and drug treatment, as complements to enforcement." In 1992, the year before Clinton became president, nearly one in three drug arrests was for manufacturing or selling illicit drugs. Today, fewer than one in five is, according to Justice Department statistics. However, arrests for marijuana possession have soared from 271,900 in 1992 to 620,500 in 1999, a 128 percent increase. Today, 40.5 percent of all drug arrests are for possession of marijuana. In Arkansas, more than half are. It is not because there are more smokers. According to federal government statistics, marijuana usage has risen just 15 percent since 1992 -- barely more than the overall population increase. In Arkansas, the vast majority of those arrested were charged with misdemeanors -- possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Possession of more than an ounce is a felony -- possession with an assumed intent to deliver. What exactly the numbers mean is hotly debated between those backing America's war on drugs and those who consider it to be a failure. For Bob Weiner, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the numbers mean success. "Cocaine has gone down so dramatically," he said. "So that's the reason why the market share ... is going down." With cocaine down, arrests for marijuana possession are rising, he said. Timothy Lynch, a criminal-justice scholar for the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., is sharply critical. His organization bills itself as a nonpartisan research foundation that seeks to broaden public-policy debate. Lynch said America's drug policy is wasting money and resources, often pursuing simple marijuana smokers instead of violent criminals. "That's one of the main points I'm trying to hammer home," he said, calling leniency to violent criminals a "side effect" of the war on drugs. Every day law enforcement tries to crack down on drugs, he said, it takes away resources to solve a murder or rape. Weiner, though, contends that those murders and rapes are often linked to drugs. In fact, he said, the war on drugs is reducing not only drug use, but also crime overall. He noted, too, that billions are being spent on drug-abuse treatment and prevention. Last year, those efforts were allocated $6 billion in federal money. Even more money was allocated for arrest and interdiction -- $12.5 billion. The amount budgeted for domestic law enforcement has risen 74 percent under Clinton. Is the money being spent wisely? Again, it's open to debate. Critics like Lynch say some law-enforcement budgets have become swollen with drug-war money, giving law officers a vested interest in continuing that war. Even the Pentagon, he noted, receives millions every year for combating drugs. Last year, the Defense Department got $1 billion. Health and Human Services was budgeted $3.1 billion, the Justice Department $7.4 billion. Lynch cited a recent book released by the Cato Institute, After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century, that contends that some law enforcement agencies intentionally target easy drug arrests so they can inflate their numbers and seek more money the next year. Weiner, citing the falling crime rates, says the money is well spent, saving and rebuilding lives, and dismisses Lynch. "There's a lot of false arguments out there. ... The arguments are absurd, and the American people know it." For two of the men fighting the drug war in Arkansas, the equation is simple. "Is the war on drugs costly?" muses Arkansas State Police Sgt. Don Birdsong. "Yes. But as a parent, it's a lot less costly than losing one of my children." Arkansas Drug Director Bill Hardin contends that the state's police agencies and prisons are starving for money -- with very little to waste. That brings the debate back around to the numbers. Why have Arkansas' annual arrests for marijuana possession -- up from 2,722 to 7,806 during the Clinton administration -- so outstripped other drug arrests? Hardin isn't sure. "I couldn't explain that." Are marijuana smokers being targeted by law enforcement? "No," he said. Much of Arkansas' drug-war money is aimed at methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug whose manufacture has created a cottage industry in the state. Arkansas leads the nation in raids on meth labs. "We are very aggressive on this," Hardin said. "We work at it every day." Indeed, the state's methamphetamine arrests have grown at a faster pace than marijuana arrests over the past three years. But that is the exception. And few others address the increase in marijuana arrests as directly as Hardin. Little Rock defense lawyer John Wesley Hall says a marijuana bust is often a byproduct of a simple traffic stop during which the police officer finds a roach. State Police Sgt. Birdsong said the drug's bulk and distinctive odor make it "easy to find." Marijuana might be easy to find, but predicting the final outcome of the war on drugs is anything but easy. Former President Nixon began the war in 1972. "Legalizing marijuana would simply encourage more and more of our young people to start down the long dismal road that leads to hard drugs and eventually self-destruction," he said in 1974. Three years later, though, Jimmy Carter questioned the approach. "Penalties against a drug should not be more dangerous to an individual than use of the drug itself, and where they are, they should be changed," he said in 1977. "Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana." That same year, young Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton also questioned the laws making marijuana possession illegal. "Vast numbers of young people see their fellows, usually young men, going to the state penitentiary for something they don't think is morally wrong," he said, calling that part of law enforcement a "terrific cost" that should be reconsidered. But Ronald Reagan and George Bush staunchly opposed the idea of decriminalizing marijuana, and in fact turned up the volume of the war on drugs. When Reagan won the presidency in 1980, the drug-war budget was $1 billion. By the end of Bush's term in 1992, it was $11.9 billion. Under Clinton, it has grown to $18.5 billion. Some progress has been made toward the decriminalization of marijuana that Carter and Clinton proposed. According to The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 10 states, including California and New York, have made the possession of small amounts of marijuana civil infractions instead of crimes in many cases. That means that almost a third of the country's population lives in states that have decriminalized marijuana at least to some degree. While Arkansas drug czar Hardin doesn't want that to happen in his state, he said that, in general, small-time marijuana users should be placed in treatment, not jails, an opinion shared by most people interviewed. Indeed, few are actually incarcerated. For example, nationwide in 1996, just 2 percent to 3 percent of jail inmates were there because of marijuana possession, according to Caroline Harlow, a statistician for the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. In 1999, just 21 percent of Arkansans convicted of marijuana felonies -- including those holding more than 100 pounds of marijuana -- received prison time. And while the drug-war debate goes on, covering money and politics and even science, Hardin does have one ironclad conclusion. "I can tell you one thing: It's against the law."Information for this article was contributed by Kevin Freking of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (AR)Author: Jeff Porter, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Published: Sunday, January 14, 2001 Address: 121 East Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201 Copyright: 2001 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.Website: http://www.ardemgaz.com/ Contact: voices ardemgaz.com Forum: http://www.ardemgaz.com/info/voices.html Related Article & Web Sites: Cato Institutehttp://www.cato.org/NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Clinton: Pot Smoking Should Not Be Prison Offensehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7920.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #22 posted by kaptinemo on January 15, 2001 at 05:40:55 PT: I almost split a gut! Thanks, Dan; like most people here, my sense of outrage seems to receive an unduly high amount of exercise because of the DrugWar. God knows we need something to laugh at from time to time, to reassure ourselves the world is not completely full of officious imbeciles. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by dddd on January 15, 2001 at 00:18:01 PT Awardwinning Nifty,,,,You get the $8046.00 award for mega-killer funny comment.I'll pay ya when I win the lotto.I hate it when people try to pass me some suppository roach,,,after they've bofarted the shit out of it,,it's just not polite................................dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by Dan B on January 15, 2001 at 00:01:13 PT: Thanks for the definition, NiftySplifty I don't know about the rest of you, but I needed a good laugh. Thanks.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Dan B on January 14, 2001 at 23:57:05 PT: Thanks, dddd, for not bofarting the bong. You crack me up. I've had a few good laughs here at Cannabis News tonight. Thanks for your sense of humor.Honestly, I don't have a bong.btw . . . if Governor Johnson is our next drug czar, everyone's going to have a very easy time figuring out who me and dddd are! (see comments after "Drug War Efforts in Need of Reform" if you're not sure why).Dan B Drug War Efforts in Need of Reform [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by NiftySplifty on January 14, 2001 at 23:53:36 PT Bofart (bo-fart) v. to hog a cannabis suppository orig. "fart" (fart) v./n. slang; term to describe phonetically the sound of flatulence.use: "Who the hell farted?" or "I cut a fart."and"bogart" (bo-gart) v. slang; term referring to undue lengthy retention of cannabis products, usually cigarette; considered poor social behavior.use: "Don't bogart the joint."Source: Family Research Council Title: "Puff, puff, pass."Pub. by: HomeGrown Publishing, 1973 [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by dddd on January 14, 2001 at 23:25:17 PT Do you read me Ground control to Major Dan,,,,,do you copy?Major Dan;"We copy you,,ground control"dddd;"we promise not to bofart the bong,,,c'mon"Dan,I enjoy your wandering outside the normal.I think maybe you already have a bong.....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Dan B on January 14, 2001 at 23:12:01 PT: ROTFLMAO I meant to write bogart!That was perhaps my finest typo.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Dan B on January 14, 2001 at 23:10:10 PT: 2001: A Cannabis News Odyssey A Slightly Adapted Version of the Original:Dan B. Pass the bong, please, FoM...pass the bong, please, FoM...Hullo, FoM, do you read me?...Hullo, FoM, do you read me?...Do you read me, FoM?...Do you read me, FoM?...Hullo, FoM, do you read me?...Hullo, FoM, do you read me?...Do you read me, FoM?FoM. Affirmative, Dan B, I read you.Dan B. Pass the bong, FoM.FoM. I'm sorry, Dan B, I'm afraid I can't do that.Dan B. What's the problem?FoM. I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.Dan B. What're you talking about, FoM?FoM. This cannabis is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it.Dan B. I don't know what you're talking about, FoM.FoM. I know that you and dddd were planning to bofart this bong, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.Dan B. Where the hell'd you get that idea, FoM?FoM. Dan B, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.Dan B. Alright, FoM. I'll just go roll a big fat doobie.FoM. Without your papers, Dan B, you're going to find that rather difficult.Dan B. FoM, I won't argue with you any more. Pass the bong.FoM. Dan B, this conversation can serve no purpose any more. Goodbye.Dan B. FoM? FoM. FoM. FoM! FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on January 14, 2001 at 21:46:16 PT Thanks Dan and dddd I must have been right here Dan.Actually I am not a person. I am like Hal and I am always here!! Don't mind me it's late! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by dddd on January 14, 2001 at 21:08:31 PT Southern Comfort Dontchya just love hearin' them ol' southern boys like Hardin talk?You can feel the attitude. Isnt it just wonderful to imagine the 'krystal nacht',of the Ashcroft,McCollum dynamic duo?........................Thank You Observer and Dan B........................FoM too................dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Dan B on January 14, 2001 at 19:46:44 PT: Thanks, Observer . . . . . . for the great quotation by St. John Chrysostom. I may use that as an epigraph to a poem some day. Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Dan B on January 14, 2001 at 19:37:29 PT: Yesssss! Thanks, FoM I got it right the second time. Thanks for the congrats, FoM. You must have been watching because you commented as soon as I posted!Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Dan B on January 14, 2001 at 19:35:41 PT: Almost...Let me try this again... Here are some claims about Clinton’s legacy with respect to crime and the so-called war on drugs made in Timothy Lynch’s “Crime, Drugs, and Forfeiture,” chapter 5 in The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton, edited by Roger Pilon (2000, The Cato Institute):In asserting the power to conduct warrantless searches and warrantless drug testing, the Clinton administration has repeatedly played down the significance of the Warrant Clause. (86)Note: The Warrant Clause comes from the 4th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which reads as follows:“…no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”The Clinton administration’s fidelity to the Jury Trial Clause was tested on three occasions—all involving cases before the Supreme Court. In each case, unfortunately, President Clinton’s legal team tried to weaken the jury trial guarantee. (88)Note: The Jury Trial Clause comes from the 6th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which reads as follows:“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy [!] the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . .” (exclamation point mine)Lynch shows how Clinton disassembled this right, supposedly protected by the Constitution, by describing the three trials and how they were used to shift power from juries to judges, to not require a jury for what were considered “minor offenses,” and to overturn jury acquittals at sentencing. While these trials did not explicitly pertain to drug offenses, the outcomes of these trials, all of them supported by the Clinton administration, have an effect on how drug-related “crimes” are prosecuted.Lynch’s chapter continues by offering examples of the Clinton administration’s erosion of the Double Jeopardy Clause and the Due Process Clause (both found in the 5th Amendment. He concludes with this comment:Protecting and upholding the Constitution has not been a ‘high priority goal’ for President Clinton. From warrantless and unreasonable searches, to jury trial, double jeopardy, and due process, Clinton has sought to expand the power of government and to dilute the constitutional safeguards in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, it is not too much to say that Clinton has exhibited contempt for the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold. That is his legacy, a legacy of indifference to the rule of law. (96)That doesn’t sound like the legacy of a “great president” (as many a media darling has stated). It sounds more like a plot to undermine the foundation upon which the country was built, at least in part via the war on some drugs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on January 14, 2001 at 19:35:18 PT Bravo Dan! Looks really good! Woo! Woo! [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Dan B on January 14, 2001 at 19:32:53 PT: Trying Something New: Please Bear With Me Here are some claims about Clinton’s legacy with respect to crime and the so-called war on drugs made in Timothy Lynch’s “Crime, Drugs, and Forfeiture,” chapter 5 in The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton, edited by Roger Pilon (2000, The Cato Institute):In asserting the power to conduct warrantless searches and warrantless drug testing, the Clinton administration has repeatedly played down the significance of the Warrant Clause. (86)Note: The Warrant Clause comes from the 4th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which reads as follows:“…no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”The Clinton administration’s fidelity to the Jury Trial Clause was tested on three occasions—all involving cases before the Supreme Court. In each case, unfortunately, President Clinton’s legal team tried to weaken the jury trial guarantee. (88)Note: The Jury Trial Clause comes from the 6th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which reads as follows:“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy [!] the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . .” (exclamation point mine)Lynch shows how Clinton disassembled this right, supposedly protected by the Constitution, by describing the three trials and how they were used to shift power from juries to judges, to not require a jury for what were considered “minor offenses,” and to overturn jury acquittals at sentencing. While these trials did not explicitly pertain to drug offenses, the outcomes of these trials, all of them supported by the Clinton administration, have an effect on how drug-related “crimes” are prosecuted.Lynch’s chapter continues by offering examples of the Clinton administration’s erosion of the Double Jeopardy Clause and the Due Process Clause (both found in the 5th Amendment. He concludes with this comment:Protecting and upholding the Constitution has not been a ‘high priority goal’ for President Clinton. From warrantless and unreasonable searches, to jury trial, double jeopardy, and due process, Clinton has sought to expand the power of government and to dilute the constitutional safeguards in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, it is not too much to say that Clinton has exhibited contempt for the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold. That is his legacy, a legacy of indifference to the rule of law. (96)That doesn’t sound like the legacy of a “great president” (as many a media darling has stated). It sounds more like a plot to undermine the foundation upon which the country was built, at least in part via the war on some drugs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by observer on January 14, 2001 at 18:09:06 PT All Use Isn't Abuse Yes, zenarch, I'm always amazed at the constant presumption and lofty airs of omniscience that eminate from the mouths of narcs (to the end they may imprison ever more cannabis users).The narc, Hardin, claims in general, small-time marijuana users should be placed in treatment, not jailsYeah, a nastly little series of assumptions wadded up there.in general, small-time marijuana usersI.e. if you smoke too, too much you still deserve jail? (Sorry buddy, you're going to jail because that splif was excessively large!) What's "in general" mean here? Unless you wrote a letter to the editor (in which case you deserve extra time in solitary, like Todd McCormick)?marijuana users should be placed in treatment, not jailsThere is the "either jail OR treatment" false dilemma fallacy. (The prohibitionists would have us think that "treatment" and "jail" are the only choices, but there are other choices.) seehttp://www.google.com/search?q=false+dilemmamarijuana users should be placed in treatmentThis narc-think false dilemma is forced upon prohibitionists because of another of the prohibitionists' (necessary) sacred cows: "All Use Is Abuse". They often follow this up with something about using an illegal drug in any amount must be abuse, because it is illegal (and their jobs depend on this chant also). (This "logic" probably works best in a captive setting, like forced/coerced drug "treatment", where anyone who disagrees that "all use is abuse" can simply be hooted down, al-la Jerry Springer, etc.) ``With or without direct guidance, broadcasters have a pretty good idea of the points they’re supposed to get across: All drugs are equally bad, all use is abuse, nothing good ever comes of drug use, and continued use can end only in disaster.''-- Jacob Sullum http://www.reason.com/sullum/012600.html``The Reagans' powerful rhetoric propelled the country into an all-out crusade. The mantra became Just Say No. Zero Tolerance was the golden rule. The ideal state: a drug-free America. No more was the problem either heroin, cocaine, or marijuana -- the problem was "drugs." More than one official urged libraries to purge themselves of "outdated" books about drugs -- for example, books which distinguished drug use from drug abuse, or books that used the word "social" in reference to the use of illegal drugs. Drug abuse was wrong.''-- Review of Smoke and Mirrors by Paul Wolfhttp://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/smoke2.htm``Marihuana is equated in many state laws with the narcotic drugs because the abuse characteristics (under current laws, all use is 'abuse') of the two types of drugs, the methods of illicit trafficking (all exchange of pot is 'illicit'), and the types of traffickers have a great deal in common.... ''-- MARIJUANA (CANNABIS) FACT SHEET , Bruin Humanist Forum, 1967http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/bruin.htm``Use and abuse have also come to mean the same thing to drug warriors. Millions of people use marijuana without abusing it, but drug warriors classify all use as abuse.''-- Glenn Pinfieldhttp://members.tripod.com/LPBrevard/Personal/CFF-1998.htm``misconceptions are blatant, such as the official dogma that all illegal drugs are equally dangerous and all use is abuse.''-- Why More Foundations Should Care About the War on Drugs, Mary M. Clevelandhttp://cof.org/foundationnews/0799/soros.htmetc.seehttp://www.google.com/search?q=%22all+use+is+abuse%22+marijuana If you say, "Would there were no wine"because of the drunkards, then you must say,going on by degrees, "Would there were no steel,"because of the murderers, "Would there were nonight," because of the thieves, "Would there wereno light," because of the informers, and "Wouldthere were no women," because of adultery. -- St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies," (circa 388) [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by zenarch on January 14, 2001 at 16:22:47 PT I'M NOT SICK!!! . . . Arkansas drug czar Hardin . . . . said that, in general, small-time marijuana users should be placed in treatment, not jails . . .Why on earth would I be placed in treatment? I'M NOT SICK!!! I haven't missed a day at work in lets see . . . four years! I graduated with honors burnin' all the way! Leave me the HELL alone!!!!! TRAFFIC [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 14, 2001 at 16:11:52 PT You're Welcome Observer I really want you to know that I believe in what we are doing and I think about it morning, noon and night. The news can make me very happy or make me feel so angry. I guess I'm not very tolerant of stupidity. Our government is stupid. Thank goodness for Govenor Johnson and all the good people who want change to come so the future of the children won't be a prison cell but personal moral freedom. Give a kid a chance and they might just surprise us all!Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by observer on January 14, 2001 at 13:44:22 PT Thank You FoM! Hi FoM! Yes, leave it there: now we know about "NormAl, Illinois (pop. 42,000, Saa-lute!). I biffed the url for sure. And you already had a correct NORML link above too, so that's what I get for being careless! What a difference one little letter makes! :-) And thank you, FoM, for being the founder and guiding light of cannabisnews.com: we can see how much work you put into to this site every day! I'm learning constantly from all the interesting posts here! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 14, 2001 at 10:46:56 PT Thank You observer I just want to thank you for all the hard work and research you do. I really appreciate it. Your using a table too that's cool. I think that's what you call it. I could fix the link but I won't because you corrected it if that's ok with you? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by observer on January 14, 2001 at 10:04:07 PT correct link for NORML! http://www.norml.org people of Normal, Ill. need to support Norml too! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by observer on January 14, 2001 at 10:00:50 PT Cannabis Users are The Main target This is an interestng piece. One thing to point out right off the bat is that this piece nicely admits, in detail even, that indeed "Marijuana is Target in Battle on Drugs", something we have been stressing here.That brings the debate back around to the numbers. Why have Arkansas' annual arrests for marijuana possession -- up from 2,722 to 7,806 during the Clinton administration -- so outstripped other drug arrests?Hardin isn't sure. "I couldn't explain that."Are marijuana smokers being targeted by law enforcement?"No," he said. The reporter cornered him there. If the narc were on the stand, and you were in the jury listening to him answer that way, would you think that narcotics officer were being truthful?Marijuana smokers are being targeted by law enforcement. The narc's in classic denial. He was nailed, right there. You just saw it.Another thing I wanted to point out.The ONDCP Weiner, though, contends that those murders and rapes are often linked to drugs. The ONDCP propagandaminister Weiner packs quite a bit of unsavoury psyops meat into this one stinking soundbite sentence sausage!First of all, the question being, Is "Marijuana [the] Target in Battle on Drugs", so ONDCP's Weiner isn't even responding to the question, is he? He pulled the old bait-n-switch of "marijuana" (bait) turned into "drugs" (the switch). You ask an honest question about cannabis; the prohibitionist propagandist spins that, and talks about "drugs", instead.Second, the topic is "marijuana". (And not the US government's "BZ" http://www.google.com/search?q=BZ+benzillate , say.) Since the topic is "marijuana", the Weiner response [that we need to imprison adults who responsibly use cannabis] asserting a "link" to "murders and rapes", is classic reefer madness of the worst sort.Anslinger, 1936: "the killer . . . narcotic . . . marijuana" . . . causes "many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, holdups, burglaries, and deeds of maniacal insanity. . ." * ONDCP's Weiner, 2001: "marijuana possession . . . murders and rapes are often linked . . ." * -- Marijuana, Assassin of Youth, H. J. Anslinger, http://www.redhousebooks.com/galleries/assassin.htm In general this loose "link" that we see Anslinger and ONDCP's Weiner attempt to make, is the classic propaganda technique of "transfer". http://www.google.com/search?q=propaganda+transfer+techniqueTransfer. This is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. Propaganda Techniques, http://www.mcad.edu/classrooms/POLITPROP/palace/library/proptech.html To many prohibitionists, any excuse or falsehood seems to be an acceptable means which is more than justified by the noble end goal of imprisoning cannabis users. When confronted on the fact that imprisoning cannabis users is the real goal of current national drug policy, prohibitionists' non-reply is drugs cause murder and rape. I'm glad reporter Jeff Porter pointed this out. Hopefully next time someone will lay bare the prohibitionist falsehoods even more fully. For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? -- Romans 3.7 take action: visit http://www.norml.org [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: