Really good thread.

PS: How about David Peele and the Lower East Side?.

Remember I like marijuana?

I once heard a stand up comic say that. It struck me as, probably, profoundly true.

You have to realize, Homer is very unintelligent to begin with. In this episode, if anything, Homer actually gains some intelligence.

Homer: "Sir(Mr. Burns), you are covered with a very fine fuzz."

The third act was sorta lame. While at a pro-cannabis rally held to get people to vote against the re-criminalization of cannabis, somebody pointed out that 'the elections were yesterday, we already lost'. Homer: "Dude, I totally flighted on the date."

Other than that, it was a great episode and a step forward.

The point is that MOST people that would like to have cannabis legal, DO NOT VOTE. I would wager big money that of those 700,000 people that got busted last year for cannabis, less that 2% of them vote. Now they probably can not vote because they are felons. Stupid people.

If all the folks that were not opposed to legalizing cannabis voted, it would be legal.

BTW, Homer became the Executive Vice-President because he impressed Mr. Burns while high. There are alot of VERY successful folks that get high, or have gotten high, daily.

The War on Some Drugs Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld Doesn't Sell...

April 8, 2002
CCLE Fights Government's Forced-Drugging of Dentist in Federal Court

The Alchemind Society's Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CCLE) today filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to reconsider its recent decision permitting the government to continue forcibly injecting a St. Louis dentist with mind-altering drugs. Dr. Sell is currently being administered drugs against his will in an effort to make him "competent to stand trial" on federal fraud charges.>>Continued...
http://www.alchemind.org/DLL/sell_index.htm

The case was the subject of a recent article by conservative columnist Phyllis Schalfly.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2002/mar02/02-03-27.shtml

March 19, 2002
Forced Drugging OK'd By Federal Court
http://www.alchemind.org/News/aaps1.htm

MKULTRA: CIA Mind Control DaddyBush's CIA
http://www.parascope.com/ds/mkultra0.htm

Alchemind Society
http://www.alchemind.org

Don't you have to "take" the drug after cannabis for cannabis to be a "gateway"?!?!?!?!?

LAME. These sujects were "offered" other drugs.....in order for anyone to make a valid, logical point about a "gateway" THEORY, they would have to consume the next drug.

I hate this crap... the prohibitionists get little blurbs of misinformation... and guess what... this will be the first thing I hear on the radio news....

But what happened to the long and informing articles on Tourette's or MS?...or the IQ study?...NOTHING.

PURE PROPAGANDA.

Not to take any merit from the "pro-choice" issue on abortion, but I think we should be pushing THAT slogan for our cause.

We should have the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE our intoxicant...especially considering it is safer than every other.

Even people who don't drink or smoke.....ask them whether they would want the freedom to choose whether to take it or not, be taken away....

A couple of great lines:

Homer - "I could walk up to the President and blow smoke in his stupid monkey face, and he'd just have to sit there groovin' on it!"

And Lisa - "We wan't the old dad back! The one who yelled at us, the one who drank a lot.... Wait a minute. I'm conflicted."

And Lenny and Carl were going to do an intervention but couldn't because Carl got alcohol poisoning at the intervention party.

This is an article that I can't post on C News from the Sacramento bee but I put it on my web site so here it is!!!

Anyone who has watched 'The Simpsons' over the years 'knows' where they stand as far as cannabis is concerned. 4:20 references and cannabis 'inside' jokes abound (if you are aware.)

Put yourself in the shoes of the creators of the Simpsons. They are on a network (and have some kind of binding contract) that has decided to be the 'news' voice of the right-wing.

The creators want to get a message out, yet also wish to remain on the air. How do you do this? Push the envelope. Fly under the radar. Use humor. Use obsfucation. Muddy the waters. Zig when they zag. Like with that song 'Cause I got High' by Afroman, people weren't sure whether it was pro-pot or against. So everybody took it as their own. And the censors aren't quite sure what to censor.

The Simpsons are a farce. Even broader and more outlandish with the fact that it's a cartoon. Anything goes. And usually does on this show. I've always loved it. And throughout it's history, I have always known someone who also loves the show... until the Simpsons pick on their pet cause. Then, it's "I'm never going to watch that show again!"

In a world where a government is hell-bent on eradicating anything associated with marijuana, having 'medical marijuana' as the focal point of a very popular TV show is a victory, even if it didn't give medical marijuana and the patients who need it, the respect I feel it deserves.

Farce skewers stereotypes, poking holes in these balloons full of hot air. The escaping air sounds like laughter. Better to let out some pressure this way than punching somebody in the head.

So, no surprise that a show on FOX would ridicule medical marijuana and the people who need it to survive.

"I tried heckaling them, I tried jeckaling them, I guess now it is time to get a scarecrow."

Don't get any crazier than that.

"The best tonic is Chronic"

Marijuana is only illegal for those who enjoy it."

Can we spray it on Joyce?

If cannabis is such a good medicine, why don't it protect me against prohibitionistsssss?

Not simply cool, right on, helpful, or fun, or an outlet... BUT IMPERATIVE!!

They are tripping over them selves. We are simply going to point it out.

• The Simpson's is a cartoon, and so what if peopple want to get high and/or laugh!
• Marijuana is associated with other illegal drugs by its prohibition.
• Those letteers between Joyce Nalepka and Gannet are posted as copyright 1998.

I urge as many of you as you can to write something similar:

My letter to Mr. John J. Curley Chairman, President and CEO, Gannett, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Curley,

I have recently learned of the response that you provided to a letter by Ms. Joyce Nalepka of Our Drug Free Kids. The letter that she wrote to you is typical of her efforts at pressuring those organizations she believes are insufficiently enamored of the War on (Some) Drugs and are not supportive enough of the efforts of corporately-backed ‘concerned parent’s groups’ like hers.

(Her desire to include Dr. DuPont in the interview she has demanded with you, who’s primary means of financial support is based upon the sales of urine testing kits, illustrates amply the connections between the various corporations who profit very handsomely from the support they provide supposed ‘grass roots’ organizations such as Ms. Nalepka’s.)

Her letter is also indicative of the methods that that she and others of similar bent have used to stymie actual debate in this country concerning the effects of cannabis (a.k.a marijuana) prohibition in this country, as well as the War on (Some) Drugs in general. By bluff, intimidation and outright lies, a much-needed discourse has been stifled for decades, and the War on Drugs has grown to become an even greater threat to our lives and liberties that any turban-sporting nut-case ever could.

I applaud your steadfastness of position in regards to her attempts to browbeat you with ‘politically correct’ – but scientifically factual – nonsense. By your actions, you’ve done true journalism a great service. Thank you.

From Joyce's letter to President & CEO of Gannet Incorporated(USA Today's parent company):

"You will note I have asked for an appointment to address your editorial board along with Dr. Robert Dupont who is one of the world's experts on this issue. We would still like to do that. He is eager to come with me. Dr. Dupont was the first Director af the National Institutes on Drug Abuse."

So what about alcohol? Is this not a drug? What about tobacco? Have they done no surveys to find out how many kids originally tried these vices before moving on the the devil weed?

Back to the supply argument, it is patently obvious that if you take cannabis out of the black market, kids are not only going to have less chance of encountering hard drugs while hunting down a joint, but they are also less likely to cross what will seem like a much more solid barried - namely from "soft" to "hard" drugs.

But don't take my word for it. Just look at the nearly 30 years of experimental data culled from the most progressive country on Earth - the Netherlands. They have seen a tremendous decrease in the number of kids experimenting with drugs such as cocaine and heroin, ever since effectively decriminalizing cannabis. They have less than half the per-capita drug use among teenagers that we have here. But these are mere facts, which should not deter the warriors from burning a few more witches at the stake.

When you are exposed to the black market for cannabis it's likely other black market items are available for sale, it's simply a form of capitalism -- moving the products. If cannabis were taken out of the black market as alcohol was, cannabis wouldn't be linked to anything else, except for maybe a bag of potato chips.

Kids Who Smoke Pot Are More Likely to Be Offered LSD.

Most of this article is based on old gateway propaganda (and scare the mom stuff), it's rare these days to see this type of garbage.

First of all, the gist of this quote angers me, I mean really pisses me off and I'll give the reason why: It expresses in a left-handed way a kind of dissappointment that marijuana users 'deny' themselves the 'oppurtunity' to graduate to harsher substances. The researchers are expecting more marijuana users to experiment with substances other than marijuana and they are not able to understand why they don't. Jesus H. Christ for dumb, as my Dad would have so aptly put it. --- "Man, what is the matter with these pot smokers that some of them are not using other drugs, is there something wrong with them?"--- "Something has got to be done about this, they're not following the gateway theory."--- Go freaking figure.

Could it be that they just don't want to try other mind altering substances? If I drink a beer, a bourbon, and a scotch do I have to go sniff some glue? Must uphold the everlovin' 'gateway theory'.

Again as with any of the hazards of prohibition, this so called gateway is happening during prohibition! It would all make better sense if the D.E.A.th mongers spouted their lies trying to make it all illegal, but they only reinforce our logic of the war being a sham and a waste and a cancer on society. With the Bushit(previously called Black)Market supplying the demand. The same analysis that (no adult should need explained, but nonetheless,!!!) the facts are identical to the fact that motor oil is synonymous with car repair facilities or breakfast cereal can lead to other groceries found in the same location.

LSD as a white powder means it was invented in 1943 I believe and its use can not be the result of any natural plant consumption. Plants can't lead to human inventions of dead things manipulated. As always prohibition does the harm exposing naive and curious to other "illegal" substances from stolen auto parts and guns to TV's. Without the proper instruction and safeguards of legitimacy. Prohibition also causes crooked cops and politicians who would not have the opportunity if legitimized. It causes overdoses a Doctors examination and consistency would avoid, it creates HMO profits in each poisoning from adulterated street dope not found in most Drug Stores as well as the sterile needles prohibiting AIDs profits from transmitting as prohibition causes shared needles to do. Creating statistics to perpetuate the war on some drugs Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld doesn't sell. And the profits on war paraphernalia and Supercages to house the infidels. But that would ruin the real reason for prohibition, to keep it all off the Dow Jones Market.

Cannabis prohibition ties up resources that can't stop kids dying from perverts selling them booze and white powders while their out spraying D.E.A.th poison on gamebird habitat or kicking down doors of dying and frail medicinal users supply clubs. Still stigmatizing portions of the population to maintain the betterment of a few's profits...

I made the naive choice to go beyond cannabis when no one was around to teach proper use and I made the choice when to stop, peer pressure is truly real, but it is also truly a real copout excuse, that abuse from ignorance was what was really harming me and I was truly the only one that could make it stop, for me, as I also still make the choice when to Fardup! Does cannabis also hold the dubious threat of aiding one in being themselves with a curiosity to search for Justice and Truth? Cannabis is the Keystone of WoD that is the sustenance of Modern Fascism...not capitalism in mho... As it was in the beginning and is to this day, ah man!
Thimk!
Peace, Love and Liberty or D.E.A.th!
DdC

One thing we can count on...Stigmatizing and Scapegoating worked then as it does now and Urine Testing is truly a Gateway to Profits!!!

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"... the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
http://www.bright.net/~fixit/anslingr.htm

President Ronald Reagan, at the urging of then Vice President George Bush, appointed Carlton Turner as the White House Drug (czar) Advisor in 1981. Soon after Turner left office, Nancy Reagan recommended that no corporation be permitted to do business with the Federal government without having a urine purity policy in place to show their loyalty. Carlton Turner became a rich man in what has now become a huge growth industry: urine-testing.

ACS - Division of Analytical Chemistry - DAC Awards
John P. Walters 1980

No Brainwashing!
http://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/30/30232.gif

Cannabis Hemp: The Invisible Prohibition Revealed
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/invpro.html

I learned that the Crusaders brought seeds back from the Middle East.

"Aside from that, we know few other things about Shoot to Kill: Colombian Crackdown. First, through methodical deduction we've concluded that you'll be largely charged with killing Colombians, and in some sort of crackdown, apparently. But these are not just any Colombians, mind you. These Colombians are those nefarious lowlifes that comprise the insidious drug cartels. And you? Why you will become none other than an officer with the Drug Enforcement Administration."

Maybe they'll include an option where you're the Columbian drug cartel and you get to shoot the DEA agents. That'd be fun.

"marijuana use is associated with greater likelihood of actual hallucinogen use once an initial hallucinogen exposure opportunity has occurred"'

That sounds like there was a greater likelihood of actual hallucinogen use after being offered hallucinogens once, but that is not what it is saying. What it says is that they compared everyone--those who had been offered hallucinogens once and those who had been offered it more times--as though they had all been offered it once. Clever wording, but when you really look at it, it says something entirely different from what you might think it says upon an initial reading.

And here's another confounding variable: kids are taught from an early age that cannabis is a hallucinogen. Did this "knowledge" confuse the kids who were asked whether they had been offered a hallucinogen? Perhaps some of the cannabis smokers believed that cannabis was a hallucinogen (as they had been taught), so they said that they had been offered a hallucinogen when in fact they had been offered cannabis.

The article's claims get more flimsy as we dig into it deeper.

First, the study was published in a journal that would not exist (or would be much smaller) without the war on some drugs and the stigma that "war" creates for people who use drugs, even if they are not addicted to those drugs, and even if those drugs are not addictive. So, we automatically have a bias problem.

Second, the study was merely a number-crunching exercise and has no bearing on actual human behavior. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse is a notoriously flawed instrument for discovering actual levels of use and abuse of drugs (why wouldn't an actual drug users lie when the penalties for using drugs are so severe? More importantly, who would a drug user living in these circumstances feel compelled to tell the truth?). And, this article make no mention of the statistical analysis performed to arrive at this data. Was being at greater risk for taking stronger hallucinogens caused by the fact that those drugs were offered in the first place or by the fact that the kids used cannabis? Obviously, the more likely reason is the former, not the latter. If you are less likely to be offered a hallucinogen, you are less likely to use a hallucinogen--simple as that. And how did this study account for the huge difference in sample sizes between the two groups? While the marijuana-smokers group was about the same size as the non-marijuana-smokers group, the groups studied further (those who had been offered hallucinogens in each group) were so different as to be incomparable (47% of the smokers vs. 6% of the nonsmokers). Further, how did this study determine whether anyone agreed to use a hallucinogen after only once being offered? Isn't it possible that the cannabis smokers were offered stronger hallucinogens more times than the nonsmokers?

This "study" is nothing more than a numbers game, and both the publishers and the authors know full well that it proves nothing. The only thing one can glean from this study, as markjc pointed out, is what we have known all along: prohibition creates the black market that creates the gateway from cannabis to "harder" drugs.