cannabisnews.com: Senate Ends Proposed Hemp Trade 










  Senate Ends Proposed Hemp Trade 

Posted by CN Staff on May 08, 2005 at 15:36:05 PT
By Albert McKeon, Telegraph Staff  
Source: Nashua Telegraph  

New Hampshire -- Proponents of hemp had hoped to add a new component to state commerce, one in which the tall Asiatic herb could produce anything from fabrics to fuel. But the state Senate last week rejected a House proposal that would have opened the door to a strictly regulated hemp industry.The legislative defeat only furthered the frustration of industrial hemp farmers and consumers, who believe opponents innocently misunderstand or purposely misinterpret the plant’s relationship with marijuana.
“We live in a world of total misinformation,” said Greg McCrone, a pharmacist at Herbal Path in Dover, a store that sells hemp products. “Whatever regime is in power twists facts time to time.”Some hemp supporters claim that state law enforcement persuaded gullible Senate members that the growth of hemp would encourage a twin marijuana industry. But Sen. Margaret Hassan, D-Exeter, said she and her colleagues did their homework on the bill.The Senate Environment and Wildlife Committee – which recommended that the larger body reject the bill – wants more industry in the state, and industrial hemp would be a good product to further that goal, Hassan said. But she and other senators could not support the bill, not just because of current law enforcement opposition but also the fact that the federal government labels it a controlled substance.very much like a recreational version of the marijuana plant,” said state Sen. Peter Bragdon, R-Milford.Had the bill passed, farmers would have had to secure a license from the state’s agriculture bureau to grow hemp, and only the state would have supplied the seeds. Farmers would have been prohibited from growing or selling any hemp byproducts.The legislative debate between farmers and law enforcement centered partly around identification of the plant. Police officers testified they cannot differentiate marijuana and hemp, but farmers claim each plant is relatively easy to distinguish.“It’s intentional ignorance,” said Mark Lathrop of Chesterfield, chairman of the N.H. Hemp Council. “It’s not law enforcement’s job to create policy but to enforce policy made for them.”Lathrop accused state police of perpetuating a false impression that industrial hemp has the same substance properties as marijuana. He said state police prefer to link the two to continue a revenue stream. State police deferred comment to Assistant Safety Commissioner Earl Sweeney, who could not be reached for comment.Grown for the tough fiber in its stem, hemp can help to make rope, clothing, dog beds, fuel, shampoos, laminates, Frisbees, backpacks, beer, lollipops and teddy bears. Its supporters also point to how the Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper. Ironically, those backers believe that a government founded on independence wrongly strips their right to growing hemp.Opposition to hemp stems from its relation to marijuana. They’re cousins on the scientific family tree: Both are categorized as cannabis sativa.But the difference lies in the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) count. Marijuana has, according to studies, an average THC count of 3 percent, while industrial hemp has a THC level of 0.3 percent or less.“The misinformation is if you grow a field full of hemp on this side of the road and marijuana on the other side of road to get high with that they are virtually the same plant,” said McCrone, the pharmacist. “But hemp will cross-pollinate the marijuana growing nearby” and obliterate marijuana’s THC, he said.Cindy Hebbard, an herbalist and health educator at Herbal Path, said hemp has many remedial qualities. Hemp protein is high in fiber and protein, and low in carbohydrates.Hassan thinks differences between farmers and law enforcement could be ironed out.“I’m convinced we can make more progress . . . farmers who want to grow hemp and law enforcement, I think, should exchange more information,” she said, adding later: “I really think, from my perspective, both sides are not listening to one another very well.”Source: Telegraph (NH)Author: Albert McKeon, Telegraph Staff Published: Sunday, May 8, 2005 Copyright: 2005 Telegraph Publishing CompanyContact: letters telegraph-nh.comWebsite: http://www.nashuatelegraph.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Hemp Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/hls.htmState Considers Legalizing Hemphttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20489.shtmlHouse Votes To Allow Farmers To Grow Hemphttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20397.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #29 posted by cannabliss on May 09, 2005 at 17:30:23 PT
Good article on bad vote
Although the result of the vote is obviously disappointing, I find it encouraging that in this article (and the AP release in #25), the "right" point of view seems to be the default, and the police are the ones who have yet to "get it".They even mention "3 percent" rather than "300 percent". They give reasonable airing to objections, and they portray authorities as paranoid and evasive.That much is refreshing.
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Hope on May 09, 2005 at 12:08:11 PT
Jose and Runderwo 
Jose! Wonderful work! You've been busy and effectively busy at that. WonderfulRundwo, Jose is right about the cornered rats and he probably weighs close to two hundred pounds and is a rather powerful rat who is rather proud of his long sharp teeth. I admit...sociopath personalities scare me. They really don’t have the ability to be compassionate and care about other people and apparently can’t help it. It would be nice if someone could help him be a better person. Maybe you could take pieces of your work at a time and send to him. It looks like good powerful work. I don’t think he will read very far into any thing you send…but bits and pieces at a time might have some effect on his dementia. I did respond to one of his articles once and didn’t hear from him…but maybe small posts at a time from you might reach him…like good medicine…and heal some of his evil spirit. It would be a big project…but your work looks like it has a lot of power and it might help. Bits and pieces won’t “corner” him and might reach what’s left of his heart and mind that’s not controlled by the evil spirit that he nurtures in his soul. That evil spirit will tell him you’re stupid…but maybe…just maybe, a piece of your wisdom might slip past the monster in him.Then again he’s obviously capable of biting. So be careful of your own heart.I read an alarming article the other day that said, I think, that at least twenty percent of the people around us everyday are true sociopaths. Some are easier to recognize than others...but I think Cliff Kincaid definitely qualifies.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by runderwo on May 09, 2005 at 08:47:02 PT
Hmm
That 33% statistic is boned. It should be 43%, and that's for use at any point in the lifetime, not past month. (SAMSHA) That'd be a lot of jailbirds...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by FoM on May 09, 2005 at 07:20:12 PT
Jose and runderwo 
Way to go Jose!And thank you runderwo for posting what you wrote here for us to read. Maybe we will win this war if we keep on trying.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by FoM on May 09, 2005 at 07:13:44 PT
Related Article from The Associated Press
Would-Be Hemp Producers Disappointed With Decision May 9, 2005
 NASHUA (AP) - Proponents of a recently defeated bill that would have allowed the state's farmers to grow hemp are blaming misunderstanding and intentional misinformation for the measure's demise."We live in a world of total misinformation," said Greg McCrone, a pharmacist at Herbal Path in Dover, a store that sells hemp products. "Whatever regime is in power twists facts time to time."Hemp is a relative of marijuana, though it has little of the mind-altering chemical that has made its cousin a popular illegal drug. Hemp has numerous industrial uses, and supporters say growing it could be an economic opportunity for the state.The House in March passed a bill allowing farmers to grow the plant, but last week the Senate nixed the plan, saying the plant is considered a controlled substance.Had the bill passed, farmers would have had to secure a license from the state's agriculture bureau to grow hemp, and only the state would have supplied the seeds.Some hemp supporters blame the defeat on state law enforcement, saying authorities persuaded gullible Senate members that the growth of hemp would encourage a twin marijuana industry.But senators say they did their homework on the bill and opposed it in part because of difficulties it would have presented for law enforcement. Authorities say it can be difficult to differentiate between hemp and marijuana.Some farmers disagree, saying the plants are easily distinguished."It's intentional ignorance," said Mark Lathrop, of Chesterfield, chairman of the N.H. Hemp Council. "It's not law enforcement's job to create policy but to enforce policy made for them."Grown for the tough fiber in its stem, hemp can help to make rope, clothing, dog beds and a range of other products.Copyright: 2005 Associated Presshttp://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=54490
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by jose Melendez on May 09, 2005 at 05:08:21 PT
Got trade?
I got published again, here's the thread of LTE's:US Anti-Drug Policy Fails In Colombiahttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n609/a08.html?53960"The drug war is working fine," http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n686/a04.html?58465We Can't Make Drugs Disappear Entirelyhttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n665/a03.htmlOur War On Drugs Is Not Workinghttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n665/a02.htmlPro-legalization Letter Writers Don't Live Herehttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n708/a08.html?58465Past 35 Years Show Drug War Will Never Be Wonhttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n710/a03.html?58465Drug War Works -- For Criminalshttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n747/a01.html?58465
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by jose melendez on May 09, 2005 at 04:19:30 PT
strike that
Correction: should read, "Congress, the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration all seem to agree with repeated Office of National Drug Control Policy claims that Ritalin, Prozac, crack and cigarette smoke are safer and healthier to ingest than smoked marijuana.Should the federal government be liable for damages resulting from such fraud and willful ignorance?"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by jose melendez on May 09, 2005 at 04:17:42 PT
runderwo!
Not much room for wiggle room there, remember cornered rats bite.I'll add that ONLY SICK PEOPLE AND CROOKS WOULD JAIL PEOPLE FOR CANNABIS USE.Also, Congress, the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration all seem to agree with repeated Office of National Drug Control Policy claims that Ritalin, Prozac, crack and cigarette smoke are safer and healthier to ingest than marijuana in any form.Should the federal government be liable for damages resulting from such fraud and willful ignorance?Finally, "Accuracy In Media" has joined newspapers and paid drug warriors in their embargo of the truth: Although fifteen of the top donors listed on the Partnership for a Drug-Free America site are pharmaceutical interests, this fact remains carefully undisclosed in most newspaper editorials and ALL public service announcements.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by runderwo on May 09, 2005 at 01:18:51 PT
Well I feel dumb.
I thought the Montel article was the one that AIM posted today, so here's my rebuttal to it that I just spent two hours typing. Seeing as it is pointless to send to them now, maybe y'all can get something out of it or give me better ideas how to approach idiots. Anti-medical people are even easier targets than all-out prohibs I think.Mr Kincaid,Have you ever taken Vicodin for pain? How about Robitussin for a
nagging cough? Perhaps Prozac or Ritalin for a psychological issue?
These are all drugs that can be abused and get you "high". In fact, all
of these drugs can kill you in the incorrect dosage. Marijuana, on the
other hand, has active ingredients that produce no permanent side
effects regardless of the quantity ingested; don't believe me, check the
US government funded studies that date back to 1972. Furthermore,
marijuana is cheaper than cheap to provide - it literally produces
itself. I'm certain that you support self-determination in medical care
as opposed to a state-provided health care system given your background.
How does your statement regarding the availability of expensive,
proprietary (yet FDA approved) MS treatments make any sense for a
patient suffering from a long-term, debilitating disease that health
insurance will not cover (since it is a pre-existing condition)?
Medical marijuana is a perfect solution for sick people whose symptoms
are alleviated by it and who wish to avoid living on the public dole.
Worse than discouraging its use, you are advocating the status quo which
is to imprison any user, medical or not, and confiscate their property
if they are suspected of growing it. How does such policy promote
self-determination and small government?Fine, you say. Marijuana laws are currently wrong. But that doesn't
mean getting high makes sick people better. After all, people feel
better when they ingest large quantities of other drugs such as alcohol.
I'm afraid that by making this statement, you show that you have
entirely missed the point. First of all, and most obviously, medical
marijuana is not used for "getting high"; it is used for relief of
chronic nerve pain, nausea, and depression, for example. I don't suppose you've ever
been diagnosed with any of these maladies, but these people are not
wanting to "get high"; they seek relief of symptoms which quite
literally make their life a living hell. These symptoms of disease make
them dependent on others, and marijuana relieves them at minimal cost,
allowing them to go about their lives independently. Don't you find
this to be a good thing, Mr Kincaid?Additionally, marijuana is entirely unlike these other substances in
that using it in a medical context does not degrade one's health any
more than even the mildest symptoms of disease do. You refer to a claim
that marijuana carries "health risks" similar to tobacco use. Do you
honestly expect us to believe that while fully 1/3 of the population has
reported marijuana use in the past month (2001; Source: National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse), and while 23% of the population smokes
cigarettes (Source: CDC), marijuana is just as deadly as tobacco? Where
are all the dead and/or dying marijuana users, Mr Kincaid? Perhaps this
could be due to the fact that marijuana is inherently different from
tobacco. With a bit of research (I'll spare you the trouble), you might
find several studies that examined this very issue and found no harm to
report:Sherrill, D.L. et al, "Respiratory Effects of Non-Tobacco Cigarettes:
  A Longitudinal Study in General Population""Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy" by
  Vincent Vinciguerra, MD; Terry Major Moore, MSW; Eileen Brennan, RNTashkin, et al. "Effects of smoked marijuana in experimentally induced
  asthma." American Review of Respiratory Disease, 1975. 112.Intuitively, the fact that people report success treating asthma attacks
with smoked marijuana would seem to warrant further examination on the
claims of health dangers. Indeed, you'll find that there is no evidence
(in over three decades of research) that smoked marijuana causes cancer,
heart disease, emphysema, or any other serious lung disease. Plenty of
supposed experts, many of whom are career bureaucrats like Dr.
Barthwell, claim that marijuana "contains more tar" or "contains more
carcinogens" than tobacco, or that smoking causes "precancerous
lesions", but don't you find it a bit strange that nobody has been able
to locate the bodies or the hospital patients, Mr Kincaid?Okay, suppose that all the research is wrong, and smoking marijuana does
indeed cause all sorts of maladies worse than the side effects of a
typical prescription drug. What excuse can you concoct to obstruct
people from obtaining inhalers such as Sativex containing the same
active ingredients found in marijuana, or from ingesting it in baked
goods or in pill form? In fact, a synthetic THC concoction called
Marinol is FDA-approved and sold right now. It costs $30 per pill, and
helps some individuals, while others who have tried it report that it
saddles them with unwanted euphoria that they do not receive from
medical marijuana. What is the difference between an FDA-approved drug
that attempts to approximate one of the active ingredients in marijuana
- yet costs at least an order of magnitude more per dose and carries the
same side effects for some people - and the real deal? You're trying to
draw a fictitious line in the sand here, and it isn't working.So you might accept that marijuana, even the smoked form, isn't all that
dangerous to one's physical fitness. But you've gone even further and
made the claim that there is a "link" (whatever that means) between
marijuana use and mental illness. This story is as old as marijuana
prohibition is (see Reefer Madness for prep material). First of all, I'm
confused by the word "link". Do you contend that marijuana causes
mental illness, or that mentally ill people frequently use marijuana?
After all, depression and schizophrenia are two maladies whose symptoms
drive individuals to self-medicate with a whole host of substances.
Nearly 80% of schizophrenics are cigarette smokers. Does this mean that
cigarette smoking causes schizophrenia? Using weaselly words like
"link" and "may/can/might cause" and propagating post hoc fallacies is
not "Accuracy In Media" by any stretch of the imagination. You may not
like the idea of medical marijuana, but this doesn't give you the green
light to promote the inaccuracies of the viewpoint you agree with
instead. For some real accuracy, you would do well to examine the
serious problems in the research that supposedly provides a link with
marijuana and mental illness:
(http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 )
For instance, have a look at the pitifully small sample sets and the
weak definitions of "mental illness" that broad conclusions affecting
marijuana policy worldwide are drawn from. The only science these
fellows are practicing is one that involves a method of finding which
buttons they should push to obtain the most research funding, in my
opinion. The only credible finding in this area is that a particular genetic trait
renders a minority of individuals susceptible to later mental illness
if they use marijuana when they are teenagers. Again, there is a
problem with the definition of mental illness (are normal effects of
marijuana intoxication included?) and with establishing cause and
effect. But at least these researchers have provided a plausible method
of how marijuana would actually cause mental illness in these
individuals, an area where every other inquiry into marijuana and mental
illness has failed. And this still provides no reasonable excuse to
keep marijuana out of the hands of adult medical users, or to jail them
for obtaining it without authorization.You provide an anecdote where someone committed a devilish act after
smoking marijuana. I have news for you Mr Kincaid. People commit
devilish acts every day, with or without marijuana, and it doesn't
change one bit the fact that they should be held accountable for those
acts. In fact, the fifth rule of NORML's Principles of Responsible
Cannabis Use addresses this issue specifically. The reason this fellow
was not held accountable for his heinous act is entirely because of the
hysteria whipped up around marijuana. This individual should never have
been given a free ticket out of being held accountable, and promoting
hysterical perspectives on marijuana only ensures that more people will
use it as a ticket out of responsibility for their actions.Do you get the feeling yet that this subject might just warrant more
research before assuming the conclusion? The seven remaining federal
medical marijuana recipients would certainly agree. They are authorized
and provided with marijuana cigarettes by the federal government under
the Compassionate IND program from 1978; terminated in 1991 so that
marijuana would remain Schedule I, it prompted Californians to pass
Proposition 215 to legalize medical marijuana in their state as a matter
of compassion. Irv Rosenfeld, a stock broker and member of that
program, has recently testified that he would be long dead if it weren't
for the symptomatic relief that smoked marijuana provides him for his
bone disease.In what way is it sound policy to deny someone with chronic or
chemotherapy-induced nausea access to the medicine their doctor
recommends so that they can keep their food down? Do you think the
nausea is a staged act to attempt to fool the doctor? What about the MS
patient who spends her life in a wheelchair? What would these people
have to gain by feigning such symptoms? If they wanted to, they could
already buy marijuana on the black market, and truth be told, many do
already, simply because the life-preserving and life-improving benefits outweigh the
drawbacks for them. On the other hand, many people have died because they did
not have access to the only medicine that helps them. One example that
comes to mind is Peter McWilliams, author of many best-selling self-help
books. For his independence in solving his medical problems the best
way he could by using medical marijuana, he received an arrest, a court order,
and died vomiting up his prescription drugs.Where should the power be to determine whether sick people get to use
marijuana, Mr Kincaid? In the hands of government bureaucracy, which
has a vested interest and long history of obstructing legitimate medical
marijuana research? (See Prof. Lyle Craker for an ongoing drama.) Or in
the hands of doctors and their patients? How can you justify denying
patients access to the medicine that their physician, bound by the
hippocratic oath, recommends to them? As if that weren't absurd enough,
you are recommending that the government stay its current course, which
is to put these people in JAIL for using an unauthorized medicine.There is no sound reasoning presented in your article towards the point that marijuana
should not be rescheduled to Schedule II, the crucial point of the
Montel-sponsored legislation, so that physicians can legally prescribe
it to their patients. As it is, your article comes across as a sneering
rejection of something that is blindingly obvious to many of us who have
taken the time to study the issues in this debate. Given how trivial it
has been to refute your reasoning, I can't see that you did your
homework here, Mr Kincaid. I'm extremely disappointed, and hope you
will work harder in the future to live up to your publication's name.
Publishing a full retraction of your ill-researched and misinformed
article, and replacing it with a truly accurate article after having
examined the points I have brought to your attention, would be an
applaudable start.Re: Another Pro-Pot Media Campaign
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on May 08, 2005 at 23:14:16 PT
Peace a State of Mind
I'm getting ready to call it a day but I wanted to comment on what you said. I believe Peace is elusive. I also believe Peace is a state of mind because it's a place that I realize how little I can do about life. Gaining knowledge is important but also knowing that the big picture is hard to figure out is also important. Peace for me is a state of mind that I can accept the fact that I don't have control over anything and my way of seeing the world might not be how another sees it and that is OK too. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Hope on May 08, 2005 at 22:47:19 PT
Peace
I used to think it was the opposite of war. Now I think it's got to be the opposite of hatred. There is so much hatred in this nation and the world. Even if we weren't having a literal war, it still couldn't be peaceful or peace time with all the hatred bubbling up all over the place. I guess if there is no actual war going on, that's what they call an "uneasy peace"...but to my mind that's not really peace. It's awful. It's so sad. There really isn't real peace until it's a live and let live situation.I can see how ignorance of all the hatred could be bliss. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on May 08, 2005 at 22:03:41 PT
Hope
I'm almost at the point that I find it hard to be shocked anymore. I just think what a strange world we live in now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Hope on May 08, 2005 at 21:53:50 PT
FoM
I like boring! Especially if it's the opposite of lunatic. I'm serious. They strike me as more than a little bit crazy and they're the kind of crazy that leads to people being killed and imprisoned. Crazy like Hitler, or someone like him, is what they seem.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on May 08, 2005 at 21:39:10 PT
Hope
I have a terrible time reading articles like the one from Kincaid or the one I posted here. I go thru it real fast and all these angry seemingly off the wall statements jump out at me and I wonder how anyone could think up things like that. I am so boring in the way I think. My imagination doesn't play too many tricks on me anymore luckily! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Hope on May 08, 2005 at 21:37:29 PT
George Soros
Why do so many of them hate and fear him so much? It's not because he's Jewish, I hope! Lord, there's so much hatred. I fear for the man when lunatics like Kincaid go to raving.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Hope on May 08, 2005 at 21:32:33 PT
FoM
That article sounds like another frenzied lunatic type. I thought you meant different from the Kincaid guy. Sounds like they could be buddies in hatred. Or am I misreading it? Those types give me the creeps!Seems like they think there's a booger behind every tree...and anyone that happens to disagree with them looks like a dreaded booger monster from the devil of some sort to them. I think they have some sort of mental problems. They'd be great Inquisition guys and witch burners. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on May 08, 2005 at 20:05:51 PT
Very Different Article
BANKERS ARE BEHIND COUNTER CULTUREhttp://www.etherzone.com/2005/mako050905.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Richard Paul Zuckerm on May 08, 2005 at 17:00:14 PT:
www.HempCar.org
www.HempCar.org
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #11 posted by mayan on May 08, 2005 at 16:38:29 PT

AIM
My sympathy goes to the American Indian Movement for having to share their acronym with the lying scumbags at Accuracy In Media. Here's some interesting info...Meet the Myth-Makers: Right-Wing Media Groups Provide Ammo for "Liberal Media" Claims - Accuracy In Media:
http://www.fair.org/extra/9807/myth-makers.html#aimConservative Media Watch Organizations Alleging "Liberal Bias" - Fortunately, their OWN record on accuracy competes with the best works of fiction: 
http://media.eriposte.com/3-1.htm
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on May 08, 2005 at 16:19:48 PT

Taylor
This is how I feel about Montel Williams. He is very sick and he is a very busy man but he knows that Cannabis helps with his pain and the law needs to be changed. I appreciate all he is doing and he also shows such passion.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by Taylor121 on May 08, 2005 at 16:18:31 PT

Cops are running campaigns

Members of the Columbia Police Officers Association, a quasi union, are now working to change the law back. They say it creates too much confusion, and that marijuana use is linked to other crimes.From my news post at: http://www.marijuana.com/420/showthread.php?t=37721We got cops over there in Columbia running a signature drive to change a law. I have watched several Criminal Committees here in Texas through the texas.gov website, cops/sheriffs and other law enforcement regularly take positions on bills. It is outrageous. The only good cop organization that I know of is LEAP.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by FoM on May 08, 2005 at 16:15:10 PT

Police
I thought police weren't supposed to get involved in changing laws particularly when their income could very well become an issue. Police shouldn't have that power. They are paid to enforce laws that are on the books is all I thought.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by Taylor121 on May 08, 2005 at 16:14:37 PT

Montel
He is such a powerful ally and has such passion. His show has always been the cleaner of the day time shows, he has been in the military and has former experience in fighting the war on drugs. He is a fantastic ally, both intelligent and he attracts a crowd while making good points. He seems to be on board for the medical marijuana fight all the way. You really have to admire these seriously ill people that are taking time out of their lives to help us with this movement when I'm sure he would just like to relax. Instead he is out to make it legal for everyone in pain that needs it. Props to Montel. He is accelerating this movement faster than any other 1 person besides perhaps Angel Raich.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by mayan on May 08, 2005 at 16:06:35 PT

Stupid Cops
Police officers testified they cannot differentiate marijuana and hemp, but farmers claim each plant is relatively easy to distinguish.Law enforcement officers in every other nation have no problem distinguishing marijuana from industrial hemp. American cops must be pretty stupid if they haven't figured it out yet.Here's another short article on the New York state Bill. With strong Republican support and Montel making noise up there I think this one has a real chance... Republican lawmaker introduces bill to legalize medical marijuana:
http://cbsnewyork.com/local/NYC--MarijuanaBill-nyn/resources_news_html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on May 08, 2005 at 15:58:05 PT

Correction
I meant him not them.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by Taylor121 on May 08, 2005 at 15:57:27 PT

FoM my problem with their rhetoric
It is based on a fallacy of logic called guilt by association. Guilt by association: attacking the idea because of those who support it, or make spurious links between publicly favorable things and publicly unfavorable things
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on May 08, 2005 at 15:56:08 PT

Taylor
I saw that article earlier and what makes them hate so much? They call Cannabis Dope and just hate George Soros. Do they believe that God came down from heaven and annointed them the only leaders that He loves? I really get upset with arrogant people. He is no different then any other person on this earth but he sure thinks he is super special to speak so cruelly towards those who don't think like him. Are some republicans want to be dictators?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by Taylor121 on May 08, 2005 at 15:53:51 PT

This fairness in the media is the most 
anti cannabis crap I seen in a while. I haven't thought much about the organization, but I'm sifting through some of their old articles. This is a quote from a story on Montel: "Williams got all the media attention, and officials of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society didn't want to stand in judgment of him. One said that if he feels better smoking dope, that's his belief. But there is another side to the story. The group cites studies of so-called "medical marijuana patients" who "reported experiencing uncomfortable side effects, including weakness, dry mouth, dizziness, mental clouding, short-term memory problems, and some general discomfort, as well as feelings of being 'high.'" That, of course, is why the dope lobby is pushing for acceptance of the drug.
... "Andy, the sheriff of Mayberry, arrests the snake-oil salesman and runs him out of town." 
"
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/1826_0_2_0_C/Just go here http://www.aim.org/ and run a search for marijuana under the search box in the top right hand corner. They call this accuracy in the media? This is like social conservative rhetoric.com
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Taylor121 on May 08, 2005 at 15:44:54 PT

Social Conservative BS article
WASHINGTON -- Accuracy in Media (AIM) said today that The Washington Post’s coverage of the marijuana problem in today’s paper shows that it has become little more than a house organ of the pro-dope movement and its patron, billionaire George Soros.In a front-page story today, Dan Eggen of The Washington Post publicizes a report from the Sentencing Project, identified only as a left-leaning “Washington-based think tank,” lamenting the number of arrests of marijuana users and dealers. Eggen neglects to mention that the group is heavily financed by drug-legalizer George Soros and his Open Society Institute (OSI), and that the report was underwritten byOSI and the pro-dope Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).“The Post concealed the facts about where the so-called study came from and who financed it,” declared Cliff Kincaid, editor of AIM. “These facts are directly relevant to whether it deserves serious consideration, let alone front-page treatment. The Eggen story amounts to a press release for the Soros line on drug policy.”In a separate part of the paper, the Style section, The Post ran an item favorably highlighting tonight’s MPP 10th anniversary celebration in Washington, D.C., which is attracting several liberal Democrats who accept the group’s claim that pot has medical benefits. Kincaid commented, “Tell that to the families of the victims of the killer student in Red Lake, Minnesota, Jeff Weise, an admitted pothead who bragged about marijuana being his ‘gal of choice’ before he killed nine people and himself.” Weise was also on psychiatric drugs.Meanwhile, a new government study linking marijuana to mental illness, including depression, schizophrenia and suicide, got only a few sentences from The Post. Accuracy In Media (AIM) is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage. For more information, please visit www.aim.org. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5430
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment