legal//illegal

3 of the Justices believe it is time to tax and regulate cannabis

2007-06-28T21:31:05Z

Oh those evil liberal judges!

From the Morse v Fredrick decision

emphasis mine.

last paragraphs:

The Vietnam War is remembered today as an unpopular war. During its early stages, however, “the dominant opinion” that Justice Harlan mentioned in his Tinker dissent regarded opposition to the war as unpatriotic, if not treason. 393 U. S., at 526. That dominant opinion strongly supported the prosecution of several of those who demonstrated in Grant Park during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, see United States v. Dellinger, 472 F. 2d 340 (CA7 1972),and the vilification of vocal opponents of the war like Julian Bond, cf. Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116 (1966) . In 1965, when the Des Moines students wore their armbands, the school district’s fear that they might “start an argument or cause a disturbance” was well founded. Tinker, 393 U. S., at 508. Given that context, there is special force to the Court’s insistence that “our Constitution says we must take that risk; and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom—this kind of openness—that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.” Id., at 508–509 (citation omitted). As we now know, the then-dominant opinion about the Vietnam War was not etched in stone.

Reaching back still further, the current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our antimarijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana,9 and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product,10 lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting—however inarticulately—that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely.

the entire dissent is not long, or hard to follow. It is damn good reading.

marijuana @ 2007-06-18T01:32:00

2007-06-18T08:06:55Z

starting to think about who's going to be president in 2008?

i have my canidate.

ron paul

ron paul's record as a congressman:

-voted no on the patriot act

-never voted to raise taxes

-never voted to regulate the internet

-never voted on a federal restriction on gun ownership

-never voted on an unbalanced budget

-never voted to increase congressional pay

-never taken a government funded junket

-never voted to increase the power of the executive branch

-does not participate in the lucrative government pension program

-introduces more pieces of substantial legislation each year than any other congressman

-voted no on the war in iraq

videos

ron paul and the founding parties:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nwIRrrUKZnI

on colbert:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ErBROBgERs

on fox news about the u.s "provoking" 9/11 attacks:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pjjUClIHHAk

speech at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum in Feb. 2007:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

ron paul on bill maher, bill's new hero:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0

he has a chance. he is the number one canidate in internet activity.

ron paul : revolution

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

marijuana @ 2007-02-23T15:47:00

2007-02-24T00:52:47Z

i'm looking for submissions from all female pot smokers about their views on weed. If you have something to write about for the next copy of Ganja Girl zine, please email your submissions to gangagirlzine@gmail.com . I am looking for articles that relate to women and weed. Feminist, DIY, advice and health columns relating to marijuana, growing, and possibly political articles relating to the zine. I am NOT looking for poetry, unless specifically asked for. Artwork is always appreciated, and cover art contests will be held (with prizes!!)

ALL ACCEPTED SUBMISSIONS WILL GET A FREE COPY OF THE PUBLISHED ZINE.

xposted

US OD death increase, likely culprit: pharma products

2007-02-11T01:45:28Z

All I'm sayin'...

is that if people who are going to consume drugs were encouraged to smoke cannabis, instead of discouraged, we would not have stories like this one.

Bonsai: the new way to grow your weed

2006-12-15T03:39:52Z

Police bust Europe's largest cannabis plantation
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 02:51:00 PM
Police have busted Europe's largest ever cannabis plantation at an abandoned Slovakian slaughterhouse where top-notch technology was used by Austrian and Hungarian men to grow a copious amount of weed, a Hungarian county police reported on Wednesday.

A Slovakian anti-drug SWAT team raided the former abattoir in Nitra on intelligence gathered from Hungary's Győr-Moson-Sopron County Police.

The special “bonsai cannabis" were grown on several thousands of square metres in three hangars. According to Slovakian paper SME, the owner of the slaughterhouse is an Austrian citizen, the “brain" of the drug scheme, who has been wanted by Interpol since 2004 for drug-related crimes.

Police have detained five Hungarians, aged 20 to 40, living in Mosonmagyaróvár and two Austrians who were taking care of the plants.

According to estimates, there were enough plants in the hangars, lit with artificial light and made cosier with high humidity, to produce 500 kilograms of marijuana a week.

As growing, transportation and sale took place in an organised fashion, the culprits are looking at 15 to 20 years imprisonment.

A little bit of bonsai ganja

According to planetganja.com it is worth growing bonsai marijuana “because not only is it aesthetically pleasing, it's extremely functional."
image by weedfarmer.com

Bonsai-techniques keep the plant small, yet productive, the site said.

“From a bonsai mum point of view, this technique comes in handy if you want to keep a small mum but also need to be able to take many cuttings at once."

A proper bonsai will only take up about a foot in height, perhaps a foot in span, the site noted, adding that the bonsai option “[...] starts to look good to the canna-farmer who has been forced to maintain smaller and stealthier gardens."

The canopy over time will produce many smaller leaves using many more small branches. The finite resources of light and space will force the plant to produce small in size but maintain productivity in volume of branches and cuttings.

www.portfolio.hu - http://www.portfolio.hu/en/cikkek.tdp?k=2&i=10347

Brain Injury

2006-08-18T05:36:11Z

So I got in a very serious car accident March 19th that resulted in a brian injury (bruising, bleeding, swelling, short-term memory loss) but have recovered amazingly well. I can't drink until its been a year since the accident, which I can totally understand, but have been wondering if I could smoke with no negative effects. I've been googling THC and brain injury and sites that have come up say research proves that THC actually is great in helping brain injuries. If any of you have any information on this it would be great!

ps: I'll try to talk to an un-biased doc before I partake in blazing again, just to be 100% sure its okay ;)

Select Committee finds Cannabis less harmful than tobacco and alcohol

2006-08-02T02:52:25Z

A [UK Parliament] science select committee looking into the way illegal drugs are classified, has come up with a ranking of the 20 most popular drugs in order of how harmful they consider them to be, and includes legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco in the list. Their verdict is that cannabis is apparently in 11th place behind alcohol 5th and tobacco 9th. They do, however, class it as more harmful than solvents, LSD and ecstasy (the latter two currently ranked equivalent as heroin and cocaine).

There doesn't appear to be any official comment from the Home Office. Currently illegal drugs are classed into three groups based on the penalties associated with possession or supply, in which cannabis belongs to the most lenient class C.

(Source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm) - includes full ranking.

Personally I think that there are some positive things to be taken out of this report (which I very much doubt will come to anything) in particular that an official parliament committee has stated that cannabis is less harmful than the two main legal drugs, but also that the ranking of drugs based on punishment is stupid. Whilst it does point out some obvious discrepancies - such as ecstasy's relatively small harm compared its current rating and vice versa for ketamine - I'm a bit dubious about the low ranking of solvents and steroids, and think that cannabis is ranked a bit too high, certainly it should be below LSD, and steroids.

death by drugs, but not by marijuana...

2006-06-26T16:41:01Z

Annual American deaths from:
Tobacco-400,000
Alcohol-100,000
All Legal Drugs-20,000
All Illegal Drugs-15,000
Caffeine-2,000
Aspirin-500
Marijuana-0

Help for the Asthmatic?

2006-06-24T17:50:48Z

Heya all, first time post for me. I came in hoping some of you here can help me with some information.
Im highly asthmatic and lately the smoke has begun to irritate my lungs making it so I cant use my #1 medication :( I was wondering if anyone knows of studies done or personal experments towards the lines of non-lung consumption?
Ive heard a few things, but quite a few are conflicting.
I've sofar heard just about everything from impossible("THC has to be burned to be consumed by the body") to "Oral consumption has to be mixxed with a food then cooked". Seems to be a trend about heat and THC? Any chemists out there? :)
Well, have fun guys and thanks for any replies.

---
"Learn and make your own choices"

Newb

2006-06-24T02:31:31Z

Yoo. I'm Courtney. I just joined cause i'm a major pot enthusiast and enjoy educating myself on marijuana. I hate the whole stereotype that if you smoke pot you're a stoner and don't do anything great, or spend your time merely high. There are so many people who stereotype and it burns a rage in me. haha. Uhh, i pretty much can't stand society. I'm actually really bitter when it comes to people's arguements with weed. Not in general, but when they try to argue about something they know nothing about and only have, "it's a drug!" against it. I was reading a few recent posts and enjoyed the discussions and things so I thought may as well join!

i loved the children's book too. the picture's were humourous. people think if you talk about it, it will "cause" it. so i really liked the whole idea of the book.

that's all. go smoke a joint.

marijuana @ 2006-05-17T22:15:00

2006-06-24T02:31:07Z

More proof that anti-drug programs do jack. (Hope it's not too hard to see, but the last three bars are all the same) These stats are from poll site aminormal.com

What a waste, huh?

2006-06-24T02:30:32Z

Is Ashton Kutcher behind this?

Its just a Plant

2006-04-28T23:16:30Z

A new childrens education book on marijuana.

hey, beats DARE!

kudos to hdiandrewfor the heads up!

marijuana @ 2006-04-25T03:17:00

2006-04-26T01:17:30Z

Why do you think marijuana is illegal?

If you think it's because "it fucks you up", then please explain to me why alcohol is tolerated but marijuana isn't.

I would love to get everyone's opinion on this!

marijuana @ 2006-02-19T14:46:00

2006-02-20T01:11:49Z

Which is more harmful to your body and brain in the long run: if you smoke pot occasionally or if you binge drink occasionally?

If you could back up your decision with websites or proof, that would be so helpful. Thanks so much!

I know this is totally going to be biast since this is a marijuana community but thats why I am asking here ;)

What a complete moron

2006-02-05T04:09:44Z

Man Calls Police To Report Missing Marijuana

marijuana @ 2006-01-25T16:01:00

2006-01-26T05:23:32Z

Not really cannabis related, but nonetheless a stunning example of what prohibition can do:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

marijuana @ 2006-01-22T02:50:00

2006-01-22T07:57:57Z

would anyone happen to know if there are any resources online, that would help to inform an individual about their rights regarding marijuana? with my friend just having her dorm raided for the second time in a month, i was just wondering if there was anything out there that we'd be able to read about laws and such. such as what the police can and cannot tell you, and just how far they're able to search?

marijuana @ 2006-01-09T22:39:00

2006-01-10T04:11:29Z

Amazing New York Times Article..."Nearly 100 yrs old, LSD's Founder Ponders His 'Problem Child'"

Marijuana Related

2005-10-15T00:41:09Z

globe and mail

By DAWN WALTON

Friday, October 14, 2005 Posted at 3:57 AM EDT

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Calgary — Forget the stereotype about dopey potheads. It seems marijuana could be good for your brain.

While other studies have shown that periodic use of marijuana can cause memory loss and impair learning and a host of other health problems down the road, new research suggests the drug could have some benefits when administered regularly in a highly potent form.

Most "drugs of abuse" such as alcohol, heroin, cocaine and nicotine suppress growth of new brain cells. However, researchers found that cannabinoids promoted generation of new neurons in rats' hippocampuses.

Hippocampuses are the part of the brain responsible for learning and memory, and the study held true for either plant-derived or the synthetic version of cannabinoids.

"This is quite a surprise," said Xia Zhang, an associate professor with the Neuropsychiatry Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.

"Chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months," he added.

The research by Dr. Zhang and a team of international researchers is to be published in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, but their findings are on-line now.

The scientists also noticed that cannabinoids curbed depression and anxiety, which Dr. Zhang says, suggests a correlation between neurogenesis and mood swings. (Or, it at least partly explains the feelings of relaxation and euphoria of a pot-induced high.)

Other scientists have suggested that depression is triggered when too few new brain cells are created in the hippocampus. One researcher of neuropharmacology said he was "puzzled" by the findings.

As enthusiastic as Dr. Zhang is about the potential health benefits, he warns against running out for a toke in a bid to beef up brain power or calm nerves.

The team injected laboratory rats with a synthetic substance called HU-210, which is similar, but 100 times as potent as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the compound responsible for giving marijuana users a high.

They found that the rats treated regularly with a high dose of HU-210 -- twice a day for 10 days -- showed growth of neurons in the hippocampus. The researchers don't know if pot, which isn't as pure as the lab-produced version, would have the same effect.

"There's a big gap between rats and humans," Dr. Zhang points out.

But there is a lot of interest -- and controversy -- around the use of cannabinoids to improve human health.

Cannabinoids, such as marijuana and hashish, have been used to address pain, nausea, vomiting, seizures caused by epilepsy, ischemic stroke, cerebral trauma, tumours, multiple sclerosis and a host of other maladies.

There are herbal cannabinoids, which come from the cannabis plant, and the bodies of humans and animals produce endogenous cannabinoids. The substance can also be designed in the lab.

Cannabinoids can trigger the body's two cannabinoid receptors, which control the activity of various cells in the body.

One receptor, known as CB1, is found primarily in the brain. The other receptor, CB2, was thought to be found only in the immune system.

However, in a separate study to be published today in the journal Science, a group of international researchers have located the CB2 receptor in the brain stems of rats, mice and ferrets.

The brain stem is responsible for basic body function such as breathing and the gastrointestinal tract. If stimulated in a certain way, CB2 could be harnessed to eliminate the nausea and vomiting associated with post-operative analgesics or cancer and AIDS treatments, according to the researchers.

"Ultimately, new therapies could be developed as a result of these findings," said Keith Sharkey, a gastrointestinal neuroscientist at the University of Calgary, lead author of the study.

(Scientists are trying to find ways to block CB1 as a way to decrease food cravings and limit dependence on tobacco.)

When asked whether his findings explain why some swear by pot as a way to avoid the queasy feeling of a hangover, Dr. Sharkey paused and replied: "It does not explain the effects of smoked or inhaled or ingested substances."

Happy Neurons

2005-10-15T00:40:21Z

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Scientists said Thursday that marijuana appears to promote the development of new brain cells in rats and have anti-anxiety and anti-depressant effects, a finding that could have an impact on the national debate over medical uses of the drug.

Other illegal and legal drugs, including opiates, alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress the formation of new brain cells when used chronically, but marijuana's effect on that process was uncertain.

Now, a team led by Xia Zhang of the department of psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon may have found evidence the drug spurs new brain cells to form in a region of the brain called the hippocampus, and this in turn reduces anxiety and depression.

full story

So much for the killing brain cells argument.

The raw (and ugly) truth about the war on drugs...an interesting article...

2005-09-20T23:47:38Z

I don’t necessarily agree with everything the author has to say about the war on drugs and/or his personal response, but I think it is a very interesting article nonetheless.

The raw (and ugly) truth about the war on drugs By: Mike Adams, News Target, 8/15/05

Drugs are bad. Drugs destroy peoples' lives. Didn't you know that marijuana turns regular everyday people into zombie pot smokers? That's why we have a war on drugs in America: to protect our children from potheads.

Drugs are bad. Especially marijuana. I learned this the other day when I visited an elementary school as a guest speaker. The schoolchildren were well trained in describing the dangers of drugs. On command, they would spout out any number of statements describing them.

But then a funny thing happened. I started asking how many of them were on drugs. You know, drugs their doctor prescribed. Drugs that alter brain chemistry to keep them docile, or free of pain, or to dilate their lungs so they could breathe easier.

It turned out that 60% of these schoolchildren were either on drugs at that very moment, or had been on such drugs within the last twelve months. Two-thirds of the teachers were on drugs, too. And it's not at all a stretch to believe that 40% or more of all parents are on drugs. Mild-altering drugs like antidepressants, no less.

A nation of drug addicts

Fact is, we are a nation of drug addicts. We drug ourselves, our elderly and our children on a daily basis. We do it with prescription medications, over-the-counter pills, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine... and we say it's all fine because those drugs are legal.

But wait a minute, you say. Those legal drugs are different from marijuana. They're FDA-approved drugs, prescribed by a doctor. They have a medical purpose.

Oh really? Ritalin has a medical purpose? What medical symptoms does Ritalin treat, then? What measurable physiological state is addressed with Ritalin? There are none, of course. Ritalin is an authority drug. It keeps children in line. It makes teachers feel less stress and parents feel less guilt. Ritalin is a mind-altering narcotic, and yet millions of children are on it today. Its purpose is not to help children, but to make life more convenient for those who manage children.

You think statin drugs have a medical purpose? Think again. In reality, they only have a profit purpose. These drugs were invented to sell pills that manage disease states in people, not that solve any real health problem. Don't believe me? Just stop taking your statin drugs, if you dare, and watch your cholesterol skyrocket. You'll find out you're a slave to the drug, and no healthier than before.

What's the difference between legal and illegal drugs?

So what's the real difference between legal drugs and illegal drugs? Some people think that only illegal drugs are habit-forming. Yet legal drugs can be just as addictive as illegal drugs. Just ask anyone who has tried to quit smoking, go off caffeine, or kick to Oxycontin habit.

So is there some other difference between illegal drugs and legal drugs? People argue that legal drugs are safe. They're FDA-approved! And yet they fail to recognize that prescription drugs kill more Americans each year than all the crack, meth, and heroin deaths combined.

Okay, then, what about the argument that illegal drugs have no medicinal purpose, and legal drugs do have a medicinal purpose. What about that? Wrong again. Medical marijuana is a medically proven treatment for a variety of conditions, yet marijuana still remains illegal. Even MDMA (now called "Ecstasy" on the street) was long considered an effective "experiential drug" that helped severely traumatized adult patients overcome past pains through improved clarity. At the same time, tobacco smoke has no medical purpose whatsoever, yet cigarettes remain perfectly legal.

No, the real difference between these two classes of drugs is not their medical merit, nor their safety. The real difference is something far more sinister. It gets right down to answering the question of why DEA agents will raid medical marijuana clinics, yet stand by doing nothing while Americans smoke themselves to death on tobacco.

Want to know the real answer? I very much doubt you do. Because, like most Americans, you won't believe it. You've been blinded to the obvious truth for your whole life, manipulated by the media, and brainwashed by advertising that has turned you into a statistically-validated consumer. You'll think, no, this couldn't possibly be true. The world isn't that unjust, you think. But you're wrong. (Take the free Gullibility Factor test to find out if you're really a mind slave or not...)

Here's the raw, blunt truth about the war on drugs. Drugs are declared legal or illegal based primarily on who benefits from their manufacture, distribution and sale.

Corporate and government profits determine the legality

Let me put this another way. You know why cigarettes are still legal? Consider this: here's a product that admittedly kills people. It has no health benefit whatsoever. It is a threat to the public health. Yet why does it remain legal? Because states get a cut of cigarette sales thanks to the Big Tobacco settlement a few years back. Keeping cigarettes legal results in desperately-needed revenues for states... revenues that are almost never spent on anti-smoking campaigns, by the way.

It's a classic racket: tobacco is allowed to remain legal because powerful institutions get a cut of the action. While people die from lung cancer, states get financial resuscitation by taking a cut of every sale. States are trading your health for their revenues.

Think I'm being overly cynical? Let's take a look at gambling laws. Organized gambling is illegal at both the state and federal levels in this country. Except, of course, when government gets a cut. Casino-friendly states didn't just make casinos legal for the good of the public: they legalized gambling in exchange for a cut of the action. It's a classic, mob-style "protection fee."

If you want to test this theory, launch your own online gambling website. You'll be shut down almost immediately and charged with serious crimes. Gambling and organized betting is illegal, didn't you know? That is, unless the state runs the show, as in state lotteries.

It's right in your face, folks: gambling is legal when powerful corporations or institutions get a piece of the action. It's illegal when they don't. It has nothing at all to do with morality, or protecting people, or doing what's right. It's all about money, pure and simple. Just ask all the corrupt politicians in Missouri who legalized riverboat gambling a few years back.

Getting back to drugs, why do you think alcohol remains a legal drug? Because states and cities tax it. State governments are addicted to alcoholics as a source of revenue to fund their voter entitlement programs that get politicians reelected. Alcohol is a cash machine for cities and states.

Sometimes the exact same chemical is both legal and illegal, depending on who profits from it. The FDA, for example, banned the Chinese herb ma huang because it contains ephedra. Yet the exact same chemical compound remains perfectly legal in over-the-counter drugs like Sudafed and a variety of cold medicines. Sudafed even gets its name from ephedra: "pseudo-ephedrine." So why is ephedrine illegal in herbs, yet legal in pharmacy drugs manufactured by drug companies? You already know the answer.

With all that in mind, why do you think prescription drugs that kill people remain legal? Think carefully now...

If you guessed, "Because powerful corporations generate billions in profits selling drugs, and governments get a cut of that via state sales taxes and corporate income taxes" then BINGO! You win a prize: a lifetime of free Prozac to keep you happy!

Legal drugs generate windfall profits for those in power

Think about it: if prescription drugs were peddled by street dealers instead of doctors, and if all that revenue changed hands in a non-taxable, non-corporate structure (i.e. street cash), then you'd be seeing full-scale law enforcement action against the makers, distributors and sellers of those drugs. You'd also see endless headlines about how dangerous they were: "Street painkillers kill twelve in South Miami!"

The sad truth of the matter, though, is that those very same painkilling drugs killed at least twelve people in South Miami this very day. But you'll never here about it in the media. Because the news networks are sponsored by drug companies, of course. (The news is not designed to inform you, it's designed to shape your reality, to turn you into a consumer of whatever products the corporations are peddling this year. Didn't you know?)

Every drug that's legal is legal for one simple reason: somebody in a position of power is keeping it legal because they're getting a cut.

Non-patentable drugs are usually outlawed

That's why medical marijuana is illegal: because government doesn't control its distribution, nor does government receive a financial cut. You can bet your life that if Big Pharma owned the patents on medical marijuana and could set monopolistic prices on it, pot would be perfectly legal to own and smoke. That is, as long as you got it from a pharmacy where prices and distribution could be controlled.

Control is the key here. You think the FDA is discrediting drugs from Canada in order to protect your health? Get real. The FDA is simply protecting the monopoly drug market in this country. It's controlling distribution points in the U.S. in the same way that a crack dealer assassinates his street corner competition.

Eliminate the competition, and you can set whatever price you want. That's why uninformed U.S. consumers pay 30,000% markup prices for drugs that can be acquired in Mexico or Canada for pennies on the dollar.

It's not about your health, it's about their wealth

You see, corporate America doesn't really care what you put in your mouth, up your nose, through your lungs or into your veins, as long as they get a cut from it. That's the whole prescription drug racket in a nutshell: it's billions of dollars in annual profits generated from mind-altering (yet legal) drugs that flat-out kill people. Lots of people. Like 100,000 Americans a year (or a lot more if you believe more critical statistics).

So if you've ever wondered why Ritalin -- which has no medical purpose whatsoever -- is perfectly legal, and yet medical marijuana -- which has a well-proven medical purpose -- is outlawed, now you know the answer: because Ritalin makes powerful people rich. And marijuana doesn't. Anybody can grow marijuana. Drug companies don't control the patents.

Why I teach people to be 100% drug free

Now, just for the record, I do not personally use any drugs whatsoever (recreational, over-the-counter, prescription or otherwise), and in fact, I teach people to be 100% free of all drugs, including caffeine and alcohol. I bought into the "just say no to drugs" advice of Nancy Reagan, and I actually applied it to ALL drugs, not just selective drugs.

And as far as I can tell, aside from the Mormons and the Amish, there are only a small percentage of truly drug-free people living in this country. Practically everybody I meet is addicted to at least one of the following: coffee, cigarettes, alcohol, pain meds, prescription drugs or sugar (which alters brain chemistry in drug-like fashion).

At the same time, I'm not at all fooled by this silly "War on Drugs" charade, which is really nothing more than enforcement of corporate drug profits at gunpoint. If we had a genuine war on drugs in this country that really worked to protect the American people we'd send DEA agents into drug company offices and confiscate all the legalized but deadly medications being manufactured, distributed and deceptively sold to unwitting Americans today.

Medical marijuana is a threat to both the profits and power of drug companies, not to mention the credibility of the DEA. Letting grannies smoke pot in California makes DEA agents look silly. If it were allowed, it would also undermine the billions of dollars already spent incarcerating people for "pot crimes." Basically, it would make the whole War on Drugs look stupid. Which it most assuredly is, at least when it comes to marijuana.

I can understand taking a tough stance on hard drugs (crack, meth, heroin, etc.), but arresting cancer patients who smoke joints for pain control sounds a lot more like oppression than law enforcement to me.

So what is the War on Drugs? It's an excuse to control you. It is a system that keeps the population in a state of constant fear so that heroic politicians can get elected on empty promises to "keep fighting the war on drugs!"

The DEA is AWOL on most drug issues

Where is this War on Drugs when it comes to Grandma in the nursing home, who died of a stroke caused by Cox-2 inhibitor drugs? Where is the War on Drugs when little Johnny schoolboy picks up a rifle and blows away his classmates because he's on antidepressants and can't tell the difference between real life and a first-person-shooter video game? Where is the War on Drugs when 16,500 people each year die, shitting digested blood until they pass out and die because that daily dose of aspirin tore a gaping hole in their stomach?

The War on Drugs, you see, turns a blind eye to the death and suffering caused by these drugs. The DEA pretends prescription drugs don't even exist. No prescription drug death has ever been prevented by the DEA as far as I know. Yet 100,000 Americans are killed each year by FDA-approved drugs. The DEA has no interest whatsoever in protecting Americans from these drugs. Ever wonder why?

The DEA is properly named, by the way. It's the Drug Enforcement Agency. It's enforcing drugs. The right drugs. The legal drugs. The drugs that make money for drug companies, drug distributors, drug retailers, cities, states and countries. It's enforcement at gunpoint, and as long as the money keeps flowing, the drugs will stay perfectly legal, regardless of who dies.

The entire distribution system is well in place: the false and misleading television advertising, the outright bribery of drug dealers (doctors), the street corner fulfillment centers (pharmacies), and the coordinating drug lord running the show (the Fraud and Drug Administration). It's a brilliant system for manufacturing, promoting, delivering and selling deadly, addictive drugs to children, adults and seniors while generating corporate profits and tax revenues for cities, states and nations.

And that's the raw truth about the War on Drugs. You may not like it, but now, at least, you know why it exists.

So I have a common sense question for all the people in this country. If you support the War on Drugs, then why are you taking so many drugs yourself? And why are you allowing your children to be drugged?

The free Gullibility Factor test mentioned in the article: http://www.newstarget.com/gullibility.html

The article: http://www.newstarget.com/010944.html

People are literally dying in the war on drugs!

2005-09-19T22:08:34Z

If there is any doubt that the war on drugs is literally taking lives, this article is an incredibly dramatic example of one life cruelly ended in the name of prohibitionist policies. The death of this young man is beyond reprehensible. I only hope his family will see justice done!

Justice for a 'Death of Neglect'
Washington Post, By: Colbert I. King, 9/17/05

Next Tuesday marks the first anniversary of 27-year-old Jonathan Magbie's final encounter with the D.C. government. It will be no cause for celebration.
It was on Sept. 20, 2004, that D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Retchin sentenced Magbie, a quadriplegic since an accident at age 4, to 10 days in the D.C. jail. His crime? Possession of marijuana.
Five days after falling into the hands of the D.C. government, Magbie was dead. He died a horrible death. It was preventable. But nobody in the system cared.
Looking down from her bench, Retchin saw a first-time offender. He controlled his wheelchair with a mouth-operated device. He could breathe only with a battery-controlled pulmonary pacemaker. At night he needed the assistance of a respirator. He could have been sentenced to home detention, where he would have had round-the-clock attention. Instead, Retchin, apparently upset when Magbie refused to swear off weed, which helped him get through a miserable existence, sent him to that taxpayer-supported hellhole near the Anacostia River known as the D.C. jail.
What happened to Magbie at the jail and at Greater Southeast Community Hospital, where his life ended five days later, shouldn't happen to a dog. In fact, it doesn't happen to dogs and cats in the custody of decent and caring people. But Magbie had no one in his corner except his mother, Mary Scott, and she could not join him in jail. In the intervening 12 months, the continuum of players responsible for Magbie's last days on Earth has never had it so good.
Retchin's handling of the Magbie case was reviewed by the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure: It gave her grace, and she was subsequently rewarded with a renewed assignment to the court's coveted criminal docket so that more Retchin-style justice can be meted out to the criminal-minded.
Odie Washington, director of the Corrections Department, which runs the D.C. jail, retired with full honors and words of praise from the mayor. And Greater Southeast Community Hospital, which treats the District's sick inmates under a lucrative D.C. government contract, continues to collect D.C. checks, courtesy of city taxpayers.
The only person made to pay for the mistreatment of Jonathan Magbie has been Magbie himself. But perhaps not for long.
On the anniversary of his imprisonment, attorneys retained by Magbie's mother will file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the D.C. government and the hospital charging them with medical malpractice and violations of the D.C. Human Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act and the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Magbie's lawyers are no slouches. Two of them, Donald Temple and Ed Connor, successfully sued the Eddie Bauer clothing store chain in 1997 for falsely imprisoning and defaming three young black men on suspicion of shoplifting. The federal jury required the company to pay $1 million.
Temple and Connor are joined by the American Civil Liberties Union's Eighth Amendment specialists in prisoners' rights, Elizabeth Alexander and Arthur Spitzer. Together they have done the job that the D.C. inspector general's office and the mayor's office told me they would do -- but did not. Magbie's lawyer found out what happened to him during those five fateful days a year ago. And they want to tell that story to a federal judge and jury.
Among the evidence they will present is an affidavit and medical opinion from Jerry S. Walden, a prison medicine expert and former chief medical officer at the U.S. penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind. After a review of records from the D.C. jail and Greater Southeast Community Hospital, interviews with various sources and a look at the pertinent medical literature, Walden concluded that "Jonathan Magbie died a death of neglect."
There were, Walden said, many parts to the failure to take Magbie's health seriously. "Certainly the tracheostomy accident [Magbie's tracheostomy was misaligned, shoved back in, and not tied to maintain a correct position] could have been prevented and happened while being monitored.
"His pneumonia [noted during the initial jail examination] was essentially undiagnosed and untreated. Despite the early X-ray and the sputum production, no one sent a sputum specimen and started treatment. All this was complicated by his nutritional status." (Magbie weighed 130 pounds at jail intake on Monday, Sept. 20. Five days later, at his autopsy exam, he weighed 90 pounds).
"He had been in the emergency room on day one [rushed from the jail to Greater Southeast and returned the next day] and had fluid and sugar deficits noted. No one cared that he wasn't eating or measured his fluid intake after."
Although Magbie needed a respirator and made that fact known on his first day at the jail, he was never given one during his five days in custody. "There were no physicians consult nor pulmonary consult performed while in the jail. He was monitored by license practical nurses. No RN [registered nurse] or PA [physician's assistant] or doctor followed him or was even consulted about" drastic changes in his condition.
Disaster struck on Sept. 24, his last day at the jail -- and in this world. The lawsuit will detail what happened that day.
None of this will soften the blows that Magbie received from the D.C. government. None of this will bring him back or end the weeping and sorrow in his family. But Magbie deserves justice. This is an opportunity. We are obliged to try.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/16/AR2005091602168_pf.html

“The attitude that led a judge to send a helpless, wheelchair-bound young man, who had hurt no one, to jail, is a barbaric one that our society desperately needs to leave behind.” ~David Borden

Tobacco: The Real Gateway Drug?!

2005-09-16T01:48:18Z

A really, really interesting study just published in the journal Addiction strongly suggests that tobacco, not marijuana, is the critical "gateway" drug -- and, by implication, if ONDCP et al really want to cut youth drug use, preventing early tobacco use might be a far more effective strategy than the present emphasis on marijuana.

Summary: Researchers followed a large cohort of Florida kids from the start of middle school (about age 11), to about age 20, correlating later abuse/dependency on marijuana or other drugs commonly considered hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, stimulants, tranquilizers, etc.) with a variety of factors in their younger years -- including factors like income or failure to graduate high school as well as early alcohol, tobacco or marijuana use.

They categorized tobacco use in several different ways, depending on when they started smoking. Kids who started smoking early (around 6th grade) and continued smoking as they got older were 6.4 times more likely to end up dependent on or abusing hard drugs than kids who didn't smoke. Controlling for all the other factors, those who took up cigarettes later (or became regular smokers later) were from 2.1 to 3.3 times more likely to end up hard drug abusers than nonsmokers. Those who didn't finish high school were also 3.1 times more likely to end up on hard drugs.

So, what factors in middle school did NOT predict later hard drug abuse/dependence? Early use of alcohol, marijuana or other drugs. Early marijuana use also dod not predict later marijuana abuse dependence -- but again, early tobacco use did.

Note that the researchers are careful to explain that they have not proved that early tobacco use causes later drug use; correlation does not prove causation. But they do consider it a possible cause -- and these sorts of correlations are the major underpinning of the "gateway theory," and the correlations are much, much stronger for tobacco than for mj. The researchers conclude:

"Tobacco use initiated this early in the life course greatly increases the risk of a wide variety of disease outcomes and drug dependence in early adulthood. ... Therefore, prefenting or delaying early smoking offsets potentially devastating personal, social and medical consequences for a subset of adolescents. ... Prevention programs may interrupt drug progression if they delay onset of tobacco use until mid-adolescence."

To see an abstract of the report: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01141.x?cookieSet=1

Unfortunately, you have to pay to see the whole report, but here’s the information if you are interested.

Vega, W. A., Gil, A. G., Revisiting Drug Progression: Long-range Effects of Early Tobacco Use. Addiction. 100(9): 1358-1369, September 2005

Not marijuana related, but "War on Drugs" related...

2005-09-13T22:06:04Z

Hi, please delete this if you think it's innappropriate. It's a NY Times Op-Ed piece on how the US's War on Drugs is wrong-minded in it's attitude towards Afghanistan's poppy crops.

New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist

July 13, 2005

By MAIA SZALAVITZ

EVEN as Afghanistan's immense opium harvest feeds lawlessness and instability, finances terrorism and fuels heroin addiction, the developing world is experiencing a severe shortage of opium-derived pain medications, according to the World Health Organization. Developing countries are home to 80 percent of the world's population, but they consume just 6 percent of the medical opioids. In those countries, most people with cancer, AIDS and other painful conditions live and die in agony.

The United States wants Afghanistan to destroy its potentially merciful crop, which has increased sevenfold since 2002 and now constitutes 60 percent of the country's gross domestic product. But why not bolster the country's stability and end both the pain and the trafficking problems by licensing Afghanistan with the International Narcotics Control Board to sell its opium legally?

The Senlis Council, a European drug-policy research institution, has proposed this truly winning solution. Adopting it would improve the Afghan economy, deprive terrorists of income and keep heroin away from dealers and addicts, all while offering pain relief to the third world.

The United Nations estimated that Afghanistan produced more than 4,200 tons of opium last year; cultivation jumped to 323,701 acres from 197,680 acres in 2003. Ten percent of the Afghan population is believed to be involved in the trade, which supplies nearly 90 percent of the world's illegal heroin. Clearly, this drug war is not being won.

The global pain crisis is just as daunting. The World Health Organization has said that opioids are "absolutely necessary" for treating severe pain. But half the world's countries use them only rarely if at all even for the dying, and even though research shows that addiction is exceedingly uncommon among pain patients without a history of it.

Here in the United States, only half of all dying patients receive adequate relief, and those suffering from chronic non-cancer pain are even more likely to be undermedicated. Senlis estimates that meeting the global need for pain medications would require 10,000 tons of opium a year - more than twice Afghanistan's current production.

This shortfall is in part attributable to misguided regulation. Restrictions aimed at preventing diversion to the illegal market are so severe that in some countries, medical use of opioids is practically prohibited. Often, the rich retain access to expensive synthetic opioids like OxyContin, while those who cannot afford brand-name drugs receive no treatment at all. Generic morphine and codeine, made from Afghan opium, could help.

Because farmers aren't the ones who make the big bucks in the illegal drug trade, purchasing their poppies at competitive rates should be possible. But even if we paid exactly what the drug lords do, the entire crop would cost only about $600 million - less than the $780 million the United States planned to spend on eradication in Afghanistan this year.

Besides, eradication efforts have never eliminated a drug crop. Cocaine continues to be widely available, despite the roughly $3 billion that the United States has spent on coca eradication in Colombia over the last five years. And that is only the most recent example.

India's thriving generic drug industry suggests that there is plenty of money to be made in the marketing of generic pain relievers. But even if returns are modest, generating any profit at all is better than stamping out the major driver of an unstable country's economy. Legal products are also safer and easier to regulate than illegal drugs.

Of course, the Senlis plan does present serious logistical problems. Warlords would not relinquish profits without a fight, and their attempts to undermine the proposal could be formidable.

But think of it this way: what's an easier sell with farmers, hard cash now or pesticide spraying and potentially empty promises of economic assistance? Few Afghans begrudge farmers' efforts to feed their families - but many would turn against greedy planters who continued supplying drug lords despite adequate alternatives.

The real barriers here are political, not practical. The Afghan government initially appeared open to the proposal: its counternarcotics minister spoke at a Senlis meeting in Vienna in March. But another minister later dismissed the idea in front of foreign reporters and Hamid Karzai ducked the question in a March meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The Bush administration has criticized Mr. Karzai's "leadership" on opium (despite his call for "jihad on drugs") but refuses to support measures beyond eradication. Responding to the Senlis proposal, one former State Department official who had been working on narcotics and law enforcement told The Christian Science Monitor: "Anything that went about legalizing an opiate in that market would send exactly the wrong message. It would suggest that there is something legitimate to growing."

But there is: countries like India are licensed by the International Narcotics Control Board to grow opium because modern medicine cannot find anything better than opioids to relieve pain. And think of the goodwill such a gesture could produce, a message that we literally want to assuage the world's suffering - not to mention that of the 30 million to 50 million Americans who endure chronic pain.

The Senlis Council is holding a conference in Kabul this September to secure support from drug policy expertsfor a feasibility study of its proposal. As Afghanistan seems to grow increasingly unstable by the day, let's hope that proposal receives the backing it deserves.

Maia Szalavitz is a senior fellow at Stats, a media watchdog group.