cannabisnews.com: Hollywood Is Ignoring a Valid Drug War Script





Hollywood Is Ignoring a Valid Drug War Script
Posted by FoM on March 15, 2001 at 07:48:46 PT
By Robert F. Housman & Barry R. McCaffrey
Source: Los Angeles Times
On NBC's "The West Wing," President Bartlet sees the fight against drugs as a lost cause and a huge waste of money. His surgeon general has declared marijuana less dangerous than cigarettes. His staff overwhelmingly favors legalizing drugs. Meanwhile, in the Oscar-nominated movie, "Traffic," the new drug czar is so rocked by the enormity of the drug problem and his own daughter's addiction that he walks away from the job. 
All this makes great entertainment. But it is about as accurate as saying "The Brady Bunch" was a portrait of real life in America.   The fact is, our national strategy against drugs is working. Over the last two years, youth drug use dropped 21%. Workplace drug use has fallen to an 11-year low--4.6%, down from 13.6% in 1988. The number of murders related to narcotics laws dropped from 1,402 in 1989 to 564 in 1999, the lowest point in more than a decade. The number of people receiving drug treatment nearly tripled between 1980 and 1998. Neighborhoods, like New York City's Harlem, have been taken back from the dealers and gangs and, once again, offer safe places for hard-working families to live.   It is true that the number of people arrested for drug crimes has grown, arguably one reason why drug crimes are down. However, at the same time, we have dramatically increased the number of diversion programs to break the cycle of drugs and crime. These programs, such as drug courts, offer nonviolent, drug-addicted offenders supervised treatment in lieu of jail. Ironically, the actor who plays President Bartlet, Martin Sheen, is one of the nation's leading advocates for drug courts and against legalization; he believes that the threat of jail time helped his son break free of addiction.   Contrary to the prevailing wisdom you may see on movie and TV screens, with exceedingly few exceptions, we are not locking people up for simple possession of marijuana. During fiscal year 1998, only 33 federal defendants were sentenced to jail for base offenses involving less than 5,000 grams of marijuana. At the state level, more than 70% of drug offenders were incarcerated for drug trafficking as opposed to possession. An overwhelming majority of the total state prison drug offender population had prior criminal histories, a quarter of which were violent.   Along these same lines, "The West Wing's" surgeon general would be wise to consider new research out of UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center suggesting that marijuana users may be at higher risk for cancer than cigarette smokers. THC, the active component in marijuana, has been shown to cause cancerous tumors. Marijuana deposits four times more tar in the respiratory tract than cigarette smoke. And studies show that young people who smoke pot tend to be lethargic, socially removed, more prone to committing violent and property crimes and do worse in school. None of these effects are equally associated with cigarettes.   President Bartlet's policy team should also take a harder look at the real impact of legalizing drugs. Each year drug use costs the U.S. 52,000 drug-related deaths and roughly $110 billion in additional societal costs. Legalizing drugs would compound this suffering. One of the main reasons why the majority of young people never try drugs is societal disapproval. Legalizing drugs would make drug use an accepted behavior and, inevitably, more young people would use them. More people using drugs would mean more addicts, more traffic fatalities, more human and economic costs.   Nor would legalization cut crime. The average drug criminal isn't waging a turf war over black market territory or shooting it out with the police. Most drug-related crime is committed by addicts to get money to buy drugs--the vast majority of drug users rely to some degree on illicit money to support their addiction. Legalization would only increase the number of people robbing, stealing and prostituting themselves for drug cash.   Shows like "Sports Night," "Dawson's Creek," "ER" and "Third Watch"--some with the sponsorship of the Office of National Drug Control Policy--have done accurate portrayals of the devastating impact of drug use on people, families and friends. However, when the entertainment industry takes dramatic license with the facts about drug use, it has a real impact. Children see drugs as less risky. Parents grow less concerned and talk to their children less frequently about the dangers of drug use. Public support diminishes for the men and women of law enforcement who safeguard our families. Policymakers are less inclined to do what's necessary to fight drugs.   Walking away in disgust from the realities of drug use can add drama to a movie or a TV script, but in the real world it is plain irresponsible. Robert F. Housman Was Assistant Director for Strategic Planning in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy From 1997 to January 2001. Barry R. Mccaffrey Was Director of the Office From 1996 to January 2001.Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: Robert F. Housman & Barry R. McCaffreyPublished: Thursday, March 15, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles TimesAddress: Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053Fax: (213) 237-4712Contact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Traffic Official Web Site http://www.traffic-movie.com/CannabisNews Articles - Traffichttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=traffic 
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #26 posted by Lehder on June 04, 2001 at 04:13:09 PT
is this true?
On NBC's "The West Wing," President Bartlet sees the fight against drugs as a lost cause and a huge waste of money. His surgeon general has declared marijuana less dangerous than cigarettes. His staff overwhelmingly favors legalizing drugs.is this really true? i don't watch this show, maybe i'll tune in and see. i'm really surprised that such drug war perfidy would be allowed on a continuing series, week after week. there was an article here recently about the producer of this show - sorkin(?) - getting busted at an airport for magic mushrooms. is this revenge or somethin', huh? if americans are being told by their tv sets that the drug war is bad bad bad, then it's going to end. that's what we've needed all along: tv and money - they control everything. but it bothers me there was no such show 20 years ago.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Lehder on June 04, 2001 at 03:57:47 PT
"feel that coolness in your throat"
"And, of course, marijuana is not physically addictive.  Unlike legal, government-subsidized tobacco." --Kevin Herberti was hooked on cigarettes for many years. they're great, i'd like one now! but they're really really bad as everyone knows. i quit after many many tries with nicotine gum.now the fact is that the government wants children to smoke cigarettes and it wants adults to smoke cigarettes. during the law suits against the cigarette companies we were told that the money won would be needed to compensate the states for money spent treating those ill from cigarettes. yet if someone without health insurance goes to the g and says look, i'm sick from these things, help me, well, they'll tell them - ante up or get lost. another thing: if the g really wanted people off cigs, then it would use that money to subsidize the gum, the patches and whatever else is out there. these things are really expensive, a whole lot of money for maybe a few pennies worth of nicotine. one more thing: the hundreds of billions of dollars that were won in those law suits a few years ago did not have to be paid out all at once - nah, that would bankrupt the manufacturers. the payments are to be made over a decade or longer. so do you really think that the g is going to just put those companies out of business and miss out on all that bread? not a chance. really, it ought to be illegal to manufacture and sell cigarettes. people who are really hooked could grow their own tobacco and roll cigarettes that were free of chemicals and additives. low tar ( it's the tar that kills ) tobaccoes that still have nicotine ( which is i think harmless though brutally addictive ) would be developed for the home window box. instead we have a big killing industry and the g Forces other countries to import our poison so it can collect more taxes. money, lies and bigshots making money and telling lies to get it. same old same old.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by ravelsd on June 03, 2001 at 23:37:39 PT:
Ignorance is bliss !!!!!
First I had to get stoned just to calm down from the internal anger that grew inside me. The fact that a grown man could honestly believe the crock of sh*T that I just read is beyond me. The only violence Iíve seen when people are faded was rushing to check out line at 7 11 with 2 hotdogs for .99 and a strawberry slurpee. Come on seriously smoke a bowl and relax. The media is making people think like normal human beings. The people in Europe as an example they are exposed to pornography and drugs at a younger age or even in the open and the thought of going to an alley to sneak a toke is unheard of why well 1st. because its legal but 2nd because being exposed to a sense of freedom makes you not think of it as much and sometimes not at all. Itís just a normal part of life. Just Relaxed and enjoying life.More thoughts come from the online dealer of smiles www.emdma.com A Remix To Life.-Ravelsd
Online Dealer of Smiles
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by ravelsd on June 03, 2001 at 23:35:44 PT:
Ignorance is bliss !!!!!
First i had to get stoned just to calm down from the internal anger that grew inside me. The fact that a grown man could honestly belive the crock of sh*T that i just read is beyond me. The only viloence iv'e seen when people are faded was rushing to check out line at 7 11 with 2 hotdogs for .99 and a strawberry slurpee. Come on seriously smoke a bowl and relax. The media is making people think like normal human beings. The people in Europe as an example they are exposed to pornography and drugs at a younger age or even in the open and the thought of going to an alley to sneak a toke is unheard of why 1. because its legal but 2 because being exposed to a sense of freedom makes you not think of it as much and sometimes not at all. Its just a normal part of life.
Online Dealer of Smiles
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by redeyz on April 19, 2001 at 15:48:31 PT
He's still lying??????????
 Leave it to this old thinking cap. He did'nt run away because it was the only way to keep getting his shit for free. Not Drugs maybe?? but I could bet his family drives nice cars! Maybe those of the parent of the kid some misguided money fed cop took the car from under those schemes to take belongings that should'nt have ever been taken. But the police and government know we can't fight them who has the money too????? So take away you a**holes. This type of writing is why the MJ plant is'nt legal. I guess lying to the people who pay your salary(to large) has worked in your favor for so long why quit???F**K YOU, F**K YOU, and F**K YOU IM OUTTA HERE
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by jAHn on March 22, 2001 at 19:58:27 PT
Dood, Big Ab, that Sucks...
A roach!!?!??! What a bunch of Racist Jealousy. Let me guess, Texas!!??Nevada!?! Hmmmm...pretty SICK...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Willy on March 16, 2001 at 18:51:00 PT
The won't print it, but ....
I just sent this e-mail to the LA Times:"I just read the op-ed piece by Housman and McCaffrey that ran in your March 15, 2001 issue.You should be ashamed of yourselves.This piece is blatant propaganda full of lies and mis-interpreted statistics. It's just more "Reefer Madness" hysteria by stupid people unwilling to educate themselves to the effects of their war against the american people.Printing propaganda and dignifying it by calling it opinion is disgraceful."I urge you all to bombard the LA Times with similar e-mail. If we remain silent the press will continue to perform as the mouthpiece for idiots like Housman and McCaffrey.Thanks
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by ras james rsifwh on March 16, 2001 at 11:18:19 PT
barry and booze
barry did say recently on c-span that he thought vino and pasta was good.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by MegaStoner on March 16, 2001 at 08:32:25 PT
strange times
BigAb.What a nightmare!I'll bet there are many more people that have undergonesuch things,but no one ever hears about it because as soon as someone hears theword "drugs",even if its a teeny roach,you are branded with the "drug" label.Yourlife is forever changed because you now wear the,"got busted for drugs" thing.The "drug"label is there no matter what.There is no immediate distinction between 12 pounds of crackin your trunk,or a roach the size of a small roach,(with legs).From that point on,anyone wholooks into your past,sees that term "drugs" connected with your name...That cop calling your boss was a lowdown,sleazy f%*$# #$ shithead!!!!  One of the most effectiveways of dealing with people like that cop,is to actually convince yourself that you dont hate him....If you can do that,then you will send a mystical vibration out to him,no matter where he is.,,your mind will spiritually broadcast some certain hoodoo that will gently irratate his world,or perhaps somehow induce an equivelent nightmare in his life......But the best part is,,that you wont hate him anymore.If your still with me,dont let me scare you.I know I said way too much,,and it may not apply to BigAbssituation.One more spooky thought;as I was writing about hating the cop,and alluding tosome sort of retribution idea,,I flashed on the recent witch hunt frenzy that hasfollowed the puffed up media circus about schools and guns.It's becoming quite close tobeing a "thought police" situation.I have trouble imagining being in school,with the spectreof somehow saying the wrong thing,and being on the evening news.  And of course,if someonedecides they dont like you,they tell the autorities that you were talking about bombs and guns. Thewhole thing has become a spooky new "foot in the door",for further intrusion. It is now somehowmutating into being totally acceptable for schools to have a prison-like atmosphere.I was in high schoolin the early seventies.I thought it was a bit oppressive back then.I can only imagine how it is now.But I guess the kids of today consider the prison camp tactics,as quite routine.After all,whywould anyone dare object? unless they were entertaining thoughts of bombing and gunning?   
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Big Ab on March 16, 2001 at 06:37:42 PT:
Simple Possession !!!
 "Noone goes to jail for simple possion"HORSE SH*T !!!!!!!!!!Not only did I go to jail for a roach the size of a pinto bean(did'nt even know I had it hahaha) BUT I was given a YEAR in jail a 1500 dollar fine, my car was taken and my drivers license suppended..... The dirtiest part was the a-hole cop call my boss and got me fired !!!!!Lies,lies and more lies...........
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by topaztic on March 15, 2001 at 19:47:08 PT
Henry J. Anslinger Lives!
All we need now is a re-make of "reefer madness" to make this scenario complete!if it weren't so maddening it would be funny. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on March 15, 2001 at 16:39:34 PT:
DrugSense FOCUS Alert #202 - March 15, 2001
McCaffrey Teams up With Housman To Bend the Truth (Again) Once again drug warriors are taking their misinformation campaign to the people, this time in a March 15th column in the Los Angeles Times. Robert F. Housman and Barry R. McCaffrey, former Assistant Director and Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, are claiming success in the never ending drug war. This despite the finding of last year's Monitoring the Future survey that heroin use among high school seniors is at record levels. Likewise, drug-related emergency rooms are at record levels, along with drug war spending, yet the promotion of reefer madness hysteria remains the top priority of Housman and McCaffrey. For a compendium of examples of former drug czar McCaffrey's loose affiliation with accuracy and facts please see "Is Truth a Casualty of the Drug War" http://www.csdp.org/ads/ Note: Please see a new MAP feature the "Target Analysis" at the bottom of this Focus Alert.DrugSense FOCUS Alert #202 Thursday March 15, 2001 http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0199.html 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on March 15, 2001 at 14:32:18 PT
Barry Go Away
  "There hasn't been an Angel of Death since you quit. Doesn't that mean anything to you??", says Bartleby to Loki in the opening of Kevin Smith's Dogma. Someone should say the same basic thing to Barry. Get him a new job, indeed - he could be a soldier of fortune fighting the coca trade in Columbia for all I care. Just get him away from the typewriter!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by jAHn on March 15, 2001 at 13:29:38 PT
Don't like Ford Motor? Here's your Ammo!
 Here's a link originally found at: http://www.drudgereport.comhttp://www.vny.com/cf/news/upidetail.cfm?QID=168317 The link is a story about A Ford Car Plant that has been shut down because a Tower is emitting dangerous gases into the working area and causing workers to suffer Pneumonia!!! Shouldn't they be Prosecuted? Where's the Effing DA when you need one!!!???Anyone else get the feeling that the things that ought to be Prohibited aren't and the things that are Prohibited- shouldn't be? Maybe I'm Stoopid!?! Maybe it's you!?!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by jAHn on March 15, 2001 at 13:00:40 PT
Hmmm...
"Barry is sniping from the bushes in hopes that by laying down enough fire, he can prevent anyone from looking up and seeing his own trail of slime." You said it, Kaptinemo! Firing from "The Bushes!"Thank you soo much for touching on this mere comment. I, too, haven't thought that we'd heard the last of "Rabid Dog Barry McCatheter" (good one, michael) I just had a chilling feeling that this creep would come back for his job once a more Conservative base of liars stepped into the Shite House, replacing the Democratic liars. I would not be shocked to know that Barry becomes Re-Hired, while changing his party rank and file. I'd love to know if this creep smokes Cigs or drinks Liq!!! SOmebahdy PLEAAAse hook us up! Why didn't Mad Dog Horn out on the Dangers of Sports and the Dangerous, Violence that is derived from actions thereof? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by mungojelly on March 15, 2001 at 12:56:28 PT:
who would write such idiocy?
"Who would write such idiocy?" I was wondering, before of course I got to the tagline. Ah, those blissful words Office of National Drug Control Policy -- they can turn anything from blatant lies into the inviolable truth. "THC, the active component in marijuana, has been shown to cause cancerous tumors." -- Ah, sorry sir, you were reading with your fascist-colored glasses on again. They said that THC had been shown to CURE brain tumors in rats -- that's right, CURE them. "we are not locking people up for simple possession of marijuana." -- Hello? HELLO?! You support legalizing the possession of marijuana for personal use then, I assume? Right? How can we argue with this? We try to have a debate and it goes like this: EVIL LEGALIZER: "Why don't we legalize weed? Why should responsible adult smokers of marijuana go to jail?" RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE: "Marijuana smokers go to jail?! Hahahaha! Marijuana smokers don't go to jail! We never arrest anyone for smoking marijuana! That would be way out of line!" EVIL LEGALIZER: "Well, then, if that's true (which I doubt, because my friend Bob is in jail for smoking weed as we speak) then I assume that you'd support decriminalizing marijuana, making what you've JUST SAID an EXPLICIT GOVERNMENT POLICY?" RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE: "DEAR GOD NO! That would SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE to our CHILDREN!" 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by michael on March 15, 2001 at 10:52:03 PT:
Oh please stop, your killing me!!!!!
  Without reading the previuos comments, I must offer this. Does Barry McCatheter think we didn't catch the very subtle segue from "marijuana" to drugs, at which time he went in to all of his evil drivel. What other drugs ( alcohol) were these kids using while marijuana is falsley blamed for all of this violence. Once again, does anyone know how we can find out if people like Barry take the legal drug alcohol? If so, we need to throw this information back in their face.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on March 15, 2001 at 10:32:06 PT:
Damn, I hate being right, sometimes
I knew we hadn't heard the last from this troll.OK, let's see now. Barry says that we were winning the WoSD. Under his leadership, right? (I'm of the opinion that Barry couldn't lead people with Crohn's Disease to a sh*thouse.) If you can count the number of rising arrests each year for cannabis possession, maybe you can use that as a statistic. But according to any rational person's thinking, arrests for cannabis have to go down to prove the get-tough strategy works. But the opposite has happened: instead of people acting like good little sheep and being herded away from cannabis by our not-so-trusty public sheepdogs, more people have tried it than ever before. More younger people. And getting arrested for doing so. Is that a benchmark for success?There's so much more I could say, and no doubt will be said by others more eloquent than your's truly. So I'll finish by leaving you with an observation: If Barry was sooooo successful, why did he hightail it out of Washington before Klinton left office? Why didn't he stay on? Perhaps it was that little matter of the hired mouthpieces that he rented to do his assinine anti-drug propaganda overcharging the taxpayers for their services? Perhaps it was that mucking about with the First Amendment his office was engaged in, using the FCC rules to put the squeeze play on producers and corporations to play ball...or else?Or perhaps it might have been the fear of the eventual unearthing of some little known facts concerning his own past dealings with druglords, both as a Green Beret in VietNam and Laos and in Central America with the Contras?Barry is sniping from the bushes in hopes that by laying down enough fire, he can prevent anyone from looking up and seeing his own trail of slime.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by John Lenin on March 15, 2001 at 10:08:50 PT
I've got a few ideas
Perhaps the good general could spend his time testing the new marijuana-based rectal suppositories in development which are especially designed to not produce euphoria. Just in case, he should be given the placebos.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on March 15, 2001 at 09:53:05 PT:
Get Thjis Guy Some Work
I had hoped that the pace of inane analects from the general would abate once he bowed out. It is apparent that he needs work to occupy himself. Anybody have any suggestions on how he could better spend his time?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by observer on March 15, 2001 at 09:52:34 PT
content analysis
Some quick content analysis ... 1. The drug is associated with a hated subgroup of the society or a foreign enemy.  people receiving drug treatment"the dealers and gangs"people arrested for drug crimes"drug-addicted offenders 2. The drug is identified as solely responsible for many problems in the culture, i.e., crime, violence, and insanity. "arrested for drug crimes has grown, arguably one reason why drug crimewere violent."marijuana users may be at higher risk for cancer than cigarette smokers. THC, the active component in marijuana, has been shown to cause cancerous tumors. Marijuana deposits four times more tar in the respiratory tract than cigarette smoke. And studies show that young people who smoke pot tend to be lethargic, socially removed, more prone to committing violent and property crimes and do worse in school."The average drug criminal"drug-related crime is committed by addicts to get money to buy drugs -- the vast majority of drug users rely to some degree on illicit money to support their addiction."people robbing, stealing and prostituting themselves for drug cash."the dangers of drug use. 3. The survival of the culture is pictured as being dependent on the prohibition of the drug.  "the real impact of legalizing drugs. Each year drug use costs the U.S. 52,000 drug-related deaths and roughly $110 billion in additional societal costs."young people never try drugs is societal disapproval."More people using drugs would mean more addicts, more traffic fatalities, more human and economic costs. 4. The concept of "controlled" usage is destroyed and replaced by a "domino theory" of chemical progression. (not explicit) 5. The drug is associated with the corruption of young children, particularly their sexual corruption. " young people never try drugs"Legalizing drugs . . . young people would use them"Children see drugs as less risky. Parents grow less concerned and talk to their children less frequently 6. Both the user and supplier of the drug are defined as fiends, always in search of new victims; usage of the drug is considered "contagious." "the devastating impact of drug use on people, families and friends.  7. Policy options are presented as total prohibition or total access. "favors legalizing drugs"for drug courts and against legalization"the real impact of legalizing drugs."Legalizing drugs would compound this suffering . . ."Legalizing drugs would make drug use an accepted . . ."Nor would legalization cut crime 8. Anyone questioning any of the above assumptions is bitterly attacked and characterized as part of the problem that needs to be eliminated. "Legalization would only increase the number of people robbing, stealing and prostituting themselves for drug cash."Walking away in disgust from the realities of drug use can add drama to a movie or a TV script, but in the real world it is plain irresponsible.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by observer on March 15, 2001 at 09:52:06 PT
'simple possession of marijuana'
Do you ever get the feeling that all of their words are carefully crafted to attempt to stack the deck for continuing to jail adults who use cannabis responsibly? Over the last two years, youth drug use dropped 21%.Isn't that really reported drug use? ... The nice man from the government (who you just caught in umpteen blatant lies) comes to your class one day. (You're hoping to get a grant to help with college, say.) Now, this nice man from the government wants you to fill out a form telling him if you smoked pot. He promises, cross his heart, that the 'survey' is 'anonymous'. Aren't such surveys really just as much surveys on how much people really trust the government as anything? People could be using more, but trusting the government less.It is good to see these grizzled propagandists rant against the boogeyman of "legalization": they just dig themselves in deeper.... we are not locking people up for simple possession of marijuana. During fiscal year 1998, only 33 federal defendants were sentenced to jail for base offenses involving less than 5,000 grams of marijuana.(More sophistry.) Oh, ok, Mr Drug War Propagandist, if "we" aren't locking up people "for simple possession of marijuana", then I'm sure you'll want to join with people everywhere in dropping the Federal 5-year penalty for simple marijuana possession. No? A first offense of simple marijuana posession now carries a five-year federal penalty.234 Escalator clauses take advantage of the repetitive nature of drug use. . . . "Three felony convictions for drug offenses carries mandantory life with no parole, and it is a felony to commit a drug offense within 100 feet of a pinball or video arcade containing more than 10 games."235 Possession of a marijuana cigarette is such a felony. Federal law permits a $10,000 fine for possessing one marijuana cigarette.236 An Oklahoma man received a life sentence for felony possession of marijuana, 0.005644 of an ounce.237Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pg.64http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425Federal "Trafficking" Penalties: Marijuanahttp://www.norml.org/legal/state_laws4.shtml#federalhttp://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/abuse/chap1/penal/chart2.htmAt the state level, more than 70% of drug offenders were incarcerated for drug trafficking as opposed to possession.That's because every time someome simply possesses marijuana, the person is charged with "possession with intent to distribute" if they have, say, 29 grams of cannabis as opposed to 27 grams. Then the double-jeopardy prosecutor/judge says, oh, you also had a bong too and that's an additional five years, or, hey: you shared a cigarette with your friend (our informant, now) and that's "trafficking." See how that's done? People are set up, framed, and railroaded on "distribution" charges like that every day. They aren't dealers, but the government lies and says they are anyway. ``favors legalizing drugs''``for drug courts and against legalization''``the real impact of legalizing drugs.''``Legalizing drugs would compound this suffering . . . young people never try drugs [because of] societal disapproval. ''``Legalizing drugs would make drug use an accepted . . . more young people would use them''``Nor would legalization cut crime''``Legalization would only increase the number of people robbing, stealing and prostituting themselves for drug cash. ''Notice that it is all "legalization of drugS": the intentional lumping together (conflation) of all "drugs". Using marijuana is the same as trafficking drugs is just like pushing kilos of heroin: all are "drug offenses". Why do the drug war propagandists do this? They do this to make marijuana seem as horrible and evil as possible, to support the continued jailing and especially plundering (stealing from) adults who use marijuana responsibly. ... Public support diminishes for the men and women of law enforcement who safeguard our families.''safeguard our families'' ?  Is that what this Goebbels calls stealing the freedom, cars, homes, and bank accounts of adults who use marijuana responsibly? That's safeguarding?see:http://hr95.org/http://www.november.org/http://www.stopthewar.org/the vast majority of drug users rely to some degree on illicit money to support their addiction. The majority of drug users are people who drink alcohol, and do not steal etc. to support anything.Do the majority of cannabis users act like that? No, the propagandist is lying again.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by RAS JAMES RSIFWH on March 15, 2001 at 09:11:37 PT
CANNABIS IS SACRED
..............Cannabis Sativa is sacred....................To the Hindu Sadhus cannabis is God's Mind.To Solomonic Jews, cannabis is the Queen of Heaven's blessing.To Rastas, cannabis is the manifesting Tree of Life.Many run from the Almighty's Mind; reject God the Mother;and are blind..."Only one in a thousand, two in ten thousand shall see." The Final Hour is as it should be.Give all praise and thanks to Jah Rastafar-I for the final judgement has been made...the Book fulfilled..."Thy Kingdom Come Thy Will BE Done On Earth As It Is In Heaven.""The Grace of the Lord Jesus be with the All. Ahmen."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Kevin Hebert on March 15, 2001 at 09:11:37 PT:
McCaffrey?
The fact that Barry McCaffrey felt he needed to write this piece just goes to show that we are winning. You can tell a lie a million times; it doesn't make it true. And the part about mj and cancer, well, that was just dumb. None of the effects mentioned come from eating marijuana, which in today's world isn't done because it's not cost-effective for most people. And, of course, marijuana is not physically addictive. Unlike legal, government-subsidized tobacco. Pieces like this will become more and more prevalent as we move to the future. However, as more and more people become informed, the more pieces like this will be seen for what they are: the last gasps of propaganda from a dying, racist, evil movement.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by tdm on March 15, 2001 at 09:06:37 PT
blech
This made me physically ill.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Sudaca on March 15, 2001 at 08:38:13 PT
Only McCaffrey
Only the McCaffrey man could come up with the "we're winning the war on drugs line". I'm sorry, I can't even read the article through.. the reasoning is so lame it's ridiculous.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: