Now, imagine what might happen if other *signatory nations, who are predominantly non-European in make-up*, were to be made to realize that they were signatories to a treaty created by arch-racist Anslinger? Who considered just about everyone who was non-White to be 'degenerates'?

It's astonishing when you stop and think about it. An international treaty, with so many governments run by non-Caucasians being signatories to it, was fomented by a man and his bigoted cohort who had nothing but contempt for the very people whose governments signed it. Incredible that this fact has remained essentially buried for decades, yet it was buried in plain sight, "Purloined Letter" fashion.

Mr. Cowan is quite right in pointing out in his hypothetical last question just how embarrassing this would be to a putatively 'liberal' nation with an avowedly 'Liberal' Party such as Canada to try to use this treaty, created by a bigot, as an excuse to continue working against the welfare of Canada's citizens.

The path of the antis has always been littered with all manner of moral explosive devices, some crude, some sophisticated, but all dangerous to their agenda. Thus far, through brute force and control of communications media, they have been able to range widely and dodge stepping on those 'petards'. But with court case after court case slowly slicing away at their legitimacy, their path gets narrower and narrower. Sooner or later, they will step on the rhetorical mine that has their name on it. This could be one of them.

And, you know what's the height of irony? The very forces that seek to use an international treaty as an excuse to not reform the drug laws are the same forces that have sneered at and abrogated international treaties and laws(!) since they stole power here in the US...and you know what that means for our neighbors.

(I hate to say this, my Canuck friends, but it's obvious Uncle is leaning on Ottawa again, and you know what that means, namely, your sovereignty is negotiable, not fixed. Remember, it was Mr. Cauchon who went scurrying to 'War'-shington to get Johnny Pee's approval of their cannabis legislation before you Canux even knew of it. The Bush Cabal's slime trail *still* leads under the PM's door, and there's a nasty foul-smelling pool of it *still* on the PM's chair. Did Mr. Martin try to wipe it off before he sat down? You tell me...)

The Kyoto Accords, the ABM Treaty, trade agreements, etc. were arrogantly broken by them...and now they want to use an international treaty that's to their liking to get what they want.

"Health Canada Wants To Use Harry Anslinger’s 1961 Treaty As An Excuse to Attack The Sick And Dying. The Fine Print and the Embarrassing History. Should Cannabis Be Regulated By Rules Written For Opium?" http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2522.html ]

The judges have *also* made it quite plain by this refusal that they want the matter settled at a higher level than they inhabit. And that's the key word: SETTLED.

Most of them are as sick of this nonsense as we are, and have never liked the mandatory minimums that infringed upon their powers to adjust sentences. The Judicial Branch is finally showing the strains placed upon it by the Legislative and Executive Branches, and this is the result. Like a dam, the societal presure from the DrugWar has become too great behind the walls and the spillway has been opened to relieve it. We can expect more such rulings in the future, as more judges begin to take their quiet dissension amongst themselves at their displeasure with the DrugWar and translate it into decisions like this one.

The troops in the trenches always grumble, but when the generals start grousing amongst themselves? The antis have a major fight against the judiciary shaping up. Expect to hear them shrieking about "Activist judges!" any day now.

It's not even Spring in this hemisphere, yet, and things are warming up, already.

February 27, 2004

Californians may continue to grow and use marijuana in certain cases to treat illness, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has decided.

The Ninth Circuit panel of three judges denied a request by the Bush Administration to review the court's own ruling made in December. Medical marijuana advocates say the move will allow Californians and people in six other Western states to continue to use marijuana to treat illness without fear of prosecution, The New York Times reports.

In the December decision, the judges voted 2-1 to allow personal medical use of marijuana upon a doctor's recommendation, saying it was not akin to drug trafficking.

The Justice Department refused initial comment on whether it plans to appeal the latest decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Times reports.

Copyright: 2004 ScoutNews, LLC

and all this $, even from the fed taxbase, to test piss and sweat and hair, yet a fight to keep FROM testing for mad cow (BSE). Now that's a complete reversal of appropriate priorities for a govenment. Cannabis won't kill or cripple, Mad Cow does both. And in addition, Mad Cow is a stealth disease appearing up to 20 years from infection, yet it's relatively easy to test for, all without intruding on human rights, indeed, enforcing the right to non-contaminated food.

Gotcha.

It was worth a try :D

I find it odd that they can require him to be tested with no probable cause, yet not pay him for his time.

I realize it's "easy for me to say", but in my opinion if you consent to such a test, you have already lost, and are playing into the enemy's hands. You are already their sheep. "But I would lose my job!!" I can hear some saying now. My response? So what! Be brave. Find work with a more conscientious company. What would you rather lose, your job or your dignity? I'd rather be unemployed, and be the dignified sole owner of my body, than be employed but required to give "samples" to an organization that thinks that little of its employees' core freedoms and thinks it's okay to test me like some kind of cattle or chattel.

Hair testing is the scariest, most controversial, and costliest; but, we all know that "SAMSHA WILL REQUIRE HAIR TESTING ABOVE ALL OTHERS!"

Yes, the dreaded urine test will be gone; but, it will be replaced by something far more violating, ridiculous, and implicating than urine.

Franz Kafka's ghost must be bent over with a hurt gut from laughing too hard.

Dr. James D. Levy Published: February 23, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------ Employee drug testing may become easier -- certainly more efficient -- for employers because of recent advances in testing technologies and an overhaul of federal employee testing procedures that also apply to government-regulated industries such as transportation.

But the first challenge for most employers is to figure out how the changes apply to them. Employers who are federally regulated have no choice in the matter of testing, but nonregulated employers should pay attention.

Government studies reveal that 74 percent of all drug abusers are employed and project that one out of six workers has a drug problem.

Drug abusers on average:

cost their employer $7,000 to $10,000 annually; cost companies 300 percent more in medical costs and benefits; and are absent up to 16 times more often and are one third less productive. If that's not enough to inspire a testing program: In surveys of drug users themselves, 44 percent admitted selling drugs to co-workers and 18 percent admitted stealing from their employers.

Of course, the best use of employee drug testing is when it serves as the first stage of treatment for those who need help. Employed persons have a powerful motivation to end their abusive use of drugs -- their paychecks -- and well-founded treatment programs generally have remarkably good outcomes.

New testing on the way

Planned changes in federal employee drug testing have been announced by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) are to take effect in about a year. New methods will include scrutiny of

workers' hair, saliva and sweat that are intended to give employers more certainty about the timing and scope of drug usage than is now possible solely by urine sampling.

Alternative testing methods will "really ramp up our ability to increase the deterrent value of our program, which is basically the whole bottom line," said Robert Stephenson II of SAMHSA's Division of Workplace programs.

The federal testing program applies far beyond employees of the U.S. government. SAMHSA standards govern testing of approximately 6.5 million workers in federally regulated industries and are the accepted protocol for as many as 40 million workplace drug tests done each year by U.S. employers.

Alternative tests such as those involving saliva, hair or sweat should be appealing to employers because their accuracy cannot be foiled with products sold to mask drug residue in urine.

Some industries have adopted alternative testing methods, but others

have held back because of the lack of standards such as those that are now being adopted by SAMHSA.

Alternative tests also provide information about a subject's drug use over varying periods of time:

Saliva testing, performed with a swab that looks like a toothbrush but has a pad instead of bristles, is best at detecting drug use within the past one or two days. This would be a method to test employees who have been involved in an accident, for example. Hair testing allows detection of many drugs used as far back as three months. This may be a better method to screen new employees. Sweat testing, in which subjects wear a patch that is worn for two weeks, is typically used to screen employees who are returning to work after drug treatment. New products ease the process

Along with new standards for alternative methods, the drug testing industry has provided new products to help make the process more

efficient and less costly. Occupational health clinics or community medical centers can now use products to conduct a first round of testing on their premises without sending samples to a laboratory.

Onsite testing provides the advantage of quickly reflecting negative results -- meaning no drugs. This means that employees could be tested and cleared to return to work sooner, easing the indirect costs associated with employee drug testing.

Only positive results would require confirmation by a government-approved lab.

Development of drug-detection products even goes beyond the new saliva, hair and sweat testing methods. One company has developed a "swipe" device that will test workplace surfaces such as telephones, keyboards, doorknobs and coffee pots -- even light switches and faucet handles -- for evidence of skin-secreted drug residue.

With tests such as these, the workplace can become safer for everyone.

Copyright(c) American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.

February 27, 2004

Backers say measure would help ease pain of health ailments.

OSHKOSH — Jacki Rickert doesn’t smoke marijuana for a high. She said she smokes marijuana so she can live.

The Mondovi resident suffers from a rare connective tissue disorder. While using traditional medicines, she wasted away to 68 pounds. After using marijuana as a medicine, she’s back to her normal weight, she can move again and most importantly, she can live her life.

It’s time for government to realize that marijuana has legitimate purposes, she said.

“My world changed,” said Rickert, founder of the Is My Medicine Legal Yet? advocacy group. “I could start eating a little bit by little bit.”

Wisconsin advocates for the legalization of medical marijuana are praising an Oshkosh lawmaker for a bill they hope will raise discussion on legitimate use of the drug.

State Rep. Gregg Underheim, R-Oshkosh, introduced a bill into the Legislature this week that would allow the medical use of marijuana for illnesses and ailments including AIDS, cancer and glaucoma.

Snipped:

UK: PUB LTE: 2 of 2: Don't Import Failed American Drugs Policies 26 Feb 2004 The Herald http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v04/n338/a06.html?397

US CA: Column: Thank You, WAMM 26 Feb 2004 Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA) http://www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n337/a10.html

Canada: Feds Talk Compassion 26 Feb 2004 Mirror (CN QU) http://www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n337/a04.html

The Hilary Black Show: Health Canada Shwag Exposed The Hilary Black Show with Pot-TV Running Time: 1 hr 0 min Date Entered: 26 Feb 2004 Viewer Rating: 0.00 (0 votes) Number of Views: 128

"This week Hilary exposes the shwag Health Canada is trying to sell as medical marijuana when guest and medical marijuana recipient Jay King, Hilary also talks to needle exchange activist megan Olsen and fellow medical marijuana activists Phil Lucas and Brian Taylor. Music from Be-Funk and the Supa Stars" http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2521.html

Newshawks: Confusion Over Campaign to Legalize Marijuana Newshawks with Pot-TV Running Time: text + video 2:15 min Date Entered: 26 Feb 2004 Viewer Rating: 3.32 (1 vote) Number of Views: 99

"The battle lines are forming again over the issue of legalizing marijuana in Nevada. Pro-marijuana campaigners are collecting signatures for a new ballot initiative, but some voters are anything but high on the idea. News 3's Steve Crupi met with a voter who's upset over how the campaign is being conducted." http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2525.html

And you can bet the staff of the Supremes are gnashing their teeth at the prospect that their too-politically oriented bosses may have to take on the odious chore of hearing a case that could derail the drug laws of this country.

Because the background, the *history*, of the DrugWar has to be brought into the 'discovery' phase of the case in order for the origin of cannabis prohibiton in particular to be explained. To my knowledge, this has never been done in *any* courtroom in this country. Given the racially charged bombshells that comprise the testimony of one Harry J. Anslinger, I wonder how Clarence Thomas would like to hear how the father of cannabis prohibition thought *all* African-Americans to be 'degenerates' and that cannabis caused them to think they were as good as Whites.

Worse for the Supremes, this will get a lot of media exposure at a time when they are very vulnerable for having done the illegal things they did in the 2000 election. Their actions have discredited them greatly, and now, during an election year in which much of the divisiveness in America can be laid at their feet for doing what they did, the last thing they need is a potentially explosive case like this landing on their dockets. When the arguments are made, and the facts regarding the racial bigotry behind cannabis prohibition get national exposure, the pressure from many minority groups will prove to be very decisive, indeed.

You can bet the Supremes and their anti pals will do everything they can to avoid this particular can of "Whupass" being opened in such a public, national venue. But if the judges at the 9th Circuit level force the issue, as they seem to be doing, it has few directions to go but up.

Which is good for us, yes!