An American Pothead ~ Joe the Stoner's BLOG

Denver enacts new pot shop rules

2010-01-12T23:35:00.001-07:00

DENVER - In front of a packed audience of medical marijuana supporters and opponents Monday evening, the Denver City Council voted unanimously to enact new restrictions on where pot dispensaries can operate, and who can own them.

In a 13-0 vote, council members voted to restrict dispensaries from operating with 1000 feet of each other, schools and child care centers. The new ordinance also denies people convicted of felonies within five years from obtaining a license to operate a dispensary, and also bars on-site consumption of marijuana.

Dispensary owners will have to pass a criminal background check, pay a $2,000 application fee, and pay $3,000 a year to renew licenses. The new rules will likely result in the closure of several dozen medical marijuana dispensaries which are already open for business.

Prior to the vote, the council heard public comments from both sides of the issue. Some 92 people signed up to speak.

"The whole country and many parts of the world are intensely watching Colorado. What we do here will effectively change the course of American history," said one man who opposes the new restrictions.

Many argued that Denver voters have repeatedly spoken on this issue, and have approved medical marijuana sales and possession in several elections.

"The council's haste and its arrogant disregard for the will of its constituents is completely unacceptable," one opponent told council members. "This is still a civil rights issue, a human rights issues, and it's a health issue, not a criminal issue," another shouted.

While the crowd may have been overwhelmingly opposed to the new restrictions, there were a handful of supporters.

"I want you to close all dispensaries which are already located 1000 feet from schools," one woman said. "I believe that (the dispensaries) just a target for crime," said another.

Rob Corry, a pro-medical marijuana criminal defense attorney, says he plans to sue Denver over the legality of the new restrictions.

City officials estimate there are 390 medical marijuana licensing applications pending approval.

Marijuana legalization bill approved by key Assembly committee

2010-01-12T23:11:00.001-07:00

Reporting from Sacramento - A proposal to legalize and tax marijuana in California was approved by a key committee of the Assembly on Tuesday, but it is not expected to get further consideration by the Legislature until next year.

Despite a procedural glitch, backers hailed the committee's action as historic because it represented the first legislative approval of the proposal.

"This vote marks the formal beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition in the United States," predicted Stephen Gutwillig, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a pot legalization group.

The legislation would allow those who are at least 21 years old to possess up to an ounce of marijuana for recreational use. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), author of the measure, said it would provide needed revenue for the state as well as regulation of the drug.

Existing law "is harming our youth," Ammiano said. "Drug dealers do not ask for ID."

It is estimated that the proposed $50 tax on each ounce of marijuana sold, along with license fees charged to cultivators, would generate $1.3 billion a year to be used to pay for drug education and treatment.

Ammiano said his bill is not expected to get a required hearing by a second committee in time to meet a Friday deadline. He said he plans to reintroduce the legislation if a similar initiative proposed for the November ballot is not approved by voters.

The anticipated revenue would not be worth the grief the bill would cause, said Assemblyman Danny Gilmore (R-Hanford), a former assistant chief with the California Highway Patrol.

"We're going to legalize marijuana, we're going to tax it and then we're going to educate our kids about the harm of drugs. You've got to be kidding me," Gilmore said. "What's next? Are we going to legalize methamphetamines, cocaine?"

The Assembly Public Safety Committee approved Ammiano's bill, AB 390, on a 4-3 vote.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

California: Lawmakers Cast First Vote In Nearly 100 Years To Repeal Marijuana Prohibition

2010-01-12T20:24:00.000-07:00

Lawmakers on the California Assembly, Committee on Public Safety, voted 4 to 3 today in favor of Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act — which seeks to legalize the production, distribution, and personal use of marijuana for adults age 21 and older. The vote is first time since 1913, when California became one of the first states in the nation to criminalize the use and possession of marijuana, that lawmakers have called for the repeal of cannabis prohibition.

“Today’s vote marks the first time in nearly a century that California lawmakers have reassessed this failed criminal policy,” said NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano. “Any risks presented by the use of marijuana by adults falls within the ambit of choice we should permit individuals in a free society. It’s time replace the failings of marijuana prohibition with a policy of legalization, regulation and education. Today’s vote is a significant, albeit first step in this direction.”

Further Committee votes on AB 390 are unlikely to take place this session because of legislative calendar restraints. However, the bill’s sponsor, San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, said that he would likely reintroduce a similar version of the bill later this month.

Registered supporters for the measure included: the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the California Public Defenders Association, among others.

Registered opponents of the bill included: the California Fraternal Order of Police, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the California Peace Officers’ Association, and the California District Attorneys Association.

Voting ‘yes’ on the bill were Ammiano, Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael and Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. Voting no were Assemblyman Warren Furutani, D-Gardena (Los Angeles County), Assemblyman Danny Gilmore, R-Hanford (Kings County) and Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills (San Bernardino County).

Boulder approves temporary medical pot rules

2009-11-12T23:45:00.001-07:00

A "green" issue much different than the Boulder City Council is used to discussing brought out more than 100 area residents Tuesday night amid concerns that the city might ban medical-marijuana dispensaries. While the council didn't go that far, it did approve a set of temporary regulations for an industry that was otherwise unregulated.

Just after midnight this morning, the council voted 4-2 to pass an emergency ordinance aimed at keeping medical marijuana dispensaries away from schools, clustering together or operating in neighborhoods. Councilmembers Lisa Morzel and Macon Cowles voted against the regulations, while Councilmembers Crystal Gray, Ken Wilson, Angelique Espinoza and Susan Osborne voted in favor of interim rules.

The ordinance means that through March 31, 2010, any dispensaries that want to open in Boulder may only do so if they are at least 500 feet away from schools or licensed daycare centers, are not within 500 feet of three or more other dispensaries, and are not located in residential areas.

The rules do not apply to the 42 businesses that have already pulled sales-tax licenses with the city, or the 21 or so dispensaries that applied for permits prior to Nov. 6.

The council stopped short of ordering a moratorium on new dispensaries. Most of the leaders agreed that the city needs more time to study how marijuana dispensaries should be regulated in the long-term, and that short-term regulations are appropriate now.

Osborne said the temporary rules give the city "some breathing room" to consider more comprehensive regulations.

Cowles said he would support a "green" ribbon commission to study the issue through the spring.

"I think this is potentially an important industry," he said, adding that he wouldn't mind seeing commercial marijuana growing operations flourish in Boulder.

Cowles even suggested that Boulder could eventually offer a "city marijuana facility" in which growers could bring excess products for redistribution to patients -- a sort of pot clearinghouse.

The vote didn't satisfy many of the 100 or so medical marijuana advocates who attended the late-night meeting, but most said it was a better decision than a wholesale moratorium on the industry.

The public debate began just before 9 p.m., with a flood of impassioned public comment.

Cheryl Crosby, 70, a nurse, came to the meeting from her home in Lafayette. Crosby said she has a prescription for medicinal marijuana to treat the inflammation and pain in her eyes caused by glaucoma.

"Even I, myself, didn't understand how effective it is for pain," she said.

Crosby uses a Boulder dispensary to obtain her medication, and she fears that the city is rushing to regulate the one thing that treats her symptoms effectively without the use of strong pharmaceuticals.

"To say you can only have 42 of a certain kind of business in a city seems strange," she said, referring to a proposal to limit the number of dispensaries allowed to do business within city limits.

Crosby said the city is unfairly targeting users of legal marijuana by not also taking a hard look at other drug providers -- such as pharmacies.

Amendment 20, approved by state voters in 2000, allows patients and caregivers to have marijuana for medical use in Colorado. There are now 42 medical-marijuana dispensaries licensed to do business in Boulder, although the number of storefronts is thought to be smaller. At least 21 other businesses have applied for licenses but are not yet approved.

Kim Cohen, a Boulder nurse practitioner, also said she uses marijuana to treat her glaucoma. Wearing a vintage 1965 button reading "All Power to the People," Cohen said that individuals, not the city, should decide where and how they receive medication or medical treatment.

"We are not 23-year-old frat boys looking to get high," she said.

But Peter Rogers, a Boulder resident and lawyer, is opposed to medical marijuana being sold or grown in the city.

"I would urge council to enact a moratorium now," he said. "I think we've got to be extremely careful -- marijuana is still against the law."

City Attorney Jerry Gordon told the council up front that the state laws regulating medical marijuana are "enormously confusing," but the city is well within its rights to regulate land uses and business zoning.

The Boulder Planning Board last week recommended not imposing a moratorium on dispensaries and instead using some interim regulations to prevent problems until permanent regulations can be adopted. The City Council softened those recommendations with their vote.

Adrian Sopher, chairman of the Boulder Planning Board, told the City Council on Tuesday that the density of dispensaries is especially a concern in the downtown and University Hill areas. Such businesses, he said, should be spaced out "just in the same way we don't want to have bank after bank" lining any given street.

Andrew Shoemaker, a Boulder attorney and member of the Planning Board, told the council that Boulder should do anything to help legalize the drug and bring about "the beginning of the end of prohibition" on marijuana.

Pot, he said, could help pay for city services through taxation.

"It will pay for itself," he said. "Get Boulder ready for the inevitable."

Not guilty pleas for three men in Boulder medical-pot robbery case

2009-09-13T06:38:00.004-06:00

Trials for the co-defendants scheduled to begin in February
John Aguilar, Camera Staff Writer

Separate trials were scheduled Friday for three co-defendants in the case of a Boulder medical marijuana dispensary that was robbed in June.

David Henderson, 40; Justin St. John, 29; and Lamare McGee, 22 pleaded not guilty to charges of robbery and kidnapping.

A fourth defendant in the June 16 robbery of New Options Wellness Center -- 21-year-old Walter Carter -- isn't scheduled to be arraigned in the case until Sept. 25.

The quartet is accused of sending St. John into the medical marijuana facility at 2885 E. Aurora Ave. to make a phony pot purchase and case out the place.

Minutes later, McGee and Carter entered New Options, restrained the female employee working there, and stole 26 pint jars with marijuana, 72 sample packs of the drug, canisters of hashish, cannibis pills, pipes, security system components and $1,128 in cash, according to police.

Henderson is accused by prosecutors of masterminding the entire plan and driving the getaway vehicle.

The men were stopped by police driving eastbound on U.S. 36 shortly after the incident and arrested. St. John's trial, scheduled for Feb. 16, is up first.

It will be followed a week later by Henderson's trial. McGee is set to go on trial March 1.

The Boulder County District Attorney's Office has not yet filed a motion to consolidate the cases into one trial.St. John and McGee are free on bond, while Henderson and Carter remain behind bars.

Cannabis Therapy Institute holds health fair at CU

2009-09-13T06:20:00.005-06:00

(reprinted from the "Daily Camera" - Boulder, CO - September 12, 2009)

Patients, doctors provide education on medical marijuana
By Scott Franz

The Cannabis Therapy Institute hosted a health fair at the University of Colorado on Saturday to educate the public about marijuana as a medicine and the process involved in becoming a part of Colorado's medical marijuana registry.

"We're not just a bunch of hippy stoners anymore," said medical marijuana patient advocate and Nederland resident Timothy Tipton, who talked to attendees about cannabis as an alternative medicine. "We're baby boomers with a chance to step up and show the public that holistic and healthy alternatives are available."

In his speech, Tipton also commended what he called a "phenomenal turnout and the great medical marijuana community that continues to evolve in the Rocky Mountain state."

More than 100 people filled the Eaton Humanities lecture hall to hear first-hand from other doctors, marijuana law experts and cannabis therapists. Upstairs, more students and visitors from across Colorado talked to representatives from cannabis dispensaries and other related businesses.

"We assembled the best experts from Colorado on the issue," said Laura Kriho, Cannabis Therapy Institute's outreach director. "One of the reasons we're doing this is to educate everyone on how to protect medical marijuana patients."

The Cannabis Therapy Institute is an advocacy group that recently worked with medical marijuana patient Jason Lauve, a Louisville resident acquitted last month on charges of possessing too much medical marijuana. After the acquittal, the institute worked to put together Saturday's fair to promote cannabis education, research and advocacy.

Speaking from a podium adorned with fake marijuana leaf necklaces in the humanities building lecture hall, cannabis therapist Erin Marcove told fair attendees about the positive health effects of marijuana.

Marcove is a medical marijuana patient herself, using marijuana to treat pain that resulted from damage to her nervous system during a surgery when she was 13 years old.

"We're still finding out ways cannabis can be used as a medicine that we never thought we could," Marcove said after sharing results of a study that suggests cannabis can slow down the effects of Alzheimer's disease. "... It's eased my pain as well."

Justin Longley of Boulder attended the fair to listen to the lectures and learn more about what experts are telling potential medical marijuana patients. Longley uses marijuana to treat pain degenerative disc disease.

"Marijuana helps me take as few narcotics as possible," said Longley.

He also expressed concern that too many people are being put on the medical marijuana registry and that some may not need it.

"It makes everybody look bad when doctors are lenient in getting people in the registry, and that hurts the people who really need it," said Longley.

According to Jade E. Dillon, a doctor who has been recommending selected patients to the registry for two years, there are three diagnosis that can qualify her patients for medical marijuana. She will only approve medical marijuana for those with active cancer, glaucoma and HIV/AIDS.

"I have to abide by the registry," said Dillon, a speaker at the event. "There is no other check box or medical condition that can be recognized."

Rasmussen Poll: Majority Of Americans Say Marijuana Is Safer Than Booze

2009-09-13T06:00:00.004-06:00

(reprinted from NORML News of the Week 9/3/09)

Ashbury Park, NJ: Slightly more than half of American adults believe that alcohol is "more dangerous" than marijuana, according to a national telephone poll of 1,000 likely voters by the polling firm Rasmussen Reports.

Fifty-one percent of respondents, including a majority of women, rated the use of marijuana to be less dangerous than alcohol. Only 19 percent of those polled said that cannabis is the more dangerous of the two substances.

Twenty-five percent of respondents said that both substances are equally dangerous.

Commenting on the poll results NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano, co-author of the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink, said: "By almost any objectively measurable standard, cannabis is safer than booze – both to the individual consumer and to society as a whole. However, given our government's longstanding demonization of the cannabis plant and its users it is remarkable that anyone – much less over half of America – recognizes this fact. Ideally, these survey results will spark a long-overdue dialogue in this country asking why our laws target and prosecute those who choose to possess and consume the less dangerous of these two popular substances."

A previous survey conducted by Zogby in 2002 reported that most Americans believe that cannabis is less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco.For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org.

Darine Chely - Felony Charges 2009

2009-07-16T02:29:00.001-06:00

THIS POST WILL BE UPDATED AS NEW INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE. PLEASE CHECK BACK REGULARLY

To view the Arrest Warrant - CLICK HERE

If you have any information or evidence regarding any crimes committed by this career criminal, please contact the Boulder Police Department at (303) 441-3333 and ask for Detective Carey Lutz.

CHELY, DARINE
Court Docket Number: 09CR293 Division: 6
Law Agency: BOULDER POLICE DEPT Agency Number: 07-17233
Case Status: Open Felony

Prosecuting Attorney MICHAEL FOOTE
Defense Attorney MARK E. BIDDISON

Charges
1 F5 FORGERY
2 F6 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT FORGERY
3 M2 FIRST DEGREE OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

Case Events
1/14/2009 2:00 PM BOND HEARING Held Okubo
1/22/2009 2:00 PM FILING OF CHARGES Continued
1/23/2009 2:00 PM FILING OF CHARGES Continued
1/27/2009 2:00 PM FILING OF CHARGES Held
3/16/2009 9:00 AM STATUS CONFERENCE Held Bakke withdraws
5/29/2009 1:00 PM ARRAIGNMENT Continued
7/10/2009 1:00 PM ARRAIGNMENT Continued
8/4/2009 8:15 AM ARRAIGNMENT Posted

Court Docket Number: 09CR595 Division: 9
Law Agency: BOULDER POLICE DEPT Agency Number: 09-3022
Case Status: Open Felony Violent Crime

Prosecuting Attorney MICHAEL FOOTE
Defense Attorney MARK E. BIDDISON

Charges
1 F6 POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY PREVIOUS OFFENDER
2 F6 VIOLATION OF BAIL BOND CONDITIONS
3 M3 RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT
4 M3 RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT
5 M3 RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT

Case Events
3/20/2009 2:00 PM FILING OF CHARGES Held Welsh
4/9/2009 1:30 PM PRELIMINARY HEARING Waived
5/29/2009 1:00 PM ARRAIGNMENT Continued
7/10/2009 1:00 PM ARRAIGNMENT Continued
8/4/2009 8:15 AM ARRAIGNMENT Posted

ON 4/10/2009 A BAIL BOND REVOCATION HEARING WAS HELD AND DARINE CHELY WAS ONCE AGAIN SENT TO JAIL. THIS TIME HER BAIL WAS RAISED TO $30,000.00 AND SHE IS BACK OUT ON THE STREETS OF BOULDER WITHIN HOURS.

(The information posted above is a matter of Public Record and was obtained from the Boulder County District Attorney website)

Justice Department Urges Equalizing Drug Sentences

2009-04-29T08:30:00.002-06:00

By Carrie Johnson

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 29, 2009; 10:00 AM

Justice Department officials this morning endorsed for the first time proposed legislation that would eliminate vast sentencing disparities for possession of powdered versus rock cocaine, an inequality that civil rights groups say disproportionately has impacted poor and minority defendants.

Newly appointed Criminal Division chief Lanny A. Breuer told a Senate panel this morning that the Obama administration would support bills to equalize punishment for offenders accused of possessing the drug in either form, fulfilling one of the president's campaign pledges.

The issue has received attention from both political parties, but never before have top law enforcement officials backed legislative reforms, according to drug control analysts.

"Now is the time for us to reexamine federal cocaine sentencing policy, from the perspective of both fundamental fairness and safety," Breuer said in remarks prepared for delivery to the committee. He told lawmakers that the sentencing issues would be among those considered by a department panel that is examining a broad array of topics related to criminal justice charging, sentencing and prisoner treatment.

The announcement represents part of a broader strategy by the White House to move away from failed strategies to combat the war on drugs and to shift more money into treatment, counseling and job training. That outlook has been endorsed by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and former Seattle police chief R. Gil Kerlikowske, who awaits Senate confirmation as Obama's new drug czar.

Conflict over the cocaine possession laws, which date to 1986, has simmered for years. Even the U.S. Sentencing Commission has pushed Congress for more than a decade to address sentencing disparities.

At the heart of the debate are vastly unequal penalties for carrying cocaine in powder form as opposed to rock form, commonly known as crack. The inequality has come to be known as the "100 to 1" ratio, in which possession of five grams of crack, the weight of two small sugar cubes, triggers a mandatory five-year prison term while a person carrying 500 grams of powder cocaine would receive the same sentence.

The penalties have had far-reaching consequences, according to police chiefs, federal judges and drug control operatives.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) noted in his prepared comments this morning that more than half of federal inmates are locked up for drug-related crimes, including high ratios of African American offenders. In 2007, Durbin said, 82 percent of people convicted on crack possession charges were black, and only 9 percent were white.

"These racial disparities profoundly undermine trust in our criminal justice system and have a deeply corrosive effect on the relationship between law enforcement and minority communities," Durbin said.

In practice, according to the advocacy group Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the sentencing disparity has a discriminatory impact on African Americans who serve sentences on average nearly two years longer than people sentenced under powder cocaine laws.

One client of FAMM is Eugenia Jennings, the mother of three children, who was convicted of trading small amounts of crack cocaine for designer clothes on two different occasions. She was charged as a career offender and sentenced to more than 20 years in prison in 2001.

Cedric Parker, Jennings's brother, was to tell the Senate panel this morning that had his sister been caught with powder cocaine, she would be preparing to return home because that offense carried far less prison time. Jennings is not scheduled for release until 2019.

"This hearing gives new hope to thousands . . . who have loved ones serving harsh sentences for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses," said Mary Price, vice president and general counsel at FAMM.

The origins of the tough sentences reside in the hothouse environment of the mid-1980s, when many urban communities suffered outbreaks of violence and drug use stemming from the introduction of high-quality cocaine into local drug markets. At the time, authorities believed that crack cocaine possessed unusually addictive powers, an idea that has since been dispelled, said Asa Hutchinson, former administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

"When significant numbers of African Americans on the street question the fairness of our criminal justice system, then it becomes more difficult for the officer on the street to do his or her duty under the law," Hutchinson said in his prepared remarks for the committee today.

John F. Timoney, the police chief in Miami, this morning called the current state of the drug law an "unmitigated disaster" and said he was "pleading with the Congress to right a wrong."

New push in Arizona for medical marijuana

2009-04-18T04:28:00.003-06:00

by Matthew Benson - Apr. 18, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

An initiative planned for the 2010 ballot would ask Arizona voters to legalize medical marijuana, setting up a California-style network of cannabis clubs and even allow some patients to grow their own drug supply.

It's the fourth time since 1996 that state voters have been asked to decriminalize marijuana as a medical treatment. Local supporters, backed by the national Marijuana Policy Project, have their sights set on the 2010 general election and plan to submit ballot language to the Secretary of State's Office as early as next week.

The initiative would allow individuals with illnesses ranging from cancer to HIV/AIDS or glaucoma to seek a doctor's recommendation for medical marijuana, according to draft ballot language obtained by The Arizona Republic.

Eligible individuals would be able to purchase up to 2 1/2 ounces of the drug every 14 days from a series of non-profit outlets, known as dispensaries. Patients in rural areas of the state could cultivate a limited number of their own marijuana plants.

Marijuana remains a Schedule 1 drug under federal guidelines, like heroin or LSD. But the initiative would shield from state prosecution the doctors who recommend marijuana for medical treatment, the dispensary workers who provide it and the patients who use it. Thirteen states already have legalized medical marijuana in some fashion, though only California has established a widespread network of dispensaries to distribute it.

Proponents of medical marijuana say it can relieve pain and suffering.

Supporters of the Arizona initiative say it would provide another treatment alternative to the desperately ill, sparing them and their family from having to brave the underground drug market and risk criminal prosecution.

"These people are facing a terrible choice," said Andrew Myers, campaign manager for the Arizona initiative. "It's either continue to suffer with debilitating effects or risk arrest and jail time."

Skeptics voice worry

Skeptics aren't so sure. They question the drug's medicinal benefits and wonder whether efforts to legalize it for the sick and dying are a prelude to decriminalization for everyone else in the future.

"Don't get blinded by the smokescreen," warned Rick Romley, a former Maricopa County attorney. "It's still a step toward legalization of marijuana. That's what it has been since Day 1."

Romley was in office in 1996 during the state's initial medical marijuana vote.

By a nearly 2-1 ratio, voters approved a ballot proposal that OK'd use of the drug for medical purposes, but lawmakers subsequently stripped the provision from the law.

In 1998, federal authorities threatened to revoke the license of physicians who prescribed the drug.

That same year, voters rejected a ballot attempt to require that the federal government or Congress OK the use of medical marijuana before it could be prescribed by a doctor.

In 2002, Arizona voters rejected an effort to decriminalize possession of small quantities of marijuana and make the drug available free of charge to patients suffering from cancer and other diseases.

Medical-marijuana supporters think the timing is right to try once more. They believe they've solved the past licensing issue with their latest initiative, which requires that patients obtain a physician's "recommendation," rather than a prescription, to obtain the drug.

Additionally, new U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently indicated that federal authorities will not pursue cases involving medical marijuana in states that allow the practice, a reversal of Bush administration policy.

Backers of the initiative need to gather at least 153,000 valid signatures to qualify for the 2010 ballot. Myers is confident his group can do that and is girding for a multimillion-dollar campaign.

A degree of mercy

The issue of medical marijuana is personal for Ellen Terry Friedman.

In early 1988, the Tempe woman's father, Harold, was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the age of 70. The disease had spread to his bones.

His condition deteriorated over the next 18 months. Toward the end, Harold was no longer undergoing chemotherapy or radiation. He was under hospice care and on morphine. But he still suffered.

So, in her father's last month or so of life, Friedman said, the oncologist suggested the family obtain marijuana to dull Harold's pain and help with his nausea. She won't say how the family got the drug, but it did.

"It was a shocking position to be put in, let's put it that way," she said. "Nobody should be put in that position."

The marijuana seemed to help, Friedman said. Her father regained a bit of appetite. He found a degree of mercy.

"It was a horrible, painful death, but it was eased somewhat," she said. "We wanted him to die with the least pain, and the medical marijuana was an integral part of that."

Conflict continues

Romley sympathizes with those who suffer. But he worries that some patients or doctors would misuse the law, especially given a provision in the initiative that would allow patients to obtain the drug if they displayed symptoms such as severe pain or seizures. What constitutes severe pain would be a matter for a doctor's judgment.

State Sen. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, has similar concerns. But he's conflicted on the issue of medical marijuana. Although he worries "this is just the gateway to legalizing marijuana," Paton also has seen the drug used with medical benefits.

Before dying of cancer a couple of years ago, a friend of Paton's used marijuana to ease the suffering.

"He smoked pot because he was too sick," said Paton, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "He couldn't keep the (pain) pills down."

If marijuana is a legitimate medical treatment, Romley said, backers should seek its legalization through the health community and federal government, not at the ballot box.

"I just don't believe we decide what's good medicine at the ballot box," he said. "The vast bulk of the medical community has never pushed it to be a drug legalized for medicinal purposes."

Myers countered that federal drug laws continue to make medical research involving marijuana difficult.

And while he conceded that the national Marijuana Policy Project has broader aims with regard to the drug's legalization, he said the Arizona initiative is narrowly written with its intent solely on helping people fighting severe illness.

"There are 13 other states with medical-marijuana laws," Myers said. "None of those 13 has moved to total legalization."

(Source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/18/20090418med-marijuana0418.html)

FOX News Says Marijuana Activists are "Internet Trolls"

2009-04-17T02:33:00.001-06:00

Posted in Chronicle Blog by Scott Morgan on Mon, 04/13/2009 - 10:36pm

Recent months have brought an unprecedented level of positive mainstream discussion about reforming our marijuana laws. To those who've been working for decades to create a national dialogue surrounding marijuana policy, it's a sign of hope and progress. To the folks at FOX News, it's a f#$king internet prank:

President Obama's pledge to open the White House up to the public through online forums faces an irksome challenge: a plague of Internet "trolls" -- troublemakers who work to derail cyber-conversations through harassing and inflammatory posts.
The problem became immediately apparent last month when Obama held an online "town hall" forum on the economy and invited the public to post questions on the White House Web site.

Those questions, in turn, were voted on by users to determine which ones the president would answer.

Three and a half million people participated in the event, but the "trolls" had their way: Following a coordinated campaign by marijuana advocates to vote their topic to the top of the list, questions on the future of the U.S. dollar and the rising unemployment rate were superseded by questions about legalizing pot as an economic remedy.

Really, FOX News? You are so incapable of understanding our argument that you would dismiss us as saboteurs? If the mere mention of reforming marijuana laws is such a grand affront to civil discourse, let me introduce you to a few more "trolls" out there on the internet spreading crazy ideas about not arresting people for marijuana:

There's Joe Klein at Time, David Sirota at The Nation, Kathleen Parker at the Washington Post, Paul Jacob at TownHall.com, Hendrik Hertzberg at The New Yorker, Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic, Glenn Greenwald at Salon, Debra Saunders at the San Francisco Chronicle, Leonard Pitts at Miami Herald, John Richardson at Esquire, Margery Eagan at Boston Herald and many more. If these names sound familiar to you, it's becaue they aren't trolls at all, rather they are respected journalists who are joining the national conversation about the harms of our vicious marijuana laws.

In one of Obama's recent online forums, I saw this question: "How many donuts can I fit on my dong?" That was a troll, and it got deleted. This is a movement, and it isn't going away. Our issue is bigger than the organizations backing it. It didn't win Obama's forum because marijuana reformers know something about online organizing that other interest groups don't. It won because it is this defining question that quickly separates petty hypocrites from bold leaders, that distinguishes self-evident truths from antiquated propaganda, and that pits common sense against the mindless drug war hysteria that maintains a frigid stranglehold on our political culture, rendering impotent the promise of change that inspired so many hopeful Americans to lay their hopes and dreams at the steps of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It won because millions among us have been arrested and abused at the expense of our own precious tax dollars, with no credible explanation and no honorable conclusion on the horizon. And it won because President Obama himself once spoke of the "utter failure" of these laws, only to then embrace the endless drug war death march that destroys everything it was meant to preserve.

So no, FOX News, we are not "troublemakers" at all. We are here to solve a problem and anyone who thinks there are more important things to worry about would be well advised to stop making this take longer than it has to.

Loveland, CO - Shop To Offer Medical Pot

2009-04-13T12:53:00.002-06:00

Loveland’s first medicinal marijuana dispensary will open this week - more than eight years after Colorado voters legalized the drug for such use.

Rich Present, 37, and Drew McNeil, 33, plan to open Nature’s Medicine today at 843 Cleveland Ave.

Along with selling marijuana, Nature’s Medicine will provide a variety of alternative health-related services, such as low-cost acupuncture and massage, meditation, and a variety of herbs and supplements.

The business will also contract out for more intensive home care; and in August, a certified nursing assistant will join the staff.

“This will be a totally on-site thing,” Present said, adding that the business will have professionals on hand for walk-in services aimed at patient care.

The store will sell smoking accessories and some clothing as well.

McNeil would like to see the business as a place people can visit for a variety of things, even for tea or fresh-squeezed juice, he said.

Still, the business likely will be best known as a marijuana dispensary, featuring a locked room where state-registered patients may purchase marijuana in a variety of forms, including budding plants, baked goods and in liquid form.

Present would like to create a cooperative of legal marijuana growers through Nature’s Medicine to drive down the drug’s price for medicinal users, he said.

“If we are not beating the street ( value ) for $300 ( an ounce ), then why should they come to us,” Present said.

One ounce of marijuana at Nature’s Medicine will cost between $250 and $300 and one-eighth of an ounce will cost $50, plus standard sales tax, Present said.

Colorado medical marijuana laws state that anyone registered to use the drug can grow six plants for personal use.

However, they also can designate someone as a caregiver to grow those plants for them.

As of February, about 6,800 Colorado residents have registered as medical marijuana users; 569 of them are from Larimer County, according to information from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Larimer County comes in as the region with the fourth-largest number of people on the registry, behind Denver, Jefferson and El Paso counties.

Present and McNeil are registered users and caregivers for 20 patients.

Loveland police Sgt. Benjamin Hurr said police were consulted and this type of operation is a legal business as long as the business owners follow state and municipal laws.

Nature’s Medicine is at least the second dispensary to open in Larimer County.

One year ago, Enerchi Healing Center opened in Fort Collins providing similar services.

“We’ve seen phenomenal success with our community,” Enerchi owner Pam Fleming said, adding she has not had any problems with the Fort Collins police.

REALITY NEWS: HEMP FOR FUEL - The END of Big Oil

2009-04-13T12:26:00.003-06:00

Excerpted from "Energy Farming in America," by Lynn Osburn

BIOMASS CONVERSION to fuel has proven economically feasible, first in laboratory tests and by continuous operation of pilot plants in field tests since 1973. When the energy crop is growing it takes in C02 from the air, so when it is burned the C02 is released, creating a balanced system.

Biomass is the term used to describe all biologically produced matter. World production of biomass is estimated at 146 billion metric tons a year, mostly wild plant growth. Some farm crops and trees can produce up to 20 metric tons per acre of biomass a year.

Types of algae and grasses may produce 50 metric tons per year. This biomass has a heating value of 5000-8000 BTU/lb, with virtually no ash or sulfur produced during combustion. About 6% of contiguous United States land area put into cultivation for biomass could supply all current demands for oil and gas.

The foundation upon which this will be achieved is the emerging concept of "energy farming," wherein farmers grow and harvest crops for biomass conversion to fuels.

PYROLYSIS IS THE TECHNIQUE of applying high heat to organic matter (ligno-cellulosic materials) in the absence of air or in reduced air. The process can produce charcoal, condensable organic liquids (pyrolytic fuel oil), non-condensable gasses, acetic acid, acetone, and methanol. The process can be adjusted to favor charcoal, pyrolytic oil, gas, or methanol production with a 95.5% fuel-to-feed efficiency.

Pyrolysis has been used since the dawn of civilization. Ancient Egyptians practiced wood distillation by collecting the tars and pyroligneous acid for use in their embalming industry.

Methanol-powered automobiles and reduced emissions from coal-fired power plants can be accomplished by biomass conversion to fuel utilizing pyrolysis technology, and at the same time save the American family farm while turning the American heartland into a prosperous source of clean energy production.

Pyrolysis has the advantage of using the same technology now used to process crude fossil fuel oil and coal. Coal and oil conversion is more efficient in terms of fuel-to-feed ratio, but biomass conversion by pyrolysis has many environmental and economic advantages over coal and oil.

Pyrolysis facilities will run three shifts a day. Some 68% of the energy of the raw biomass will be contained in the charcoal and fuel oils made at the facility. This charcoal has nearly the same heating value in BTU as coal, with virtually no sulfur.

Pyrolytic fuel oil has similar properties to no. 2 and no. 6 fuel oil. The charcoal can be transported economically by rail to all urban area power plants generating electricity. The fuel oil can be transported economically by trucking creating more jobs for Americans. When these plants use charcoal instead of coal, the problems of acid rain will begin to disappear.

When this energy system is on line producing a steady supply of fuel for electrical power plants, it will be more feasible to build the complex gasifying systems to produce methanol from the cubed biomass, or make synthetic gasoline from the methanol by the addition of the Mobil Co. process equipment to the gasifier.

FARMERS MUST BE ALLOWED TO GROW an energy crop capable of producing 10 tons per acre in 90-120 days. This crop must be woody in nature and high in lignocellulose. It must be able to grow in all climactic zones in America.

And it should not compete with food crops for the most productive land, but be grown in rotation with food crops or on marginal land where food crop production isn't profitable.

When farmers can make a profit growing energy, it will not take long to get 6% of continental American land mass into cultivation of biomass fuel--enough to replace our economy's dependence on fossil fuels. We will no longer be increasing the C02 burden in the atmosphere. The threat of global greenhouse warming and adverse climactic change will diminish. To keep costs down, pyrolysis reactors need to be located within a 50 mile radius of the energy farms. This necessity will bring life back to our small towns by providing jobs locally.

HEMP IS THE NUMBER ONE biomass producer on planet earth: 10 tons per acre in approximately four months. It is a woody plant containing 77% cellulose. Wood produces 60% cellulose. This energy crop can be harvested with equipment readily available. It can be "cubed" by modifying hay cubing equipment. This method condenses the bulk, reducing trucking costs from the field to the pyrolysis reactor. And the biomass cubes are ready for conversion with no further treatment.

Hemp is drought resistant, making it an ideal crop in the dry western regions of the country. Hemp is the only biomass resource capable of making America energy independent. And our government outlawed it in 1938.

Remember, in 10 years, by the year 2000, America will have exhausted 80% of her petroleum reserves. Will we then go to war with the Arabs for the privilege of driving our cars; will we stripmine our land for coal, and poison our air so we can drive our autos an extra 100 years; will we raze our forests for our energy needs?

During World War II, our supply of hemp was cut off by the Japanese. The federal government responded to the emergency by suspending marijuana prohibition. Patriotic American farmers were encouraged to apply for a license to cultivate hemp and responded enthusiastically. Hundreds of thousands of acres of hemp were grown.

The argument against hemp production does not hold up to scrutiny: hemp grown for biomass makes very poor grade marijuana. The 20 to 40 million Americans who smoke marijuana would loath to smoke hemp grown for biomass, so a farmer's hemp biomass crop is worthless as marijuana.

It is time the government once again respond to our economic emergency as they did in WWII to permit our farmers to grow American hemp so this mighty nation can once again become energy independent and smog free.

For more information on the many uses of hemp, contact BACH, the Business Alliance for Commerce in Hemp, Box 71093, LA, CA 90071-0093, 213/288-4152.

--excerpt from Herer, "Emperor Wears No Clothes," 1991 edition, p. 136

For an updated version of "Energy Farming In America," "Books In Print" lists "Ecohemp: Economy and Ecolgy with Hemp," Access Unlimited, Frazier Park, CA, 805/632-2644.

[3] The device invented was named the decorticator and in the mid 1930s it was poised to do for hemp what the cotton gin had done for cotton: create a fast and economically feasible way of "removing the fiber- bearing cortex from the rest of the stalk, making hemp fiber available for use without a prohibitive amount of human labor." ("Popular Mechanics," February, 1938)

BREAKING NEWS: Sides will debate marijuana issue - CU's 420 Event

2009-04-13T10:32:00.008-06:00

By Joey Bunch
The Denver Post

Organizers of the University of Colorado's 420 pot-smokers' holiday hope attendees don't just get high, but also get smart.

Student organizers have lined up local and national speakers from both sides of the issue, including liberals and conservatives, legalization advocates and law enforcement leaders for forums Saturday through Monday.

"There never has been an intellectual public discourse on marijuana" in the event's 16 years at CU, said Alex Douglas, a junior sociology major and director of the school's chapter of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML.

"Putting both sides of the issue on the table, the forum offers the opportunity for students and the community to be engaged and educated in all aspects of the marijuana issue."

Besides Douglas, the lineup of speakers includes:

Steve Bloom, founding editor of High Times magazine.

Kevin Booth, producer and director of the documentary "American Drug War."

Jessica Peck Corry, a conservative pundit and executive director of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative.

Retired Lafayette judge Lenny Frieling.

Food and Drug Administration official Devin Koontz.

Allen St. Pierre, national executive director of NORML.

Cmdr. Tom Sloan of the Boulder County Drug Task Force.

The forum culminates with hundreds of students and other pot users toking up at 4:20 p.m. on April 20 on CU's Norlin Quad in Boulder. A similar event will be held at the same time in Denver's Civic Center Park.

The national event is named after "420," the statute number in the California legal code that bans marijuana possession.

In past years CU has tried to thwart the event, writing tickets, taking photographs and posting them online, even turning on sprinklers. Denver police also have written citations, but mostly monitor the crowd for safety issues, police said last year.

For a schedule of speakers visit www.normlcu.com/.

Mexican Ambassador: US should take Marijuana Legalization seriously

2009-04-12T21:09:00.009-06:00

David Edwards and Joe Byrne
Published: Sunday April 12, 2009

Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan joined CBS' Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation today to talk about the violence on Mexico's border resulting from the drug trade. Among other things, the senior diplomat told Schieffer that the U.S. should take the debate over marijuana legalization seriously.

"Those that suggest that some of these measures need to be looked at understand the dynamics of the drug trade; you have to bring demand down and one way to do it is to move in that direction [towards legalization]...There are many others who believe that doing this will just fan the flames," Sarukhan told Schieffer.

Some authorities close to the border violence are beginning to advocate for a legalization scenario. At the end of February, Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General, said that while he's not in favor of legalizing marijuana, he thinks it should be debated as a way of curbing violence in the increasingly deadly clashes between Mexico's gangs. In addition, three former presidents of Latin America - Former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo - have all urged the United States and Latin American governments to move away from jailing drug users, to debate the legalization of marijuana, and to place more emphasis on the treatment of addicts.

"This is a debate that needs to be taken seriously, that we have to engage in on both sides of the border: both in producing, in trafficking, and in consumption countries," he said of the marijuana legalization debate.

Guns coming across the border into Mexico are also a matter of concern. The ambassador believes that "90% of the guns we are seizing in Mexico...are coming from the United States."

This video is from CBS' Face the Nation, broadcast Apr. 12, 2009.

Download video via RawReplay.com

LETTER TO WASHINGTON from Joe the Stoner

2009-04-12T20:17:00.003-06:00

Dear Mr. President, Vice President and Congress:

This letter is addressed to ALL of YOU, whether you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Fascist or whatever your ideology may be. Your "Party" doesn't make the slightest difference here.

Forgive me for being blunt, but do any of you have the courage to end America's dependence on ALL OIL, both foreign and domestic, and convert all our automobiles to run on hemp fuel?

Do any of you have the foresight to create millions of American jobs in the Hemp Industry, a clean, green and renewable source of energy?

Do any of you have the bravery to legalize something that has already been banned for way too long at the cost of millions of American lives in the ever-losing Drug War?

How much money is the government spending to fight marijuana and how many Americans will you jail for something that you cannot possibly ever control unless you legalize it?

Do you even realize that Cannabis IS the "Green Energy" of the FUTURE?

Did you know that this could be accomplished in less than a year!

Imagine, America could be FREE FROM FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE IN LESS THAN A YEAR!

Did you even know that Cannabis Hemp amd Marijuana have so many other uses? Clothing, Plastics, Rope, Paper, Health benefits, in some people even CURES CANCER, it is a natural alternative medicine to so many damaging prescription drugs, etc..... and oh yeah, lets not forget that the marijuana plant's "bud" can get you high.

Millions of Americans smoke marijuana. You CANNOT and MORALLY SHOULD NOT jail such a huge portion of the population of our own country in such a foolish manner. It is a waste of valuable resources. These millions of Americans that we currently jail are taken away from being productive to society, their families and communities, all because they chose to get high, whether for recreational, medicinal or emotional purposes.

Please do not let history repeat itself. During the Great Depression, America went into an even deeper slump because of Prohibition. Prohibition in the early 20th Century nearly destroyed America. Do not let America's Prohibition of Marijuana destroy our nation.

It's a fact of life: America Smokes Pot and LOTS OF IT!!!

Keep an open mind and envision the inevitable fact that marijuana, cannabis, and hemp are what is destined to save humankind and our planet.

America needs to lead in developing this renewable energy source before we fall behind the rest of the world as slowly all nations will open their eyes to the things they can do with this miracle plant, cannabis.

The potential to once again become the "World's Leading Economy" is in your hands. America needs to push aside the old myths about marijuana that got a nation so paranoid about it, we outlawed hemp - We made it illegal and banned an industry that today has the potential to create millions of jobs, billions in exports, and trillions in taxes and related revenues.

Mr. President, Vice President and Congress - PLEASE SAVE AMERICA - PLEASE LEGALIZE AND LET THE STATES REGULATE CANNABIS, HEMP & MARIJUANA.

OPEN YOUR EYES AMERICA - DEMAND A CHANGE SO DRASTIC THAT IT COULD SAVE THE WORLD AND END DEPENDENCY ON OIL TODAY!

PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE AND OUR NATION'S SURVIVAL......END PROHIBITION NOW.

Joe the Stoner

(NOTE: In the original letter, the word "balls" was replaced with courage, foresight and bravery - funny how a male appendage can be associated with words that describe our founding fathers - courage, foresight and bravery = balls)

Hemp Is Not Pot: It's the Economic Stimulus and Green Jobs Solution We Need

2009-04-12T14:00:00.002-06:00

By Dara Colwell, AlterNet. Posted March 26, 2009.

We can make over 25,000 things with it. Farmers love it. Environmentalists love it. You can't get high from it. So why is it still illegal?

While Uncle Sam's scramble for new revenue sources has recently kicked up the marijuana debate -- to legalize and tax, or not? -- hemp's feasibility as a stimulus plan has received less airtime.

But with a North American market that exceeds $300 million in annual retail sales and continued rising demand, industrial hemp could generate thousands of sustainable new jobs, helping America to get back on track.

"We're in the midst of a dark economic transition, but I believe hemp is an important facet and has tremendous economic potential," says Patrick Goggin, a board member on the California Council for Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp-farming advocacy group. "Economically and environmentally, industrial hemp is an important part of the sustainability pie."

With 25,000 known applications from paper, clothing and food products -- which, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal this January, is the fastest growing new food category in North America -- to construction and automotive materials, hemp could be just the crop to jump-start America's green economy.

But growing hemp remains illegal in the U.S. The Drug Enforcement Administration has lumped the low-THC plant together with its psychoactive cousin, marijuana, making America the planet's only industrialized nation to ban hemp production. We can import it from Canada, which legalized it in 1997. But we can't grow it.

"It's a missed opportunity," says Goggin, who campaigned for California farmers to grow industrial hemp two years ago, although the bill was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, citing the measure conflicted with federal law.

Considering California's position as an agricultural giant -- agriculture nets $36.6 billion dollars a year, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture -- Goggin's assessment is an understatement. Especially if extended nationwide.

"Jobs require capital investment, which isn't easy to come by at the moment, and we need hemp-processing facilities, because the infrastructure here went to seed. But this is a profitable crop, and the California farming community supports it."

Just how profitable? According to Chris Conrad, a respected authority on cannabis and industrial hemp and who authored Hemp for Health and Hemp, Lifeline to the Future, the industry would be regionally sustainable, reviving the local economy wherever it was grown.

"Hemp will create jobs in some of the hardest-hit sectors of the country -- rural agriculture, equipment manufacturing, transportable processing equipment and crews -- and the products could serve and develop the same community where the hemp is farmed: building ecological new homes, producing value-added and finished products, marketing and so forth," he writes in an e-mail from Amsterdam, where he is doing research. "Add to that all the secondary jobs -- restaurants, health care, food products, community-support networks, schools, etc., that will serve the workers. The Midwestern U.S. and the more remote parts of California and other states would see a surge of income, growth, jobs and consumer goods."

In America, industrial hemp has long been associated with marijuana, although the plants are different breeds of Cannabis sativa, just as poodles and Irish setters are different breeds of dog.

While hemp contains minute levels of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana (compare 0.3 percent or less in Canadian industrial hemp versus 3-20 percent for medical marijuana), to get high you'd have to smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole.

Still, the historical hysteria caused by federal anti-marijuana campaigns of the 1930s, which warned that marijuana caused insanity, lust, addiction, violence and crime, have had a long-term impact on its distant relative.

Doomed by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which in effect criminalized cannabis and levied high taxes on medical marijuana and industrial hemp, hemp cultivation wasn't technically disallowed.

However, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the DEA's predecessor, said its agents couldn't differentiate between industrial hemp and marijuana, a stance the DEA maintains today, so fewer farmers were willing to grow it. The exception came during World War II, when the armed forces experienced a severe fiber shortage and the government launched an aggressive campaign to grow hemp.

But after the war, hemp production faded away, and the last legal crop was harvested in 1957. Marijuana's propaganda-fuelled history, one filled with lurid stories, one-sided information, slander and corporate profiteerism, is too lengthy to address here, but hemp has never managed to remain unscathed.

Considering today's economic crisis and the combined threats of peak oil and global warming, there is increasing pressure to move toward sustainable resources before everything goes up in smoke. If there was any time to revisit hemp, it's now.

"Industrial hemp is the best gift a farmer could have. It's the ideal alternative crop," says Gale Glenn, on the board of the North American Industrial Hemp Council. Glenn, now retired, owned and managed a 300-acre Kentucky farm producing burley tobacco, and she immediately launches into hemp's benefits: It's environmentally friendly, requiring no pesticides or herbicides, it's the perfect rotation crop because it detoxifies and regenerates the soil, and it's low labor.

"You just plant the seed, close the farm gate and four months later, cut it and bale it," she says.

And there's more. As a food, hemp is rich in essential omega-3 fatty acids; the plant's cellulose level, roughly three times that of wood, creates paper that yields four times as much pulp as trees; hemp is an ideal raw material for plant-based plastics, used to make everything from diapers to dashboards.

In fact, Germany's DaimlerChrysler Corp. has equipped its Mercedes-Benz C-class vehicles with natural-fiber-reinforced materials, including hemp, for years. Even Henry Ford himself manufactured a car from hemp-based plastic in 1941, archival footage of which can be found on YouTube, and the car ran on clean-burning hemp-based ethanol fuel.

This leads to the most compelling argument for hemp: fuel. Hemp seeds are ideal for making ethanol, the cleanest-burning liquid bio-alternative to gasoline, and when grown as an energy crop, hemp actually offsets carbon emissions because it absorbs more carbon dioxide than any other plant.

As the world rapidly depletes its reserves of petroleum, America needs to create a renewable, homegrown energy source to become energy independent. Luckily, unlike petrol, hemp is renewable, unless we run out of soil.

"As a farmer, it's frustrating not being able to grow this incredible crop," says Glenn. But if Glenn did try to grow it, the American government would consider her a felon guilty of trafficking, and she would face a fine of up to $4 million and a prison sentence of 5 to 40 years. Because no matter how low its THC content, hemp is still considered a Schedule I substance, grouped alongside heroin.

It's exactly this war-on-drugs logic that has kept serious discussion of hemp off the table.

"I've met with senators over the last 13 years, and I've been to the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) four times, and I'm always amazed by what they tell us -- that industrial hemp is by far one of the most superior fibers known to man, but since it's a green plant with a five-point leaf, you'll never grow it in America," says Bud Sholts chairman of the the North American Industrial Hemp Council and former economist for Wisconsin's State Department of Agriculture.

Sholts' research into sustainable agriculture convinced him of industrial hemp's value, and he has been lobbying for it ever since. "We're overlooking something huge."

Luckily, farmers are practical folk whose pragmatism ensures their survival, and they have championed industrial hemp, which they see as a potential economic boon, by pushing for it through their state legislatures, where it has become a bipartisan issue.

To date, 28 states have introduced hemp legislation, including Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Maryland, North Dakota, New Mexico, Virgina, Vermont and West Virginia. Fifteen have passed it, and seven have legalized hemp production, according to Vote Hemp.

Yet in cases like North Dakota, the DEA still insists that federal law trumps the state's and farmers need a DEA-granted license before growing. This is exactly what happened to David Monson and Wayne Hauge, two North Dakota farmers given state permission to grow but who have been waiting a while for their federal licenses -- in Monson's case, since 1997.

"Here we are in 2009, and it seems like we're still taking baby steps. We're a little closer, but I'm not making any predictions," says Monson, who also happens to be a Republican state representative.

Monson lives only 20 miles from the Canadian border, where fields of profitable industrial hemp have been growing since 1997, and he believes it's a simple case of "if they can grow it, why can't we?"

"The profit potential is there. Practically and economically, it makes sense to raise it," says Monson. "I truly believe as a farmer that hemp is good for farmers, it's good for the environment and it's good for state of North Dakota. And for that matter the whole nation."

As the law currently stands, to legalize hemp production, all the DEA has to do is remove hemp from its Schedule I drug list, a process that does not require a congressional vote.

Now that the Obama administration has announced an end to medical marijuana raids, hemp advocates are hopeful the move could open the door for hemp, because the president voted for a hemp bill while he was in the Illinois legislature.

The DEA follows the government's lead, and the government, which does not want to be seen as being soft on drugs, has been notoriously skittish tackling drug policy reform. If Obama told the DEA to move forward aggressively and issue all pending research, commercial and agronomic licenses, farmers like Monson could grow hemp tomorrow.

"Politically, I liken the situation to pulling bricks out of a dam," says Vote Hemp's Goggin. "There are now so many leaks, the dam's getting ready to burst. We're working hard for a shift in policy, but at the moment, Washington doesn't consider this a top issue."

While industrial-hemp advocates are becoming hopeful that policy change is in the winds, they caution that the industry still requires a massive, coordinated effort to develop.

"I'm hesitant overselling hemp and touting it like the magic beans that will save the economy or the planet," says Tom Murphy, national outreach coordinator for Vote Hemp. "Industrial hemp is an answer but not the answer. It has a great deal of potential -- but it doesn't have any potential if you can't grow it."

Conrad, who believes in American ingenuity to find creative solutions using hemp, says, "Only the scourge of prohibitionism can see to it that our economy and environment rot into sewage. It is up to the good, hard-working and honest people to end cannabis prohibition and start the process of rebuilding the planet and our global and regional economies."

(Source: http://tinyurl.com/dl3bpd)

An End to the War on Weed?

2009-04-12T12:01:00.010-06:00

Marijuana advocates believe legalization is on the horizon.

A federal law enforcement agent looks at a pile of marijuana plants in San Francisco, Calif. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that federal authorities may prosecute medical marijuana patients because state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

As a medley of border violence, recessionary pressure, international criticism and popular acceptance steadily undermines America’s decades-long effort to eliminate drugs and drug use, the U.S. movement to legalize marijuana is gaining unprecedented momentum.

Once derided and dismissed by lawmakers, law enforcers and the law-abiding alike, marijuana reform is sweeping the nation, although the federal government appears committed—at least for the time being—to largely maintaining the status quo.

A week after Attorney General Eric Holder announced in March that raids on state law-abiding medical marijuana dispensaries would end, the Drug Enforcement Agency effectively shut down a San Francisco dispensary, claiming it violated both state and federal laws.

But to paraphrase Victor Hugo, not even the strongest government in the world can stop an idea whose time has apparently come.

Indeed, support for legalization is at an all-time high, and continues to grow. In 1969, just 12 percent of Americans favored legalizing marijuana, the Holy Grail of cannabis advocates; this number had tripled by 2005, according to a Gallup poll. Barely three years later, another poll showed 44 percent of Americans support legalization.

“If we continue on this curve—and there is no reason to think we won’t—we’ll hit 58 or 60 percent by 2020,” says Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). “We’re seeing also that the government is finally playing catch up with the people.”

In February, a California state lawmaker introduced a bill to legalize and tax pot, and marijuana reform bills are being debated in at least 37 other states. (Last November, Massachusetts became the thirteenth state to decriminalize adult possession, while Michigan became the thirteenth state to legalize marijuana for medical use.) All told, more than one-third of Americans now live in a state or city that has legalized medical marijuana or decriminalized its recreational use.

“It’s the busiest period for marijuana law reform ever,” says St. Pierre. “Legalization is definitely on the political horizon.”

Growing calls for reform

Arguments for ending the war on weed—that marijuana is safer than alcohol and that its prohibition leads to violence, exorbitant enforcement costs, billions in lost tax revenue and infringements on civil liberties—haven’t changed much since the 1970s.

But the arguments have taken on unusual gravity over the last year, as drug-fueled violence along the Mexican side of border has excited fears that the carnage and mayhem will spill over into American cities. Testifying before a House panel in March, a top Homeland Security official warned (PDF link) that the cartels now represent America’s largest organized-crime threat, having infiltrated at least 230 American cities. Already, police in Tucson and Phoenix have reported a surge in drug-related kidnappings and murders.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently acknowledged that America’s “insatiable” appetite for drugs has helped fuel the cartel-related violence. In fact, the Mexican cartels reap as much as 62 percent of their profits—and derive much of their power—from American marijuana sales, which total $9 billion annually, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

But Mexican weed represents only a sliver of America’s annual cannabis consumption. Each year, Americans spend a whopping $39 billion on domestically grown marijuana, and another $7-10 billion on weed smuggled in from Canada. In short, untaxed and unregulated marijuana is America’s—if not the continent’s—largest cash crop, more valuable than corn and wheat combined, according to DrugScience.org.

The growing sense that America’s marijuana policy is more harmful than the plant itself is leading some cash-strapped states to rethink the efficacy of locking up non-violent offenders and consider taxing medical marijuana, despite the federal prohibition on doing so. Several California cities are already taxing medical marijuana sales. Oregon’s legislature is debating whether to regulate and tax it as well. (Last year a bill that would have allowed Oregon liquor stores to sell marijuana failed.)

And in the first such step by a state government, New Mexico’s Department of Public Health is now overseeing the cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana, brushing aside legal concerns that state employees could face federal drug conspiracy charges.

Although marijuana reform has gained little traction in Congress, last year Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) cosponsored a bill to protect medical marijuana patients and decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. “It’s no longer just potheads who want this,” says Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “We’re at the tipping point, in that we’re seeing the most sustained discussion ever by media and policymakers.”

Although President Obama jokingly brushed aside economic arguments for ending marijuana prohibition during his March 26th online town-hall discussion, a mounting body of research underscores their validity.

In 2005, Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron published a report showing that legalization would save $7.7 billion each year on enforcement, while generating as much as $6.2 billion in taxes. In response, more than 500 leading economists wrote an open letter to federal and state officials supporting a regime of legalization and taxation.

With increasing frequency, mainstream media outlets are also advocating major changes to U.S. drug laws. In March, the Economist’s editorial board called for the legalization of drugs, and CNN, Time magazine and other publications have published op-eds supporting an end to marijuana prohibition or calling for an “honest” discussion about legalizing drugs. Also earlier this year, the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, which includes three former heads of state, issued a report condemning drug prohibition and calling for cannabis’ legalization.

“[Cannabis] consumption has an adverse impact on the user’s health, including mental health,” the 17 commission members wrote. “But the available empirical evidence shows that the harm caused by this drug is similar to the harm caused by alcohol or tobacco.”

Given President Obama’s penchant for pragmatism, Piper chalks up Obama’s dismissive response regarding legalization as a first-term answer to a second-term question. “There is debate as to whether he was even joking,” Piper says, “because in many ways he’s signaled that this administration will take a different approach to drug policy.”

The ‘vanguard’ of legalization?

American attitudes toward cannabis have softened considerably over the last decade, yet they remain largely ambivalent about reform. “Most people agree the laws are too harsh, but many of these don’t want to see it legalized, either,” says Mason Tvert, who in 2005 co-founded SAFER Colorado, which promotes marijuana as a safer alternative to alcohol.

Economic arguments like those supported by Miron’s Harvard study, says Tvert, are ineffective because the same could be said of hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. Legalization, he says, will happen only when people realize that marijuana is safer than alcohol.

“The problem is that people still have a perception of harm that’s been built up over many years,” he says. “If marijuana were legalized tomorrow, in 10 years these perceptions would be very, very different.”

Tvert agrees that perceptions about marijuana are rapidly evolving for the better. Earlier this year, when a picture surfaced showing Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps smoking from a bong, many expected the 23-year-old to lose many of his endorsements. But only Kellogg’s dropped him. Even more surprising, the move seemed to hurt Kellogg’s more than Phelps, as surveys showed the move injured its brand reputation.

For those seeking higher office, past pot use is no longer the political death knell it once was. When asked if he ever smoked pot in 1992, Bill Clinton claimed he didn’t inhale, and in 2005, tapes surfaced of George W. Bush acknowledging past marijuana use after years spent dodging the question. Remarkably, voters seemed largely unconcerned by Barack Obama’s candid admission that he once used both marijuana and cocaine. “This is a huge turning point in people admitting to past use and not suffering any consequences,” says Piper.

With public acceptance growing and states increasingly at odds with federal marijuana laws, how much longer can Washington remain impervious to calls for reform? NORML’s St. Pierre, who says there are major chinks in the armor of blanket prohibition, believes federal reforms are imminent.

“At some point, we’ll have run the gauntlet of states that have passed reform bills by popular vote,” he says. “It’s getting harder for people to say we’re going to hell-in-a-basket when the state next door has had these laws for years without problems. This generation is on the vanguard of legalization.”

(Source: http://digg.com/d1oXoR by Nathan Comp)

Santana: Obama Should Legalize Pot

2009-04-09T01:43:00.001-06:00

By AP / MARCELA ISAZA ~ (WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif.)

President Barack Obama brushed off a question about legalizing marijuana in his online town hall last month, but guitar god Carlos Santana says he wishes he would seriously consider it.

"Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education," Santana said in an interview this week. "You will see a transformation in America." (Read "Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense".)

During his online town hall on March 26, Obama fielded a question about whether legalization of the illicit drug would help pull the nation out of recession. Obama said he didn't think it was good economic policy, and also joked: "I don't know what this says about the online audience."

But Santana said making pot legal is "really way overdue, like the prohibition with the alcohol and stuff like that. "I really believe that as soon as we legalize and decriminalize marijuana we can actually afford a really good governor who won't keep taking money away from education and from teachers and send him back to Hollywood where he can do 'D' movies and we can get an 'A' governor," referring to former movie action hero and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. (A Brief History of New York's Rockefeller Drug Laws.)

Santana made the comments as he was promoting his upcoming rock residency in Las Vegas at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. The show debuts May 27 and runs through 2010.

"It's a milestone for me because I always said I would never do certain things," Santana said, adding that the list included staying in one place for too long.

"Yet what is very different is this is the year I decided to do all the things that I said I would never do. It's a way of coming into a room that I thought was dark and I would be afraid and I actually bring my light to it."

Santana, whose hits vary from "Evil Ways" to "Maria Maria," said he is also working on two upcoming albums.

While the 61-year-old has previously talked about a possible retirement, he's decided to be more careful about predicting the future. "Every time I tell God my plans he cracks up, he starts laughing. So I just decided to be quiet for a while and not say that I am going to retire and go to Maui and become a minister," he said. "God was cracking up. He thought it was a good joke. So I said, 'OK.' Every time I want to make him laugh I tell him my plans. So we'll see."

Is Pot Good For You?

2009-04-08T01:19:00.001-06:00

By John Cloud / San Francisco Monday, Nov. 04, 2002

I never smoked pot in junior high because I was convinced it would shrivel my incipient manhood. This was the 1980s, and those stark this-is-your-brain-on-drugs ads already had me vaguely worried about memory loss and psychosis. But when other boys said pot might affect our southern regions, I was truly terrified. I didn't smoke a joint for the first time until I was 21.

By 12th grade, about half of young Americans have tried marijuana, which put me in the geeky other half. I used to think this was a good thing, since I never developed a taste for pot and avoided becoming dependent. But as the medical-marijuana movement flowered and weed's p.r. improved, I often wondered if I shouldn't have relished it as a kid, before I had a personal trainer to tsk-tsk my every vice. Shrinking testicles? Mushy brains? I came to see these as grotesqueries invented by antidrug propagandists.

It turns out that the study of marijuana's health effects is at once more complex and less advanced than you might imagine. "Interpretations [of marijuana research] may tell more about [one's] own biases than the data," writes Mitch Earleywine in Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence, published in August by Oxford. For example: "Prohibitionists might mention that THC [delta-9 tetra-hydrocannabinol, the smile-producing chemical in pot] often appears in the blood of people in auto accidents. Yet they might omit the fact that most of these people also drank alcohol. Antiprohibitionists might cite a large study that showed no sign of memory problems in chronic marijuana smokers. Yet they might not mention that the tests were so easy that even a demented person could perform them."

The science of marijuana--especially its potential medical uses--is malleable because it's so young and so contradictory. Although preliminary data are promising, scientists haven't definitively shown that the drug can safely treat nausea or pain or anything, really. Some experts claim the U.S. government has sabotaged medical-marijuana research, and there is evidence to support them. Even so, in the past few years scientists have made rapid advances in their basic understanding of how Cannabis sativa works. By 1993, researchers had found the body's two known receptors for cannabinoids, the psychoactive chemicals in the plant (THC is the main one, but there are at least 65 others). Since then, there has been important new work in several fields that users, potential users and former users should know about--and that voters should take into account before deciding whether to legalize pot.

So much new research has appeared that in November the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and the National Institute on Drug Abuse will publish a 100-page supplement devoted entirely to marijuana. The Journal gave Time an advance look; it's a comprehensive review that will annoy both sides in the drug war. You won't find clear evidence that pot is good or evil, but the research sheds light on some of the most important questions surrounding the drug:

Can it kill you?
No one has ever died of THC poisoning, mostly because a 160-lb. person would have to smoke roughly 900 joints in a sitting to reach a lethal dose. (No doubt some have tried.) But that doesn't mean pot can't contribute to serious health problems and even DEAth--both indirectly (driving while stoned, for instance) and directly (by affecting circulation, for example). A paper published last year in the journal Angiology found 10 odd cases in France of heavy herb smokers who developed ischemia (an insufficient blood supply) in their limbs, leading in four cases to amputations. It's not clear that marijuana caused the decreased blood flow, but the vascular problems did worsen during periods of heavy use. Another 2001 paper, in Circulation, found a nearly fivefold increase in the risk for heart attack in the first hour after smoking marijuana--though statistically that means smoking pot is about as dangerous for a fit person as exercise.

Does it make you sick?
Marijuana may directly affect the immune system, since one of the body's two known receptors for cannabinoids is located in immune cells. But the nature of the effect is unclear. A recent study showed that THC inhibits production of immune-stimulating substances. But cigarette smokers may do greater harm to their immunity than pot users, who tend to smoke less. A study published earlier this year found that tobacco smokers but not marijuana smokers had high levels of a type of enzyme believed to inflame the lungs. Dr. Donald Abrams, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, found that short-term cannabis use doesn't substantially raise viral loads of HIV patients. (People with HIV sometimes smoke marijuana to stimulate appetite.) In fact, his study participants who smoked pot enjoyed significantly higher increases in their lymphocytes (cells that help fight disease) than those who took a placebo.

Can it give you cancer?
Data on cancer also generate mixed conclusions. A 1999 study of 173 patients with head and neck cancers found that pot smoking elevated the risk of such cancers. (Smokers of anything should also worry about lung cancer.) But it's not clear that THC is carcinogenic. The latest research suggests that THC may have a dual effect, promoting tumors by increasing free radicals and simultaneously protecting against tumors by playing a beneficial role in a process known as programmed cell DEAth.

Is it addictive?
Those who believe you can't become physically or psychologically dependent on marijuana are wrong. At least three recent studies have demonstrated that heavy pot smokers who quit can experience such withdrawal symptoms as anxiety, difficulty sleeping and stomach pain. On the other hand, the risk of becoming dependent on marijuana is comparatively low. Just 9% of those who have used the drug develop dependence. By comparison, 15% of drinkers become dependent on alcohol, 23% of heroin users get hooked, and a third of tobacco smokers become slaves to cigarettes.

Does it make you stupid?
Potheads are dumber than nonusers, but only a little. Earlier this year, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study of 102 near-daily marijuana users who wanted to quit. The authors found that the longer subjects had toked up, the worse their memories and attention spans. But they were hardly like Gobi, the Saturday Night Live wastoid who is so ruined he can barely talk. Participants who had used cannabis regularly for an average of 10 years fared significantly worse on only two of 40 indices of cognitive functioning (they had particular trouble estimating how much time had passed during a test). Those stout folks who had been smoking pot for an average of 24 years did significantly worse on 14 of the tests. But scientists can't say that marijuana causes such problems. "These long-term users may have been worse off in the first place, before they ever smoked marijuana," says Dr. Harrison Pope, a Harvard psychiatrist who wrote an editorial accompanying the study arguing that "we must live with uncertainty" on whether pot causes long-term cognitive impairments.

What about sex?
The latest studies suggest I needn't have fretted so much about pot's gonadal consequences. "Marijuana might interfere with [kids'] ability to go through puberty," says Dr. Adrian Dobs, co-author of a paper on the endocrine effects of the drug in the upcoming Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. "But the abnormalities seen are not really clinically significant." Despite tales of male potheads growing breasts, the long-term effects on adult glands are uncertain.

Do the sick really benefit?
So if marijuana can be harmful to healthy people--but usually isn't--could it actually be good for the sick? This is where the science gets scraggier--and in the absence of data, politics takes over. What we know is that healers have accumulated copious anecdotes on weed's powers over the past 4,700 years. Understanding Marijuana author Earleywine credits a (possibly mythical) Chinese emperor with introducing the plant as a treatment for gout around 2700 B.C. But the emperor also thought his pot potion would help memory, making him the first of many fans to aggrandize the drug's medical potential. The ancient Greek doc Galen even used the drug to treat flatulence.

The A.M.A. issued a report last year summarizing the body of knowledge about medical marijuana. It's shockingly slim. Dr. Abrams in San Francisco has produced some of the clearest evidence to date of pot's therapeutic value. Even though his clinical trial was designed merely to investigate whether marijuana is safe for hiv patients, he also turned up data that anyone who ever had the munchies already knew: pot makes you hungry. Test subjects who smoked marijuana gained an average of 6.6 lbs. during the trial, compared with 2.4 lbs. for the group taking the placebo. Some other findings from the A.M.A. report:

NAUSEA
Patients who are HIV-positive or undergoing chemotherapy can have trouble keeping food down, so anything that helps them eat is significant--though not necessarily for the reasons marijuana boosters think. Pot's ability to enhance appetite may have more to do with its high and less to do with any direct effects on nausea. Only 20% to 25% of patients in two 1980s trials could completely control vomiting with marijuana; other drugs work better for emesis. Still, the A.M.A. recommended more studies on marijuana for those who don't respond to the other drugs, and it notes that for those feeling sick, inhaling a substance may be more palatable than swallowing a pill.

GLAUCOMA
Marijuana does reduce pressure on the eyeball, about 25%, but the drug isn't always practical as a glaucoma treatment. Many who have the disease are elderly and can't tolerate pot's tendency to raise heart rates.

SPASTICITY
Marijuana can help people with spasticity (extreme muscle tension) and tremor due to multiple sclerosis and trauma. But the drug hasn't been rigorously compared with the standard antispastic treatments.

PAIN
In patients with postoperative pain, THC is more effective than a placebo, and some reports suggest smoking pot may reduce the need for highly addictive opioids. But the A.M.A. says better-designed studies are needed to properly evaluate pot as a painkiller. Several are under way. In California, five teams of researchers are conducting studies of marijuana as an analgesic, particularly for cancer and nerve pain.

The A.M.A. concludes that the lack of "high-quality clinical research ...continues to hamper development of rational public policy" on medical marijuana. Which raises the question, Why, after five millenniums, doesn't such research exist? Two possible answers: First, the government may have rejected cannabis studies to avoid any challenge to its view that pot is dangerous and medically useless. Second, pot may just be dangerous and medically useless (highly unlikely).

The drug wasn't always so controversial in the scientific establishment. The U.S. Pharmacopeia, a doctors' listing of remedies begun in 1820, first included cannabis in 1870. The Pharmacopeia didn't drop pot until its 1942 edition, the first published after cannabis was outlawed in 1937. Eventually most physicians began to view the drug as little more than a crude intoxicant. They tended to favor new-fashioned drugs that were refined by pharmaceutical firms into pure chemicals. Raw marijuana contains some 400 compounds.

It wasn't until the '70s that modern methods were applied to test the medicinal effects of cannabis. As Earleywine recounts, a UCLA study designed to confirm police reports that pot dilates pupils found instead a slight constriction. That's how doctors discovered the drug could help glaucoma sufferers by reducing intraocular pressure. In the years after that discovery, 26 states opened therapeutic research programs.

But the Federal Government, which by then controlled the only legal supply of marijuana, had just passed the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. That law placed marijuana in Schedule I, the designation for drugs without valid medical use. State health officials found it difficult to persuade their federal counterparts to give them cannabis for research, as doing so would undermine the law, at least in spirit, by suggesting there were medical uses. (Only seven states got pot. One was Tennessee, which is why Al Gore's sister was able to try the drug before losing her battle with lung cancer in 1984.)

Then, in 1985, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved dronabinol, an oral form of synthetic THC, to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea. Many doctors believed dronabinol, marketed as Marinol, could provide the benefits of the plant without the impurities. By the mid-'80s, the availability of Marinol and the escalating drug war had killed the state research programs. But Marinol turned out to have shortcomings. Because it enters the blood through the stomach, it doesn't work as fast as smoked marijuana. Because it is essentially pure THC, its users can get too high. "Marinol does tend to knock people out," says Abrams, the San Francisco doctor who has conducted trials with both Marinol and pot. "Our patients [taking Marinol] spent a lot of time in bed, and that wasn't the case with those smoking marijuana."

Such problems appeared in only "a small portion of the patients in our clinical trials," says Dr. Hjalmar Lagast, a vice president for Solvay Pharmaceuticals, which makes Marinol. He notes that the drug comes in three strengths, allowing doctors to pick the right dose. By the early '90s, at the height of the U.S. aids epidemic, many patients so preferred marijuana to Marinol that they would use the street drug regardless of legality or safety. Abrams and a few others began pushing the government to permit new studies of marijuana to find out what these patients were doing to themselves.

Officials again resisted, and some researchers became convinced the government would never allow evidence of pot's possible benefits to emerge. In 1999, Paul Consroe, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Arizona, failed to win FDA approval for a clinical trial of marijuana for aids and cancer wasting. He believes the FDA turned him down because of political pressure. "If you want to study its harmful effects, you can get all the money you want," says Consroe. "But for this one, I would have spun my wheels forever." (An FDA spokeswoman declined to comment.)

It took Abrams five years, but he finally pushed his study through. A stubborn and irreverent oncologist who had watched hundreds of aids patients suffer brutal nausea, he won government approval in 1997 for the first clinical trial of marijuana in more than a decade. Marijuana proposals at the time required the approval of three agencies--the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse--and the DEA and NIDA had resisted. A DEA official worried in a letter about the political fallout if Abrams found positive results. "The government is saying there are no studies proving the medical benefits," Abrams fumed in 1996. "But they're also not letting studies be conducted."

Not true, says Steven Gust, special assistant to the director of NIDA, who has worked at the agency 15 years. "Ever since I've been here, there's been no prejudice against studying the medical applications of marijuana. Frankly, good proposals weren't coming in. The people you've talked to had a bad experience getting approval, and that's going to color their perception."

Whatever the case, Abrams and Gust agree that the government and medical-marijuana researchers are now working together. Abrams has two approved studies under way, and the State of California has founded a new, grander version of its old therapeutic research program. The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, which opened at the University of California two years ago with a yearly budget of $3 million, currently supports 11 studies that have received federal approval.

To be sure, many scientists--especially in the government--still squirm at the very idea of medical-marijuana research. Despite encouraging anecdotal reports, the National Institutes of Health hasn't initiated a study of cannabis therapeutics in two decades, leaving California's young center as the only U.S. research institution doing the basic science. Marijuana remains the only drug that researchers must acquire directly from the feds. If the FDA and DEA approve, scientists can get even ecstasy from outside labs, but NIDA is the sole source for cannabis, requiring a third bureaucratic layer. "In an era of privatization, it's shocking that the government insists on a monopoly so that it can choose not to provide marijuana to projects it doesn't like," says Rick Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a nonprofit pharmaceutical firm. (For 18 months, Doblin's association and the University of Massachusetts Amherst have unsuccessfully sought a license to grow research-grade cannabis at the university.)

Not every country is as pot-phobic as the U.S. Scientists in Britain, which has effectively decriminalized personal use of small amounts of pot, have moved well beyond the preliminary work being done in the U.S. Britain's GW Pharmaceuticals plans to publish results of a large study of its new marijuana product, a whole-cannabis extract rendered into a mouth spray. That way, patients avoid the lung damage of smoking. The British government is likely to make the spray available for prescription if published results are as good as the company promises.

In this country, new drug products like GW's spray rarely appear without cordial cooperation among pharmaceutical companies, research institutions and government officials. Such partnership could take years to develop. But the politics has leaped well ahead of the science, meaning voters will decide long before physicians whether medical marijuana is an oxymoron.

Obama punts on marijuana policy

2009-04-07T07:51:00.003-06:00

Thousands of Mexicans have been killed, and drug violence is spilling into the U.S., yet the president failed to address drug laws seriously during his recent town hall.

By Grant Smith, Los Angeles Times
April 7, 2009

I suppose President Obama deserves some credit for addressing national marijuana policy during his recent online town hall. But instead of seriously answering the thousands of questions submitted by Americans on overhauling our failed drug laws, he joked about the issue. In doing so, Obama passed on an unparalleled opportunity to offer food for thought on how the White House might be willing to rethink our disastrous marijuana policy. "I don't know what this says about the online audience," Obama joked. "This was a fairly popular question; we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is no, I don't think that's a good strategy to grow our economy."

Before the president's "Open for Questions" website closed, more than 2,100 marijuana policy questions had been submitted, according to The Times' March 27 article, "Obama connects from on high, online.” Obama's audience, it turned out, felt that taxing and regulating marijuana was a good way to improve the economy. And understandably, Obama's refusal to seriously discuss marijuana policy sparked plenty of resentment, as reported on The Times’ Top of the Ticket blog.

This was not the first time that Obama has heard from the public about marijuana. Throughout his campaign and transition to power, he had been pressed to endorse an overhaul of the war on drugs and federal marijuana policy. In fact, Obama's transition team held similar online forums in which marijuana policy was among the top issues in the questions submitted.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the popularity of the marijuana questions as a product of some kind of manipulation, claiming, "This is not the first time that an interest group gets on a website and votes many times for their question to be answered." But in this case, the interest group is the American people. After all, it is the American people who are locked away at a higher rate than any other people on Earth. More than one out of every 100 American adults are behind bars at any given moment, and the United States' incarceration rate is five times the world's.

America's appetite for incarcerating people for minor drug offenses has grossly overfed our bloated criminal justice system. An estimated 500,000 people are currently locked up in jails and prisons across the nation for drug offenses. Almost 48% of all drug arrests nationwide are for marijuana. In 2007 alone, more than 775,000 Americans entered the criminal justice system after an arrest for marijuana possession. It is in the American public's interest that Obama take advantage of growing recognition among policymakers that our marijuana laws threaten public safety and welfare and be an important part of this debate.

The timing could not be more opportune for Obama. The escalating battle between the Mexican government and drug cartels has killed more than 7,000 Mexicans and is spilling into the United States. Mexican drug cartels have been implicated in carrying out numerous kidnappings in Phoenix; the Obama administration estimates they have set up shop in at least 230 U.S. cities. The situation provoked Arizona Atty. Gen. Terry Goddard to call for "at least a rational discussion as to what our country can do to take the profit out of [marijuana]." Goddard testified to a Senate committee last month that marijuana trafficking fuels 65% to 70% of the drug violence in Mexico.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped out on a limb when she acknowledged last month that "our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade" and that the U.S.-led war on drugs "has not worked." Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) last month introduced bipartisan legislation that would create a commission to thoroughly examine the entire criminal justice system with a goal of understanding why we are "putting the wrong people in prison."

The debate is not confined within our borders. In February, a commission led by three former Latin American presidents acknowledged that open dialogue about alternatives to the war on drugs has "become taboo, which inhibits public debate." The commission urged policymakers to spark public debate on the decriminalization of marijuana and other measures.

Although marijuana is certainly not the most pressing issue for Obama, this is the right time for the president to engage lawmakers and the public on our destructive marijuana policy. A concerted effort by Obama to openly and honestly discuss alternatives to marijuana prohibition would undoubtedly pulverize the myth that Americans aren't ready for reform. Perhaps Obama could start the conversation by explaining why he supported decriminalizing marijuana in 2004, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate.

Grant Smith is a legislative associate at the Drug Policy Alliance.

(Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-smith7-2009apr07,0,197938.story)

Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense

2009-04-05T12:09:00.006-06:00

By Joe Klein

For the past several years, I've been harboring a fantasy, a last political crusade for the baby-boom generation. We, who started on the path of righteousness, marching for civil rights and against the war in Vietnam, need to find an appropriately high-minded approach to life's exit ramp. In this case, I mean the high-minded part literally. And so, a deal: give us drugs, after a certain age — say, 80 — all drugs, any drugs we want. In return, we will give you our driver's licenses. (I mean, can you imagine how terrifying a nation of decrepit, solipsistic 90-year-old boomers behind the wheel would be?) We'll let you proceed with your lives — much of which will be spent paying for our retirement, in any case — without having to hear us complain about our every ache and reflux. We'll be too busy exploring altered states of consciousness. I even have a slogan for the campaign: "Tune in, turn on, drop dead."

A fantasy, I suppose. But, beneath the furious roil of the economic crisis, a national conversation has quietly begun about the irrationality of our drug laws. It is going on in state legislatures, like New York's, where the draconian Rockefeller drug laws are up for review; in other states, from California to Massachusetts, various forms of marijuana decriminalization are being enacted. And it has reached the floor of Congress, where Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter have proposed a major prison-reform package, which would directly address drug-sentencing policy. (See pictures of stoner cinema.)

There are also more puckish signs of a zeitgeist shift. A few weeks ago, the White House decided to stage a forum in which the President would answer questions submitted by the public; 92,000 people responded — and most of them seemed obsessed with the legalization of marijuana. The two most popular questions about "green jobs and energy," for example, were about pot. The President dismissed the outpouring — appropriately, I guess — as online ballot-stuffing and dismissed the legalization question with a simple: "No." (Read: "Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?")

This was a rare instance of Barack Obama reacting reflexively, without attempting to think creatively, about a serious policy question. He was, in fact, taking the traditional path of least resistance: an unexpected answer on marijuana would have launched a tabloid firestorm, diverting attention from the budget fight and all those bailouts. In fact, the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio. The hypocrisy inherent in the American conversation about stimulants is staggering.

But there are big issues here, issues of economy and simple justice, especially on the sentencing side. As Webb pointed out in a cover story in Parade magazine, the U.S. is, by far, the most "criminal" country in the world, with 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners. We spend $68 billion per year on corrections, and one-third of those being corrected are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes. We spend about $150 billion on policing and courts, and 47.5% of all arrests are marijuana-related. That is an awful lot of money, most of it nonfederal, that could be spent on better schools or infrastructure — or simply returned to the public. (See the top 10 ballot measures.)

At the same time, there is an enormous potential windfall in the taxation of marijuana. It is estimated that pot is the largest cash crop in California, with annual revenues approaching $14 billion. A 10% pot tax would yield $1.4 billion in California alone. And that's probably a fraction of the revenues that would be available — and of the economic impact, with thousands of new jobs in agriculture, packaging, marketing and advertising. A veritable marijuana economic-stimulus package! (Read: "Is Pot Good For You?")

So why not do it? There are serious moral arguments, both secular and religious. There are those who believe — with some good reason — that the accretion of legalized vices is debilitating, that we are a less virtuous society since gambling spilled out from Las Vegas to "riverboats" and state lotteries across the country. There is a medical argument, though not a very convincing one: alcohol is more dangerous in a variety of ways, including the tendency of some drunks to get violent. One could argue that the abuse of McDonald's has a greater potential health-care cost than the abuse of marijuana. (Although it's true that with legalization, those two might not be unrelated.) Obviously, marijuana can be abused. But the costs of criminalization have proved to be enormous, perhaps unsustainable. Would legalization be any worse?

In any case, the drug-reform discussion comes just at the right moment. We boomers are getting older every day. You're not going to want us on the highways. Make us your best offer.

(Source: Time Magazine online - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889021,00.html?imw=Y)

President Obama.... Can I ask you a question?

2009-04-04T12:48:00.005-06:00

When President Obama signed the Executive Order lifting the ban on government funding of Stem Cell Research, he said the following:

"This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Well, in that case, Mr. President, then....

1) Why not advance the cause of Science in America with researching all the health benefits of Marijuana?

2) If promoting science is also about protecting free and open inquiry, why are we not funding research into the health benefits of Marijuana?

3) Why are scientists not allowed to do their job, free from manipulation or coercion and criminal prosecution when it comes to Marijuana?

4) If studies show that Marijuana can cure some forms of cancer and a multitude of other diseases and/or symptoms, then why is Marijuana so conveniently kept illegal, denying Americans the right to legitimate health care options?

5) Why do we keep laws that promote the distortion of the truth about Marijuana?

6) Why do we keep laws that are based on political ideology and not based on available scientific data when it comes to Marijuana?

President Obama: America voted for you and made you President of this great nation because we wanted "Change We Could Believe In". Please take this matter seriously. Please do not let America continue to be blinded by political ideologies and antiquated laws.

Please bring America into the 21st Century by exploring and promoting scientific studies into the benefits of Marijuana instead of focusing on the fact that it can get you high.

GREEN ENERGY: Marijuana can cure cancer AND fuel our cars?

2009-04-03T14:38:00.005-06:00

So, not only does marijuana have health benefits - it can even cure cancer, AND it can be a source of renewable energy and release America from foreign oil dependence, virtually overnight? And it has many other benefits to the construction industry, paper industry, alternative fuel industry, and so many other industries?

Seems like our focus on making marijuana illegal for it's effect on smoker's is stopping us from becoming energy independent, stops people from curing cancer, and has at least a dozen benefits that we are denied. All because it can get you high....

Legalizing marijuana seems like the smartest thing to do, letting each State and its' voters decide on it's legalization, regulation and taxation.

The benefits to society from such a plant are so incredible, it's no wonder there is so much propaganda against it. Imagine that.... something that can save lives, keep our cars going, cure cancer, provide pain relief, and have recreational non-addictive properties is against the law? How can this happen? How can something so wonderful, be so illegal? The answer is simple. How many industries would crumble if marijuana was legalized?

1) The pharmaceutical companies cannot obtain a patent on a plant, therefore it is not profitable to legalize something that Americans can grow in their home gardens that can cure more things than any drug they ever came up with.

2) Both domestic and foreign oil industry a/k/a "BIG OIL" highly opposes legalizing marijuana because if America made cars that ran on "hemp fuel" it would put them out of business.

3) Paper Mills, Logging Companies, and related industries would of course see quite a drop in sales if word got out that you can make paper out of hemp. It's cleaner, cheaper and saves our natural forests and planet from deforestation.

4) The Mexican Drug Cartels don't want Congress, the President or any States to Legalize Marijuana. Making it illegal is what is making them billionaires. They have already bought many politicians and promote keeping it illegal. If it were legal, they would be out of business.

5) Alcohol companies stand to lose a big chunk of business if marijuana were legalized. Alcohol Clinics and/or Rehabilitation Centers would also see a decline in business. Alcohol related deaths caused by drunk driving would also decrease considerably hurting lawyers, insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, AA's, and the list goes on and on....

6) Politicians want to keep it illegal because it's just one more thing they can oppose, debate and argue about, and deny to the American Public. (all while their campaigns are funded by the very industries that oppose legalizing the miracle plant)

America: Isn't it time to legalize marijuana?

RUN FROM THE CURE - The Rick Simpson Story (Part 1 of 7)

2009-04-03T12:28:00.005-06:00

(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhT9282-Tw)

PART 2 of 7
PART 3 of 7
PART 4 of 7
PART 5 of 7
PART 6 of 7
PART 7 of 7

Marijuana has anti-cancer properties: Study

2009-04-02T23:37:00.004-06:00

Press Trust of India
Thursday, April 02, 2009, (New Delhi)

Infamous for being a narcotic agent, marijuana also has anti-cancer properties, which could be used to treat malignant cells in the brain, a new study has claimed.

A team of Spanish researchers have found that Delta9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, the main active component of marijuana, induces death of various human brain cancer cell lines and primary cultured human brain cancer cells by a process known as autophagy.

"We found that the anti-tumoral action of THC is based on its ability to activate an intracellular signalling pathway that promotes the activation of a cellular process called 'autophagy'. The activation of this pathway leads to cancer cell death," revealed Guillermo Velasco, a scientist at Madrid-based Complutense University reporting his findings in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Two patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (a highly aggressive brain tumor) received THC treatment on the skull and showed signs of autophagy, prompting them to zero upon the curative values of marijuana.

"The potential use of cannabinoid (marijuana) based medicines in now being investigated," commented Velasco.

New clinical trial to ascertain the anti-tumoral qualities in brain tumor patients is underway, Velasco said.

Such Cannabis-based medicine is relatively priced at a lower rate than other anti-cancer drugs currently available in the market, he said.

However, the scientist insists more research is required to fully ascertain the prospect of commercial use of marijuana as an anti-cancer medicine.

"It is difficult to predict whether that (marijuana-based medicines) could have a real impact in the cost of cancer therapies as the future of these treatments is based in combining different agents," added Velasco.

According to the data provided by The International Network for Cancer Treatment and Research (INCTR), approximately 60 per cent of global cancer occurs in developing countries and if it remains unchecked, there might be 20 million new cases per year by 2020.

"If the clinical efficacy of cannabinoid-based medicines delineated in this study can be verified in future clinical trials, these agents could be used for the treatment of cancer in developing countries," said Velasco.

"However, it is difficult to evaluate if the impact of these findings could be higher in these countries than in the rest of the world," added Velaso.

"One important point is that cannabinoid-based medicines should be evaluated according to its efficacy as determined with scientific criteria more than in political considerations," said Velaso stressing that an a-political approach is the key to success of the findings.

(Source: http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090089476&ch=422009121300PM)

BREAKING NEWS: The TRUTH about cannabis hemp and marijuana REVEALED by Jack Herer

2009-04-01T22:54:00.009-06:00

If all fossil fuel and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable, natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper, plastics and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs; provide about 30% of the world's medicines, while reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere, all at the same time…and that substance is the same one that has done it before, for the last five to 10 thousand years, until about 125 years ago…

CANNABIS HEMP!

Cannabis Hemp is the only known plant that can be grown from the Equator to the Arctic Circle, and to the Antarctic Circle; from the mountains to the valleys, from the oceans to the plains, including arid lands and everywhere in between. Cannabis Hemp is the healthiest plant for the ground out of the 300,000 known species, and the millions and millions of subspecies of plants on Earth, because it has a root system that grows 10 to 12 inches in 30 days compared to one inch for rye, barley grass, etc. The roots penetrate up to six to 10 feet deep, pulverizing the soil and making it arable. After harvest it leaves a root system that is mulched into the ground, revitalizing the land and making it live once again. It is the KING KONG of the King Kongs of all plant life.

All of my information about Cannabis Hemp has been taken from Federal and State Department of Agriculture reports, articles from Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, entries from encyclopedias and pharmacopoeias, and studies from all over the world during the last 200 years. This is all public information. The United States government is hiding the fact that 125 years ago, and even as far back as 4000 B.C., 60-80% of our economy was based on the use of Cannabis Hemp for paper, fiber and fuel. Ten to 30% of our drug economy was based on Cannabis Hemp medicines, 125 years ago.

Cannabis Hemp was part of our every day life. Virtually every farm and every plot of land in the cities and towns across the United States and the world, from 100-125 years ago and before, had a Cannabis Hemp patch growing. The U.S. government's cover-up of Cannabis Hemp outrages me and it should outrage you, too. I have been studying Cannabis Hemp for over 35 years, and I can't believe how the U.S. government, in 90 seconds in Congress, could outlaw "marijuana" in 1937, without the people realizing they were outlawing Cannabis Hemp, the most perfect plant for the planet! They even got other countries to outlaw it, too, after the Second World War and beyond.

From 1640 to 1940, 80% of all the world's Cannabis Hemp was grown (mostly by Cossacks, who were indentured servants), and then imported from Russia, Italy, etc.

I will again reiterate a few of the facts about Cannabis Hemp, which you may already know.

Cannabis Hemp was the number one annually renewable natural resource for 80% of all paper, fiber, textiles and fuel, from 6,000 years ago until about 125 years ago. Furthermore, it was used for 5 to 50% of the food, light, land and soil reclamation, and even 10 to 30% or more of all medicine. Everyone, from the educated to the uneducated, the farmer to the townsperson, the doctors and the scientists used Cannabis Hemp products and depended on them.

From at least 100 AD to 1883, 75 to 90% of all paper was made of Cannabis Hemp. Books (including Bibles), money and newspapers all over the world have been mainly printed on Cannabis Hemp for as long as these things have existed in human history.

Until 125 years ago, 70 to 90% of all rope, twine, cordage, ship sails, canvas, fiber, cloth, etc., was made out of Cannabis Hemp fiber! It was replaced by DuPont's newly discovered petrochemical fiber (Nylon) beginning in 1937. By comparison, Cannabis Hemp is four times softer than cotton, four times warmer, four times more water absorbent, has three times the strength of cotton, is many times more durable, is flame retardant, and doesn't use pesticides. Fifty percent of all pesticides are used on cotton, yet cotton uses only one percent of the farmland in the U.S.! Cannabis Hemp is the most health giving plant on Earth and it doesn't require pesticides or herbicides! It is the healthiest plant for human consumption, and for the Earth itself.

Until 125 years ago, 80% of our economy depended on Cannabis Hemp for paper, fiber, oil and fuel. At that time, it took 300 man-hours to harvest an acre of Cannabis Hemp, but with the invention of the brand new hemp decorticator in the 1930s, it only took 1-1/2 to two man-hours. This is equivalent to reducing the labor burden from $6,000 down to $40 or $50 per acre, in today's money. Keep in mind that the cotton gin, in 1793, reduced the man-hours from 300 hours down to two hours to harvest and clean an acre of cotton. Cannabis Hemp would have taken over the cotton market, as it is far superior to cotton, and pesticide free. The role of Cannabis Hemp should be determined by market supply and demand and not by undue influence of prohibition laws, federal subsidies and huge tariffs that keep the natural from replacing the synthetic. I repeat - Cannabis Hemp is the KING KONG of the King Kongs of all plants!

Of all the 300,000 species of plants on Earth, no other plant source can compare with the nutritional value of Cannabis Hemp seeds. It is the only plant on Earth that provides us with the number one source, and the perfect balance of essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, globulin edestin protein, and essential oils all combined in one plant, and in a form which is most naturally digestible to our bodies.

Prior to the 1800s, Cannabis Hempseed oil was the number one source for lighting oil throughout the world. Until 1937-38, even paints and varnishes were 80% Cannabis Hempseed oil. Cannabis Hemp is non-toxic and has been used to make high-grade diesel fuel, motor oil, aircraft and precision oil and even the number one vegetable oil. The U.S. Army/Navy standards purchasing specifications list hemp oil as the number one preferred lubricant for their machinery. Cannabis Hemp is the best sustainable source of plant pulp for biomass fuel to make charcoal, gas, methanol, gasoline and electricity in a natural way.

In 1850, 80% of all paper, fiber, fuel and oil was made out of Cannabis Hemp in America and the rest of the world. This was before the discovery of coal and petroleum for energy in the late 1850s…before the start of the worst permanent pollution ever experienced on Earth…fossil fuel pollution (coal and petroleum)!!

As a medicine, the worldwide use of Cannabis Hemp goes back at least 6,000 years. Remember, 10 to 30% of our medicines used to be Cannabis Hemp based medicines. It has been found to be healthy and effective in the treatment of chronic pain, cancer, strokes, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, sickle cell anemia, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS wasting and many other illnesses, including simple nausea, appetite stimulant, anxiety and muscle pains, etc.

On September 6, 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man," and asked the Drug Enforcement Administration to reschedule it. The DEA refused, keeping it a Schedule I drug, which they say "has no known medical use"! In 2007, DEA Law Judge, Mary Ellen Bittner, ruled, "…it is in the public interest to allow marijuana cultivation for research purposes."

Thousands of studies have been done all over the world, documenting the medical use of Cannabis Hemp (England, Spain, Hungary, Holland, and the U.S., just to name a few. No one has ever died from Cannabis Hemp in over 6,000 years of recorded history…unless they were shot by a cop!

Cannabis Hemp was also used for land reclamation until 1915. Cannabis Hemp was planted or left to grow feral as ground cover and on riverbanks, and not intended for harvest. It is the number one plant in history used to prevent mudslides and loss of watershed, and river and soil erosion on Earth. It has been illegal to grow this number one plant in the United States since 1937.

What disgusts me the most is how the U.S. government, as well as the people, knew about Cannabis Hemp and praised its value and then look what happened! In literally 90 seconds, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 passed in Congress. By using the unknown name "marijuana" instead of the familiar name "Cannabis Hemp," Congress was able to accomplish this because no one knew what plant they were talking about. Cannabis Hemp became illegal and was replaced by petrochemical products, coal and natural gas. They made it such a banned and forbidden plant that the words, "Hemp" and "Cannabis Hemp" were not even taught in schools from the 1940s, '50s and thereafter.

The role of Cannabis Hemp was erased from America's history (as well as most of the rest of the world's) after 1945. To prove it, think…what did you learn about Cannabis Hemp in grade school? High school? College? From you parents and grandparents? Nothing! (Unless it was from the underground press within the last 15 to 30 years.) The continuing suppression of this information by the U.S. government places us all in mortal jeopardy. I believe that in order to save the planet, we must use non-fossil fuel energy. (Chuck, 34, says, "If what I learned in school about marijuana was true, I would look like Dolly Parton by now!!")

Cannabis Hemp, in conjunction with wind, solar, tidal and hydroelectric power, could save the planet by providing all of our energy, fuel, paper, fiber, and 10 to 30% of our medical needs, naturally. It would also reduce acid rain and chemical pollution, rebuild the soil, and reverse the Greenhouse Effect (no other plant can do this!). Cannabis Hemp was used to make over 25,000 products before it was outlawed in 1937.

Why does the U.S. government want to eradicate this seed, out of all the seeds on Earth? The want to kill the most perfect plant on the planet. We must stop this insanity and demand that the laws against Cannabis Hemp be 100% REPEALED!!

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Drug Enforcement Administration head, Karen Tandy, and White House Drug Czar, John Walters, have been given all of these proven facts and yet are still set against the legalization of Cannabis Hemp and recognition of Cannabis Hemp knowledge. For whatever personal reasons, they refuse to believe the facts and are willing to sacrifice the future of our planet and the health of our people by keeping it illegal.

The Cannabis Hemp ban is so extreme and its intention is to hide the truth. The truth is that out of the 300,000 species and the millions and millions of subspecies of plants on Earth, Cannabis Hemp is the number one plant for our survival and quality of life here on Earth. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government and Attorney Generals from John Ashcroft to Alberto Gonzales, as well as U.S. drug czar John Walters, have been calling Cannabis Hemp users "terrorists" and yet the government of the United States has been "terrorizing" Cannabis Hemp users for the last 70 years! There have been over 16 million arrests for Cannabis Hemp in the last 70 years in the U.S. alone! Fourteen million were within the last 33 years!

No one has taken the $100,000 challenge to prove me wrong. Why? Because I am right. The U.S. government has been lying to us since the early 1900s. Do economic interests and the police have more to say than the people about the future of our planet? How angry are you for being lied to by the U.S. government about Cannabis Hemp? Are you willing to make a stand right now?

No one can dispute this information and knowledge. You have to join me in this fight. Either you are on the U.S. government's side or you are on the Earth's side with me!

Jack Herer

(Source: A $100,000 Challenge!
~ http://www.jackherer.com
~ http://www.myspace.com/hempjack
~ http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=71554350&blogID=439191005

originally posted: Tuesday, October 07, 2008)

CONNECTICUT: Panel Votes To Decriminalize Less Than Half-Ounce Of Marijuana

2009-04-01T05:56:00.003-06:00

By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | The Hartford Courant

On a groundbreaking vote, the legislature's judiciary committee decided Tuesday night to decriminalize marijuana possession for adults 18 and older who have less than half an ounce of the drug.

Under a compromise, the marijuana laws would not change for anyone under 18, and the amount that would be decriminalized was reduced from less than 1 ounce to less than half an ounce. The possession of small amounts would no longer be a crime and would instead be an infraction with a maximum fine of $250 that could be paid like a speeding ticket.

Some Democratic legislators, including Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney of New Haven, have been pushing hard this year for decriminalization, saying that doing so could save the state more than $11 million in law enforcement costs annually because far fewer people would be sent to state Superior Court to be overseen by prosecutors and probation officials. If marijuana users were issued a ticket that could be paid by mail, they would no longer need to go to court.

The bill passed 24-14 in the Democratic-dominated committee, and the highest-ranking Republican who voted for the measure was deputy House Republican leader William Hamzy of Plymouth.

Despite the positive vote Tuesday night, the bill still faces an uphill battle as Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell opposes the decriminalization. Rell vetoed a bill two years ago that would have allowed the use of marijuana for medical purposes to relieve pain.

"Whether it's little or a lot, it is an illegal substance, and the governor does not support the bill," Rell's spokesman, Christopher Cooper, said Tuesday night after the vote.

Cooper noted that the committee vote does not guarantee that the bill will be approved by the full House and Senate. "It may never reach her desk," he said.

The vote marked a sharp change from the recent history of the legislature on criminal law. Under then-Gov. John G. Rowland and the Republican-controlled Senate in 1995 and 1996, the legislature passed tough-on-crime laws that strengthened the death penalty and increased penalties for criminals. The legislature is now strongly dominated by Democrats, who control more than two-thirds of the seats and have the most seats in the House of Representatives in more than 30 years.

Nationwide, 22 states have passed some form of decriminalization. One of the most recent was Massachusetts, where offenders receive a civil fine of $100 instead of being charged with a crime.

Currently in Connecticut, possession of less than a half-ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of $1,000.

The debate, which lasted more than two hours, touched on a wide variety of opinions on crime and punishment.

House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk spoke strongly Tuesday against changing the law, saying that he has seen drugs ruin numerous lives during the past 16 years that he has served as the expulsion officer for the Norwalk public schools. High-achieving students who once received A's and B's in their classes often fall to C's and D's after they have become regular marijuana smokers, Cafero said.

"I've seen kids who are getting high at 7 in the morning, sometimes at 12 years old," Cafero told the committee. "It ruins a lot of lives. It ruins a lot of families."

He also reminded middle-aged legislators that they should know that marijuana today is far more potent than the drug that was available in the 1970s.

"What is the message that we as a legislature will send when we decriminalize marijuana?" Cafero asked. "That sends a wrong message."

If the bill becomes law, a person driving 80 mph on the Merritt Parkway would receive a bigger fine than the same person who was possessing 15 marijuana joints, Cafero said.

Later in the debate, Sen. Edwin Gomes said that the speeder is creating more of a risk, based on the number of accidents on the road.

"That person who is speeding should be fined more than someone who has less than a half-ounce of marijuana because he is more of a hazard to the public," said Gomes, a Bridgeport Democrat.

Sen. John Kissel, the ranking Senate Republican on the committee, said he does not believe that possession of marijuana should be equated to the level of a parking ticket.

"I don't know where we are going as a state," Kissel said. "Fundamentally, I think it sets us on exactly the wrong path."

Rep. Ernest Hewett, a New London Democrat who supported the bill, said it is essentially impossible to stop someone if they want to smoke marijuana.

"I think alcohol is the real problem. We're just disregarding that," Hewett said. "I do agree with Rep. Cafero on one thing. This stuff starts at home."

In the last high-profile debate on the subject, Rell vetoed a bill that would have legalized the medical use of marijuana in June 2007. Although she said that she, as a cancer survivor, had sympathy for those who wanted to use marijuana for pain management, she said that her sympathy could not overcome her concerns that those seeking to obtain the drug would need to break the law to purchase it.

Looney, a chief proponent of the measure, said the bill "represents a compassionate and pragmatic policy. Our state should not encourage illegal drug use; however, possession of marijuana for personal use should not leave a person with a lifelong criminal record."

The bill would cut costs for police, courts, public defenders and prosecutors, he said. The legislature's Office of Fiscal Analysis said the 9,928 marijuana arrests in Connecticut in 2007 represented 7 percent of total arrests statewide, and estimated 3,300 of those involved less than 1 ounce.

COLORADO: Medical Marijuana Registry Program Update

2009-04-01T04:44:00.000-06:00

Medical Marijuana Registry Program Update

(as of February 28, 2009)

In the November 2000 general election, Coloradoans passed Amendment 20, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) was tasked with implementing and administering the Medical Marijuana Registry program. In March of 2001, the State of Colorado Board of Health approved the Rules and Regulations pertaining to the administration of the program, and on June 1st, 2001, the Registry began accepting and processing applications for Registry Identification cards.

Statistics of the registry include:

6,796 new patient applications have been received to date since the registry began operating in June 2001. Thirty-four (34) applications have been denied, 14 cards have been revoked, 145 patients have died, and 1,175 cards have expired, bringing the total number of patients who currently possess valid Registry ID cards to 5,428. The renewal rate is 57%.
Seventy-one percent of approved applicants are male.
The average age of all patients is 36. Currently 4 patients are minors (under the age of 18).
Sixty-two counties (95% of counties) in Colorado have registered applicants. Forty-nine percent of patients reside in the Denver-metro and Boulder area, with the remainder of patients found in counties throughout Colorado.
Patients on the Registry represent all the debilitating conditions covered under Amendment 20. Severe pain accounts for 87% of all reported conditions; muscle spasms account for the second-most reported condition at 23%.
Fifty-nine percent of patients have designated a primary care-giver (someone who has significant responsibility for managing the patient’s care).
Over 600 different physicians have signed for patients in Colorado.

Please see the tables below for a complete listing of all statistical information.

As of June 14, 2004 care-givers are no longer issued cards.

As of January 25, 2008 only a portion of the patient’s social security number appears on their registration card.

As of October 27, 2008 all applications, renewal and changes to the Registry must be submitted via mail and include a legible photo copy of the patient’s Colorado Identification. Faxes and emails will no longer be accepted.

As of December 1, 2008 all changes to the Registry must be signed by the patient making the change in blue ink.

The Amendment requires that an application be approved or denied within 35 days of receipt by CDPHE. Currently, the Registry is issuing ID cards within three weeks of receipt of a complete application.

In addition to administering the Registry, CDPHE has been charged with accepting and reviewing petitions to add conditions to the current list of debilitating medical conditions/symptoms. To date, four petitions have been received, one for Parkinson’s disease, one for Asthma, one for Anxiety and another for Bi-Polar Disorder. All petitions were subsequently denied due to lack of scientific evidence that treatment with marijuana might have a beneficial effect.

There have been three marijuana-related convictions of patients on the Registry, and no physicians have experienced federal reprisals. However, reluctance to participate due to the inconsistencies between state and federal marijuana laws has been expressed by doctors and patients alike.

Another barrier to participation on the Registry may be the cost. No general funds have been designated for this program, and the Amendment allows CDPHE to collect fees to cover the administrative costs of administering the program. Currently the fee is $90, and is evaluated annually by CDPHE. The fee was lowered from $110 on June 1, 2007.

Numerous questions have arisen regarding interpretation of statutory language. The law does not clearly state where marijuana plants may be grown or if two or more patients and/or care-givers may share one growing space. Statutory language also places certain burdens upon local and state law enforcement officers, such as the requirement of keeping alive plants that are confiscated until a resolution is reached (i.e. a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges, an acquittal, etc.).

Table I: County Information

County	Number of Patients	Percent of Patients
Adams	365	7%
Alamosa	7	<1%
Arapahoe	421	8%
Archuleta	17	<1%
Baca	6	<1%
Bent	3	<1%
Boulder	517	10%
Broomfield	47	<1%
Chaffee	32	<1%
Cheyenne	*	*
Clear Creek	14	<1%
Conejos	*	*
Costilla	*	*
Crowley	5	<1%
Custer	8	<1%
Delta	51	1%
Denver	686	13%
Dolores	6	<1%
Douglas	153	3%
Eagle	41	<1%
El Paso	604	11%
Elbert	17	<1%
Fremont	52	<1%
Garfield	42	<1%
Gilpin	26	<1%
Grand	32	<1%
Gunnison	29	<1%
Hinsdale	3	<1%
Huerfano	36	<1%
Jackson	*	*
Jefferson	637	12%
Kit Carson	*	*
La Plata	88	2%
Lake	26	<1%
Larimer	569	10%
Las Animas	17	<1%
Lincoln	*	*
Logan	9	<1%
Mesa	139	3%
Moffat	5	<1%
Montezuma	21	<1%
Montrose	63	1%
Morgan	8	<1%
Otero	25	<1%
Ouray	9	<1%
Park	57	1%
Phillips	4	<1%
Pitkin	6	<1%
Prowers	*	*
Pueblo	95	2%
Rio Blanco	5	<1%
Rio Grande	5	<1%
Routt	14	<1%
Saguache	11	<1%
San Juan	*	*
San Miguel	11	<1%
Sedgwick	*	*
Summit	69	1%
Teller	63	1%
Washington	*	*
Weld	232	4%
Yuma	4	<1%

* Indicates fewer than three patients in each category

Table II: Conditions

Reported Condition	Number of Patients Reporting Condition	Percent of Patients Reporting Condition**
Cachexia	109	2%
Cancer	193	4%
Glaucoma	72	1%
HIV/AIDS	94	2%
Muscle Spasms	1,221	23%
Seizures	214	4%
Severe Pain	4,737	87%
Severe Nausea	1,139	21%

**Does not add to 100% as some patients report using medical marijuana for more than one debilitating medical condition.

Table III: User Characteristics

Sex	Percent on Registry	Average Age**
Male	70%	36
Female	30%	38

** The overall average age of all patients is 36 years old.

(Source: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/Medicalmarijuana/marijuanaupdate.html)

Who opposes legalizing Marijuana and why

2009-03-31T14:23:00.015-06:00

There are many types of people who oppose legalizing Marijuana for a variety of reasons. Many of these groups have some very strange reasons and selfish interests. Many are just ignorant of the facts. Here's some of the opposition:

* The Uninformed - People who believe the misinformation that Pot is harmful to society. These people think they are informed because they watched a black & white documentary from the 1950's that promoted such myths as "Pot Causes Hallucinations" or "If you smoke pot, you'll get Reefer Madness". Scary.....

* The Government - Pot has been illegal for so long that no politicians have the political courage to tell the truth about Pot. The ones that do tell the truth are defeated by their opponents that paint them as a druggie. Many of these anti-drug politicians are funded by the Alcohol lobby and Pharmaceutical Companies.

* The Health Care Industry - If the public really found out the truth about all the incredible medicinal properties beneficial from a variety of marijuana plants, then they wouldn't have to see a doctor as often. The new slogan would be "A joint a day, keeps the doctor away".

* Religion - Anything fun is a sin and of the Devil. Churches might lose members as people figure out that God can't be that stupid. Have another glass of wine.

* Moralizers - The morally superior who enjoy looking down their noses at the less fortunate and get a sadistic thrill out of putting people in jail.

* People who do no Drugs - These people who don't drink, don't smoke, in some cases don't even drink coffee. They just don't understand why anyone would want to smoke anything or do any drug. From their perspective the world would be better off if no one did anything.

* The Alcohol Lobby and Pharmaceutical Companies - Legalizing Pot would seriously cut into the sales of Beer and thousands of prescription drugs. Pot would become the recreational drug of choice because it is safer than Beer and easy to grow yourself.

* The Tobacco Lobby - Pot has the ability in some people to help them break the addiction of nicotine. Pot smoking could actually reduce the number of tobacco addicts. Smoking Pot out of a vaporizer eliminates all the carcinogenic and toxic chemicals yet still permits the user to enjoy a safe, clean and pure "high".

* Law Enforcement - There are a lot of people who make a living fighting Pot who would have to go get a real job if Pot were legalized. Police departments get a lot of funding to fight Marijuana and those funds could be returned to the taxpayer if Pot were made legal. Cops would have to chase robbers, rapists, and murderers.

* Government Agencies - Using unconstitutional civil forfeiture laws the government has been able to use the presence of Pot to steal billions of dollars of private property from the People. Drug laws have been an excuse to circumvent our constitutional right and justify wire tap laws, the erosion of protection from illegal searches, key recovery encryption, and domestic spying. If you take a politically unpopular position like this one I'm taking now, the government can plant drugs on you and put you away.

* Pot Dealers - If Pot were legalized then people making money off of selling Pot illegally would be out of business. Pot prices would drop to $10 a bale. Crime relating to illegal Pot money would vanish.

* Wood Industry - Hemp would become the primary source of fiber for paper products as well as a new source for building materials. We wouldn't have to cut down every big tree in the world.

* Private Prisons - If Pot were legalized the private prison industry would be hurt. They would no longer jail Pot smokers. It could free up space for violent criminals.

* Trial Lawyers - Normal people caught with a joint spend billions each year on lawyers to get them off of criminal charges after getting caught with a joint. Lawyers get rich off of the Marijuana laws. If Marijuana were legal this money could be spent sending your kids to college.

* Mental Hospitals - There's a big industry treating people for problems they don't have. If you have insurance, you're crazy until the insurance coverage runs out. If you smoke Pot then you have mental problems. If Pot were legal some of these people would have to get real jobs. We should start treating people who are addicted to 12 step programs.

* Republicans - Pot helps you see reality the way it really is. It's harder to con a Pot smoker on political issues. Once you get stoned it's harder to want to hate Liberals, Queers, Blacks, Pregnant Teens, Draft Dodgers, President Obama, Feminists, Lesbians, Pot Smokers, and other people the Republicans want you to hate. When you're stoned it's harder to like people like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Bobby Jindal, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, the KKK, Reverend Sun Myung Moon, People who beat Gay's to Death, People who blow up Abortion Clinics, and the ones who just think they are morally superior in general.

* Political Cowards - Politicians like to pose with police as somebody who is "against drugs" promising to lock up all the pot smokers and throw away the key. These people need an artificial issue to be against so they don't have to face real issues like how to protect the public from crooked lawyers and crooked judges. Political cowards cross all party lines when it comes to pot.

* Others - These groups could also be hurt by legalizing Pot. Car body shops would get less alcohol related wrecks to fix. Hospitals would get less alcohol related business as would alcohol treatment centers and funeral homes. It could hurt cemeteries and tombstone makers as well.

* Drug Cartels in Mexico also oppose legalization as this would eliminate over 70% of their profitable, tax-free income.

(source: http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/pot.htm and updated by Joe the Stoner)

How bad is Marijuana Really?

2009-03-31T14:10:00.003-06:00

As compared to most drugs, Pot is the least dangerous. Pot is not an addictive drug. For those who claim it is, anything is theoretically addictive, and there are some people who can become addicted to spring water. So to put it in perspective, Pot is less addictive than coffee. I have become addicted to coffee myself and have broken the habit. You get mild headaches for a few days. I have never had any symptoms for withdrawal from Pot.

Pot will cause some short term memory loss. It's harder to remember a 10 digit phone number. Beer causes the same memory loss as Pot. The effect is temporary and wears off completely. Pot has no long term affects on the brain. I have been smoking Pot for the last 25 years and I still test as a genius on IQ tests. My mental abilities have increased over the years.

Pot will give you the Munchies. You may eat more than you would normally. If you are on a diet, you should factor this in when deciding to smoke Pot. It could cause you to gain weight.

Pot is a sexual stimulant. It removes a persons inhibitions. You are more likely to agree to have sex when you are stoned. You are also more likely to not use birth control while stoned. Sometimes people get others stoned to try to get them to have sex when they normally wouldn't. If you are getting stoned with members of the opposite sex, be aware of this and realize that it can have this effect on you.

If anyone asks if you smoke Pot, Just say No!
Never drive while doing any drugs or alcohol, or many prescription drugs for that matter. Alcohol causes you to wreck your car. Pot has a much lesser effect on driving than alcohol, but it has some effect. You are more likely to pull out in front of someone or run a red light than lose control of the vehicle. Pot might also cause you to get lost. Don't drive while stoned.

Smoking Pot increases your risk of cancer. But most people smoke very little Pot. If you use Pot moderately you don't have anything to worry about. Moderate means a joint every few days.

Pot will give you dry mouth. Have something to drink when smoking Pot.

The most dangerous thing about Pot is getting caught with it. You can go to jail. People get very weird about Pot and you can get in a lot of trouble over it. So if anyone asks if you've been smoking Pot, Just Say No!

What is the Word of God on Cannabis?

2009-03-29T14:43:00.010-06:00

The hemp plant (scientific name: cannabis, slang: marijuana) is one of the many useful herbs "yielding seed after its kind" created and blessed by God on the third day of creation, "and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:12) He gave hemp for people to use with our free will.

God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth.…To you it will be for meat." … And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:29-31) The Bible predicts some of herb's prohibition. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some shall … speak lies in hypocrisy … commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (Paul: 1 Timothy 4:1-3)

The Bible speaks of a special plant. "I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more." (Ezekiel 34:29) A healing plant. On either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare 12 manner of fruits, and yielding her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Revelations 22:1-2) A gift from God.

How was cannabis used in Biblical times and lands?

Cannabis was used 12 ways: clothing, paper, cord, sails, fishnet, oil, sealant, incense, food, and in ceremony, relaxation and medicine. For so the Lord said unto me, "I will take my rest and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs. For afore harvest, when the bud is perfect and the sour grape is ripening in the flower, he shall cut off the sprigs with pruning hooks and take away and cut down the branches." (Isaiah 18:4-5)

What about cannabis today?

Hemp today has thousands of uses. Modern technology has devised many new uses for the hemp plant;like biomass energy, building materials, fuel, plastic and so on. Hemp is ecological and its seed is among the best food crops on Earth. Selected varieties produce flowers that provide an herbal relaxant and a spiritual tool. Its herb is used globally as medicine.

Does the Bible discuss drugs?

Alcohol is the only drug openly discussed in the Bible, so it must serve as our reference. Wine is drunk during religious occasions such as Passover; the Last Supper of Jesus and His disciples. It remains a sacrament in modern church services.

Jesus began his public life by miraculously turning water into wine at the Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-10) when the reception ran out. The Bible distinguishes between use and misuse. It says, Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. (Proverbs 31:6-7) but Woe unto them that … follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them! (Isaiah 5:10)

Yet the simple joys of drinking were also sung. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man and oil to make his face to shineth. (Psalm 104:14-15)

Did Jesus speak about choice?

He said not to criticize other people for their habits. "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; that which cometh out of the mouth defileth a man." (Mat. 15:11) The apostle Paul wrote, I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. … For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. (Paul: Romans 14:14,17)

Did He speak of government?

Jesus said to keep church and state apart. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's and unto God the things which be God's." (Luke 20:25) As we have seen, it was God, not government, who gave man the herbs to use. And it was government that put Jesus to death.

Property forfeiture laws?

He warned us about seizure and forfeiture laws. "Beware of the scribes which …devour widows' houses…. The same shall receive greater damnation." (Luke 20:46-47) Jesus, too, was a victim. The soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part. (John. 19:33)

What about the Drug War?

Blessed are the peacemakers. (Matthew 5:9)

It was God who created cannabis hemp and told mankind to use "every green herb" on Earth. The Bible speaks of mercy, healing and a persecution of God's children. They persecute me wrongfully; help thou me. (Psalms 119:86) Prisons and drug wars do not save souls. The Lord… hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. (Isaiah 61:1)

What should the ministry do?

Teach God's truth. Warn your congregation that the war on marijuana is unchristian and must be ended. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you will be no priest to Me … for I desired mercy and not sacrifice. (Hosea 4:6, 6:6)

Remember: Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving…. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine. (Paul: 1 Timothy 4:4-6)

Source: http://www.equalrights4all.org/religious/bible.htm

Medical Marijuana Issue by Drew Carey

2009-03-29T12:33:00.001-06:00

President Obama: What Is So Funny About Taxing And Regulating Marijuana?

2009-03-26T19:19:00.010-06:00

Speaking live this morning President Barack Obama pledged “to open up the White House to the American people.”

Well, to some of the American people that is.

As for those tens of millions of you who believe that cannabis should be legally regulated like alcohol — and the tens of thousands of you who voted to make this subject the most popular question in today’s online Presidential Town Hall — well, your voice doesn’t really matter.

Asked this morning whether he “would … support the bill currently going through the California legislation to legalize and tax marijuana, boosting the economy and reducing drug cartel related violence,” the President responded with derision.

“There was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation, and I don’t know what this says about the online audience,” he laughed.

“The answer is no, I don’t think that [is] a good strategy.”

Obama’s cynical rebuff was short-sighted and disrespectful to a large percentage of his supporters. After all, was it not this very same “online audience” that donated heavily to

Obama’s Presidential campaign and ultimately carried him to the White House?

Second, as I’ve written previously (not Joe the Stoner, but the NORML organization) in The Hill and elsewhere, the overwhelming popularity of the marijuana law reform issue — as manifested in this and in similar forums — illustrates that there is a significant, vocal, and identifiable segment of our society that wants to see an end to America’s archaic and overly punitive marijuana laws.

The Obama administration should be embracing this constituency, not mocking it.

Third, will somebody please ask the President: “What is it that you think is so funny about the subject of marijuana law reform?”

Since 1965, police have arrested over 20 million Americans for violating marijuana laws, yet nearly 90 percent of teenagers say that pot is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to obtain. That’s funny?

According to this very administration, there is an unprecedented level of violence occurring at the Mexico/US border — much of which is allegedly caused by the trafficking of marijuana to the

United States by drug cartels. America’s stringent enforcement of pot prohibition, which artificially inflates black market pot prices and ensures that only criminal enterprises will be involved in the production and sale of this commodity, is helping to fuel this violence. Wow, funny stuff!

Finally, two recent polls indicate that a strong majority of regional voters support ending marijuana prohibition and treating the drug’s sale, use, and distribution like alcohol. A February 2009 Zogby telephone poll reported that nearly six out of ten of voters on the west coast think that cannabis should be “taxed and legally regulated like alcohol and cigarettes.” A just-released California Field Poll reports similar results, finding that 58 percent of statewide votes believe that regulations for cannabis should be the same or less strict than those for alcohol.

Does the President really think that all of these voters are worthy of his ridicule?

Let the White House laugh for now, but the public knows that this issue is no laughing matter.

This week alone, legislators in Illinois, Minnesota, and New Hampshire voted to legalize the use of marijuana for authorized individuals. Politicians in three additional states heard testimony this week in favor of eliminating criminal penalties for all adults who possess and use cannabis. And lawmakers in Massachusetts and California are now debating legally regulating marijuana outright.

The American public is ready and willing to engage in a serious and objective political debate regarding the merits of legalizing the use of cannabis by adults. And all over this nation, whether Capitol Hill wants to acknowledge it or not, they are engaging in this debate as we speak.

Sorry Obama, this time the joke’s on you.

(reposted from the NORML website post)

MASSACHUSETTS: Lawmakers To Consider Measures To "Tax And Regulate The Cannabis Industry"

2009-03-26T17:28:00.003-06:00

Boston, MA: House and Senate bills seeking to "tax and regulate the cannabis industry" have been introduced in the Massachusetts legislature.

House Bill 2929 and Senate companion bill S 1801 propose to legally regulate the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for adults over 21 years of age.

The bills would impose licensing requirements and excise taxes on the retail sale of cannabis.

Adults who possess or grow marijuana for personal use, or who engage in the nonprofit transfer of cannabis, would not be subject to taxation under the law.

"Decades of whispered grumblings about the wisdom and efficacy of prohibition is rapidly giving way to a serious — really serious public discussion about how to replace it," said former NORML Board Member Richard Evans, who assisted in drafting the legislation. "Those who consider themselves leaders in government and the media have the obligation to either show how prohibition can be made to work, or join in the exploration of alternatives."

Massachusetts is the second state to consider marijuana regulation legislation this year. In February, California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act. That bill is currently before the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.

Additional information and summaries of H 2929 and S 1801 are available online at: http://www.cantaxreg.com.

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500 or visit: http://www.masscann.org.

NYPD narcotics detective faces perjury charges as case goes to pot

2009-03-26T08:02:00.002-06:00

By Alison Gendar DAILY NEWS POLICE BUREAU CHIEF

A Bronx narcotics detective was indicted Monday on charges she juiced the truth about a big pot bust - lies that got the case against the dealers tossed out.

Detective Debra Eager, a 15-year NYPD veteran, said on the stand that she and her partner saw two drug suspects toting boxes into a Holland Ave. apartment.

Eager, 41, said she followed the duo into the building, heard them enter an apartment and then made an arrest.

Her testimony, however, "was starkly contradicted by video surveillance" at the building, Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson said.

And even though the boxes contained 33 pounds of marijuana, the charges against the suspects were dismissed because Eager allegedly distorted the details of the bust.

She was indicted on three counts of first-degree perjury, each carrying up to seven years in prison. She was also suspended without pay.

Food for thought by Joe the Stoner: So it seems that the cops have resorted to crime in order to defeat crime? How many other cases has the NYPD lied about just to get a conviction? Instead of the cops protecting and serving, they have now become the criminals they so profess to be fighting against....

Any Attorneys out there in NY think this is enough reason to appeal any convictions? - JTS

COLORADO: Do Not Limit Medical Marijuana Patients' Rights

2009-03-21T09:38:00.005-06:00

(Reposted from the NORML website)

Proposed rule changes to Colorado's medical marijuana law:

The Colorado Board of Health will soon be considering a proposed regulation change which would restrict the number of patients that may be provided for by a state-authorized caregiver. The hearing was originally scheduled for March 18, but has been rescheduled due to the large number of people wishing to testify against this change. You can view the proposed changes at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/bh/hearingnotices/Medical....

NORML's affiliates and allies in Colorado believe that the establishment of this proposed policy is not in the best interest of the patient and is likely to result in serious, negative health consequences for ill Coloradans. If the policy passes, it would block safe access to medicine, ripping thousands of sick patients from their current, safe caregiver relationship and forcing them into the uncomfortable and potentially dangerous position of having to find a new caregiver. It will force patients into illicit market situations where they run the serious risk of physical assault or theft.

The policy would also limit patient rights. Patients deserve the right to select the caregiver of their choice, in the same manner that a patient may select a preferred doctor. Both doctors and caregivers are individuals charged with the important task of caring for the health care of the patient. This is an important and personal decision which can have major ramifications on the health of the patient.

Finally, it is an irrational policy. The State's arbitrary limit is tantamount to restricting a neighborhood pharmacy such as Walgreens to serving only five patients. It is economically inefficient and masses significant costs onto patients, most of whom are of limited financial means as brought on by their debilitating diseases. The State should not interfere with, and affirmatively restrict, such an essential, life-and-death
relationship.

With 40 million uninsured Americans and in the midst of the most severe economic crisis in decades, a policy that increases the cost and decreases access to healthcare is not in the interest of Coloradans. Please do not enact the "Five Patient Policy".

You may contact the Colorado Board of Health with your concerns at:

Colorado Board of Health
C/O Linda Shearman, Program Assistant
Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South EDO-A5
Denver CO 80246-1530

lindashearman@state.co.us
FAX: 303 691 7702

Public comments may also be e-mailed at:

cdphe.MedicalMarijuanaRegulations@state.co.us

Thank you for supporting Joe the Stoner's and NORML's marijuana law reform efforts in Colorado.

A Year Ago: CU’s 4/20 pot smoke-out draws crowd of 10,000

2009-03-18T10:04:00.003-06:00

(reposted from the Daily Camera website, article written by Vanessa Miller)

"Nine, eight, seven ..."

A crowd of about 10,000 people collectively began counting down on the University of Colorado's Norlin Quadrangle just before 4:20 p.m. Sunday.

Yet the massive puff of pot smoke that hovers over CU's Boulder campus every April 20 -- the date of an annual, internationally recognized celebration of marijuana -- began rising over the sea of heads earlier than normal this year.

"Oh forget it," one student said, aborting the countdown to 4:20 p.m. and lighting his pipe early. He closed his eyes, taking a deep, long drag.

"Sweet."

Although it's become an annual and renowned event at CU, this year's 4/20 celebration was different in some ways than in many previous years: The crowd was so large it migrated from the long-traditional site of Farrand Field to the larger Norlin Quad; festivities kicked off earlier than normal with daytime concerts; and CU police handed out zero citations.

“At this point, none are anticipated,” said CU police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley.
Officers in the past have gone to great lengths to catch people in the illegal act of smoking pot on 4/20.

In 2006, CU police dispatched undercover photographers to snap pictures of smokers. Photos of 150 alleged offenders then were posted on the department’s Web site, and witnesses were offered $50 to positively identify the suspects — who then were ticketed. Another year, smokers on Farrand were doused with sprinklers.

“We can’t do the same thing year after year,” Wiesley said hours before Sunday’s smoking began. “So I doubt we’ll do anything like the pictures. ... There’s no way our 12 to 15 officers are going to be able to deal with a crowd of 10,000. We just can’t do strong enforcement when we’re outnumbered 700 or 800 to one.”

About 15 CU officers and a half-dozen deputies with the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office had a presence Sunday among the mass of pot smokers, who bounced giant balls and tossed Frisbees through the haze. CU police did handle four medical-related calls for health issues including dehydration; two people were taken to Boulder Community Hospital.

Closer to downtown, a more “adult” 4/20 gathering also took place at Boulder’s Central Park for non-students looking to avoid the CU foot traffic. But that event had a much smaller turnout and was mostly uneventful.

The crowd size at last year’s CU gathering was rumored to have topped 5,000, Wiesley said, meaning this year’s gathering drew about double.

“I guess it’s not like they had to cut a 4 p.m. class to go do it,” Wiesley said, speculating as to why so many more people showed up. “People are not all that busy at 4:20 p.m. in the afternoon on a Sunday.”

From the steps of Norlin Library, some of the thousands present said the turnout appeared comparable to that of a peace march or protest.

“You guys need to go stand on those stairs,” one girl shouted to her friends, who were seated in a circle on the quadrangle grass. “You don’t even understand.”

Smoke-out participants — thousands of whom wore green or T-shirts promoting pot — climbed trees, played the bongos, snapped pictures and had miniature picnics.

That, of course, after they sparked the weed they had come to smoke.
CU freshman Emily Benson, 19, of Kansas City, said she thinks the decriminalization of marijuana will become a hot topic in the upcoming political season and said she felt part of something bigger than just a smoke-out on Sunday.

“We’re at the starting point of a movement,” she said. “This is a big part of the reason I applied here — for the weed atmosphere.”

Although CU junior Max Lichtenstein, 21, isn’t into marijuana or smoking, he also felt Sunday’s event was a chance to do something “bigger” than himself. He passed out 126 Rice Krispies treats with messages attached asking that they act out against the injustices in Darfur.

“Tomorrow, when you’re sober ... call the White House at 202-456-1414,” the note read.

“I just like being generous and doing nice things,” he said. “I’m like a good Samaritan.”

CU senior Tyler Molvig, 24, said that rather than condemning the smoke-out, CU and the city should embrace it as a money-making opportunity.

“I mean, it’s gonna happen regardless,” he said.

Entrepreneur Barrett Betz, 20, conceived of the potential financial benefit 4/20 holds earlier this year, and sold peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, Hostess snack cakes and bottled water for a $1.

“Peanut butter and jelly!” he screamed to passers-by who were parched and eager to satisfy their munchies. “I’m doing very well.”

One woman was hopeful Betz’s treats were charged with some special ingredients.

“Are these magical?” she asked, only to be disappointed. “Why aren’t you selling magical ones? I mean, it’s cool — but c’mon.”

10 Years Ago Today: U.S. Government Admits Marijuana Is Medicine

2009-03-18T09:16:00.009-06:00

(reprinted from the March 17, 2009, 10:24:32 AM Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director post on the NORML website)

Today (March 17, 2009) marks the 10-year-anniversary of the publication of the Institute of Medicine’s landmark study on medical cannabis: Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.

When the White House commissioned this report in response to the passage of California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996, many in the mainstream media, and many more lawmakers, were still skeptical about marijuana’s potential therapeutic value. The publication of the Institute of Medicine’s findings — which concluded that cannabis possessed medicinal properties to control pain and nausea, and to stimulate appetite — provided the issue with long-overdue credibility, and began in earnest a political discourse that continues today.

So what have we learned in the ten years following the release of this groundbreaking study? As I write today in both Reason Magazine online and in The Hill.com’s influential Congress blog (post your feedback here):

In Ten Years, Medical Marijuana Has Gone From Fringe to Mainstream — So Why Is It Still Against The Law?via The Hill.com

We’ve affirmed that the use of medical marijuana can be used remarkably safely and effectively.

We’ve learned that cannabis possesses therapeutic value beyond symptom management, and that it can, in some cases, moderate disease progression.

We’ve discovered alternative methods to safely, effectively, and rapidly deliver marijuana’s therapeutic properties to patients that don’t involve smoking.

We’ve learned that restricted patient access to medicinal cannabis will not necessarily result in higher use rates among young people or among the general public.

And finally we’ve learned — much to the chagrin of medical marijuana opponents — that in fact the sky will not fall if we grant patients the right to use it.

Today, the only practical impediments prohibiting the legal use of medical marijuana are political ones. The Obama administration should heed the advice of the Institute of Medicine and initiate clinical trials regarding the medical use of cannabis, and it should remove federal legal restrictions so that states can regulate marijuana like other accepted prescription medicines.

Stem the Violence, Make Marijuana Legal

2009-03-15T12:34:00.014-06:00

(reposted from http://www.cannazine.com.uk and edited for personal accuracy by Joe the Stoner

Imagine you had a really smart bomb - a genius bomb - that could blow up the leaders of every drug cartel in Mexico.

By the time the smoke cleared, a new pusher would be sitting in every cartel's big chair and the distribution networks would continue satisfying the demand of every junkie and recreational-drug user in America.

Mexico's drug cartels would continue to be, in the words of the Justice Department's National Drug Threat Assessment for 2009, "the greatest drug-trafficking threat to the United States."

Now, imagine a different weapon.

Consider the impact of eliminating the most profitable product the cartels sell.

All we have to do is legalize marijuana."

Marijuana is the (Mexican cartels') cash crop, the cash cow," says Brittany Brown of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Washington office, which does not advocate legalizing pot.

Marijuana is cheap to grow and requires no processing. More than a million pounds of it was seized in Arizona in each of the past two years, according to figures provided by Ramona Sanchez of the DEA's Phoenix office. But those seizures were just a cost of doing business for multibillion-dollar drug lords. Marijuana continued to be widely available - and not just to adults.

Teens tell researchers that buying pot is easier than getting cigarettes or booze, says Bill Piper, director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which does advocate legalizing marijuana.

Cannabis vs. alcohol

Some argue that if you legalize marijuana there would still be a black market. They say that because the product is so cheap to produce, the black market could underprice legal pot and sell to kids. But consider what we know about alcohol.

First, Prohibition didn't work.

Second, even though alcohol sales are regulated, back-alley or school-yard sales of moonshine is not a billion-dollar problem.

Third, alcohol, like its addictive killer-cousin tobacco, is taxed, which helps cover its costs to society.Not so with marijuana.After decades of anti-pot campaigns, from Reefer Madness to zero tolerance, so many Americans choose to smoke marijuana that the Mexican cartels have become an international threat to law and order.Instead of paying taxes on their vice, pot smokers are enriching thugs and murderers.

"People who smoke pot in the United States don't think they are connected to the cartels," Brown says. "Actually, they are very connected."

American drug users help sharpen the knives that cartel henchmen use to behead their enemies and terrorize Mexican border towns.

Even marijuana grown in the United States, increasingly in national parks and on other public lands, is often connected to Mexican cartels, Brown says.

According to the Justice Department's 2009 assessment, cartels have "established varied transportation routes, advanced communications capabilities and strong affiliations with gangs in the United States" and "maintain drug-distribution networks or supply drugs to distributors in at least 230 U.S. cities." Including Phoenix and Tucson.

The DEA says cartels are "poly-drug organizations" that routinely smuggle cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and precursor chemicals through our state."

(But) marijuana generates the most profit," Sanchez says.

Removing a cash cow

Legalizing marijuana would not stop pushers from selling other, more lethal poisons. But taking away their most profitable product would hurt criminal organizations that have grown richer, more powerful and better armed during the so-called war on drugs that was first declared by President Richard Nixon.

Today's Mexican cartels "are as ruthless and brutal as any terrorist organization," says Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is opposed to legalizing marijuana.

Their brutality is destabilizing Mexico. Several years after Mexican President Felipe Calderón bravely decided to take on the cartels, Mexico ranks with Pakistan as "weak and failing states" in a recent report by the United States Joint Forces Command. Why? Because Mexico's "government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels," the report says.

While U.S. drug users enrich the cartels, the U.S. government pours huge amounts of money into defeating them.

The Bush administration sold Congress on the Merida Initiative, a multiyear, $1.4 billion aid package designed to provide training and high-tech assistance to help a besieged Mexican government combat the cartels.

Even in these days of gazillion-dollar bailouts, that's a chunk of change.

But consider this: According to a report last fall from the Government Accountability Office, the United States has provided more than $6 billion to support Plan Colombia since fiscal 2000. The goal of reducing processing and distribution of illicit drugs (mostly cocaine) by 50 percent was not achieved, the GAO found.

A GAO report from July 15, 2008, says that since fiscal 2003, the United States has provided more than $950 million to counternarcotics efforts in the 6 million square-mile "transit zone" that includes Central America, the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern Pacific Ocean.

What did this buy?"

Despite gains in international cooperation, several factors, including resource limitations and lack of political will, have impeded U.S. progress in helping governments become full and self-sustaining partners in the counternarcotics effort - a goal of U.S. assistance," the report said.

Weary of the drug war

Our southern neighbors are getting tired of fighting our drug war.

Last month, the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy called for a shift from the "prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalization." Former Latin American Presidents Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico), Cesar Gaviria (Colombia) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil) said the drug war has failed.

It was a tragically costly failure.

In testimony before Congress last June, Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and department of criminology, said, "It is likely that total expenditures for drug control, at all levels of government, totaled close to $40 billion in 2007."

He said about 500,000 people are in prison in the United States for drug offenses on any given day. Piper says 800,000 people a year are arrested on marijuana charges, the vast majority for simple possession.

Now, consider the possibilities of a new approach.

In 2005, economist Jeffrey A. Miron put together a report suggesting that if marijuana were taxed at rates similar to alcohol and tobacco, legal sales would raise $6.2 billion a year. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a Democrat from San Francisco, is trying to get his state to legalize marijuana for adult use, set up a state licensing system and levy a tax that some say could raise $1 billion a year.

Let's be clear: Marijuana cannot cause dependency. It is healthy yet smelly. I use it. And a lot of people like the effects of this "alleged" intoxicant; they believe they can control its addictive properties. This is exactly why people drink margaritas during happy hour.

This is also why a war on drugs is unwinnable.

You'd think a country built on capitalism would understand basic laws of supply and demand. Instead, a failed and irrational national policy blunders forward, costing billions, incarcerating large numbers of people and enriching ruthless crime syndicates.

The cartels are not stagnant. They are growing in power and influence. In Phoenix, Mexican cartels are blamed for a dramatic rise in kidnapping and other violence.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says it may be only a matter of time before the kind of turf battles that are common in Mexico erupt along drug-transit corridors in Arizona. Goddard, who does not support legalization, says, "I do support an intelligent dialogue (on legalization)."

Brave but hopeless fight

Law enforcement has a smart-bomb approach to eliminating the bad guys.

Last month, the DEA announced Operation Xcellerator, a 21-month multi-agency effort aimed at the Sinaloan cartel. It culminated in more than 750 arrests and the seizure of 23 tons of drugs and $59.1 million in cash.

The police work involved was smart and courageous. After all, cartels torture and kill cops.

But while police were putting their lives on the line for the war on drugs, U.S. drug users were helping the cartels make up for any economic losses.

It's time to hit the bad guys where it really hurts.

Take away their cash cow. LEGALIZE MARIJUANA!

Boulder woman suspected of shooting neighbor's home

2009-03-14T13:34:00.002-06:00

As reported in the Daily Camera of Boulder, CO: (by Vanessa Miller - March 13, 2009)

BOULDER, Colo. — A Boulder woman arrested Friday on suspicion of firing a bullet from her home into her next-door neighbor’s house — nearly hitting a mother and her 4-year-old daughter — accidentally fired the round while she was going through some belongings, according to Boulder police.

Darine Chely, 49, turned herself into police after firing the gun about 3:50 p.m. Thursday, said police spokeswoman Sarah Huntley. She immediately posted a $5,000 bond to get out of the Boulder County Jail and faces one felony and two misdemeanors: possession of a weapon by a previous offender, prohibited use of a weapon and reckless endangerment.

Police were called to the Dakota Ridge neighborhood in North Boulder by the neighbor, who told police she was lying on her bed with her 4-year-old daughter in their single-family home in the 1000 block of Terrace Circle when she heard a “loud boom,” according to Huntley.

The woman, whose name has not been released, saw wooden blinds on a nearby window blow into the room and shatter into pieces, Huntley said.

Investigators later determined the noise and damage were caused by a bullet that went through Chely’s external wall, an outside wall of the neighbor’s house and a piece of furniture before finally ending up in the daughter’s room in a wall over the bed, Huntley said.
No one was hurt.

“They are very fortunate that this didn’t end more tragically,” Huntley said.

After obtaining a search warrant, police entered Chely’s home and found a 16-gauge shotgun, a .44 Magnum handgun and one box of ammunition inside.

“She has indicated that she didn’t mean to fire the gun,” Huntley said. “She was going through belongings and found the gun and didn’t realize it was loaded and pulled the trigger.”

Huntley said the neighbor, who was missed by the bullet, also has a 2-year-old child.
“It’s my understanding that she was very fearful and concerned about the welfare of her children,” Huntley said.

Chely has a lengthy criminal history, involving numerous money, theft and forgery charges in Boulder, Jefferson, Arapahoe, Adams and Eagle counties, according to court records. A 2009 forgery case remains open and is awaiting trial, and Huntley said Chely shouldn’t have had a weapon because of those charges.

Chely couldn’t be reached for comment Friday, and a man who answered her home phone wouldn’t comment except to say, “It was an accident.”

To view the Arrest Warrant and Affidavit, please CLICK HERE

Marijuana: What Are the Laws in Colorado?

2009-03-14T12:58:00.001-06:00

Boulder, CO - March 14, 2009 by Joe the Stoner

As the movement to Legalize Marijuana continues to grow, many Coloradoans are faced with possibly having to decide in the near future whether Colorado reforms current Marijuana Legislation.

Hopefully, as the movement continues to grow, the upcoming elections may include reform legislation for legalizing marijuana and the voters of Colorado will need to make the decision.

Many people wonder what the laws really are in Colorado when it comes to Marijuana.

For a link to the current laws in effect in Colorado, please visit:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4526 where a chart shows exactly how much in quantity is legal and the consequences and penalties for larger amounts in possesion.

If you would like to help contribute and/or donate to the cause, please visit http://www.joethestoner.com/ and click on the "Donate" with PayPal link

Thank you for your support and please check our blog frequently for updates to news in Boulder, CO and the "420" Marijuana Movement.

Barack Obama on Legalization of Marijuana (2004)

2009-03-14T12:17:00.001-06:00

(click on the title or picture to open the video on youtube.com)

The Financial Crisis Just Might Lead to Legal Pot

2009-03-14T08:03:00.001-06:00

By Marcelo Ballve, New America Media. Posted March 13, 2009

NEW YORK -- In 1977, President Jimmy Carter asked Congress to decriminalize marijuana possession (it never did). The next year, the Ladies Home Journal described a summer jazz festival on the White House's South Lawn where "a haze of marijuana smoke hung heavy under the low-bending branches of a magnolia tree."

The late 1970's may have been the high-water mark for permissiveness regarding marijuana. But advocates of decriminalized pot believe a confluence of factors, especially the country's economic malaise, are leading to another countrywide reappraisal of the drug.

"There is momentum of the sort I haven't seen since I've been involved in this," says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, which supports easing marijuana laws.

He says incidents like then-candidate Barack Obama's early admission of pot use or the flap over Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps's bong-smoking may lead to initial public hand-wringing, but in the end they tend to legitimize pot use. So does the growing recognition of medical marijuana.

But, he adds, "the economic crisis is the single most important factor" in this new shift in perceptions.

That's because the ailing economy is triggering a scramble for new government savings or sources of revenue. Nadelmann compares today's marijuana laws to alcohol prohibition, approved during prosperous times in 1920 only to become unpopular during the Great Depression. Prohibition was finally repealed in 1933, in part due to the cost of reining in illegal booze and the need to recoup lost tax revenue in tough economic times.

As he signed a law easing prohibition, President Franklin Roosevelt reportedly quipped, "I think this would be a good time for a beer."

Is our recession-plagued present a good time for a joint? Legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana, would pull the rug out from under pot dealers in urban America, and create a crisis for them, but it would likely prove a boon for state budgets. In an oft-cited 2006 report on U.S. marijuana production, expert Jon Gettman used "conservative price estimates" to peg the value of the annual crop at $36 billion--more valuable than corn and wheat combined.

Three national polls this year showed a surprising number of Americans think marijuana should be legal. Zogby, CBS News and Rasmussen all recorded support for legalization hovering at around 40 percent. Nadelmann of the DPA believes support would have been higher if the question was whether or not marijuana should be taxed and regulated.

California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has proposed a bill to tax and regulate legal marijuana, which he says would generate $1 billion in revenue for the Golden State's anemic budget. Ammiano, who represents areas of San Francisco, says his proposal, unveiled last month, is "simply common sense," considering the unprecedented economic emergency. The measure would also save California an estimated $150 million in enforcement costs.

Rising support for decriminalization has also come from drug war-ravaged Latin America. Former presidents of Colombia, Mexico and Brazil headed the 17-person Latin American Commission on Drugs, which included intellectuals and statesmen. It issued a report last month calling the drug war failed. It called, among other changes, for the personal use of marijuana to be decriminalized.

Currently, marijuana is already decriminalized in some form in 13 U.S. states, including California and New York, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Typically in these states, marijuana possession in small amounts is reduced to a minor offense punishable by a low fine. Alaska has a particularly liberal law, allowing possession of up to an ounce of pot at home without penalty.

Some eight additional state legislatures are currently considering decriminalization, or the expansion of already existing allowances, according to NORML.

No other state has gone as far as the sweeping "tax and regulate" plan Ammiano proposed for California, but all this talk of legalizing pot has Eric Voth, M.D., deeply worried. Voth, chairman of the Institute on Global Drug Policy, believes advocates of legal marijuana are exploiting the country's economic insecurities to advance their agenda, despite evident risks.

Pointing to alcohol and tobacco, which are taxed, he argues the resulting revenue hardly compensates for the social and public health damage wreaked by both substances, including spillover use among youth. In the 1970s, when marijuana use was at its peak, some 11 percent of high school seniors used marijuana daily, whereas today only between two and three percent do so. If marijuana were legal, more kids would smoke it and face health, addiction and learning problems, says Voth, who advised the White House under Republican and Democratic administrations. "I'm not a prohibitionist, I'm a physician and I've seen those problems face-to-face in the trenches."

But, as Voth himself admits, the lobby to decriminalize marijuana is increasingly organized, with a strong presence in state capitols and Washington, D.C. When Ammiano announced his California plan, he enlisted the DPA and the Marijuana Policy Project to back him up. "High Times," the popular pot enthusiasts' magazine, has spearheaded its own "420 campaign" for marijuana legalization. Libertarian organizations, like the Cato Institute, tend to be skeptical of pot prohibition, too.

But there are legal questions over states' efforts to decriminalize. Lenient state laws (not to mention Ammiano's legalization plan) clash with separate federal laws on marijuana, which are strict, calling for up to a year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine for possession of any amount, even if it's a first offense.

Last year, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), sponsored legislation to decriminalize marijuana federally, earning a handful of co-sponsors, but the bill quickly stalled in committee.

Ammiano says his plan isn't radical, since pot would simply be taxed just as tobacco and alcohol are now. But for his opponents that comparison sets off alarm bells.

Both industries have a bad record of facing up to the adverse health effects of their products and its availability to underage users. A legally sanctioned marijuana industry, opponents say, would open the door to another powerful, cynical, corporate dispenser of legal drugs.

Phelps talks to NBC about marijuana pipe photo

2009-03-13T20:26:00.000-06:00

Associated Press Friday, March 13, 2009

NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Phelps insists he's more worried about the pain he caused family, friends and fans than losing money in endorsements after he was photographed inhaling from a marijuana pipe.

In excerpts from an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer that aired Friday morning, the swimming star didn't directly answer the question of whether he was smoking marijuana.

"It was a bad mistake. I mean, we all know what, you know, what you and I are talking about. It's a stupid mistake. You know, bad judgment."

USA Swimming suspended the Olympic great for three months after the photo was published in a British tabloid Feb. 1. He also lost his sponsorship from Kellogg.

"I've come to realize that people want to bring you up, but more people want to bring you down. And that's how our public is. That's definitely something to keep in mind and keep close to heart."

Phelps has previously apologized for his poor judgment.

He was questioned about promises he made to fans after a DUI arrest in 2004, which the swimmer vowed was a mistake he would not repeat.

"I'll be the first one to admit I've made a lot of mistakes in my life. Both, like I said, in the pool and out of the pool. I've never made the same mistake twice."

When asked if he considered his DUI arrest and the marijuana controversy the same thing, Phelps replied: "In my eyes, no. I think they're both immature and stupid mistakes. For me, I feel my duty is to try to help other people not make this mistake."

The photo was taken at a house party while Phelps was visiting Columbia, S.C., in November during an extended break from training after he won a record eight gold medals in Beijing.

"There was probably two or three people there I didn't know," he said. "It was a very small group. Six or seven people probably total in the whole house. Like, nothing major. You know, not like a giant college house party. It was nothing like that. It was just a small group and we were just sitting around and celebrating."

Phelps said he trusted his friends that the people he didn't know there could also be trusted.

"I'll say that there are a lot of people out there who want to take advantage of any situation they have. ... Sometimes you learn the hard way," he said.

Phelps said he became aware of the photo a day or two before it was published.

"It's not about money to me," he said of the fallout. "So, you know, the contract side of things, yeah, I was disappointed. But, you know, I think the biggest thing is who I hurt the most. Like, if I lost money, OK. It's not an issue with me."

Asked what his mother's reaction was, he said: "Didn't scream. Clearly showed she was upset. She wasn't reprimanding me."

Phelps also addressed the issue of young boys and girls who look up to him that may have been crushed by the photo.

"I want to say that if you do make a bad judgment or you do make a mistake, make sure you're responsible for it. Because that's how you're going to change and that's how you're going to learn."

The remainder of the interview will air Sunday night on "Dateline."

Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?

2009-03-13T10:55:00.001-06:00

By Alison Stateman / Los Angeles Friday, Mar. 13, 2009 http://www.TIME.com

Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale — a move that could mean billions of dollars for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion a year, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion a year in much needed revenue, offsetting some of the billions of dollars in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget.

"The state of California is in a very, very precipitous economic plight. It's in the toilet," says Ammiano. "It looks very, very bleak, with layoffs and foreclosures, and schools closing or trying to operate four days a week. We have one of the highest rates of unemployment we've ever had. With any revenue ideas, people say you have to think outside the box, you have to be creative, and I feel that the issue of the decriminalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana fits that bill. It's not new, the idea has been around, and the political will may in fact be there to make something happen." (See pictures of stoner cinema.)

Ammiano may be right. A few days after he introduced the bill, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that states should be able to make their own rules for medical marijuana and that federal raids on pot dispensaries in California would cease. The move signaled a softening of the hard-line approach to medicinal pot use previous Administrations have taken. The nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy may also signal a softer federal line on marijuana. If he is confirmed as the so-called drug czar, Kerlikowske will take with him experience as police chief of Seattle, where he made it clear that going after people for possessing marijuana was not a priority for his force. (See a story about the grass-roots marijuana war in California.)

In 1996 California became one of the first states in the nation to legalize medical marijuana. Currently, $200 million in medical-marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) would give California control of pot in a manner similar to that of alcohol while prohibiting its purchase by citizens under age 21. (The bill has been referred to the California state assembly's public-safety and health committees; Ammiano says it could take up to a year before it comes to a vote for passage.) State revenues would be derived from a $50-per-oz. levy on retail sales of marijuana and sales taxes. By adopting the law, California could become a model for other states. As Ammiano put it, "How California goes, the country goes."

Despite the need for the projected revenue, opponents say legalizing pot would only add to social woes. "The last thing we need is yet another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association. "We have enough problems with alcohol and abuse of pharmaceutical products. Do we really need to add yet another mind-altering substance to the array?" Lovell says the easy availability of the drug would lead to a surge in its use, much as happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states. (Read why Dr. Sanjay Gupta is against decriminalizing pot.)

Joel W. Hay, professor of pharmaceutical economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. "Marijuana is a drug that clouds people's judgment. It affects their ability to concentrate and react, and it certainly has impacts on third parties," says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse. "It's one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they've caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug, and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities." He adds, "There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana, but there are lots of people who can't, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones." (See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.)

In response, retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray, a longtime proponent of legalization, estimates that legalizing pot and thus ceasing to arrest, prosecute and imprison nonviolent offenders could save the state $1 billion a year. "We couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried," he says. "Not only do we have those problems, along with glamorizing it by making it illegal, but we also have the crime and corruption that go along with it." He adds, "Unfortunately, every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substances to use, to misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it. They're here to stay. So let's try to reduce those harms, and right now we couldn't do it worse if we tried."

The Truth About Marijuana, Diamonds and Oil

2009-02-26T18:58:00.000-07:00

What could Oil, Diamonds, and Marijuana possibly have in common?Answer: A global Campaign of Lies. Not one of them is presented truthfully in the mass media.
Defined by an ability to simply rake in the bucks, each appears to be highly desirable. Only 2 are actually valuable, as defined by their essence as a means of production, two are finite and depletable, and only one is renewable. By the very fact we are all born here, all naturally belong to all of us. However, laws have been crafted by a handful of wealthy men to keep the bulk of the human race from touching 2 of them, leading us all, oddly enough, to be over-reliant on one of them, one that is running out.Cannabis is more useful and valuable than diamonds, more on par with oil in terms of its overall potential as a means of production. It has been totally repressed, defamed as an Evil Weed by a massive campaign of lies, stifiling the people's interest in and access to it, and wiping it from the public record for 3 generations. Diamonds, conversely, simply are not that valuable. They are not a means of producing much of anything, but because people have been convinced they are unique symbols of love that they simply, must have, they generate mind-boggling amounts of money. This belief was created with a massive campagin of lies. Cannabis prohition is simply not about "marijuana".Cannabis prohibition makes "pot" or "marijuana"- the popular "drug" part of the cannabis plant - artificially more valuable than gold, which in and of itself is a truly ridiculous thing. What one is supposed to believe and endorse is that "pot smoking is bad, so laws providing penalties for touching it are good: they will help people - and send the right message to children. It is but a sanctimonius veneer on a policy that, stringently enforced, creates a billion-dollar black market industry, and a massive nightmare for law enforcement. 750,000 people were arrested for cannabis-touching in 2001. That is more than the number of people arrested for all other (real) crimes combined. That is a nightmare of squandered resources (money) and effort in our "New America". Despite a $20 billion-a-year prohibition effort, people smoke pot every hour of the day, and lots of it @ 4:20. Might as well prohibit the wind - it does more damage than pot smoking.The total suppression of industrial and medicinal applications of cannabis is where cannabis prohibiton earns it's coffee and donuts. It's outstanding accomplishmnent is the fact that people aren't using it to make paint bases, or distill biofuels, or make fiber, or research medications, or make cereal. This is what's important. Cannabis prohibition is NOT about pot smoking. You don't get arrested for smoking it. You get arrested for touching it (possession), growing it (manufacturing), moving it (trafficking), trading it (trafficking), selling it (trafficking); talking about it on a telephone is conspiracy to traffick and is treated worse than rape in the eyes of the law. Law-abiding business -the good kind - is out of business. If it ever really was about "gettin' high", it isn't any longer and hasn't been for decades. It's about Oil.
"No matter how advanced our economy might be, no matter how sophisticated our equipment becomes, for the foreseeable future we will still depend on fossil fuels." - Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Pontiac, Michigan, September 13, 2000
**************A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.Washington Post 9.14.2002 "The problems that we face will not be solved by the minds that created them"- Albert Einstein
Oil is the dominant means of production at this time, partly due to being so concentrated and powerful, partly because of the repression of natural alternatives. Oil is innately valuable in that things can be done with it: This is what is meant by the term "means of production".
Oil has no perfect substitute. Neither solar cell, nor coal, nor plutonium can run trucks or airplanes. There are theoretical substitutes, but not one shows any promise in the near term of even being developed. It is the lifeblood of the entire global capitalist system, and has been for 100 years. If oil prices go beyond a very operational price of no return, so to speak, the economy will most certainly be contained, very likely to the point of collapse. Imagine the consequences today, for example, if oil prices jumped a mere 50 percent. But if best predictions are correct, and we are entering the era of post-peak production, a steady and accelerating increase in the price of oil is inevitable, and soon.So capitalism itself, utterly dependent on this single finite substance, is faced with a very real and very threatening energy crisis. Progressive (as in gradual) change is now producing an abrupt step-change. We may not perceive it as such yet, because U.S. capitalists are very adept at commodifying the mass-intellect, and making its assertions appear both upright and noble, as we can see in the ubiquitous display of American flags.The Infinite War[See also The End of Oil.]Oil has been formed from solar power trapped and stored in hydrocarbon runoff collected into vast pools and stored under intense heat and pressure for hundreds of millions of years, pre-dating human evolution. Thus I say all the oil in the World belongs to everybody.It is a massive effort to aquire, extract, transport, refine, re-transport, etc... I cannot go out and pump oil myself. I'd just blow myself up trying to make gasoline. All other things being equal (which, of course, they aren't), Im not terribly opposed to paying a fee per gallon to get gasoline. However, it is also going to run out soon, in terms of human generations. No more can be made. Hasta la Vista 93 octane unleaded.There are alternative energy choices - the pryolitic reactor, which makes fuel out of biomass, , the diesel engine, which was developed to run off biodiesel and seedoils, in addition to the potentials of solar and wind. These alternatives are choices essentially denied to us in the USA, still "pooh-poohed" in the highly controlled mass media, either as primitive tools, or as futuristic "pie-in-the-sky". "Theoretical Substitutes".The Oil companies developed a diesel fuel out of petroleum and managed subsequently to monopolize petroleum as the primary fue for the 20th century. This was done by stifling alternative energy research, and to no small extent demonizing the cannabis plant. Even the article above, The Infinite War - written by a retired Army General - as well-researched as it appears, doesn't mention the issue with biofuels (even the spell checker didn't recognize it!). All in all, alternative fuel technologies are thoroghly suppressed. Oil's running out and people don't seem to want to discuss them. What's up with that?[See: Table: Decline in oil production and International Workshop on Oil Depletion]DiamondsSimilarly, diamonds are the by-product of evolutionary forces, transpiring over a billion years, and percolated to the surface by volcanic and tectonic forces. Diamond mines are largely excavations into deceased volcano cores. Aside from the fascinating fact of being pure carbon, they are merely sparkely rocks with little use outside of some tool-making (drill bits/saw blades) and jewelry. They can't build houses or keep us warm, weave fabrics, feed people, light our homes, or make fuel-oils. "You certainly can't smoke 'em", says a friend of mine (He's a pothead...) They suck in brownies...While not plentiful as sand, diamonds are so plentiful that their awesome value has to be based upon and maintained by lies, deciet, and prohibition, not on any innate worth. Diamonds, therefore, are NOT a means of production. The ScamBoth diamonds and oil have thier respective values artificially maintained by different applications of laws prohibiting people from touching certain specified naturally-occuring things:
by suppressing alternative means of production, not just alternative fuels, the value of OIL is kept artificial. OPEC raises or lowers production to increase or decrease its price. Suppression of cannabis protects this monopoly by preventing development of cannabis industries as a competitive means of production. Just as prohibition is not about "pot smoking", the monopoly is not just about fuel oils or gasoline, but fiber, plastics, paper, celluose, as well as medicines. Fuel technologies are just one aspect of a means of production.
Diamond values are kept artificially high by thorough control of mines and supplies, limiting production and maintaining the image of diamonds as valuable, desirable, and rare. And also by legislation: by the Precious Stones act of 1927 which prohibits touching "unregistered diamonds". There are 2 points here: the first is that each of these items is handled in a way that "legally" prevents 99% of the human population from sharing in the innate wealth that can apparently be generated and funnels it into the pockets of the 1 %. The second is that the market is not truly free. It's somewhat similar to allowing "microgiant" to petiton the government to prohibit "macfruit computers", and then vigorously make sure all these competing computers are confiscated. Computers are primarily tools, not means of production though - the stakes are exponetially higher. The market is vastly unfree.It is often argued that this process exacerbates the presence of poverty on planet Earth. This policy, though, is vigorously defended as good and desirable - even righteous - by those who profit from it and they have convinced a large number of people, off of whom they feed, to participate enthusiastically in it. The rise of the consumer society is submitted as sufficient evidence of this.Manifest Destiney and the origin of the Consumer Society[This is an excerpt from a document credited as the beginning of the Manifest Destiny concept. I can't read more than a couple sentences at a time without treating my nausea. Forgive me for including so much, but I felt it was essential to drive home how full of themselves these people were. Think of how the author may have percieved the 2000 Election Circus.]
America is destined for better deeds. It is our unparalleled glory that we have no reminiscences of battle fields, but in defence of humanity, of the oppressed of all nations, of the rights of conscience, the rights of personal enfranchisement. Our annals describe no scenes of horrid carnage, where men were led on by hundreds of thousands to slay one another, dupes and victims to emperors, kings, nobles, demons in the human form called heroes. We have had patriots to defend our homes, our liberties, but no aspirants to crowns or thrones; nor have the American people ever suffered themselves to be led on by wicked ambition to depopulate the land, to spread desolation far and wide, that a human being might be placed on a seat of supremacy. We have no interest in the scenes of antiquity, only as lessons of avoidance of nearly all their examples. The expansive future is our arena, and for our history. We are entering on its untrodden space, with the truths of God in our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts, and with a clear conscience unsullied by the past. We are the nation of human progress, and who will, what can, set limits to our onward march? Providence is with us, and no earthly power can. We point to the everlasting truth on the first page of our national declaration, and we proclaim to the millions of other lands, that "the gates of hell" -- the powers of aristocracy and monarchy -- "shall not prevail against it."John L. O'Sullivan on Manifest Destiny, 1839 See also: Manifest Destiny Discussion.Manifest Destiny is a concept, "born" in the early 1800's, that grossly simplified says the Earth, not just North America, was put here by God for White People's use. It's philosophy and values set the stage, so to speak, for the modern American Society, which I often call the "Consumer Society" because of its single-minded devotion to aquiring things as a measure of personal success.Occuring roughly at the dawn of the Industrial Age, this "philosophy" promoted the perspective that the earth is "ours for the taking", a resource essentially to be claimed, plundered and commidified. The industrial revolution chugged on, spreading "progress" far and wide, oblivious to and without regard for environmental or social impact. It constantly proclaimed it's rightousness - and hasn't stopped.Along the way it developed the concept of mass production and reinforced the "disposable, one-use, single-serving" values that sort of identify modern Consumer Society. This is due in part to the belief that, ultimately, they are going to be whisked from this life soon to be with God. The Earth will be empty, except for "sinners" and others God doesn't like. Manifest Destiny, somewhere deep in it's flowery descriptions of its high and mighty ideals, supported slavery, and the concept of lessor peoples. Pollution is a non-issue, global warming is a non-issue, species exstinction is not an issue - and the suffering of non-whites is not an issue - because God put all this here for white people, anyway. People have become commodities to be exploited just like oil or diamonds or water. I think this is called "class structure".(I argue that lingering vestiges of this are manifested in the racial disparity of all drug law enforcement.)Again grossly oversimplified, what I refer to as the "Consumer Society" grew out of this milieu, America's experience with slavery, and with the ethnic cleansing of Native Peoples. [1]After slavery was "abolished", the Peonage System rose essentially maintaining the "best part" of slavery:
One of the most striking features of the economy of the South in the early 20th century was the extent to which its farms, plantations, mines, and mills availed themselves of a system of forced labor known as "peonage." This system developed from the practice of holding laborers in debt and forcing them to remain on the premises of their creditors to work off the debt. Peon laborers were thus bound to their masters' firms or plantations, often by means of violence and intimidation. Because the overwhelming majority of peon laborers were black, the system served to entrench racial as well as class divisions throughout the South. Peonage Files of the US DOJ The firms and plantations have been replaced by huge national and transnational corporations. Their goal is to get control of commodities as cheaply and as exclusively as possibly, then try to get each human being to cough up as much money as possible for each unit as they buy them back. They need a constantly flowing pipeline from your pocket to thiers in order for it all to run. The underlying market structure and values are basically like the board game Monopoly, except that it's administered very aggressively like war: lying, cheating, stealing , and killing people are all necessary parts to sustain it. Tobacco and Enron are a wonderful examples. Water Privatization is the next huge scam. Violating the rights of the little guy and the Laws of Nations is all in a days work.(See: The Infinte War and exceprts from The Grand Chessboard)Slaves to the Grind The Consumer Society of Modern America (you can also call it the rat race) would not be what it is without millions of people being able to both consume mass produced things and get easily into debt. Credit historically made it easy to buy cars and homes, but monopolies needed people to consume frequently, regularly - daily, impulsively. The introduction of the "credit card" completed the transformation of American Society from a nation defined by family farms, small business, and self-reliance - and all those radiant concepts glorified by Mr. O'Sullivan - into a massive peonage system. The credit card is really a "debt card": your portable gateway to extended peonage. No need to remain on the plantation, "feel free" to come and go as you please, but you gotta pay the man. (at least once every 30 days.)People work longer and longer hours, 2 and three jobs sometimes, to" make ends meet". They buy more and more, tricked into believing material consumption and material possessions reflect success, stautus, wealth, and taste. The best dressed, most comfy slaves in history, they believe this so blindly many Americans are in serious credit card debt.
In 2001, between 2 million and 2.5 million people nationwide felt the need to seek assistance from a credit counseling agency, which may come as no surprise given recent statistics on consumer debt. According to the Federal Reserve, non-secured consumer debt rose from $1.2 trillion in 1996 to $1.65 trillion in 2001. Consumer bankruptcy filings jumped from 1.2 million in 2000, to 1.5 million in 2001. Credit Card debt now averages $8,562 per household.Luthern Social Services Press Release(See: The Overspent American and Redefining the American Dream and 1998 Predictions of VISA)
This is one huge way "capital" - as well as "life" - is sucked out of people. Like a sort of handout, people get hooked on credit and leverage themselves deep into debt - peonage, essentially. This is exactly where massive transnational corporations want and need the 99%. It keeps people dependent on seeking work, going to work or going home to sleep. Those that work have funds to pay thier bills. Those that don't eventually get labled as "sponging off the system", or as "surplus population". Again, it's all legal and good, and evidence of the progress of man, I'm told. And it's going global.
Advertising and Reefer Madness
"gotta have a jones for this, a jones for thatI wonder who got her thinking like that...This runnin' with the Jones just ain't where it's at..."Boz Scaggs - Dirty LowdownAdvertising is what pulls this stunt off so well. Advertising is what enabled, aided, nurtured, and abetted the romanticization of "the Stone" and demonization of "the Plant". American Corporations spend something in the neighborhood of $250,000,000,000 on advertising their stuff each year. People are bathed in hi-powered advertising all their waking hours, at least in populous areas with electricty and media. Advertising blares incessantly from the radio, the TV [2], billboards, newspapers, magazines, on the sides of busses and trucks to the back of taxis. People or machines call you on the phone. Somebody is always wanting to interrupt your stream of consciousness in a rude attempt to make you buy something you seem to have done well-enough without thus far. They are the ones "who got her thinkin like that".Randolph Hearst sold newspapers basically as a way to make money off wood pulp - he didn't give a damn if people could even read them. However, newspaper stories used to sell these pulpy papers had long been used to demonize the Native Americans, and justify America's brutal ethnic cleasing of the entire continent. The stories have mostly turned out to be distortions of self-defense, terrible misunderstandings, but not least - heinous fabrications. (I often wonder how badly things would have gone if the Internet and mass media had been around then to counter all the lies told about natives. See: Native American Testimony by Peter Nabakov - a book - if you are unclear on exactly how badly the Natives were screwed, or if "Trail of Tears" doesn't ring a bell.) [1]Anyway, a man named Harry Anslinger - an agent of the US Federal Government - and Hearst, already fond of demonizing Natives and Mexicans, made up outrageous and infamous lies. Anslinger crafted the template for all future prohibitonist propaganda with the bizarre claim that smoking pot would turn you into an instant insane ax-murderer....and people bought it! Ugly story after ugly story - all lies - went to print in the Hearst Papers. People simply believed it (possibly leading to the phrase "hey, they bought it"). They loved it at the theaters when" Reefer Madness" was released, bringing Anslingers mega-lies to the silver screen. 65 years -3 generations - later the masses still buy it even though there isn't a lot of credible evidence that pot is much more harmful the the questionable act of inhaling smoke, and numerous well-done and Government-commissioned studies fully refute Anslingers poisonous mythology. [Look up "yellow journalism" on your favorite search engine.]It is worthwhile to note that despite all the horrible things Anslinger did to create Reefer Madness, he did make specific effort to see that hemp seed and fiber was NOT included in all the prohibition efforts. He intended for the hemp industry to continue unmolested. That was fully suppressed after the end of WWII.[See the movie Grass. It is billed as "entertaining", and it is, but it is an outstanding cataloging of the evolution of cannabis propaganda.]Reefer Madness and Protection of Corporate MonopoliesAdvertisers livelihood, all $250 billion of it, is to craft ways to make people believe a certain thing about a product (or person) and attempt to "make" people want to have/get/consume that item (or vote for that person): to effect a desired behavioral follow-thru. Sure some things we need, but they don't need hi-priced, hi-power ads to make us want them, but it is needed to make us buy the brands the pay the advertisers. There's nothing wrong with brands, either. Business is life.But there is a massive ethical abyss one falls into using high-powered advertising to make people believe and buy things that are not true, or cover up heinous acts. "Advertising" becomes "Propaganda" when that happens. And it happens all the time.Speaking of propaganda.... the Partnership for a Drug-Free (marijuana-free) America is made up of Pharmaceutical companies("pharms") and by Advertising Agencies. Pharmaceutical companies are among the biggest clients of advertisers, pushing a kaleidescope of medications and drugs, not all of them necessarily effective or safe, often with just a slick TV ad and the blurb: "Ask your doctor if "such-and-such pill" is right for you". No need to even ask what the pill is, just ask your doctor, and buy the drug. Many of them have potentially serious side-effects and are quite expensive. But don't smoke pot! [Watch the nightly News on commerical television - particularly CBS. Count the medication commericals in the 30 minute period, listen to how side-effects are presented.]While nobody suggests the legalization of cannabis would undermine the solidity of the massive petrochemical industries (that is apparently what CEO's are for), they would lose "a little off the top" to genuine competition in a free market. That happens to be totally unacceptable though, and nothing is too extreme, unlawful, or unethical, when it comes to profits.For example - Pharms could see cannabis-based medicine take perhaps 10% of its profits upon leglization, based on the number of people who have access to the usual medications who state over and over those drugs do not work for them. They could lose a lot more once real research is allowed, unless the Pharms did their own. Verifiable knowledge of the cannabis plant is prohibited as well, at least in the USA - other countries are forging ahead with medical and industrial research. Pharms would continue to research and develop important medicines and treatment. (The US is also the only member of the G8 that doesn't have an industrial hemp industry.)[see: G.W. Phamaceuticals]Unfriendly Fire
All will pay who disagree with me...- Steppenwolf Note that the US Federal government doesn't just refuse to recognize medical marijuana. It is so hostile towards medical cannabis it wages a war against states that have made legal recognition of it. They are so serious about this no exception whatsoever is made between serious criminals who grow for profit and those who run bona fide clinics and hospices, even in model compliance with state laws. The DEA has dramatically stepped up its raids on medical cannabis facilities in California and Oregon since September 11th. They have dynamited clinic doors, pointed shotguns at people in wheelchairs, and destroyed thousands of highly evolved medical cannabis plants. They have recieved an outpouring of angry responses from powerful state officials and commissioners of numerous cities but keep on kickin'. [See: WAMM Raid before and after photos]They have arrested more than 25 persons in these raids on medical cannabis facilities in California, but only 1 "terrorist": an ugly show of Federal priorities and hatred. Terrorists even get more leeway in court. This is because Medical cannabis is a bigger threat to the Pharms than drug traffickers. Pharms are part of the petrochemical industry, which is part of the oil monopoly. The Federal Government is run by in large part by longtime oil corporation insiders, including the President and Vice President. There even was, until recently, a Chevron oil tanker named the "Condaleeza Rice" for crying out loud. Hint, Hint...(See also: cannabisnow.org and Americans for Safe Access for more information about the Federal war against medical cannabis.)The biggest lie advertisers push, aside from "a diamond is forever", where "advertising" is really "propaganda", is Reefer Madness - the massive lie that cannabis is "mean and evil, wicked and nasty" and socially unacceptable: bad for you, with no known uses outside of making ax-murderers and funding mean old terrorists. This is to make people continue to de-value cannabis's potential, slander it in the mass media, to make discussion of it impossible to take seriously, especially when news of that potential explodes from around the world and is still dredging up buried history of its use through the ages. It's all smugly presented as "caring about the children" or "saving lives", or "patriotism" but it's quite clear the few who benefit from the results of all this propaganda and prohibition (often referred to colloquially as "they") couldn't care less about you or me. We're surplus population, commodities to pump money into their off-shore accounts. Sparkley Rock Prohibition
Retail sales of diamond jewelry totaled 56 billion dollars last year worldwide. And nearly half of all the diamond jewelry in the world is sold in the United States. Of those diamonds destined for the U.S., all but a few of them pass through the Diamond District in New York. This district includes the blocks surrounding 47th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. De Beers practically invented diamond marketing: a diamond is forever is the most recognized ad slogan line of the 20th century, according to Advertising Age. Ninety percent of all Americans know it. ARWOnce I started reading the history of diamonds, how sparkley rocks have become the embodiment of Love, I understood where much of the concept for James Bond came from. The history of diamonds is better than fiction. It's wild. When one looks at, it is seen that "they" will do anything, will go any distance to screw humankind out of what rightfully belongs to everybody. And shining a light on how rocks bring in $56 billion a year sheds light on how 3 generations of people could have had proper information about cannabis expunged and withheld from it.Diamonds are worthless, actually: they are basically sparkely rocks. Really cool rocks - no doubt; cool and a dollar gets you a cup of coffee (donuts are extra). But they way they have been made so valuable is exactly the same way that cannabis has been demonized - huge lies backed with powerful, pervasive advertising campaigns deliberately intent on changing the beliefs and values of whole countries. A light shined on diamond history shows how powerful advertising can be and how global monopolies are built and maintained. Like the construction of hot dogs, it's not a pretty sight. It would make great TV.Until the 1860's or so diamonds were only valuable because they were thought to be extremely scarce.Then diamonds were discovered all over South Africa. In deceased volcano cores - called diamond pipes (snicker, snicker) - along hundreds of miles of river beds and lying openly in the sand dunes, as in Sierra Leone. Diamonds were, of course, immediatly devalued.
Since then, one company has controlled almost all the diamonds on the planet - the De Beers Corporation, founded in South Africa by Cecil Rhodes. But the De Beers people haven't mined only diamonds; they've mined the American psyche to create a marketing juggernaut. "The first effect of discovering kimberlites was that it converted diamonds from a rare gem to an industrial product like copper or any other product that you can mine," said writer Edward Jay Epstein, whose 1982 book The Diamond Invention cast a sharp light on the diamond trade. Epstein says the discovery of kimberlite mines touched off a frenzy that propelled thousands of prospectors into fierce competition. And when the kimberlite gems hit western markets in the late 1800s, diamond prices plummeted from 500 dollars to ten cents a carat. *******
In 1910 Ernest Oppenheimer wrote 'Common sense tells us that the only way to increase the value of diamonds is to make them scarce, that is to reduce the production.' An uncontrolled flood of diamonds from the small mines onto the world market threatened the Syndicate's control of the market. So, in the interests of the diamond syndicate, Anglo American and De Beers, the South African government prepared new legislation. The Precious Stones Act of 1927 made it illegal to be found in possession of any diamond not registered with the police.[note: I have searched for more text on the Act, but have found just what is included. I originally heard it on PBS Frontline's "The Diamond Empire". It was an excellent program. Search for it now and you find a 2 paragraph blurb. It seems Frontline was "talked into" (coerced) into removing it. Read The Diamond Investigation for a bit more about that.]******In South Africa, most diamond mines were volcanic pipes, which could be isolated behind electrified ten-foot high barbwire fences. In central and west Africa, however, most diamonds were "mined" from streambeds that meandered over tens of thousands of miles of jungle. To recover these diamonds, natives needed only a shovel and a pan. Even though the governments had granted concessions to various diamond mining companies associated with De Beers, and had in theory banned anyone else from digging for diamonds, it was in practice impossible to enforce these regulations.So you can't grow a common plant and you cannot touch diamonds laying on the ground in your own country. Ain't Law grand?The Diamond Invention
The diamond invention was an ingenious scheme for sustaining the value of diamonds in an uncertain world. To begin with, it involved gaining control over the production of all the important diamond mines in the world. Next, a system was devised for allocating this controlled supply of gems to a select number of diamond cutters who all agreed to abide by certain rules intended to assure that the quantity of finished diamonds available at any given time never exceeded the public's demand for them. Finally, a set of subtle, but effective, incentives were devised for regulating the behavior of all the people who served and ultimately profited from the system.The invention had a wide array of diverse parts: these included a huge stockpile of uncut diamonds in a vault in London; a billion-dollar cash hoard deposited in banks in Europe; and private intelligence network operating out of Antwerp, Tel Aviv, Johannesburg and London; a global network of advertising agencies, brokers and distributors; corporate fronts in Africa for concealing massive diamond purchases; and private treaties with nations establishing quotas for annual production.***********The sights in London thus are not merely occasions for major gem manufacturers to select the uncut diamonds that they wish to purchase but an integral part of the mechanism through which De Beers establishes and maintains the value of diamonds. Through these ten events a year De Beers extends its control from the diamond mines of Africa to the cutting factories of Belgium, Israel, India, and the United States. And through its clients-whose fortunes depend heavily on the contents of the shoe boxes they receive-De Beers is able to monitor and regulate the flow of diamonds that pass through the world pipeline into the retail market. The stakes are undisputably high in this game.***********The invention is far more than merely a monopoly for fixing diamond prices; it is a mechanism for converting tiny crystals of carbon into universally recognized tokens of power and romance. For it to ultimately succeed, it must endow these stones with the sort of sentiment that would inhibit the public from ever reselling them onto the market. The illusion thus had to be inculcated into the mass mind that diamonds were forever-- "forever" in the sense that they could never be resold.Basically, the Debeers people crafted the most effective propaganda campaign ever with "a diamond is forever". This campaign equated love and individuality with something inherently worthless and masterfully exploited it for commercial gain. It caused people to fully believe something easily demonstrable as meaningless. There is nothing illegal about it. Ethics, again, are another story. (We don't need no stinkin' ethics!)If a toaster doesn't toast, you can take it back. Complain. If it sets your house on fire, you can sue. If you get divorced, Can you sue DeBeers? No. Do we get our 2-months salary (plus court costs) returned? No.A diamond is a lie. The meaning is simply made-up. It doesnt mean "love" at all - unless you and your significant other decide it does. But have you decided because that is what you 2 want? or have you simply bought into the lie?A handful of people 80 years ago decided to make hundreds of millions people believe something untrue and wanted them to feel on the wrong side of public opinion if they didn't go along.
De Beers and Ayer set out to create a new myth that would make the diamond engagement ring a necessity for every couple. It quickly proved so profitable that De Beers spent about half a million pounds every year of the Second World War, a vast sum in those days, to ensure this myth was believed by all Americans. An Ayer report of August 1940 stated that it had prepared and placed in 9 months 3,500 diamond movie stories and 16,500 diamond news stories. Diamond stories were placed in all high circulation magazines, including in Readers Digest, in the New York Evening News, in Brides Magazine and in teenage periodicals******De Beers ran a series of 'patriotic advertisements' explaining every gem diamond purchased helped fund the production of industrial diamonds. This wasn't strictly true. De Beers already had in its vaults nearly all the gems it was marketing. It had closed the mines that produced the best gems and tool diamonds at the outbreak of war, leaving open only the Congo mines that produced at the cheapest cost the poorer quality industrial diamonds it was supplying to American industry...*******... The American Justice Department fumed: 'This form of profiteering is the more obnoxious because it involves a most vital war material and because it has been accompanied by pious public professions of sacrifice... they are making a profit of 200 to 300%'... Sparkle.comFirst the US, then Japan -
In Japan, the matrimonial custom had survived feudal revolutions, world wars, industrialization and even the American occupation. Up until the mid-1960s, Japanese parents arranged proper marriages for their children through trusted 'intermediaries. The ceremony was then consummated, according to Shinto law, by the bride and groom both drinking rice wine from the same wooden bowl. This simple arrangement had persisted for more than a millennium. There was no tradition for romance, courtship, seduction and prenuptial love in Japan; and no tradition that required the gift of a diamond engagement ring.Then, in 1967, halfway around the world, a South African diamond company decided to change the Japanese courtship ritual. It retained J. Walter Thompson, the largest advertising agency in the world, to embark on a campaign to popularize diamond engagement rings in Japan. It was not an easy task. Even the quartering of millions of American soldiers in Japan for a decade had not resulted in any substantial Japanese interest in giving diamonds as a token of love.Until 1959 the importation of diamonds had not even been permitted by the postwar Japanese government.When the campaign began in 1968, less than 5 percent of Japanese women getting married received a diamond engagement ring. By 1972 the proportion had risen to 27 percent. By 1978, half of all Japanese women who were married wore a diamond on their ring finger. And, by 1981, some 6o percent of Japanese brides wore diamonds. In a mere thirteen years, the fifteen-hundred-year Japanese tradition was radically revised.Edward J. Epstein[go read the entire page of this link -I was tempted to include the whole thing.]I hope the point about the immense power of advertising and propaganda is fairly clear. The Once and Future Superplant
Modern technology was about to be applied to hemp production, making it the number one agricultural resource in America. Two of the most respected and influential journals in the nation, Popular Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering, forecast a bright future for American hemp. Thousands of new products creating millions of new jobs heralded the end of the Great Depression. Instead hemp was persecuted, outlawed, and forgotten at the bidding of W. R. Hearst who branded hemp the Mexican killer weed, marijuana.[Further].....in light of subsequent developments (e.g., biomass energy technology, building materials, etc.), we now know that hemp is the world's most important ecological resource and therefore, potentially our planet's single largest industry.Electric Emperor.comThe full weight and power of the advertising industry has been brought to bear on it, whether about Hemp, or medical usage, or personal, to defame it's character, to slander it's potential, and demonize it's existence and supporters.The same effort that went into lying about diamonds, if not more, has been expended by government and private corporations alike to cause generations of Americans and other nations to forget about the commerical and medical potential of the cannabis plant. Because it can't be patented or monopolized, it is suppressed. Now that Oil is on the wane, this issue is merely going to become more important.Among modern reform efforts Cannabis is often presented as "just" a natural and renewable resource, or it's "just" for medical reasons, or just for food. This is quite true, but the intent is to "compartmentalize" cannabis as one thing or another is a means of "sanitizing it", justifying it in terms laid down by the Overseers of Consumer Society. The Hemp Industry, for example, tries hard to avoid the "marijuana" label, to the point of saying they are actually 2 separate plants ("Hemp: marijuana's cousin" or something like that.) Without the hell of prohibition foist upon us everybody but fools would know hemp has no joyous recreational properties. And they wouldn't have to bend over backwards to promote their industry. Or provide the DEA with its GPS coodinates, so they can watch it by satellite. Your taxes hard at work.The point I wish to drive home is that cannabis must be looked at "synergystically": it simply transcends the sum of it's myriad uses. It is more than just "medicine" or "soap" or "fiber", or "herb". It is a complete Means of Production - just like oil - but without oil's 3 main drawbacks: pollution, pollution, and pollution.Cannabis is the "Superplant" - an environmentally (and socially) friendy, low-cost, sustainable, renewable well-spring of a natural resource, capable of producing many, many very different things. It belongs on every farm, right along with corn and soybeans. Both those plants can be made into a myriad of things as well, but cannabis simply and handily outdoes either in terms of ease of growing and variety of by-products. Imagine banning corn or soybeans. After all, corn makes whiskey, a dangerous and addictive (and flammable) drug that often is used by children. Bizarre concept, yes? Same issue with cannabis really. It's Crop prohibition. Farm Prohibition. Self-reliance -and- autonomy prohibition. Free market prohibition. Consume and be dependent on the products of an artifical monopoly, squandering your innate worth in pursuit of shiny things.Since somebody invaribly annoys us with what is technically a non-sequiter of a question: "what about these rumors of marijuana being much more potent"?, let's look at that now. This is one of the single biggest ploys used to derail "drug and non-drug" discussions of cannabis reform, aside from "What about the children?". A number of factors play into this appearence: The pure propaganda of the Federal Government, the absence of meaningful "THC Data" from the 1960's, improper growing and storage, but not the least being intentional breeding of desired qualities. Just like corn, pigs, beans, tomatos, lab mice, etc...cannabis can be easily manipulated to produce desired strains. All of these factors have combined together to make current testing of thc levels probably fairly meaningless. With all industrial and medicial applications vehemently prohibited, only the recreational growth and research aspect has been able to flourish, and yes, it has improved. Cannabis can doubtlessly be bred to produce not only better and more potent marijuana, but also diverse fibers, specific medications, specific qualities of hempseed oils, and so on are possible. Aside from jet fuel and gasoline- and engagement rings - cannabis appears to be able to fabricate what ever one wants to imagine. That's why it's suppressed.Cannabis as a means of Production
Gimme fuel, Gimme fire, Gimme that which I desire!"Metallica
Iso-chanvre (chanvre is French for hemp),a rediscovered French building material made form hemp hurds mixed with lime, actually petrifies into a mineral state and lasts for many centuries. Archeologists have found a bridge in the south of France, from the Merovingian period, built with this process. Hemp has been used throughout history for carpet backing. Hemp fiber has potential in the manufacture of strong, rot-resistant carpeting--eliminating the poisonous fumes of burning synthetic materials in a house or commercial fire, along with allergic reactions associated with new synthetic carpeting, which may outgas volatile toxic fumes for months or even years, endangering human health.Plastic plumbing pipes (PVC pipes) can be manufactured using renewable hemp cellulose as the chemical feedstocks, replacing nonrenewable coal or petroleum-based chemical feedstocks.So we can envision a house of the future built, plumbed, painted, and furnished with the world's number-one renewable resource--hemp.******A cotton shirt in 1776 cost $100 to $200, while a hemp shirt cost $0.50 to $1. By the 1830s, cooler, lighter cotton shirts were on par in price with the warmer, heavier, hampen shirts, providing a competitive choice, thanks to government subsidies.People were able to choose their garments based upon the particular qualities they wanted in a fabric. Today we have no such choice. Conventional cotton growing, which depletes and pollutes our nonrenewable resources, is still heavily subsidized by the government, masking the true costs of production and costs to the environment, whereas hemp is not allowed to be grown at all in the US (hopefully this is changing, for our planet's sake!).The role of hemp and other natural fibers should be determined by the market of supply and demand and personal tastes and values, not by the undue influence of prohibition laws, federal subsidies and huge tariffs that are designed to keep the natural fabrics from replacing synthetic fibers. Sixty years of government suppression of information has resulted in virtually no public knowledge of the incredible potential of the hemp fiber or its uses.By using 100% hemp or mixing hemp with cotton, you will be able to pass on your shirts, pants, and other clothing to your grandchildren.Intelligent spending could essentially replace the use of petrochemical synthetic fibers such as nylon and polyester with tougher, cheaper, cool, absorbent, breathable, biodegradable natural fibers such as hemp and flax.Rawganique.comIn the early 20th century Rudolph diesel invented an engine specifically designed to produce usable - serious - power off of farm by-products. Biodiesel was that product. By the early 1930's it was largely perfected for the time and was state-of-the art. In the late 1930's an oil-based diesel fuel was developed and biofuels were shelved. I have grown up with people desparaging the diesel engine:I think I now know why. The more I think about all this the more I am interested in a certain reputable 24 valve DOHC inline 6 turbodiesel engine. Imagine engines like that and plentiful fuel to run them. No scare stories about decaying into a post-industrial stone age. No need to push ahead with an unjust and unwanted war.Also in the 1930's was when cannabis was fully demonized, morphed by wealthy men from agricultural staple and emerging Superplant into an Evil, insanity-producing Weed and it remains viciously repressed to this date. Oil was to be the dominant fuel, indeed the dominant means of production, of the 20th Century, causing a billion people to purchase and become dependent on vast spectrum of products from a handful of people and nothing was gonna cut in on that gig.
We believe that the main reason hemp is illegal today is because of biodiesel's potential. The first diesel engines (by Rudolph Diesel in 1894) were invented to run on hempseed oil; petroleum wasn't synthesized to mimic hempseed oil for over a decade. Therefore hempseed oil was the primary fuel for automobiles for over 30 years after the invention of the first internal combustion engine.Entry into the biodiesel market has very low capital entry requirements and is, therefore, not centralized. Among the benefits of using biodiesel:
Start an economic boom!
Use vegetable seed oil (biodiesel).
Run any diesel engine with no engine conversion at all.
Make biodiesel from hemp, soybean, rapeseed/canola and safflower seed oil
Save family farms. [3]
Return economic control to the people!
Naturally decentralize wealth.
Stop global warming.
Stop A lot of toxic pollution.
Create a useful byproduct: food. CRRH[See also: Popular Mechanics "Billion Dollar" Crop Article from 1938]The Sacred Hoop
Now, my friend, let us smoke together so that there may be only good between us.- Black ElkSo, the primacy of oil, the value of diamonds and the uselessness and evil of cannabis are all gigantic lies perpetuated by a few, vast corporations, via the application of hi-powered advertising, in concert with government laws specifically prohibiting people from touching cannabis and diamonds. This results in hoarded wealth and control over the masses. Kept in debt, constantly giving money to the 1% one way or another, we are talking about millions of people in peonage to a few. People die for these lies hourly. Lives are ruined, whole peoples oppressed, countries destabilized; being global, it doesn't get any bigger or uglier. America under G. W. Bush is going to attack Iraq to get at 112 billion barrels of pure power and profit.Sooner or later though, Iraq or no Iraq, Colombia or no Colombia (it's about oil too), Oil will become so expensive the consumer society won't work. We will not go sliding into the stone age as oil propanda would have us believe. Things will change, probably be re-arranged. Worse things could happen, says dear old Dad. But when the monoply is dissolved the hoarded wealth will begin to be re-arranged. Tied deeply to the demonization of cannabis is the idea that people legally growing it could be growing "money", essentially. Cannabis could continue to be sold for "drug" purposes" - though I would expect the profits to fall sharply upon legalization. The only reason marijuana is currently valued more than gold, ounce for ounce, is because of prohibition which increases the risk of transporting it. If I could grow my own - without fear of ruination, imprisonment, forfieture of my home, or being shot to death by Federal Pot-NAZIs (No pot for you!) - I'd not be giving money to people for it. More likely is that legal cannabis would jump-start America's near-dead family farm. [3] Industrial hemp demand should far outstrip demands for recreational cannabis, and medical-grade cannabis for smoking is already healthily established in North America, despite the guerilla war being waged by the DEA. Unlike diamonds, no lie needs be concocted, no advertising bought. Cannabis's innate value as a potent means of production would take care of that.The aversion to this sort of freedom seems basically unchanged from the time white culture despised the successes of the native way of living.[1] The notion one can live owing little or nothing to someone else, free to do as one sees fit and necesasary is simply heresy in the context of the consumer society. The Spirit of Freedom - living in harmony with the earth, living sustainably, even the rebirth of the Native People's Sacred Hoop to include all peoples - is deeply tied into this whole scenario, but beyond the scope of this article.And again, Jack Herer is totally correct - I always thought he was overstating the case: Cannabis can essentially save the world. See: The Emporer wears no Clothes in pdfJust the ending of cannabis prohibition will save countless lives, help throw a wrench into this sinful massive hoarding of wealth, and maybe, just maybe, tip the scales back towards "Fair" a little tiny bit. Just a bit - there's still lots of ways to screw humankind, so there's no need for the fat cats to get all sweaty.Combine cannabis legalization along with unsuppressed development of solar and wind, and oil is reduced to it's proper place - an important but not dominant means of production. Since it is running out it would seem smart to try and use it as wisely and sparingly as possible. Instead of depleting oil and polluting the atmosphere and poisoning the environment, allowing cannabis to do its thing would be a more conservative and harmonius way of addressing the uses of multiple means of production. I hate to use such heretical languge, but it's Natural.Ending the monopoly of oil would be a step towards more equitable and natural distribution of world "capital". As long as cannabis is prohibited, markets are not free. It would let Light shine in on the Dark Age of Petroleum Man, to intervene in and halt its crimes of greed and excess. To turn the world back from Infinite War. To snuff out the fire of "terrorism". Address poverty and starvation at home and abroad. To rebuild the Sacred Hoop. It is an opportunity to do something massively harmonious. The natural flourishing of multiple sustainable means of production whose technologies are here, in conjunction with efficient use of oil, offers a future of plentiful energy and material necessities to be spread around. The resources of the Natural World can be shared with everybody in peace, not hoarded by a tiny handful of people and secured by lies, razorwire and armies.xxdr_zombiexx9.22.2002Footnotes and dangling ideas:
Ever see the footage from Africa with the massive herds of water buffalo spanning across the panorama? Bison during the Native's Time were the same way: huge mobile seas of robust animals. The Native Peoples, in additon to "living of the land" specifically lived off of the bison, and the deer. Meat, hide, sinew for stitching to make clothes out of hide, fat for soap, bone for needles, etc... All of it contributed to the succes of the native lifestyle.White society, full of Manifest Destiny and covetous of Native Terrirtories, devalued and despised the freedom and self-reliance of the Native people. It's very clear this sort of living off nature for "free" would not be tolerated in the Modern Consumer America. As slavery morphed into the peonage system, white man had decided to end the Native way of living by eliminating their means of production - the bison.The bison were slaughtered by the millions. The Natives faced the choice of capitulating to the Reservation System or starve and be hunted by soldiers. What they called the Sacred Hoop was smashed by the " Progress of Man". With the reservation system came depedence on the government for handouts - death to their free lifestyle - and the slow suffocation of the remains of their culture. Read Peter Nabakov - Native American Testimony See also : Healing the Sacred Hoop, which is really good.The native people's historic lifestyle, as well as the lifestyles and cultures of "primitive peoples' around the world, have invaluable knowledge and tremendous wisdom to share with the so-called "modern" world in terms of developing a sustainable and rich way of life without burning a million barrels of oil each day. There is apparently a lot more to life than a great lease on an SUV.
The TV is in a class by itself. It is, essentially, a very powerful drug: addictive, hypnotic, narcotic, seducing people into suspending their reflective thought in order to simply passively recieve any and all messages broadcast. TV is so powerful that "if it's not on TV is ain't real: and If I saw it on TV it must be true". People really do buy into this. I cannot stress enough how important I think it is for people to have an extremely critical eye towards TV and TV advertising. The Power of TV elevates advertising and propaganda to something as close to "mind control" as we'd like for these sorts of people to get. Just my perspective.
Small versus large farms... According to a 1992 U.S. Agricultural Census report, relatively smaller farm sizes are 2 to 10 times more productive per unit acre than larger ones. The smallest farms surveyed in the study, those of 27 acres or less, are more than ten times as productive (in dollar output per acre) than large farms (6,000 acres or more), and extremely small farms (4 acres or less) can be over a hundred times as productive. In a last-gasp effort to save their efficiency myth, agribusinesses will claim that at least larger farms are able to make more efficient use of farm labor and modern technology than are smaller farms. Even this claim cannot be maintained. There is virtual consensus that larger farms do not make as good use of even these production factors because of management and labor problems inherent in large operations. Mid-sized and many smaller farms come far closer to peak efficiency when these factors are calculated. It is generally agreed that an efficient farming system would be immensely beneficial for society and our environment. It would use the fewest resources for the maximum sustainable food productivity. Heavily influenced by the "bigger is better" myth, we have converted to industrial agriculture in the hopes of creating a more efficient system. We have allowed transnational corporations to run a food system that eliminates livelihoods, destroys communities, poisons the earth, undermines biodiversity, and doesn't even feed the people. All in the name of efficiency. It is indisputable that this highly touted modern system of food production is actually less efficient, less productive than small-scale alternative farming. It is time to reembrace the virtues of small farming, with its intimate knowledge of how to breed for local soils and climates; its use of generations of knowledge and techniques like intercropping, cover cropping, and seasonal rotations; its saving of seeds to preserve genetic diversity; and its better integration of farms with forest, woody shrubs, and wild plant and animal species. In other words, it's time to get efficient. "The Seven Deadly Myths of Industrial Agriculture"Other references used:
http://www.hempcar.org/biores.shtml
current matters of diamond industry strategy
American Radio Works
Sparkle.com
Edward J. Epstein
The End of Oil Kind thanx to Logos of Marijuana.com for "spiritual feedback, not otherwise specified".

Aliens Visit Planet Earth

2009-02-04T15:27:00.000-07:00

Last night I was visited by Aliens from another planet. I was not abducted, poked or prodded. I was not informed of any Alien invasion. I was not mistreated, tortured, water-boarded or made a prisoner.

Instead, I was offered something of great value to all humankind.

The Aliens made a peace offering. They said they would give me a miracle plant. They told me this plant would cure ailments as simple as nausea to diseases as bad as cancer. They said this plant can also fuel our vehicles as a non-toxic fuel alternative. They said that the miracle plant could also be used to build houses as strong as any brick house and more environmentally-friendly. They said we could make paper, clothing and many other items out of this miracle plant.

They said it would not only do all these things, but that it would also make people happy, help them sleep, help them eat, help them become more creative and help people live longer.

They also said we've had this miracle plant on Planet Earth for thousands of years....

... they said it was called Marijuana.

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA - END PROHIBITION

Boulder Process Server Arrested and Charged with Felony Forgery

2009-01-23T21:03:00.000-07:00

Boulder, CO - January 23, 2009 (blog post from Ross Investigators)

A Boulder process server was arrested last week and charged with a felony count of forgery.

The charge against Darine Chely says she also uses the names Darine and Dee Bateman. She is reported to be the owner and operator of Quality Process Servers & Investigations.

The charge poses a legal problem for those who have relied on affdavits of service signed by Chely. Those who have done so are urged to contact Detective Carey Lutz at the Boulder Police Department at (303) 441-3333.

Chely was arrested Jan. 14 and released on posting of $10,000 bond.

Her attorney is Ingird Bakke.

UPDATE: NEXT COURT DATE March 16, 2009 - Hearing for Status Conference

It has also been reported that March 16, 2009 is Darine's birthday - hope your birthday finds you in prison where you belong Darine!