cannabisnews.com: Johnson Gets Mixed Reviews on East Coast
Johnson Gets Mixed Reviews on East Coast
Posted by FoM on April 25, 2001 at 08:16:06 PT
By Mark Hummels, The New Mexican
Source: Santa Fe New Mexican
He's kind of mellow, or maybe a lunatic, a man who sounds a little flaky but says momentum is growing behind his controversial crusade.Those are among impressions of Gov. Gary Johnson in the national media following his recent trip to the East Coast to talk up drug legalization, accept an AIDS award and speak at a convention of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
"Johnson had bravely gone where no governor had gone before - to a convention of America's foremost pro-pot organization, where the T-shirts showed the Cat in the Hat toking from a water pipe and the bumper stickers read 'Pee for Enjoyment, Not Employment,' " observed a Washington Post reporter describing the NORML conference.Johnson is back in the national media spotlight - big time - after taking his drug-law-overhaul crusade on a two-week East Coast road trip that ended Tuesday.The governor's contention that the nation's war on drugs is a "miserable failure" is no surprise to New Mexicans, who have been hearing Johnson's drug talk for nearly two years now.But it still plays well in the national media, winning Johnson spots on such prominent programs as NBC's Meet the Press, where the governor squared off Sunday against former drug czar Barry McCaffrey.Not all the press accounts are prized scrapbook material. Jake Tapper, the Washington, D.C., correspondent for Salon online magazine, had this to say:"Johnson seems much younger than his 48 years, and he speaks with a distinct Santa Fe inflection, which ... can sound a little flaky, and makes it easy for the Washington establishment to dismiss him."The article nails Johnson for his kid-glove treatment of President Bush and his drug-czar nominee, John Walters, whom even McCaffrey has criticized as too much of a supply side drug warrior.Johnson, a maverick Republican, told Salon he wanted to give his "personal friend" Bush the benefit of the doubt on the nomination."He seems liberated," Tapper wrote of Johnson, "whenever Bush is not the subject of conversation."In the Post article, First Lady Dee Johnson reflects on her husband's appetite for risk, expressed through activities such as skydiving."My mother always celebrated every year that I wasn't a widow because the man is such a lunatic," she said with a smile. "If I worried about him, I'd be a basket case."Johnson was honored Monday by AIDS Action for backing a new state law allowing pharmacists to distribute syringes to drug addicts - one of three of the governor's drug-law bills to make it through the Legislature this year.The governor's office has said the bulk of Johnson's two-week trip was paid by NORML and others who invited the governor to speak, including Florida State University and Harvard University.But state taxpayers will foot the bill for the governor's security contingent, which will run about $5,200 for airfare and hotel rooms plus other costs to be tallied. Source: Santa Fe New Mexican (NM)Author: Mark Hummels, The New Mexican Published: April 25, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Santa Fe New MexicanContact: letters sfnewmexican.comWebsite: http://www.sfnewmexican.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Governor Gary Johnson's Home Pagehttp://www.governor.state.nm.us/Virtually NORMLhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9476.shtmlGov. Preaches to Choir on Drug Reform http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9424.shtmlThe Pol & The Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9421.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #74 posted by kaptinemo on April 28, 2001 at 09:41:35 PT:
I see the anti telephone tree is fully operational
But still as ineffective as ever, if this is the best that can be fielded.I've noticed something about "Ms. Friend"/Joyce Nalepka's 'offerings' here; she never actually addresses anyone's comments.At the very least, Frances does...albeit, rather clumsily. 'Ms. Friend' shows up precisely as an old-line Soviet Commissar, spouts her party line as if she was addressing the latest convention of the Comintern, and just like them, seems to expect automatic applause for her efforts. Very strange that she never actually addresses any specific points by any of those posting in opposition to her.This seeming imperiousness on the part of antis has always caused me some amusement. In large part due to the fact that it ties in so well with the ancient tale of the Emperor's Clothes, which is so well known to every reformer.The attitude of the antis towards real discourse has always seemed to me to be composed of equal parts of arrogance and fear. Arrogance in the belief that their ideas are totally unassailable because - well, uh, er, - they just are! So, there! Harrumph! I'm right and they're (reformers) wrong!But their fear is that the source of this arrogance will be revealed as nothing less than dependance upon those in power enforcing laws based upon ignorance and prejudice. It has only the most gossamer reliance upon reason. And that 'reason' is in turn dependant upon trumpetting studies long-discredited in peer reviews, but which antis hope the public will remain ignorant of. When challenged to produce those studies, they invariably beg off with the weak riposte that we would not give them the 'consideration' (meaning slavish, uncritical acceptance) antis feel they are due.And I still haven't seen a single reply to my question: When is a law immoral?Joyce? Frances? Fed? I'm still waiting...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #73 posted by observer on April 28, 2001 at 09:16:19 PT
Critical Thinking = Symptom of Chronic
Governor Johnson clearly displays, in my view, the profile of a former, probably heavy, marijuana user. There appears to be a marijuana syndrome that lingers long after use. The majority of folks I've interviewed appear to be absolutely unable to see any damage from pot. When I questioned Gov. Johnson in Philadelphia at the "Shadow Convention" he clearly fell into my categorization of "long-time pot user. In the recent Style section of The Washington Post, he seemed to have no understanding of how damaging his comments about pot and cocaine are to young readers.Marijuana produces a wide spectrum of psychological symptoms. Some affect some people; some affect others. And there are those who seem to “get away with it” reasonably well, for a while. But there is one truly pernicious symptom -- specifically related to marijuana -- which seems to be evident in every chronic pot-user, youngster or adult. This is the extraordinary refusal to accept the hard scientific evidence about the harmful effects of marijuana. The user will scoff at the evidence, twist it, pervert it, call it “reefer madness” -- anything except look it straight in the face.This may be one reason much of the media have done shockingly little to relay the medical findings about the harmful effects of marijuana to the American public.-- Dr. Harold Voth, quoted in "Marijuana Alert!" (1985, Mann) (PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS, pg. 247)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9997732243/ Got that folks? If you disagree or critically analyize research results that demonstrate the deadly nature of this wicked drug, the very disagreement and critical examination itself (i.e. "refusal to accept the hard scientific evidence about the harmful effects of marijuana") is "one truly pernicious symptom" which is "evident in every chronic pot-user."So when Joyce Nalepka says, "Governor Johnson clearly displays, in my view, the profile of a former, probably heavy, marijuana user" what she means is that Johnson refuses to uncritically accept scientific pretexts for jailing marijuana users. Argue with any prohibitionist claim concerning the harms of marijuana? That itself is a "symptom" of a "chronic pot-user."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #72 posted by observer on April 28, 2001 at 08:43:03 PT
Toxic Chemicals!
Consider, there is a stream that runs through your body that is a great deal more important to you that a mountain stream, YOUR BLOOD STREAM. If you smoke marijuana you are dumping those same toxic chemicals mentioned above into your blood stream. Gental tokers - that's not good for you or the side stream smoke recipients around you. Even if cannabis had much greater or worse "toxic chemicals" that you mention, none of this would be a reason to arrest or jail people who take marijuana. Marijuana can be eaten, see: http://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+recipies Marijuana can be vaporized. You can buy a vaporizer. Vaporizing cannabishttp://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+vaporizers eliminates "benzene, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide" and other noxious production of compustion ... by eliminating the need for combustion. Having a plant medicine that can be administered via so many different routes is an advantage in using the medicine, not a disadvantage. You make an excellent argument for using the finest, most potent cannabis available for smoking; since less is smoked less of the noxious chemicals are consumed. Most cigarette smoker don't have one or two puffs at a time. re: "side stream smoke recipients". That's a fair point. People should take cannabis responsibly, which means not forcing others to ingest cannabis. I.e. as for tobacco, smoke in well-ventilated areas, smoke away from non-smokers, smoke outside, etc.see:NORML's Principles of Responsible Marijuana Usehttp://www.norml.org/about/responsible.shtmlFrances, I wouldn't worry so much about the relatively tiny load of "toxic" chemicals that marijuana smokers may recieve, as the fact that "Marihuana makes fiends of boys inthirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."http://www.google.com/search?q=marihuana+makes+fiends+of+boys
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #71 posted by FoM on April 28, 2001 at 08:24:46 PT
Hello Mary Friend
Hello Mary, You and I have a lot in common. You are sincere and you are looking for answers. So am I. I'm not really sure about what Governor Johnson said about Cocaine but what he says about Marijuana I agree with him. Harm Reduction must happen for hard drugs. We have people who are strung out on hard drugs and that's an issue that is something that will need to be figured out but Marijuana and adults rights to possess and use, not children, is important. This is 2001 and Reefer Madness isn't convincing anyone about the harms of Marijuana. As an adult do you believe it is alright for a couple to have an after dinner cocktail? I think that is fine. I don't drink but I did on and off for a few years and quit but I don't think others have to quit in a free society. Can we look at adult use of a substance that is natural and maybe admit that it can't be as bad as people think? Marijuana is not a harmless substance but neither are alcohol and tobacco but they are legal. We are not the enemy of each other I think.Thank You for commenting. We all do need to talk about this and this is a good way.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #70 posted by Frances on April 28, 2001 at 08:07:33 PT:
Environmental Blood Stream
Gentle Toker:My hunch is that most/many of you are avid environmentalists who are very respectful of "streams" - mountain streams, river streams, little brooks, etc., who would strenously object to dumping benzene, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide (the reduction of which is causing a big flap between the environmentalists and Bush), toulene, Vinyl chloride, benzo(a)pyrene (with a direct scientifically proven link to lung cancer)into them.(Ntl. Academy of Sciences, IOM Report, 1982)Consider, there is a stream that runs through your body that is a great deal more important to you that a mountain stream, YOUR BLOOD STREAM. If you smoke marijuana you are dumping those same toxic chemicals mentioned above into your blood stream.Gental tokers - that's not good for you or the side stream smoke recipients around you.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #69 posted by observer on April 28, 2001 at 06:56:33 PT
FYI: Mary Friend = Joyce Nalepka
see:http://www.cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Joyce+Nalepka&H=40&T=Bespecially, see:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7357.shtml#5 ****http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/5/thread5197.shtml#4 http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/5/thread5040.shtml#2http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/5/thread5122.shtml#13etc.Carrie Nation strikes again!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #68 posted by dddd on April 28, 2001 at 05:58:19 PT
Astonishing
Good grief Ms. Friend.Those are some real cheap,simplistic,andimmature shots you launched in your tantrum/tirade againstGovernor Johnson.You are way more scary than he is.I would never let you babysitmy kids.I would trust Gov. Johnson far more.At least he is balanced,and rational in his beliefs,and comments,,,and he will explain himselfwhen asked.You sound as if you might benifit from a few hits of Zoloft,or Prozac.I think they made it legal especially for people who aredisturbed,as you seem to be.If you need it,or want such drugs,noproblem,,,they are completely legal.Just get a doctor to write up a prescription,go to your local pharmacy,and get some relief........dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #67 posted by Rambler on April 28, 2001 at 05:41:44 PT
One Question
Mary,please answer just this one question;Have you ever smoked Marijuana?Thank you
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #66 posted by Mary Friend on April 28, 2001 at 05:35:45 PT:
Governor Gary Johnson
Governor Johnson clearly displays, in my view, the profile of a former, probably heavy, marijuana user. There appears to be a marijuana syndrome that lingers long after use. The majority of folks I've interviewed appear to be absolutely unable to see any damage from pot.When I questioned Gov. Johnson in Philadelphia at the "Shadow Convention" he clearly fell into my categorization of "long-time pot user.In the recent Style section of The Washington Post, he seemed to have no understanding of how damaging his comments about pot and cocaine are to young readers.He was in Washington to attend NORML's convention. His comments in the Post included: "Most users of marijuana are respoonsible users," he said. "They're not doing any harm to anybody...."He said he was taught that marijuana would "make him crazy." "The thing that struck me was that this whole scare story was a lie." he said. Then he compares it to the lies of "the Easter Bunny." "This was kind of the same thing. I thought, "Gee, this is all al lie!" We say, "Governor Johnson, you are not seeing the same picture parents and grandparents are seeing as they struggle to get young users off this very dangerous drug."You also may not realize that you were likely smoking a much weaker potency pot at an older beginning age than is happening today. The pot you smoked "in the 70's" was likely at 2 to 4%. You say you were in college which means your education was substantially in place. Today's kids are buying weed at 20 to 35 % with an average beginning age of 12! In fact, we videod kids as young as 12 to 14 being shown how to roll joints at the last Smoke-In in Boston. NORML's signs and members were everywhere. It appears pot also removes adults ability to "reason" things like, "Maybe if I'm the governor of a state, I ought to display a little ability to protect the children of at least my own constitutents." I've watched you with friends over the time you've been in Washington. It's appalling that an elected official has no more commonsense and concern for children than you've displayed.NORML and their colleagues are involved in attempting to get marijuana cigarettes legalized as "medicine" and are using AIDS patients as the ramrod to push ahead even though NIH has said, "People with HIV and others whose immune system is impaired should avoid marijuana use." and that 4 researchers from 3 different universities have said, "Marijuana's THC attacks the same lymphocytes (immune system) as the HIV virus." We strongly suggest that the AIDS community file a class action suit against NORML, you, and the government for lying to them and placing them at greater risk by pushing pot as "medicine" for their extremely weakened immune systems.Your comments about cocaine were even more idiotic. Len Bias found out the hard way what cocaine can do. Daryl Strawberry and Robert Downey, Jr. are still alive but appear to be among the walking dead.You and NORML appear to dislike law enforcement; however, isn't it ironic that it seems the only time addicts (like Downey & Strawberry) seem to be able to get real help is when they are forced to do so?The only show you seem to fit into would be "Jackasses" the idiot show on cable that has caused kids to set themselves on fire and, more recently, stand in front of a car waiting to be hit--ending up in the hospital. These were teenagers who have not lived to gain the experience you should have by now. You show no more sense of responsibility than they did.We ask the voters of New Mexico to impeach you NOW and don't ever reelect you for public office. M. Friend
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #65 posted by dddd on April 28, 2001 at 04:28:31 PT
thread/rope
After reviewing the entire discussion here,I am struckby how weak the prohibitionist side appeared....It waskind of unfair in a way,because the opposition was quiteoutnumbered,and had volumes of material to sort throughto prepare an adequate defense.What I want to say to Frances and FedRegs,if they read this;is thatI hope you will not shy away from continuing to visit here,andlet your opinions be known.Furthermore,I encourage you to findthe best,knowledgable represenatives of your position,and extenda cordial invitation for them to visit here,and engage in an exchangeof opinions.One of the main problems that frustrates many of us,is the lack ofpeople who are willing to have a debate or discussion.The governmenthas been very shy about engaging in any public debate,and I think thatthis reflects the weakness of their position,and the illegitimate natureof their "War on Drugs".It seems to me that they are afraid that theactual facts concerning this nasty "war" they started,would shock thepublic.I challenge anyone,who has contrasting views to join in,and speak outin defense of the drug war,and Marijuana prohibition......I dare you!Dont be bashful.We are wondering where you are?Once again,I want to thank FedRegs and Frances for at least speaking up.I respect you for voicing your viewpoints.I hope you will continue to do so.Please invite some of your like-minded friends to join in too.Regards.......................dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #64 posted by Swampie on April 28, 2001 at 03:04:02 PT
Thanx for the great dialogue
To all of you that participated,I sincerely give my personal congradulations for a great start of what I hope to be an ongoing discussion,even if we take this to another articlewhere we can engage in more debate with FedReg,and Frances,and I hope as Kap said that they will bring more of their friends into our wonderful debate!!By the way,FedReg,it took me a whole pack of Marlboros',a 6-pack of beer,and 1 Vicodin to sit here long enough to read all of this....Now I am going to smoke a joint and go back to bed!!!!!!!!!!!! Please keep up the good work,WE ARE WINNING!!!!ONE STEP AT A TIME!!! Please let me know where this moves to if it moves,FOM,thanx!!! PEACE,SWAMPIE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #63 posted by kaptinemo on April 27, 2001 at 17:35:29 PT:
Is it safe to assume that this thread has closed?
I am having to guess so because we have yet to hear from Frances and FedRegs.In the event that it has, I'd like to express my deepest thanks and sincerest admiration to FoM for providing us this forum, to Observer, Robbie, the Good Doctor R, FF, Jorma, Swampie, jAHN, JSM, lookinside, Dan Hillman, Schopenhauer, 4D, and Morgan.All of you have shined. The antis have yet to find a riposte that wasn't either too nebulous...or just plain too juvenile in attitude to ever warrant any respect. They've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what I've been saying for years; they have grown so complacent with their assumption that they would always be in a commanding position that they've grown 'fat, dumb, and happy'. Thinking their postulates would never be successfully challenged, they've forgotten how to really defend their beliefs in the arena of public discourse. Put them in a room with the minds that I have witnessed at work here, and the rhetorical blood would flow...theirs.BTW, in the event that this thread hasn't closed, I'd just like to say: I'm still waiting for an answer Fed: when is a law unjust? And when should such a law be opposed?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #62 posted by FoM on April 27, 2001 at 12:49:11 PT
Morgan
Hi Morgan,I can't move it to the top because the program isn't created that way but with the Recent Comment Section, once another person comments, it is made to brings it back up to the top. So I recommend bookmarking the Recent Comment Section. That is one of the most popular newer features that I've noticed. I hope this helps!http://cannabisnews.com/newcomments.shtml
What's New
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #61 posted by Morgan on April 27, 2001 at 12:38:43 PT
Thank you
I just want to say that I'm really enjoying this spirited debate. I want to thank Fed Regs and Frances for posting their views on this board. We've been waiting for you! It is so rare to see prohibitionists freely engage in an open debate on this subject with minds like Kap, Observer, Robbie, and the rest who are astoundingly succient and knowledgeble in their grasp of this very important subject and it's scope.And many, many thanks to FoM for bringing this to us.I hope this debate can continue, but it would depend on Frances and Fed Regs to keep up the fight, even though they've taken some major hits. (In my eyes) Maybe some of Frances and Fed Regs friends could join in (I know you're out there). Sort of like a tag-team thing? :-)FoM, could you somehow move this back to the front of the line so it won't get lost in the crowd?************************************************
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #60 posted by Robbie on April 27, 2001 at 11:58:29 PT:
Refutation in earnest (Part III)
Observer's are the kind of comments that make me feel that there is little point in continuing the debate. So you're saying that when your position is shot down point-by-point, you don't want to play anymore?I do not find Observer's responses persuasive.Like so many on your side of the argument...when presented with obvious refutation of what you purport, you remain intransigent and fixated on your beliefs.To a large extent, he simply rejects my position because he disagrees with it.This is true of you. Observer and others have refuted your assertions, but you won't see that.But I can't help but wonder what, has he done to get laws changed with which he disagrees?We're all working hard...one way or another...even if it isn't all that much, everyone who comments here at C News would give their eye-teeth to have a reasonable chance to change the laws. But, of those 600, or so, people who represent all 270 million of us, maybe 1 percent are even willing to hear the other side of the coin. Even conservatives run their head against a wall when they dare to suggest that drug laws are wrong and ineffective. You'd think they were driving up to the schoolyard handing out bags of tar-heroin to the kiddies. The fact is that we are burning to get the slightest access to a reasonable chance at real legislation. As Observer has suggested, look at the history! Look at how the laws against marijuana came to be in the first place! Then you could get an inkling of what kind of brick wall we are all pushing against. Then look in the mirror.Is he developing a proposal for the proper regulation and oversight of marijuana production if (as has been asserted on these pages) it will be cheaper, less likely to provoke people to theivery, and safer if marijuana is legalized?There are a billion approaches to safe regulation of marijuana. I myself would contend that no "Phillip Morris" type corporation could incorporate around sales. There should be no advertising of any drug, which includes alcohol and tobacco AND prescription drugs (if you need a pharmaceutical company's drug, your doctor can recommend it to you, not the other way around.) But options regarding safe use are irrelevant when the other side doesn't even want to hear that they could be wrong.Is he doing anything to assuage the concerns of those like me who worry--whether he believes those concerns to be legitimate or not?I understand your concerns. No one is advocating that people go out and use drugs(though I would be the first to tell every tobacco smoker to give it up now and replace it with marijuana.) That's the biggest bit of disinformation coming out of the prohibitionist mouth. But given the ineffectual War on (Some) Drugs, is that prohibition worth making these people criminals when they're not being criminal at all? Is it worth further erosion of freedoms that are supposed to be a given in this country? In the final analysis, no. And, if you'll forgive the bluntness, if you don't like it you can leave. And I'm serious and I'm not attacking you, or bleating out "love it or leave it." But the governmental/social/moral position you advocate (and enforce) is not permissible in the country I was born in.Marijuana is used recreationally for its intoxicating effects, is it not?Sure is.So tell me why I should be willing to accept that.Do you accept the intoxicating effects of alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, etc?Why should I be willing to accept the possibility that more people will drive, work, teach children, etc., while intoxicated?There you go again, equating use with abuse. That is only true of a small segment of the drug using population.Yes, the intoxicants are available now, but the fear of legal consequences reduces the liklihood of their useThat, sir, is a joke. There is absolutely nothing that you can back up that statement with.just as laws against speeding reduces such conductYou'd have to back that up too.You believe you have rights. What about mine?You'll have to show specifically how you are affected by my use of these substances.Sigh... Thank you for letting me ramble. I am not trying to change the minds of anyone on this board, but I appreciate the opportunity to set forth my views and ask a few questions of my own.Kudos! There are not many that will even suggest a debate on these issues. I applaud your ability to stand up and be heard, and even that your stand by your convictions. The one point of contention I have with your last statement, though, is that I am trying to change your mind. The people who smoke pot simply do not understand what offends or injures you so much that you must persecute us for our choice of a harmless plant, developed by God for the use of us all.I'm not the debater that observer is, nor am I the researcher that kapt and Dr. Russo are, but I thought I should address the issues that Fed regs raised. Thank you and have a good weekend.
Peace!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #59 posted by Robbie on April 27, 2001 at 11:57:03 PT:
Refutation in earnest (Part II)
I find the assertion that one can use drugs without harming others to be problematic.Problematic? Isn't that like "a little bit pregnant?" Either they hurt others or they do not. Give specifics.Perhaps that is true in individual cases--Is not the "sum total" made up of "individual cases"?like it could be true that someone could drive 150 mph on the highway without hurting others.I have been in a car going 157 MPH on the interstate. I'm still alive, no one was harmed. Was that foolish? Of course. My friend and I were 19 and we were in a hot car and we wanted to go fast. Sue me. But Fed Regs, how in heck do you equate my smoking a joint with my driving a 2-ton automobile? How do you connect these two quite disparate phenomena? Problematic at best.But in a society such as ours, where we have corporately agreed to live under the rule of law, the laws are not written for the "sometimes" cases.Have you heard about the recent rule allowing police to arrest seat-belt violators and take them to jail? That one isn't always enforced. That sounds like "sometimes" to me.And, to date, the laws are premised on a belief that most people cannot or will not use drugs and always avoid harmIf we want to avoid all harm, and avoid all possibility of harm, then we can go to complete fascism, or, we could just stay in the cave. Have you ever pulled up to a four-way stop sign and not come to a complete stop, and while stopped look both ways before proceeding into the intersection? If you cannot answer yes, shouldn't you turn yourself in? That law is for the "usually" cases, but that law is to protect other people FROM you, not to protect you from yourself.I must admit, to me it defies common sense (and experience) that one can act as responsibly after taking a psychoactive substance as he or she did before.What experience? My common sense tells me that using a psychoactive substance will change the mindset of the user, hence the word "psycho-active," but does that change their being responsible? That's a reach. And if you're so worried about one's responsibility after ingesting a mind-altering substance, why do you not actively fight for the prohibition of alcohol? The alteration of one's mind by alcohol is incontrovertible. There are far greater numbers of alcohol users than heroin, cocaine, and marijuana combined. Why hasn't that drug earned your ire?To me, alcohol and the adverse consequences of its widespread use are the best evidence for never legalizing controlled substances.Allright, so you don't "like" alcohol or what its legalization has meant to people. Do you favor its prohibition? Are you now in a position to tell every American who wants alcohol, "Well, you can't have it because of the harms that may arise from its use." If you do not push for alcohol prohibition, then your defense of marijuana prohibition has no legs. You also equate the legalization only with those who are the worst examples of a drug user.Finally, as to medical marijuana, while I recognize it has been efficacious in some individual casesAgain with the "individual" cases.I am concerned about whether its possible to ensure that only those who are truly ill obtain access to it.It's easier for a teenager to get marijuana than it is for a sick person to get it. What does that say for the efficacy of the prohibition? Are you going to question the use of prohibition on terms of its efficacy?How can it be good medicine to use unrefined plant material `unrefined plant material' You mean like broccoli?(especially if smoked)If smoked? If not smoked? I challenge you right now to find one shred of evidence that unsmoked marijuana causes any harm that warrants prohibition on that point. I'll even give you 30 years to get back to me.That makes me think that their support is political, and not medical, in nature, which means in turn that they are not making decisions based on what is best for the patients.Oh, I'm sorry. Were you talking about people like Barry McCaffrey again?And to my non-physician's eyes, the data are very equivocal regarding marijuana's true efficacy and safety.So it's not good, but, not necessarily bad either. So it's a criminal offense for, what exactly?Do I think people who possess and use small amounts of marijuana should go to jail? No, no more than I think someone who commits any petty offense should go to jail.Only a petty offense because of your, frankly, ignornat and narrow view based on emotion and mis-information over any kind of rational analysis. That is not an attack. That is simply restating facts already in evidence.Nor, however, do I think that in our society one should be able to disobey the law with impunity.The "law" as you love to call it is the law that is the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution. When police and police forces violate that law with impunity, does that instill an outrage in you?So if one chooses to use marijuana, knowing it to be illegal, one should be prepared for consequences--just as if one chooses to speed or to heap trash in front of his or her house. Or change the law. That's the way a society governed by the rule of law works. I realize the consequences, as I have been arrested and fined for less than a gram of marijuana. Just so that the people who so vehemently oppose marijuana today, and find themselves on the other side of your beloved law in the near future, will have certain consequences to face.
Why is your opinion more important than mine?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #58 posted by Robbie on April 27, 2001 at 11:55:49 PT:
Refutation in earnest (Part I)
Hm...let's see. In just a few brief (or not so brief) comments, Frances was likened to a Nazi who "might have aspired to be an Auschwitz prison guard," accused of intellectual dishonesty, and implicitly or explicitly called a thief, rabid prohibitionist, a treatment-racket profiteer, and a quack. Her words were dismissed as squeaking and squawking. Yes, indeed, that's what I call an invitation to intelligent debate, all right. Frances is simply representative of those types of people that we here at C News rail against: someone who posts insults and makes wild claims that s/he can't back up. If Iraq, say, were to attack the US, would the US simply turn the other cheek? I think not. Frances has continually stated that we here are delusional and or misguided, without backing anything that s/he says. As someone else has said, why should we just sit here and take it? Would you?I note that this board has posted articles on some of the studies that seem to indicate that marijuana is not the panacea some believe.Who are these some you refer to? I can think of no one statement by a legitimate reformer that stated that marijuana was a "panacea" in any respect.In response, the studies were vehemently criticized by posters to this board as either (at best) having an insufficient n or (at worst) being the lies and distortions of a prohibitionist/pharmaceutical giant conspiracy.Conspiracy or not, there is ZERO peer-tested research that can claim marijuana causes any harm beyond memory affectation and the problems associated with smoking.The response to the recent head/neck cancer study is an example.Again, not peer-tested, and there are still ZERO links to cancer coming from marijuana use....the same scrutiny should apply to those studies indicating marijuana's apparent benefits.Yet that does not seem to occur; to the contrary, information that doesn't even approach scientific study quality (e.g., user anecdotes) is taken as absolute proof of marijuana's benevolence and efficacy.You know, you may be right. There may be absolutely no positive proof of real medical efficacy, but since there is also no proof of real danger, why should anyone actively pursue the prohibition of this plant? How should its use by someone who wishes to use it be your justification for arresting them?So, I think pro-legalization's seeming unwillingness to fairly consider all studies...With all due respect, ask a prohibitionist how he feels about research that contradicts his position. Talk about vitriol. Case in point: Drug Czar McCaffrey commissioned the 1998 Institute of Medicine report on marijuana. He co-ordinated the efforts at the research. The IOM report concluded that marijuana may very well be medically efficacious, that there's no proof of substantial harm to the user, and that the criminality of the drug is unfounded. Did he consider this? Did he thoughtfully reflect and say, "Well, I was wrong to be so vehemently opposed to it"? Did he say, "I was mistaken and now we should reduce harms associated with its criminal penalties"? No. He did not. He said that the researchers must have been wrong. This is an army general, appointed to a propagandist government post, calling into question the legitimacy of people who actually did the research and have an idea of what's being stated. This sort of intransigent, hysterical opposition is what the people here and all marijuana users must face every day. An opposition that isn't concerned with what is true.To put it another way, if one's evidence is going to be dismissed out of hand and one is going to be personally vilified as a narrow-minded, blind, sheep-like Nazi (to sum up some recent attacks), there is not much room for debate, much less discussion.That sounds like a direct reference to Mr. McCaffrey et al. Further evidence as to why ad hominem attacks by people like Frances are especially enraging.I sometimes wonder if drug laws have become the abortion debate of the new millenium. By that I mean have positions become so entrenched that, even if such a debate as proposed were to take place, minds (on either side) would be closed to the possibility of change?If they came out tomorrow and said that the marijuana was the worst thing for humans since, say, alcohol...well that wouldn't change anything for me. I have partaken of the sacred herb and have concluded that it is OK for me. That may have no basis applied to anyone else, but it is enough for me. But the question would still come down to the legal and moral implications of the laws against that or any other drug. Are they harmful? Yes. Do they represent a threat to people? Yes. Is the prohibition of these drugs warranted? No. You cannot legislate morality. Killing is morally wrong but represents actions taken by one person towards another. Drugs are inflicted by the users on themselves. If you value freedom of choice, then prohibiting drugs is in direct conflict with that approach. Lincoln said, "Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." I give credence to Mr. Lincoln's sincerity and conviction, and most of all to his belief in our Democracy.But I don't happen to agree with your goals or your statement that the right to choose your intoxicant (or even medication) is a basic freedom.I still haven't seen anything from you where this comment is backed up. Why is it that making a decision on what I consume is somehow the purview of any government. I haven't seen you backing the prohibition of fatty foods, as they are FAR more dangerous than marijuana.On the other hand, I do agree that some law enforcement methods are unacceptable and do abrogate things that truly are basic freedoms (for example, the limitations on conveying information regarding drug use, which affect free speech).But, see, you are a fundamental apologist for the position of these fascists. And, yes, they are fascists when they wish to control people's thoughts and what they can and/or cannot read or hear. I'm not likening you as a fascist, but you are a collaborator. That is not an attack. That is simply stating facts.And, finally, yes, I did find some of the language in the comments offensive, even if it wasn't directed at me. I should think that anyone who has any degree of civility would find the implication that a commenter would be happy working at a Nazi death camp offensive.Civility? People are dying RIGHT NOW in this country. Whether from AIDS wasting, cancer, other diseases where they might find some slight comfort in smoking marijuana to make their final days a little less hellish. The position you support is that these people should be denied this plant. If you were on the other side of this, you may see yourself as a Nazi. A famous marijuana activist named Peter McWilliams died last year. The direct cause of his death? After long suffering from a debilitating cancer illness, federal authorities arrested him for that same plant. On peril that his sister's house might be seized by the government if he continued to use the substance that prevented his nausea, he didn't use it, and he died choking in his own vomit. How would you paint those people? As good God-fearing Christians? As magnanimous people whose only concern is the welfare of any person? No, I think you'd paint them as Nazi's presiding over the death-chamber door. Frances, like you, defends the position that these Nazi's exercise...it's hard to feel that you and Frances are anything but a proactive enemy. Soforgive us for being at least slightly peeved by people like Frances...at least you are presenting yourself in a reasonable light.
If drugs were legalized today, would that mean you'd start doing them?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #57 posted by FoM on April 27, 2001 at 11:33:01 PT
Thanks observer and everyone
I just want to say I appreciate all the comments and rebuttals.
FreedomToExhale
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #56 posted by observer on April 27, 2001 at 10:25:26 PT
re: Comment
I do not find Observer's responses persuasive. That's fine; this is a public forum and others will see my rebuttal to each of your points. convincing, you, personally, isn't all that important. Others will see that your arguments are answered here. To a large extent, he simply rejects my position because he disagrees with it. Is that really true? I provided detailed rebuttal to each of your arguments and points. And of course, he is entitled to his views. But I can't help but wonder what, other than complain, has he done to get laws changed with which he disagrees? Interesting that you should paint such extensive refutation of your arguments as simply "to complain". As far as taking action to get cannabis prohibition repealed, I'm certainly glad you're concerned. Would any of the rebuttals to your points become more or less valid if you know/don't know of specific actions I have taken to get prohibition repealed? Is he running for office? Oh, now there's an idea! Thank you for the suggestion. Is he developing a proposal for the proper regulation and oversight of marijuana production if (as has been asserted on these pages) it will be cheaper, less likely to provoke people to theivery, and safer if marijuana is legalized?I'm speaking out, exposing prohibitionist propaganda, canards, and misrepresentations. Does that count? Is he doing anything to assuage the concerns of those like me who worry--whether he believes those concerns to be legitimate or not?I certainly wish that I could do more in this area. But alas, time and resources are limited and one must choose where to expend one'e energy. I hope that by exposing prohibitionist propaganda (in my own limited way), that others will be enpowered to take action, also. To tell me that my fears are groundless because caffiene is also a psychoactive substance and it is used responsibly is intellectually lazy. I don't think so. (Interesting way to reject a position if you disagree with it: call it "intellectually lazy.") Prohibitionists movements have come and gone; caffeine and nicotine have been prohibitionist targets in the past.A prohibitionist movement, which Was short lived but quite capable of attributing the evils of the world and the devastation of human beings to its particular despised chemical, gave wide circulation to a statement by Sir Clifford Allbut, M.D. and Walter Dixon, M.D. which appeared in A System of Medicine in 1909. At the time Sir Clifford was a professor of internal medicine at the University of Cambridge in England and Dr. Dixon was a professor of pharmacology at Kings College in London. An excerpt follows: The sufferer is tremulous, and loses his self-command; he is subject to fits of agitation and depression; he loses his color and has a haggard appearance. The appetite falls off, and symptom of gastric catarrh may be manifested. The heart also suffers; it palpitates, or it intermits. As with other such agents, a renewed dose of the poison gives temporary relief, but at the cost of future misery. 20 The substance referred to is coffee, and the statement was circulated for a short time in an attempt to garner support for the prohibition of coffee.The anti-tobacco forces were much better organized (with cigarettes still illegal in 14 states in 192121, and their pronouncements received wide distribution. The following statements are representative of those used by the anti-tobacco forces from 1920 to 1935, Louis Lewin, an eminent authority on pharmacology, wrote the following in 1924 which received wide distribution: The juvenile female flower of the nation, the 'Emancipata femans vulgaris' (Lewin's term for the feminists of his day) who should bear fruit in time to come. . frequently fails to do so because the foolish consumption of cigarettes has impregnated the sexual organs with smoke and nicotine and keeps them in a state of irritation and inflammation. 22 A 1930 issue of the National Advocate reported a doctor's opinion that "Sixty percent of all babies born of mothers who are habitual smokers die before they are two years old."23 An anti-tobacco publication of 1931 included the following: Fifty percent of our insanity is inherited from parents who were users of tobacco; sometimes the victim is a smoker himself, which hastens it on. Thirty percent of insanity cases are caused directly from cigarette smoking and the use of tobacco. . . 24 Several anti-tobacco publications of the 1920's quoted New York City Magistrate to illustrate the crime producing properties of tobacco: Ninety-nine out of a hundred boys between the ages of 10 and 17 who care before me charged with a crime have their fingers disfigured by yellow cigarette stains. 25,26 Tobacco was also reported to be the hidden cause of increased suicides in the early 1900's: The publisher of this book . . . has had two men in his employ who used cigarettes . . . They both committed suicide. They became so despondent and so sick of a life as they were living that they murdered themselves. This is the end to which many cigarette smokers come. 27 Themes in Chemical ProhibitionDrugs in Perspective, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.html Marijuana is used recreationally for its intoxicating effects, is it not? So tell me why I should be willing to accept that. No one is suggesting that you accept anything. People are requesting that adults not be jailed for using cannabis. No one is asking you to accept alcohol: if you don't want alcohol, don't drnk it. As far as prohibiting others from what you accept; that's not an option for you. You don't have a choice, except for yourself. Oh, you can pass laws, laws that are flouted, causing others laws to be held in low esteem, also. You can argue that such shouldn't be, scream that 'well, we can't legalize murder can we?', etc. Prohibition doesn't work. Alcohol prohibitions didn't work. People still drink, drink all the more, when alcohol is made illegal. Likewise for marijuana.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #55 posted by kaptinemo on April 27, 2001 at 08:44:53 PT:
Ah, an answer
Fed, thank you for coming back.In your reply to me, you ask:"And if you are so certain that you have a constitutional basis for your claims, Kaptinemo, why aren't you waging a constitutional challenge to the laws? Do you believe you won't get a fair hearing at the Supreme Court? But the Constitution itself makes the Supreme Court the arbiter of constitutional claims--so if they strike down your challenge (as has happened repeatedly to challenges to the drug laws), is that not, in itself, proof of constitutionality? I'll be happy to answer your question, Fed...if you'd be so kind to answer mine, first:"When is a law unjust? And when should such a law be opposed?In other words, when is a Constitutionally sanctioned practice morally wrong?Would you agree with me that slavery was unjust? If not, why?I am not being specious or frivolous; on the contary, I am being as serious as a heart attack. This question has a direct bearing upon your question. It has to do with comparing what is legal...and what is moral. And what happens when a nation chooses to cloak with a mantle legality a practice that is rotten to the core.Consider this: The Dred Scott decision of Supreme Courts' Chief Justice Taney in the 1850's was considered Constitutional. Slavery was legal...because the Constitution said it was so. A morally repugnant practice was considered...legal. The visiting of unGodly tortures and murder upon human beings was considered...legal. The stripping of what the Constitution was supposed to guarantee all people, solely on the basis of melannin content of their epidermis was...legal. The trafficking in human beings was...legal.Because the Supreme Court said it was Constitutional.Taney was no bigoted cracker; he found the practice loathesome. But he also knew the danger of what neo-consevatives today refer to 'judicial activism'. Sometimes referred to as 'fiat government'. (rather reminiscent of the Executive Orders Presidents are so fond of, eh?) He said it quite plain and clear: if you want to change the laws, use the legislatures to do so. Don't expect the Supreme Court to do it, because that is really NOT their job.Today, there are 8 States that have made it quite plain that they believe the Federal laws regarding marijuana vis-a-vis sick people using it as being morally wrong...and have adjusted their legal practices to reflect that belief. Which was arrived at through duly sanctioned, lawful exercise of the electorates' sovereign franchise as voters of their respective States and this Nation.In one of those States, California, the Federal government has sought to override the laws created by the people of that State regarding cannabis use by the ill. In short, to nullify the vote of the people of that State. In the OCBC case which is presently being decided by the Supreme Court this very minute, the determination of the fate of the continued operation of the OCBC is being questioned.But is the moral question being debated? I submit to you that it is, but only in the most rareified sense. And should the Supremes vote against it? Then they will share the same infamous notoriety as Taney's Decision did...and for the same reasons. (Only I will be more inclined to believe that much more than adherence to the semblence of law in the face of 'mere anarchy' is at work.) In short, Fed, just because something is Constitutional, doesn't mean it is morally right.Standing by.....But was it morally right?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #54 posted by Fed Regs on April 27, 2001 at 07:54:28 PT
Comment and questions
Observer's are the kind of comments that make me feel that there is little point in continuing the debate. Truly, I wasn't trying to be haughty or amusing...I was just trying to set forth my position, as I had been invited to do. (And, no, I didn't make up the disparity in the NEJM editorial views on herbal supplements and medical marijuana.) I do not find Observer's responses persuasive. To a large extent, he simply rejects my position because he disagrees with it. And of course, he is entitled to his views. But I can't help but wonder what, other than complain, has he done to get laws changed with which he disagrees? Is he running for office? Is he developing a proposal for the proper regulation and oversight of marijuana production if (as has been asserted on these pages) it will be cheaper, less likely to provoke people to theivery, and safer if marijuana is legalized? Is he doing anything to assuage the concerns of those like me who worry--whether he believes those concerns to be legitimate or not? To tell me that my fears are groundless because caffiene is also a psychoactive substance and it is used responsibly is intellectually lazy. Marijuana is used recreationally for its intoxicating effects, is it not? So tell me why I should be willing to accept that. Why should I be willing to accept the possibility that more people will drive, work, teach children, etc., while intoxicated? Yes, the intoxicants are available now, but the fear of legal consequences reduces the liklihood of their use, just as laws against speeding reduces such conduct. You believe you have rights. What about mine? And if you are so certain that you have a constitutional basis for your claims, Kaptinemo, why aren't you waging a constitutional challenge to the laws? Do you believe you won't get a fair hearing at the Supreme Court? But the Constitution itself makes the Supreme Court the arbiter of constitutional claims--so if they strike down your challenge (as has happened repeatedly to challenges to the drug laws), is that not, in itself, proof of constitutionality? Sigh... Thank you for letting me ramble. I am not trying to change the minds of anyone on this board, but I appreciate the opportunity to set forth my views and ask a few questions of my own.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #53 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on April 27, 2001 at 07:53:22 PT:
One Additional Thought, Fed Regs
Perhaps the best explanation for the anger sometimes evident in these pages would be an analogy to the Warsaw Ghetto. The Nazis never counted on the meek and studious Jews to ever take up arms and give them the fight of their lives. That is exactly what occurred. Even the most committed non-violent group will consider active retribution in the face of relentless persecution, prosecution, property seizure, vilification, marginalization, character assassination, and outright murder, all justified in the name of the War on Drugs.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #52 posted by kaptinemo on April 27, 2001 at 03:45:12 PT:
The clock is running, Fed
Sadly, what so often happens is that when the thread disappears from the page, the mistaken belief is that the conversation is over.But the issues, as always, still stand.Like many people here, I, too would like to hear from you. All too often the closest we get to a debate with the opposition here is when an Hofferian True Believer anti like Frances appears, makes her declarations as if they were ex cathedra and not open to question, and doesn't stick around to explain or justify them. But, as you can see, the spirit of debate is alive and well here...in contrast to the moribund condition it seems to suffer from in the anti camp. We even go so far as to include links to our opponent's organizations, something which you never see on anti webpages. Because we value hearing from all sides of the issue...not just our own.So, please, enjoin us in further debate.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #51 posted by dddd on April 27, 2001 at 01:43:50 PT
FedRegs
FedRegs.I am curious as to whether you seriously considered Observersextensive well reasoned,and researched rebuttals.I know there's alot ofmaterial to digest there.After reading through it all,I think Observer hasmade your position look a bit weak.I am hoping that perhaps you would beopen to the possibility of adjusting your opinions.?..I can understand that all this may be rather overwhelming,but I respectfullysubmit that there is far more misinformation among the prohibitionists,thanthere is amongst the reformers.I think that if you take a serious look at thesituation,and the actual facts,you may find yourself questioning this insane"war" against American citizens rights,and freedoms.I hope you will keep us updated.Regards.......dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by observer on April 27, 2001 at 01:12:59 PT
link
Now, there may be merit to the attacks on methodology in some cases, but the same scrutiny should apply to those studies indicating marijuana's apparent benefits. etc.seeOut Damned Pot (Mar. 2000)http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/5/thread5042.shtml``Are the media so keen to push anti-drug news that they're prepared to sacrifice scientific credibility? . . .''
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by observer on April 26, 2001 at 21:34:13 PT
Marihuana Menaces Youth
And, to date, the laws are premised on a belief that most people cannot or will not use drugs and always avoid harm (whether directly such as by drug-induced accidents or violence, or indirectly as a result of addiction, etc.). Marihuana Menaces YouthMarihuana smoking has spread so rapidly that the drug has become a serious menace, particularly among youthful lawbreakers. The drug, also known as loco weed, muggles, Indian hay, Indian hemp, hasheesh, laughing tobacco, and reefers, is dried and rolled into cigarettes selling from five to 25 cents apiece. From 300 to 500 cigarettes can be made from a pound, making it highly profitable for underworld vendors.Marihuana produces a wide variety of symptoms in the user, including hilarity, swooning, and sexual excitement. combined with intoxicants, it often makes the smoker vicious, with a desire to fight and kill.Addiction to the drug is common in Mexico and some authorities have estimated that as many as one out of every four persons in some southern states are users. Out of 450 prisoners examined in New Orleans in 1930, 125 were found to be addicts. Despite the vicious effects of marihuana, only 17 states have laws against it and its control is not yet included under the federal Harrison narcotic act.Scientific American March, 1936, p. 150http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/menaces_youth.htm also seeHistorical Research on Drug Policyhttp://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/history.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by observer on April 26, 2001 at 16:14:31 PT
''the laws are premised on a belief'' -- more
''the laws are premised on a belief . . .see:http://www.reefermadness.org/propaganda/prop.htmlhttp://www.reefermadness.org/propaganda/rthages.htmlhttp://www.reefermadness.org/propaganda/newsheads.html etc.The laws that jail people who take cannabis are based on lies. These laws are not constitutional. They have no more moral authority than Jim Crow laws had moral authority.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by observer on April 26, 2001 at 15:02:27 PT
Well, Fed (1)
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as fallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. ... Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. -- Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia," 1787 I find the assertion that one can use drugs without harming others to be problematic. Perhaps that is true in individual cases--much like it could be true that someone could drive 150 mph on the highway without hurting others. One could make the same specious case for eliminating every freedom given in the Bill of Rights. This isn't an argument for locking up people for using cannabis; it is an argument for arbitrary government power. But in a society such as ours, where we have corporately agreed to live under the rule of law, the laws are not written for the "sometimes" cases. By and large, they are written for the "usually" cases. Interesting and unique opinion on the what you feel the purposes of laws are. Any basis for that opinion, like a basis in case law or common law, etc. ? And, to date, the laws are premised on a belief seeMARIJUANA/HEMP WAS LEGAL, WHY WAS IT BANNED?``For the first 162 years of America's existence, marijuana was totally legal and hemp was a common crop. But during the 1930s, the U.S. government and the media began spreading outrageous lies about marijuana, which led to its prohibition. Some headlines made about marijuana in the 1930s were: "Marijuana: The assassin of youth." "Marijuana: The devil's weed with roots in hell." "Marijuana makes fiends of boys in 30 days." "If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marijuana, he would drop dead of fright." . . .''http://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_5.shtml that most people cannot or will not use drugs and always avoid harm What a hypocritical farce. Since when did "always avoid harm" become criteria for anything? "Always avoid harm" isn't a reason to jail sky-divers. "Always avoid harm" isn't a reason to jail cyclists. "Always avoid harm" isn't a reason to jail pedestrians. "Always avoid harm" isn't a reason to jail rock-climbers. "Always avoid harm" as a "reason" to jail cannabis users is a crock. Admit it. (whether directly such as by drug-induced accidents seeUK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.htmlUniversity Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\1999\03\990325110700.htmAustralia: Study Goes to Pot (1998)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06.htmlAustralia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html or violence, see:Cannabis Helps Keep Fans Calmhttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/6/thread6051.shtml. . . Fans Too Relaxed for Fightshttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/6/thread6056.shtml or indirectly as a result of addiction, etc.). see:The Relative Addictiveness of Drugs According to NIDA's Own Researcherhttp://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/relative_addictiveness_of_drugs_.htm(Summary: Cannabis is less addictive than Nicotine, Heroin, Caffeine, Alcohol, and Cocaine.)also see:ADDICTION TO PLACEBOS http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf001/sf001p07.htm ,http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.science-frontiers.com/sf001/sf001p07.htm ,http://www.nejm.org/content/1998/0338/0017/1236.asp etc. Should that premise be incorrect, then the laws could be changed. Cannabis prohibition should be repealed, and our traditional freedoms returned, for the same reason that blacks no longer go to the back of the bus: because the laws that forced them to the back of the bus were fundamentally unjust.THE RIGHT TO DRUGS AS A RIGHT TO PROPERTYObviously, viewing the right to drugs as a species of property right presupposes a capitalist conception of the relationship between the individual and the state, incompatible with a socialist conception of that relationship. We are familiar with the fact that capitalism is premised on the right to property. As for socialism, Webster's defines it as "a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property."22 Q.E.D.: Drug censorship, like book censorship, is an attack on capitalism and freedom. Psychiatrists either ignore this cardinal connection between the chemicals we call "drugs" and politics, preferring to treat drug use as if it were purely an issue of mental health or psychopathology, or -- if they recognize it -- treat the relationship with their customary hostility to liberty and property.Thomas Szasz, Our Right To Drugs, 1992, pp.13http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815603339/ Until then, however, it's still the law.Nothing changed in 1937 to make taking cannabis morally wrong after that point. (Unless you believe Rosa Parks was morally wrong for breaking the law, too.) I must admit, to me it defies common sense (and experience) that one can act as responsibly after taking a psychoactive substance as he or she did before. Caffeine is a "psychoactive substance"; people can take caffeine and "act as responsibly [as] before". Nicotine is a "psychoactive substance"; people can take nicotine and "act as responsibly [as] before". One can certainly act as responsibly after taking a psychoactive substance as he or she did before.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by observer on April 26, 2001 at 15:01:56 PT
Well, Fed (2)
So I worry about more people making more bad choices after becoming intoxicated if we make more substances more easily available. I worry about young people falling in love (lust?) at an early age and therefore making more bad choices. But I'm not going to suggest that adults are jailed for doing what is unwise for children.Having the ability to make choices automatically gaurantees that sometimes bad choices will be made. I think that's just common sense. To me, alcohol and the adverse consequences of its widespread use are the best evidence for never legalizing controlled substances. Because some people screw up using alcohol, then (your 'logic' goes) whatever other substances are currently illegal should always remain illegal, because alcohol exists?In other words, since it is illegal, it should always be illegal, because some have problesm with alcohol.What a mess of assumptions is wrapped up in such a haughty declaration. The assumption that human nature will bend to the dictator's will. The assumption that simply making a law insures it will be followed. The dicatorial lust to control others. And more. Actually, it is quite a common (prohibitionist) expression. Finally, as to medical marijuana, while I recognize it has been efficacious in some individual cases, What, you believe anecdotes now? That's some progress I suppose... I am concerned about whether its possible to ensure that only those who are truly ill obtain access to it.Since it really isn't your right to control what others' put into their own bodies (since peoples' bodies belong to them, and not you or the government), the retentive lust to control others, that you express, is the fundamental problem. The problem isn't that adults might choose to use cannabis, despite 80 years of propaganda. Further, it troubles me that the same doctors who rail over herbal supplements support medical marijuana.Oh my! I can see how such a logical inconsistency might cause you to lose sleep.Tell us, which "same doctors" are they? (Or, are you just making this up, also?) How can it be good medicine to use unrefined plant material (especially if smoked) but not to use extracted plant material? How can it be good to eat an orange, when there are perfectly good Vitiman C tablets to be had? Etc. That makes me think that their support is political, and not medical, in nature (see NEJM editorials, for example), which means in turn that they are not making decisions based on what is best for the patients. Oh you are the amusing one, aren't you? Those who oppose jailing people for taking cannabis, they are the "political" ones. But the calm, level-headed, reasoned, scientific, etc. ones who lustily call for continued/increased jailing of adults who take cannabis (jail is "medicine" now): their position is "medical" and not "political."Man, thanks for clearing that up for us. And to my non-physician's eyes, the data are very equivocal regarding marijuana's true efficacy and safety. Isn't that because you uncritically accept government pronouncements concerning the alleged evils of marijuana?Do I think people who possess and use small amounts of marijuana should go to jail? No, no more than I think someone who commits any petty offense should go to jail. People who possess, consume, manufacture and trade in any amount of cannabis should be left alone, just as people who grow and use potatoes are left alone. Nothing changing in 1937 to make cannabis use wrong or sinful, that it chould have been made illegal. In fact, many argue that the prohibition of marijuana is patently unconstitutional. ( http://www.marijuanareform.org/mission.html et al.)http://www.jmu.edu/madison/marbury/ etc.Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.-- Marbury v Madison (1803)http://www.bowdoin.edu/~sbodurt2/court/cases/marbury.html etc. Nor, however, do I think that in our society one should be able to disobey the law with impunity. The passing of an unjust law is the suicide of authority.-- Pastoral Letter of the American Roman Catholic Hierarchy, February 1920Did Rosa Parks "disobey the law with impunity" when she refused to give up her seat on the bus for a white man? She broke the law, you know. So if one chooses to use marijuana, knowing it to be illegal, one should be prepared for consequences--just as if one chooses to speed or to heap trash in front of his or her house.Another platitude/strawman. No one suggested that one need not be prepared for "consequences." Or change the law. That's the way a society governed by the rule of law works.(another platitude)You know, that's exactly what all those wicked "legalizers" are doing: attempting to "change the law." I'm sure they'll thank you for that excellent advice, though.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 no night," because of the thieves, "Would there were no light," because of the informers, and "Would there were no women," because of adultery.-- St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies," circa 388
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by FoM on April 26, 2001 at 14:02:36 PT
Dr. Russo
I got the reader downloaded and installed and that is really neat. I put the file on my medical marijuana page. Thank you Dr. Russo!This page is on the front page of C News.http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by kaptinemo on April 26, 2001 at 13:27:05 PT:
FedRegs, a moral question:
When is a law unjust? And when should such a law be opposed?I am a strict Constitutionalist...save for one shameful and embarressing part. The part that condones slavery.Great women and men of previous Centuries have pointed out time and again the inherent hypocrisy of allowing slavery to be condoned under the color of law - as it was in that great document. They argued with irrefutable logic, eloquence, passion, dignity, and enormous patience for a change in the law.In the end, it took the bloodiest war that this continent had ever seen to settle the issue.Some might wonder at my analogy...until they look at the facts.Consider:If a neighbor dislikes you, all he need to is call the police, giving an anonymous - and false - tip that you have illicit drugs in your house. On the basis of this (and the word of paid informants known for their unreliablity) your house can be raided. Your possessions taken without any regard for due process, with the requirement that you deposit ten percent of the total value to prevent them from being sold by the very police department that is Constitutionally charged with protection of life, limb and property. Even worse, your life can also be taken without a single shred of the 5th Amendment ever being considered. This happened to Donald Scott, Ismael Mena, and Alberto Sepulveda...who are all 'pushing up daisies', now, courtesy of adrenaline hyped cops shooting first and asking questions later.Sepulveda was 11 years old. The DrugWarriors are always telling us that their greatest concern is for The Children. The drug laws are purportedly mainly for their protection.The laws condoning slavery caused enormous misery and suffering. They were anathema to all who believed, then as now, in such ideals as freedom, dignity, and equality. And they were eventually overturned; sadly, it took a war of brother-against-brother to do it. The drug laws of this country are causing similar ravaging of human life. The victims of this dirty, covert little civil war suffer various misfortunes, everything from arrest and incarceration to murder in prison. Their property is sold to further finance the very 'war' (declared upon whom?) that has profited from their misery - and line the pockets of those who support it. Their freedom sacrificed, their families torn asunder, their homes confiscated, their careers in ruins, jobs lost, futures destroyed. All to prevent behavior that (especially in the case of cannabis users) is far less damaging to society that the laws, themselves. Can such laws be deemed immoral? I leave that Slavish devotion to an immoral law lessens everyone's liberty. Insistence upon adhering to the letter of such a law has proven tragic to this country's people...and fostered an attitude of subservience to questionable authority.(As Cicero said over 2,000 years ago, Silent leges enim inter arma: Law stands mute under force of arms. Stand up for your rights under the Constitution, today, and you are likely to be shot for your troubles.) Authority whose moral superiority is based mainly upon force, rather than rational discourse, deserves only the respect given an armed bully. So, at the risk of boring you, I ask you again: When is a law unjust? And when should such a law be opposed?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by JSM on April 26, 2001 at 13:17:45 PT
The Law
If a law does not work, that must be recognized and the law adjusted to that reality. Drug laws do not work - witness what we are now experiencing with millions of lives destroyed, billions and billions of dollars (incidentally, money that could be used for education, health care, public transportation, energy, and environmental needs) lost and our entire system of government cheapened and corrupted by insisting that government can change basic human needs and basic economic laws - i.e., supply and demand.As long as there is a demand, there will be supply. Trying to stop this by passing a law is similar to trying to stop a pressure cooker from exploding by sitting on the lid. Sooner or later, it will explode. This is what we are seeing now and as a result drug laws must and will change. Our culture, society, legal system, and even government is being destroyed by the blindness and ignorance of those who want to control and manipulate those who disagree and desire to use substances not currently on their approved list. It only makes sense to bring this under control by removing, in this case, marijuana from the black market into the marketplace where it belongs under the same rules and regulations as currently in force with alcohol and tobacco. Then real control will be established, children will be protected, additional tax revenues created, and law enforcement can return to its primary function of protecting citizens.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by jAhn on April 26, 2001 at 13:01:24 PT
Smoke Pot- You're NOT Sky-Diving!!!
"So I worry about more people making more bad choices after becoming intoxicated if we make more substances more easily available"eh-hmmm... Can't you already tell that they've become "easier to access???" I know people haven't been living with blindfolds upon their eyes, no? The point of Regulation is to set an Age-Limit!!!By definition: Repeating the same "solution to the problem" again and again and again is, majoritively, defined as Insane. What was learned from Alcohol prohibition and What kind of differences in Law pertain to the current while not of the past? More Importantly, this Question is Never Asked: How is it that THOUSANDS, if not MILLIONS, of "other americans" get to choose how they will govern their Individual Liberty when faced with the options of rock-climbing, hunting, football, Nascar,Ice-Skating, Basketball, Baseball, GOlf, Hockey, LaCrosse, Field Hockey, backyard wrestling, Dirt-bike Motocross, Go-cart racing--All of the Stuff that I, the Smoker/Intoxicator/Unique Ingester of {at most-1/4 oz/day}Cannabis Consider Dangerous??? I am suddenly realizing that I, as a Cannabis Toker, am NOT administered Freedom, Justice and Equality when Contrasted to the Dangerous Lives of many Dangerous Others. Why don't people that feel that "Drugs Kill" go wage their Moral Crusade on people who choose to indulge in these "harmful to the holy-bodies-temple" Fun and Games? How many injuries? Where's your Science? HOW MANY broken bones(my lungs??), twisted ankles(my lungs?), psychologically-affected dis-eases(My lungs?), HOW MANY slipped disks/moving vertebrae(MY LUNGS??), How many teeth missing(my lungs), how many bloody noses (your lungs), how many liters/gallons of blood spilled in the Boxing Rink (my lungs!?!), how many broken fingers from 90MPH speedballs "flying over the plate-a little to the left-f**K! The pitcher just hit my finger with a BASEBALL?(YOUR LUNGS??), How many "arch-rival-team-brawls" (Violence and My lungs??) Why does it seem a little hard to swallow that these "Faith-Based-Corporation-Leading-Share-Holding" Crusaders are lying---just a little---when they tell of the stories of "The Sad, misguided, unwanted Drug-User/Abuser--Loser?" Waaaay back in response #4, observer wrote: In common sense parlance, we call treatment-racket profiteers "quacks." One hundred years ago, "science" also "knew" that masterbators were "sick" and in need of "treatment or incarceration", also. I guess you were watching CNN yesterday. This Point is one that should Forge ahead into all minds- young and old- to define "who is who" in this Cruel and Unusual Jihad against people who wanna get high with Pot instead of Beer/Lick-irk!!! This Masturbation argument is fairly important (Tucker Carlson was Making fun of {Jocelyn Elders?} while Off-Air.) and points to the "ideology of conservatism." Aren't we past the point of Arguing-In-A-Child-Like-Manner? Just who the hell's got control of the Mega-Phone, you ask? See No. Hear No. Speak NO. (Science or Evil---both are interchangable when a Government that's Science isn't Science and regarded, by most intellects, as Good-not Evil.) *end of my 50 cents (inflation caused 2 cents to become Invalid) See you on the Steroid-Driven-Ball-Field! End the War on SOME drugs...mainly the useful ones, you know who you ARE! P.S, Some americans like to dance in pits with a hundred poisonous snakes while others enjoy the pleasure of thousands of Bumble-Bees "playing around" on their BARE SKIN! Others, you may find, enjoy sleeping with Sewer rats. America is TRULY an odd place. It's just a shame that the people who choose to "do harm to themselves" with "certain growables" are seen as Abhorrent Abominations of "this Society with ALL good/healthy Intentions." Take another look around ya,...why doesn't anyone care about the Sick and Dying? Or even the fast rate of Elder-Folk dropping off of the Nation, at 70, because of a System that disenfranchises them the same way it does with the mentally unstable/ill/handicapped, people of Other color, and Ethnicities with Religious and Social "norms" that uphold the rites of use of certain sacraments/intoxicants. America has to FIGHT to get people back into Society.What good is a Million+ people when they're working for Pennies {and costing You, the Innocent, just the Opposite Integrity}for some Corporation {or even Printing liscense plates: isn't this a job for someone less intelligent--requiring of much less intellect)or some Sherrif/Police force? Wouldn't the "dangerous, stupid, abhorrent, abominable Cannahead" be a little more useful somewhere else? What don't we have a "War on Underproduction" or a "War on Bad Economic Decisions?" I'm so, entirely, sick from knowing that someone who Condones MUch, MUCH more dangerous acts is making BILLIONS off of Incarceration of those...._____________________(fill in the blank)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by Schopenhauer on April 26, 2001 at 12:40:50 PT
booze
"To me, alcohol and the adverse consequences of its widespread use are the best evidence for never legalizing controlled substances."Mj is nothing at all like alcohol. Your argument is like comparing a gun to a camera. That's a big part of your misconception. Smoke some.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by Dan Hillman on April 26, 2001 at 11:09:44 PT
Longest thread ever?
Waaaay back in response #4, observer wrote: In common sense parlance, we call treatment-racket profiteers "quacks." One hundred years ago, "science" also "knew" that masterbators were "sick" and in need of "treatment or incarceration", also. Actually, observer, the legacy of the quacks is still with us on this historical anomaly. Quacks of the late 1800's came up with something even more insidious and permanent than incarceration for the treatment of masturbation. Today we call this procedure "circumcision". Others call it by its real name: infant sexual mutilation. Today, around 60% of US male babies are still sexually mutilated, even though few know the origins of this most peculiar social custom. (Few, if any other nations practice infant sexual mutilation to this extent, although several islamic countries practice adolescent sexual mutilation of both sexes.) Which is one reason I tend to be kinda pessimisstic about the chances for seeing real reform on the drug issue.I know that folks here like to ignore pessimissm. Remember me in about 20 years!Doctors opposed to circumcision:http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/Attorneys for the rights of the child:http://www.arclaw.orgOther anti-cicumcision sites:http://www.nocirc.org http://www.cirp.org http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org http://www.noharmm.org
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by Fed Regs on April 26, 2001 at 11:00:32 PT
Here goes...
Okay...Without belaboring the points, I'll try to give my point of view. I find the assertion that one can use drugs without harming others to be problematic. Perhaps that is true in individual cases--much like it could be true that someone could drive 150 mph on the highway without hurting others. But in a society such as ours, where we have corporately agreed to live under the rule of law, the laws are not written for the "sometimes" cases. By and large, they are written for the "usually" cases. And, to date, the laws are premised on a belief that most people cannot or will not use drugs and always avoid harm (whether directly such as by drug-induced accidents or violence, or indirectly as a result of addiction, etc.). Should that premise be incorrect, then the laws could be changed. Until then, however, it's still the law. I must admit, to me it defies common sense (and experience) that one can act as responsibly after taking a psychoactive substance as he or she did before. So I worry about more people making more bad choices after becoming intoxicated if we make more substances more easily available. To me, alcohol and the adverse consequences of its widespread use are the best evidence for never legalizing controlled substances. Finally, as to medical marijuana, while I recognize it has been efficacious in some individual cases, I am concerned about whether its possible to ensure that only those who are truly ill obtain access to it. Further, it troubles me that the same doctors who rail over herbal supplements support medical marijuana. How can it be good medicine to use unrefined plant material (especially if smoked) but not to use extracted plant material? That makes me think that their support is political, and not medical, in nature (see NEJM editorials, for example), which means in turn that they are not making decisions based on what is best for the patients. And to my non-physician's eyes, the data are very equivocal regarding marijuana's true efficacy and safety. Do I think people who possess and use small amounts of marijuana should go to jail? No, no more than I think someone who commits any petty offense should go to jail. Nor, however, do I think that in our society one should be able to disobey the law with impunity. So if one chooses to use marijuana, knowing it to be illegal, one should be prepared for consequences--just as if one chooses to speed or to heap trash in front of his or her house. Or change the law. That's the way a society governed by the rule of law works.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on April 26, 2001 at 10:57:23 PT:
PDF on Cannabis in Migraine Now On-Line
My friend posted the article here:http://www.montananorml.org/docs/Hemp_for_Headache.PDF Please download, print, forward to doctors, politicians and friends as you deem appropriate.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by Schopenhauer on April 26, 2001 at 10:38:14 PT
Fed Regs:
I would like to know if you have ever smoked marijuana.I'm assuming the answer is no.And in that case I'd like to know what you imagine its effects are like. Do you think they are similar to alcohol's? Do you think mj disables a person? Do you think you can tell if a person you are speaking with is "high"? Do you think that mj makes a person "drunk" or "intoxicated"? Do you think that mj renders a person unconscious of her actions or unable to control her actions? Was it apparent to you that Carl Sagan was a smoker? Do you think that a person under the influence of marijuana is unable to speak, write or reason effectively? Do you think that mj causes a person to forget about or escape reality? Surely you have some conception of what the mj "high" is like, imagined or otherwise. What is it?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by observer on April 26, 2001 at 10:33:49 PT
Insomnia
Dr. Russo writes,I have recently published a 72 page reasonably comprehensive review of the topic of cannabis in migraine (and other pain).Thank you for publishing this! You caused me insomnia last night, though. I was exhausted, but stayed up till 4:00am reading your review! I kept telling myself, "Stop reading and go to bed", but I'd keep reading anyway. (I have only read it part of the way through it so far.) Excellent work!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by observer on April 26, 2001 at 10:28:42 PT
Fed Up (1)
Fed Regs (a government bureaucrat?) writes: I note that this board has posted articles on some of the studies that seem to indicate that marijuana is not the panacea some believe. re: "that some believe".That's a straw man. Who is this "some", that "believe" cannabis is a "panacea"? I've never heard anyone say that marijuana is a cure-all or a panacea. I have heard people discuss the fact that the governments' demonization of cannabis and demonization of the users of cannabis is wrong, though. In response, the studies were vehemently criticized by posters to this board as either (at best) having an insufficient n or (at worst) being the lies and distortions of a prohibitionist/pharmaceutical giant conspiracy. The response to the recent head/neck cancer study is an example. Of course, this is another misrepresentation; nothing about conspiracy in any of the comments on that story. The readers picked it apart. You're free to pick apart their responses (if you're able that is). But bellyaching about the existence of criticism itself, seems less than sincere.seehttp://www.cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=head+neck+cancersnothing about "conspiracy", etc. there.Now, there may be merit to the attacks on methodology in some cases, but the same scrutiny should apply to those studies indicating marijuana's apparent benefits. Have you noticed that articles demonstrating benefits of cannabis somehow get forgotten, but reports claiming to show the evils of marijuana somehow are repeated (by mainstream press mouthpieces) over and over?Prohibitionists like to cover up disagreeable facts.seePot Shrinks Tumors - Government Knew in '74 http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9211.shtml``"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible," Guzman said. In 1983, the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared." Pot Shrinks Tumors - Government Knew in '74 http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9211.shtmlWon't you join with me in condeming the destruction of research results that don't bolster the party line of inprisoning cannabis users? Yet that does not seem to occur; to the contrary, information that doesn't even approach scientific study quality (e.g., user anecdotes) is taken as absolute proof of marijuana's benevolence and efficacy. Another silly exaggerated assertion. No examples of anyone taking anything "as absolute proof". I don't think they do.Contrariwise, prohibitionists like to hype any alleged harm of cannabis, as "reason" to lock people up. (Of course, they often 'accidently' forget to mention the unpleasant "JAIL" part -- like you did -- but we know what they mean.)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by observer on April 26, 2001 at 10:28:18 PT
Fed Up (2)
So, I think pro-legalization's seeming unwillingness to fairly consider all studies, That's a hoot. When it comes to jail -- which is the real issue here -- even if every prohibitionist and NIDA propaganda press release were true, and cannabis was more harmful than even the pro-jail crowd asserts -- it would still not be an argument for jailing people who use cannabis anyway.Jail.Jail is the issue, the issue that prohinbitionists like to euphemize away when talking about their drug-free utopias.re: "unwillingness to fairly consider all studies"again, see:Pot Shrinks Tumors - Government Knew in '74 http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9211.shtml combined with the personal vitriol that is often directed at those who oppose legalization makes any "prohibitionist" reluctant to even try to debate. LOL! Oh, the tone of people whpo are objecting to being jailed (for using a plant) bothers you? And that, you assert, is the real reason that prohibitionists are unable to debate? They get their feelings hurt, and therefore flee the field? That's quite amusing. Prohibitionists can't stand up in any kind of debate, because their position is built on falsehoods. Falsehoods that are easily taken apart, falsehoods that are easily dismantled for all to see in any kind of an open debale. That's the reason prohibitionists can't debate the issue.Before the internet, prohibitionists could curtail the debate. But, since the internet, prohibitionists are unable to prevent the facts from seeping out.for example, see:MARIJUANA MYTHShttp://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+myths To put it another way, if one's evidence is going to be dismissed out of hand and one is going to be personally vilified as a narrow-minded, blind, sheep-like Nazi (to sum up some recent attacks), there is not much room for debate, much less discussion. Frances repeadedly insulted those here. (In your "reasoned" and "objective" tone, you accidently happened to forget that part.) She called people here "bleaters and screechers", dismissing 'out of hand' anything we had to say as a "druggie bleat when anyone threatens to get between a druggie and their drug use."http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9387.shtml#6 , http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9494.shtml#3 etc.. . . Hm...let's see. In just a few brief (or not so brief) comments, Frances was likened to a Nazi who "might have aspired to be an Auschwitz prison guard," accused of intellectual dishonesty, and implicitly or explicitly called a thief, rabid prohibitionist, a treatment-racket profiteer, and a quack. Her words were dismissed as squeaking and squawking. Yes, indeed, that's what I call an invitation to intelligent debate, all right. "Invitation?" Here was Frances' "invitation to intelligent debate": ``bleaters and screechers As a recovering drug addict, I can recognize the druggie bleat when anyone threatens to get between a druggie and their drug use.Get over it. If people pay real money for someone elses treatment, they don't won't to pay to enable people to keep their blood stream poluted with toxins. '' -- Frances , Apr 17, 2001 http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9387.shtml#6`` executive thinking & cockroaches One of the first things to go with pot smoking is "executive thinking" i.e., "cause and effect thinking." '' -- Frances, Apr 18, 2001, http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9398.shtml#2``Short (Long?) -term memory loss Gentle smokers:The recall people wouldn't be suffering from short/long term membory problems and couldn't REMEMBER who contributed to them - could they? '' -- Frances, Apr 21, 2001, http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9444.shtml#3So, let me get this straight: for prohibitionists to describe those who disagree with them as "bleaters and screechers" is fine and acceptable; but for someone to bat that back to a prohibitionist and call the prison-lust-talk of prohibitionists "squeaking and squawking", then that's just a big scandal, isn't it? I think I understand. Different standards, for different folks. Prohibitionists, Noble Experimenters they are, have one standard for speech, since they are only out to Save The Children from the evils of Drugs. Anything they say is acceptable, because of their most noble intent. Anyone who disagrees with prohibitionism, on the other hand, is therefore a Wicked corrupter of children, and thus aren't allowed to respond to prohibitionists in the same terms. You see, because prohibitionists care for The Children so very much, allowing people who disagree with prohibitionists to respond in the same terms, in the same tone: that would just be all wrong. There's another, different standard for those who disagree with prohibitionists. Again, you or Frances or Joyce Nalepka or anyone is invited to debate anything here: debate the issues (that would be rare), our tone, or anything else you like. But people aren't going to stop speaking out here because you are offended by comparisons that may be too close for comfort.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by FoM on April 26, 2001 at 10:23:38 PT
Dr. Russo
Dr. Russo would you please send me the pdf file. I'll go and download the reader.Thank You!Now back to the regularly scheduled program! LOL! Thought I'd try to break any ice buildup that could possibly happen. Just kidding. Carry On!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by dddd on April 26, 2001 at 10:18:29 PT
FedRegs
Thank you for the well stated reply.I appreciate your viewpoints.I have trouble understanding what you feel is the proper way tohave ones "intoxicants" selected.Are doctors OK with you,or doyou trust the government to make the choice for you? If you can choose,to drink alcohol,why cant you choose to use Marijuana?Compared to alcohol,it is quite harmless.It just doesnt make sense to me.How would you explain it?Cheers...................dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by jorma nash on April 26, 2001 at 10:17:29 PT:
dear fed regs, part II
oops. fed regs, when i wrote comment #26, your last comment was comment #17... i thought you were the scientific type that likes to hide behind science as an excuse to be incompassionate.i'm glad you continued to post, i see my initial judgement was a bit harsh, i apologize.you'll have to realize being considered a criminal for habits that harm no one except (arguably) oneself does tend to make people angry and defensive over the years.i thought your comment #20, on 'entrenchment,' far from being a 'diversion,' was extremely insightful and relavent.i like the evenness of comment #24, also, in spite of some less than kind remarks on our part.however, i must (more politely this time) ask you aboutthe line: "But I don't happen to agree with your goals or your statement that the right to choose your intoxicant (or even medication) is a basic freedom."why not? it's my body. it's my life. as long as i'm not hurting anyone else, what business is it of anyone how a choose to live it?thanks for posting here, it makes for a much more interesting discussion when many viewpoints are presented. -------------jorma nash
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on April 26, 2001 at 10:03:05 PT:
Last Comment from Me
I have recently published a 72 page reasonably comprehensive review of the topic of cannabis in migraine (and other pain). I would be happy to send a PDF file of the article to anyone who requests it via E-mail: erusso blackfoot.netDespite this kind of documentation, and even FDA approval of my protocol to do a genuine clinical study of smoked cannabis, this effort was blocked by NIDA, because they hold a monopoly on the legal supply of cannabis. That is the level of scientific integrity of our federal government. It is not the truth in which they are interested, but rather the semblance of truth that they can create.see: http://www.maps.org/mmj/mjrusso.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by jorma nash on April 26, 2001 at 09:49:47 PT:
dear fed regs...
fed regs: please post your scientific studies outlining the therapeutic benefits of paramilitary raids and incarceration of people with severe illness.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"To put it another way, if one's evidence is going to be dismissed out of hand and one is going to be personally vilified... there is not much room for debate, much less discussion."of course, prohibitionists have *never* stooped to such tactics, right?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"information that doesn't even approach scientific study quality"scientific studies that show cannabis' therapeutic benefits are indeed hard to come by.the government refuses to allow studies that might reach any such conclusions.and we can't re-legalize cannabis because there is no scientific evidence to support it...it's called circular reasoning. you'll have to do better than that.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oh, yes, fed regs, i said re-legalize.such a learn-ed person as yourself is no doubt aware cannabis was perfectly legal for the first 150 or so years of this country's history.please present your scientific evidence demonstrating that early US society was ravaged because of this.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oh, and speaking of history, 4000 years of research and use by the Chinese and other cultures is of course meaningless, since they weren't wearing white lab coats and hadn't cultivated a properly scientific disdain for people's direct personal experiences yet.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ah, but my arguments aren't scientifically correct, are they?i'm letting my intellect be clouded by such unscientific things as emotion and compassion.i guess you can safely ignore this post.---------------------------jorma nash
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by Schopenhauer on April 26, 2001 at 09:46:06 PT
on the crucifixation of lions in ancient carthage
"I should think that anyone who has any degree of civility would find the implication that a commenter would be happy working at a Nazi death camp offensive."Darrel Gates has said that mj smokers shoul be "taken out and shot". William Bennett has said they should have their heads cut off. Both are about as funny as Eichmann.If these remedies are too strong for you, perhaps you could tell us what punishment - how much property confiscation, how many years in prison - would be appropriate for mj smokers.I should think that anyone who has any degree of civility, especially people who hold the public trust, would respect that the chopping of heads and shootings in the street are not what the Constitution intends. to say nothing of a million other injustices to lions and men.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by Fed Regs on April 26, 2001 at 09:36:14 PT
To dddd
No, I don't think your agenda is devious; I think your goals are perfectly straightforward. Nor do I dismiss the people here as a fringe element. I wouldn't read the comments were that the case. But I don't happen to agree with your goals or your statement that the right to choose your intoxicant (or even medication) is a basic freedom. On the other hand, I do agree that some law enforcement methods are unacceptable and do abrogate things that truly are basic freedoms (for example, the limitations on conveying information regarding drug use, which affect free speech). So I work to the extent I can to help strike a balance between competing rights in my own arena. And, finally, yes, I did find some of the language in the comments offensive, even if it wasn't directed at me. I should think that anyone who has any degree of civility would find the implication that a commenter would be happy working at a Nazi death camp offensive.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by Schopenhauer on April 26, 2001 at 09:34:59 PT
debate
"I sometimes wonder if drug laws have become the abortion debate of the new millenium. By that I mean have positions become so entrenched that, even if such a debate as proposed were to take place, minds (on either side) would be closed to the possibility of change? "An interesting question, and one I have thought about too. I expect some minds are closed. But keep it in mind that we have never had a debate and only one side has been presented in the popular media. So minds that do change will be heavily on the side changing from prohibition to regulation. Let's have the debate and see. Or are you afraid of the result? We are not.People participating in the "abortion debate" have never been harassed and pursued by cops unless they're violent. A debate was never suppressed, scientific studies of the fetus have never been suppressed. Further, one's opinion on abortion is formed primarily on moral and religious convictions - giving "pro-lifers" a big benefit of doubt - while drug issues can be decided more from scientific and social studies, statistics - hard, objective evidence if it is ever presented. There will be a few who, like those with strong opinions about abortion, cannot and will not change their minds in a drug debate. Larry King has often said that he never met anyone who, no matter how much debate, has changed her mind about abortion. That is not the case with drug issues - many have come over to our side, and if a real debate were to take place, so would many more. Shall we see if this is true?"Unfortunately, I am not a scientist who could present the studies regarding marijuana's possible harms or adequately assess those supporting its value, so for now that question must go unanswered."There is room on the stage, Fed Regs, for others to step forward and present their anti views. We will not wait for you to become a scientist to have our debate.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on April 26, 2001 at 09:34:59 PT:
So, Find Someone Else
Fed Regs, if you do not feel qualified to debate the issue on its merits, I would suggest you find someone else. Oddly, no one is ever willing to take up the challenge. I rest my case.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by Rambler on April 26, 2001 at 09:33:13 PT
Entrenched
Yes FedRegs,I guess there may be a bit of a similarity to the abortion debate,they both concern the level of government intrusion on our personal exsistance,and basic freedoms.Smoking pot is a quite different than the abortion question.Being allowed the basic freedom to use Marijuana has nothing to do with the life or death of pontential babies.I hope you're not so "entrenched",that you cant keep an open mind.I am not a scientist either,but I suggest that the facts,if you bother to sort them out,will bring you to reconsider the comforts of your trench.Our trench is a much nicer place to be.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by Fed Regs on April 26, 2001 at 09:08:20 PT
Waxing philosophic...
(If FoM will forgive the diversion for just a moment :-) I sometimes wonder if drug laws have become the abortion debate of the new millenium. By that I mean have positions become so entrenched that, even if such a debate as proposed were to take place, minds (on either side) would be closed to the possibility of change? Unfortunately, I am not a scientist who could present the studies regarding marijuana's possible harms or adequately assess those supporting its value, so for now that question must go unanswered.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by dddd on April 26, 2001 at 09:07:21 PT
Sensitive
FedRegs...Greetings.I hope you can forgive the comments that you apparently foundoffensive. I dont understand why you have somehow used thisas an excuse to avoid a debate,or discussion. It seems you have lumped everyone together into a group of profane,name-calling insignificant fringe dwelling ramblers......If you are interested in any serious discussion here,I am confident that the people here would refrain from any of the name calling that you find so disturbing.If you want to be real,you will be treated with respect by most everyone who comments here.Do you seriously believe we have some misguided, devious agenda in our efforts toreform drug laws?Do you actually think we are totally unjustified in fighting forbasic freedoms?Sincerely. dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on April 26, 2001 at 08:39:42 PT:
No, I Mean a Real Debate
How about a televised debate or moderated on-line effort? I repeat my offer. I know the literature, pro and con. For every article touted by the prohibitionists to trumpet the dangers of cannabis, there are usually several with better methodology that disprove the claims.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by Fed Regs on April 26, 2001 at 08:29:12 PT
Debate
Thank you for your comments, Dr. Russo. I note that this board has posted articles on some of the studies that seem to indicate that marijuana is not the panacea some believe. In response, the studies were vehemently criticized by posters to this board as either (at best) having an insufficient n or (at worst) being the lies and distortions of a prohibitionist/pharmaceutical giant conspiracy. The response to the recent head/neck cancer study is an example. Now, there may be merit to the attacks on methodology in some cases, but the same scrutiny should apply to those studies indicating marijuana's apparent benefits. Yet that does not seem to occur; to the contrary, information that doesn't even approach scientific study quality (e.g., user anecdotes) is taken as absolute proof of marijuana's benevolence and efficacy. So, I think pro-legalization's seeming unwillingness to fairly consider all studies, combined with the personal vitriol that is often directed at those who oppose legalization makes any "prohibitionist" reluctant to even try to debate. To put it another way, if one's evidence is going to be dismissed out of hand and one is going to be personally vilified as a narrow-minded, blind, sheep-like Nazi (to sum up some recent attacks), there is not much room for debate, much less discussion.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on April 26, 2001 at 07:55:47 PT:
That's "Genteel"
Sorry, as a person of a Jewish background, I'd have a hard time having a "gentile" debate.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on April 26, 2001 at 07:52:56 PT:
Hey, Fed Regs.
I appreciate your comments, and it is true that in an ideal world, everyone's comments would be honored with respect.However, when the downtrodden and persecuted are confronted with words of ignorance, prejudice and deceit, it is natural to respond in this manner. This is particularly true since our opponents refuse to hear our words or lend them any credence, whatsoever. It seems that playing field is not at all level, and the anti-prohibitionists have no choice but to play by the same dirty rules. I am willing to have a genuine gentile, refereed debate with anyone on the science of cannabis based purely upon the merits. No one has taken me up on the deal. Will you? Do you know anyone who will? I'd be surprised.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by Rambler on April 26, 2001 at 07:50:48 PT
Debate?
Well FedRegs,Let's review Frances original comment;"Gentle Tokers: It's just ducky that goosey loosey johnson was in town to help youth (who need every hormone they can produce to grow up with) learn to celebrate GET HIGH DAY via the NORML conference. Johnson wasn't content to have his 15 minutes of fame play out in New Mexico. His untreated (though presently drug-free) cocaine/marijuana hyped ego had to have a national 15-minute fame forum, with the adolescent media trailing along behnid like lemmings. In recovery parlance, we call that a "dry drunk." Sure makes me feel secure to know such mental/emotional giants are in charge."If this is your idea of "intelligence",that's OK.Where do you stand on these issues?Perhaps you could give us your take on some ofthe questions raised here.Lets talk.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by Fed Regs on April 26, 2001 at 07:32:33 PT
Debate?
Hm...let's see. In just a few brief (or not so brief) comments, Frances was likened to a Nazi who "might have aspired to be an Auschwitz prison guard," accused of intellectual dishonesty, and implicitly or explicitly called a thief, rabid prohibitionist, a treatment-racket profiteer, and a quack. Her words were dismissed as squeaking and squawking. Yes, indeed, that's what I call an invitation to intelligent debate, all right.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by Elliot Fleener on April 26, 2001 at 05:57:57 PT
Response
Well Frances,You have the floor.After reading throughall the previous comments,it seem to me that 'the balls in yourcourt',so to speak. I hope you will respond,and somehow defend your position.I realizeyou are outnumbered here.If you cant respond,it will not suprise me.Most of the people who you represent,refuse to coherently debatethe issue.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on April 26, 2001 at 05:33:26 PT:
Got cut off
...because you are The Righteous, and Certain of your Moral Superiority) is what I meant to finish with.But I'm sure you catch the drift, dear Frances.Every Memorial Day I visit the local military cemetery and place flags on the graves of the Vets who've gone before. Whether they died in combat, or survived it, or even never saw any at all, and lived to a 'ripe old age' to die in their beds makes little difference to me; they stood up for what's right. For the freedom to do that which we are doing right now. And so much more. As a Veteran of this country's military, sworn to uphold the freedoms of every citizen, (yes, even your hated and loathed 'druggies') if need be with my life, and the lives of my comrades I did not go through what I did in order for someone, no matter how ostensibly concerned for the public weal you claim to be, to steal from me that which I hold so dearly. Nor will I allow such as you to render valueless that which so many have died for.You remind me of Judge Brandeis's admonition about people who believe the end justifies the means:Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are (supposedly! -k.) beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.If you still don't know who he's talking about, Frances, just look in the mirror. Your singular lack of perceptiveness regarding the actual effects of the DrugWar in this country vis-a-vis its' stated goals reveals you to be such a person of 'zeal, well-meaning (but to mind mind, that's questionable) but without understanding'.I hope that someday you realize just whose hands you've been manipulated by for so long...and why. And why the very people you so petulantly and sophomorically sneer at may someday be the only bulwark against a state that has chosen to target you."In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up."-Pastor Niemoller.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by lookinside on April 26, 2001 at 05:21:34 PT:
sanity!!
frances seems to be intellectually dishonest...my thoughts: i'm 8 years clean and sober...AA worked thatmiracle...it WORKS!went to 2 for-profit rehab programs: they DON'T work..theydon't WANT success..recidivism is too profitable...smoked pot longer than i drank, yet pot was never aproblem(quitting or abusing my family and friends), ALCOHOL WAS!frances might have aspired to be an auschwitz prison guardin another century...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on April 26, 2001 at 04:38:10 PT:
Ever read Tom Paine, Frances?
He had something to say about the kind of mindset you seem to possess:"It is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice." (Such as the prejudice that you harbor against those who disagree with you, and any who seek to hold you accountable for the actions of tyranny that you heartily support.)How about this one?"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead."and:"We are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others (like your ideas of 'treatment, Frances? -.k), while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice.The more I read the Classics, and the words of the Founders, the more I am struck by their prescience. They, having the benefit of a classical education, were able to look beyond the day to day, and far into the past, and gauge the possible future of the Nation. Many of them were worried that the US would eventually go the way of all nations; namely, slide from freedom to despotism. Only in this case, the American psyche is such that this despotism would not be imposed from outside national borders, but from from within them. By people like you, Frances. By people like you. Part of that cyclical nature of life is the struggle for freedom. It is unending - so long as people like you, Frances, wish to impose your 'obstinate prejudices' borne of holding 'humanity in contempt' (anybody who disagrees with you must therefore be stupid, ignorant fools who need to be led about by the nose...or the manacles...because you are The Righteous, and Certain of your ) upon all and sundry - for their own good, of course.People like you are precisely what the Founders warned us against. Keep your hands off of what's left of my freedoms, Frances; like fools, I do not suffer thieves gladly.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by SWAMPIE on April 26, 2001 at 01:26:14 PT
COUNSELOR FRANCES
Dearest Frances,Please take off your "rose-colored glasses,blinders,and anything else that is distorting your vision!!!!!Are you really the "MENTAL-MIDGET"that we all seem to be seeing here? many of us believe in the helpful powers of cannabis;that it helps us to relieve stress and pain,and generally gives us a feeling of well being!!!We are all adults here and after a hard days work,nothing compares to it.I dont think anybody at this forum wants to"violently beat you up"because we use cannabis! We are promoting PEACE!We are trying to inform everyone that cannabis promotes PEACE!!!! smoke a joint yourself and see what happens!!If you think that violent crime starts with cannabis,you are sadly mistaken,as are all other nonbelievers!!!If we tackle this"problem"in the right way there will definitely be a change for the better!!How many thousands die at the hands of crack/coke dealers that don't care if you live or die because they want your money one way or the other???I know that these dealers need the money,but to take the life of anyone is WRONG!!!Why are we paying them for anything but an honest days' work??? Are they"disabled?" Are you"disabled?"Gov.Johnson is only telling us that the "problem"lies in prohibition,and that if we change our stance on how we deal with this"problem"we will make life alot better for all!!How many people have died from using infected needles?How many have died from using cannabis??He is telling the truth lady,and we all need to listen!I used to be a crack addict,I know what can happen to you when you go to the wrong side of town....I suffer from chronic back pain and at that time I couldnt find any herb,so I tried coke,it lead to crack,and I lost a whole lot of money and time.Had cannabis been legal,I NEVER would have tried it!!!That was 10 years ago,and since then all I use is cannabis,except on bad days when I am forced to use legal painkillers.There are probably alot of other people who could tell you about their experience too..Arthritis is NOT FUN!!!Please take the time to look at this from the other side of the fence,and get the whole perspective!!!We just want to be good responsible people,who pay taxes,and teach our children well!!Most professional counselors that I know,only are against cannabis because it is"ILLEGAL".......GO FIGURE!!!!!!!! PEACE AND LOVE SWAMPIE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by SWAMPIE on April 26, 2001 at 01:26:02 PT
COUNSELOR FRANCES
Dearest Frances,Please take off your "rose-colored glasses,blinders,and anything else that is distorting your vision!!!!!Are you really the "MENTAL-MIDGET"that we all seem to be seeing here? many of us believe in the helpful powers of cannabis;that it helps us to relieve stress and pain,and generally gives us a feeling of well being!!!We are all adults here and after a hard days work,nothing compares to it.I dont think anybody at this forum wants to"violently beat you up"because we use cannabis! We are promoting PEACE!We are trying to inform everyone that cannabis promotes PEACE!!!! smoke a joint yourself and see what happens!!If you think that violent crime starts with cannabis,you are sadly mistaken,as are all other nonbelievers!!!If we tackle this"problem"in the right way there will definitely be a change for the better!!How many thousands die at the hands of crack/coke dealers that don't care if you live or die because they want your money one way or the other???I know that these dealers need the money,but to take the life of anyone is WRONG!!!Why are we paying them for anything but an honest days' work??? Are they"disabled?" Are you"disabled?"Gov.Johnson is only telling us that the "problem"lies in prohibition,and that if we change our stance on how we deal with this"problem"we will make life alot better for all!!How many people have died from using infected needles?How many have died from using cannabis??He is telling the truth lady,and we all need to listen!I used to be a crack addict,I know what can happen to you when you go to the wrong side of town....I suffer from chronic back pain and at that time I couldnt find any herb,so I tried coke,it lead to crack,and I lost a whole lot of money and time.Had cannabis been legal,I NEVER would have tried it!!!That was 10 years ago,and since then all I use is cannabis,except on bad days when I am forced to use legal painkillers.There are probably alot of other people who could tell you about their experience too..Arthritis is NOT FUN!!!Please take the time to look at this from the other side of the fence,and get the whole perspective!!!We just want to be good responsible people,who pay taxes,and teach our children well!!Most professional counselors that I know,only are against cannabis because it is"ILLEGAL".......GO FIGURE!!!!!!!! PEACE AND LOVE SWAMPIE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by jorma nash on April 26, 2001 at 00:25:38 PT:
gentle Frances...
(to observer: tag-off. my turn in the ring with the gentle counselor.)you see, dear Frances, we're not like the people you are used to dealing with.we can freely speak our minds here.we don't have to meekly accept anything you say under threat of handcuffs and prison cells.i'm so glad you're here.i'm sure with your great experience in such matters,you could educate us out of our wicked delusions.for instance:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1)we tend to think that if a person uses cannabis in a responsable manner, goes to work, pays taxes, doesn't hurt anyone, they don't deserve to be treated as animals.please explain why we are utterly mistaken.2)we feel that treatment methods such as those you find highly profitable will be noted by future historians alongside McCarthy's treatment methods of suspected communists,the Inquistion's treatment methods of non-christians.if you could clear up this myth for us, you might help us with our wretched addictions.3)in your unquestionable wisdom on this topic,you are no doubt aware that Carl Sagan was an avid cannabis user.source: associated press.CARL SAGAN AVIDLY SMOKED MARIJUANA, FRIEND REVEALSThe late astronomer and author Carl Sagan was a secret but avid marijuanasmoker, crediting it with inspiring essays and scientific insight, according to Sagan's biographer.full article: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n888.a08.htmlsadly, he died before you could cure him of his pathetic, tortured life of being the most well-known name in astronomy.what treatment methods would you have suggested, if only you could have reached him in time? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~your lack of a civilized reply to these specific issues will be noted as intellectual cowardice. if you do reply, i will be more than happy to respond in turn to any questions you have.you see, we welcome open dialogue here, not terrified of it.sincerely, Jorma Nash
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by Pancho on April 25, 2001 at 23:53:32 PT
Real Pork!
Notice how this article has to mention the $5,200.00 of taxpayer money being spent on Gov. Johnson's trip to the NORML conference. That was money well spent. Why doesn't the media expose the pork being wasted on the futile at best, War on Drugs?What happened to the 1 Billion plus spent on Plan Colombia, that was taxpayer money as well?Where is the accountability in all of this, or perhaps a better question, what is the federal governments measure of failure? 1 Trillion, 2 Trillion? I didn't think skulls were that thick since the cro-mag days, oh well, live and learn.Peace, Pancho
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by observer on April 25, 2001 at 19:25:49 PT
re: Governor Gary Johnson's Stand for Truth
420 and gov johnson Gentle Tokers: Rabid prohibitionists and treatmen-racket profiteers: It's just ducky that goosey loosey johnson was in town to help youth (who need every hormone they can produce to grow up with) learn to celebrate GET HIGH DAY via the NORML conference. Looks like you're mistaken, again, Frances. Gov Johnson spoke before the NORML conference on April 19th, (not the 20th), and told people it was wrong to jail adults who responsibly use marijuana. Nothing about shoving heroin down toddlers' throats.Nothing about "help youth. . . learn to celebrate GET HIGH DAY", that was just another little sour-grapes falsehood.It is gratifying, though, to see prohibitionists squawk and squeal so much. It is easy to see how flimsy the prohibitionist house of cards really is. Prohibitonists need to dominate everything: no dissent is allowed. After billions upon billions of dollars wasted on propaganda and "sending a message to The Children" (by incarcerating their parents), let one just man come along and suggest that our traditional freedoms over our bodies be returned, and prohibitionists go ape! Why do you guys freak out when someone suggests repealing bad laws? Vested interest? Big emotional investment in jailing marijuana users? I think I understand, Frances. Johnson wasn't content to have his 15 minutes of fame play out in New Mexico. Boo hoo! Did the Gov. express ideas that you feel should be censored, again? So sorry Frances! His untreated (though presently drug-free) cocaine/marijuana Spoken like a true treatment-racket cultist, Frances. He hadn't used drugs or alcohol in 15 years, but to Counselor Frances, it is all so clear. No, can't fool ol' Frances. She knows. She's in charge. Her greater perceptual powers realize that unless one's hat is tipped to Frances' "treatment", then all is lost. It may appear that Johnson hasn't used drugs in 15 years, but Frances just knows, it must be an untreated illness. Oh yes.Nice try at denigrating Gov. Johnson, Frances. hyped ego had to have a national 15-minute fame forum, with the adolescent media trailing along behnid like lemmings. CSPAN covered Johnson's speech. So CSPAN is the "adolescent media" now? That's amusing. In recovery parlance, we call that a "dry drunk." In common sense parlance, we call treatment-racket profiteers "quacks." One hundred years ago, "science" also "knew" that masterbators were "sick" and in need of "treatment or incarceration", also. Same difference. Quacks. Charlatans. Pretenders to medical skill. That's the "drug treatment" racket, in a nutshell. Quacks making money. Quacks making money by making up political/religious "illnesses" which the quacks profit from treating. Same old, same old. Sure makes me feel secure to know such mental/emotional giants are in charge. It is great to see a Republican governor, Governor Gary Johnson take a stand against jailing adults who use marijuana. I can see, though, how that might upset those, like treatment-racket quacks, who earn their money from hyping a "drug crisis". This is good to see. Gives me the warm-fuzzies, seeing how Gov. Johnson's publis stand shatters the myth of consensus that drug warriors and treatment-racket quacks had assured us existed.Say, Frances, since you're knowledgable about the drug "treatment" racket, I was wondering if you'd heard of Mel and Betty Sembler's "Straight Inc." treatment racket?. . . One mother paid private detectives to kidnap her teenage son in New mexico. They put him in leg irons and drove him overland 1,700 miles to a Straight facility. A teenage girl was riding in a car with her mother when they stopped at a gas station. Her father and two other men entered the vehicle and subdued her while she was taken to Straight. One teen thought his parents were taking him to Disney World and wound up at Straight instead. 89 One youth said abductors raked him barefoot and bloody across a Straight facility's grounds while handcuffed. 90 In the words of Straight's medical director, most teenagers were "convinced by parental pressure to enter treatment." 91Upon arrival children were restrained in a small room. Any who attempted to leave might be beaten by "peer counselors," 92 teens already at Straight. Peer counselors barraged newcomers with questions about drugs and sex: "How does it feel masturbating inside a woman?" 93 A teen who resisted answering was diagnosed as having a bad attitude, indicating need for treatment. One who denied being a drug abuser was called a liar needing treatment. A child who, after of hours of pressure, finally "confessed" to drug abuse was found to need treatment. Such determination might be made by another teen in the Straight program. 94 Straight's medical director freely admitted the program was "supervised, in the main, by skilled nonphysicans and recovering peer counselors." 95(Drug Warriors & their Prey, Richard Miller, pgs.178-179)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425 (Let me guess, Frances: you're a "recovering peer counselor", too?)I think the following is what must upset the treatmet-racket so. It is when Governor Johnson makes statements like this:GOV. JOHNSON: Well, one of the fundamental beliefs by the U.S. government, by the Drug Enforcement Administration, with our laws -- the fundamental belief is, is that if you smoke marijuana, you fundamentally belong in rehabilitation, and that is just not correct. Eighty million Americans have smoked marijuana. They don't all belong in rehabilitation. The majority of them smoke marijuana like others have drinks, have cocktails in the evening. And let's not forget that at one point in this country's history it was criminal to manufacture and distribute alcohol. We've gone through that. And these laws are terribly discriminatory. I talked about 1.6 million arrests every year in the United States on drug-related crime, 800,000 of those arrests are for marijuana. Half those arrests, 400,000 of those marijuana arrests, are Hispanic. Tell me that half the users of marijuana in this country are Hispanic. And I believe you're seven times more likely to go to jail if you're black and arrested than if you're white. So these laws are not being administered proportionately. There's an hypocrisy about the law.Meet The Press; Apr 22, 2001http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n722/a09.html I mean, there's the treatment racket counselor, in front of a bunch of "marijuana addicts" (i.e. people forced by government using threat of jail to "admit" they have a "problem"). Such victims they know that government guns are the only reason they are submitting to "treatment"; yet they realize they are likely to go back to jail for expressing that truth, that thought-crime in "treatment". Then along comes Governor Gary Johnson, and he repeatedly articulated that same truth. It must burn up those who earn their living from the drug treatment racket; from court-ordered forced "treatment". Isn't that right, Frances?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by Frances on April 25, 2001 at 17:26:05 PT:
420 and gov johnson
Gentle Tokers:It's just ducky that goosey loosey johnson was in town to help youth (who need every hormone they can produce to grow up with) learn to celebrate GET HIGH DAY via the NORML conference.Johnson wasn't content to have his 15 minutes of fame play out in New Mexico. His untreated (though presently drug-free) cocaine/marijuana hyped ego had to have a national 15-minute fame forum, with the adolescent media trailing along behnid like lemmings. In recovery parlance, we call that a "dry drunk."Sure makes me feel secure to know such mental/emotional giants are in charge.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by freedom fighter on April 25, 2001 at 16:51:54 PT
I hope it is true
he, will foster, has been in jail wayyyyy toooo long...cruel! Let him be free...Thanks for the good news!\/ff
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by FoM on April 25, 2001 at 12:17:05 PT
Just a Note
I have been hearing rumors that Will Foster is free and I believe it's true and I thought I'd pass it on! Good News!The Story of Will Fosterhttp://gnv.fdt.net/~jrdawson/willfoster.htm What Will Happen To Will Foster? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8166.shtml
FreedomToExhale
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment
Name: Optional Password:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL:
Link Title: