Cannabis News Media Awareness Project
  Powerful Central Governments Can Trample Rights
Posted by CN Staff on June 26, 2005 at 13:24:27 PT
By Betterose Ryan 
Source: Argus Leader 

justice USA -- What does the European Union constitution vote of France and the Netherlands have in common with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on medical marijuana? A lot, considering the court’s ruling was more about states’ rights versus federal power than about marijuana, medical or otherwise.

When asked why they voted not to endorse the EU constitution, people had varying responses, but most had the same theme. These people were afraid a central European government would have too much control.

Concern for the lack of independence of their own country was right up there with a fear wealthier countries would be supporting poorer countries. Some said they feared that over time, the “loose” EU government would become too strong and oppressive. Could it be Europeans actually pay attention to what happens in the United States?

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, the thought was that the federal government would provide for national defense and oversee commerce between the states. It is this last thing, overseeing interstate commerce, which our federal government has used to interfere with everything from state speed limits to what is taught in our local schools.

Several years ago, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that said nowhere in the nation could a gun be transported within 1,000 feet of a school. The court at that time said this was stretching the commerce clause beyond a reasonable limit. Some of us thought this might actually herald a rollback in the federal power to diminish states’ rights. We were wrong.

Indeed, the court cited that ruling, stating it did not apply in this case because transporting a gun does not have the ability to affect commerce. However, allowing people to grow their own marijuana would affect interstate commerce. The fact that some states might allow marijuana to be grown by medical patients for their own use would cause more marijuana to be on the market and be “transported in interstate commerce.”

But if the court’s real concern has to do with the increase in supply from local, private cultivation and what that does to interstate commerce, can this mean the end of my mom’s growing and canning of raspberries? In fact, is there any activity that might not meet this level?

Lest you think this is reaching, consider what Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said in her written dissent of the June 6 ruling:

“Today the court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation.

“In so doing, the court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the commerce clause – nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes.”

Perhaps the Dutch and French are smarter than we are. At least they are more wary.

Source: Argus Leader (SD)
Author: Betterose Ryan
Published: June 26, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Argus Leader

Related Articles:

They're Stealing My Constitution

A Court Beneath Contempt

Marijuana Case Addles Supreme Court

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

Comment #34 posted by jose melendez on June 27, 2005 at 19:25:53 PT
for perspective
Just to put my comment #32 in perspective, had any of us been caught with the amount of contraband in question, penalties would be far more severe:


" . . . penalties the defendants face if convicted are at least 10 years' imprisonment up to life imprisonment, and a fine of up to $4 million.

According to the complaints, this investigation began as a spin-off from a previous investigation and prosecution of members of a drug organization that had operated in the Crescent City area. Law enforcement had dubbed that investigation "Operation Crescent Moon."

The spin-off investigation arose from information provided by cooperating defendants in the previous case, as well as information provided by other cooperating individuals. The investigation progressed through undercover purchases of drugs, physical surveillance, analysis of telephone call records, and, ultimately, court-authorized wire taps of several telephones.

The complaint alleges that the amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy was at least 5 kilograms of cocaine, at least 5 grams of crack cocaine, and at least 100 kilograms of marijuana."

- - -

So, unless they actually reovered the drugs, the DeLand evidence locker manager gets to keep the equivalent of 175,000 per year of jail time, for a crime anyone else would have potentially faced life.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by FoM on June 27, 2005 at 19:12:34 PT
Thank you. If you want to help with CNews the person to contact would be Matt Elrod. If something breaks he fixes it so he knows how it works but I just don't. I'm not a programmer just a web page maker for my personal site.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by jose melendez on June 27, 2005 at 18:53:20 PT
utter hypocrisy
This happened in my backyard. What crooks:

DELAND -- A former Volusia County Sheriff's Office evidence manager was sentenced to three years in prison and 10 years probation today for stealing nearly $500,000 worth of drug evidence from the DeLand compound he supervised.

Tim Wallace, of New Smyrna Beach, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic cocaine and official misconduct. He was arrested in February 2004 after investigators said he altered records and replaced some drug evidence with sod to try to hide the thefts.

"He abused the public's trust, he abused our trust and he's going to have to suffer the consequences," said Sheriff's Office spokesman Gary Davidson. "I think ( the sentence ) is appropriate under the circumstances."

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by Max Flowers on June 27, 2005 at 18:44:56 PT
I'm on a roll
I want to say this too. All three of those "concerns" named by the government are unworthy of placing in higher priority than the rights of The People when you look at them. It really angers me.

...where Congress has found that

1. The substance has a high potential for abuse

This is utter hypocrisy, because Alcohol and tobacco have extremely high "potential for abuse" as well and yet the government sees fit to let anyone abuse it all day long and they even make money off that abuse. Use is not automatically abuse, and if this is true for booze and cigs, it is true for cannabis.

2. It is unsafe for use even under medical supervision

Define "safe"!! Alcohol and tobacco are not "safe" at all by the definition they would use, and neither are a thousand other things, so again this is astounding hypocrisy. Skydiving is not "safe" either---shouldn't the government outlaw skydiving too? How about barbecuing meat? We all know about the carcinogens in the burnt parts by now. You can see that this logic does not hold up even for a minute. Government is not suppposed to be a henpecking nanny who watches our every move to keep us from anything "unsafe" as if we were all toddling infants!

3. Its importation and distribution would violate an international treaty

Since when do treaties we have with other nations trump the rights and desires of our own citizens? Does that not strike anyone else as strange? Do you recall giving up your sovereignty to other nations, or the UN, the EU, or anyone else?

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by runderwo on June 27, 2005 at 18:42:16 PT:

Several programmers including myself post here on a semi-regular basis, so if you need upgrades/fixes to the site, feel free to ask or email.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by Max Flowers on June 27, 2005 at 18:29:32 PT
Wording of entire issues prejudicial to The People
Thanks Dennis. You know it kills me the way they frame these legal issues sometimes. Language is such a powerful and complex thing, and often it is the way they word the issue that is already so prejudicial to the people.

In this case: you posted the following

The actual question the Supreme Court will be examining on appeal is: "Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., requires the government to permit the importation, distribution, possession, and use of a Schedule I hallucinogenic controlled substance, where Congress has found that the substance has a high potential for abuse, it is unsafe for use even under medical supervision, and its importation and distribution would violate an international treaty."

Look at that: "Whether the Act requires the government to permit..." Notice how that phrasing puts the government in the superior position from the outset. Right away, that is very wrong. Constitutionally and properly, it is always a question of preserving the citizen's right, as his/her rights are supposed to be the primary thing to be worried about FIRST---NOT the interest of the government. Therefore, the issue should be instead phrased from the angle of "Is the people's natural and Constitutional right to exercise their religion less compelling than the government's interest to meddle in the people's affairs?

The answer is an obvious and resounding NO, because of course a small minority of people experiencing religious communion with their choice of sacrament could not possibly bother or hinder the government in any reasonable pursuit. However, as we well know, the government's petty desire to control what state of mind the people create in themsleves is their pursuit, and a very unreasonable and unconstitutional one which DOES NOT exceed the citizen's rights to religious freedom in its importance.

These issues need to start being framed from the proper perspective---that is, from the angle that the rights and needs of The People, not the will and dominance of the government, are paramount.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by konagold on June 27, 2005 at 16:51:37 PT:

kept getting the same post title even after changing it this one should read test please ignore

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by konagold on June 27, 2005 at 16:47:09 PT:

beware of those SELLING religious protection
Aloha Max

First The Religion of Jesus Church is Jesusonian rather than Christian the difference being Christianity is a religion about Jesus and the other is ... well the name kind of says it

We aspire to live the religion Jesus lived based on we have a creator parent in common so we all are brothers and sisters

I have no right to judge neither your beliefs nor any other

Regarding helping you there are several religions, which utilize cannabis [read the holy herb on the church web site]

RFRA the religious freedom restoration act of 1993 was enacted by congress to overturn the "Smith v Employment Department" SCOTUS case where peyote parishioners claimed the 1st amendment protected them from the States law prohibiting unemployment benefits paid to firings due to failing drug test.

The Court ruled that there is no religious exemption from laws of general applicability and which are religiously neutral this was in 1990

The Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [RFRA]

In a case involving a archdiocese right to renovate the church's historical landmark over the city’s objections and laws forbidding such SCOTUS ruled that RFRA was a overreaching of congress to legislate in the states but such can not be said with regard to congress's right to regulate the federal government

Thus RFRA still protects the religious use of Cannabis from acts of the DEA

In the UDV case SCOTUS upheld a federal injunction of a lower court based on RFRA

However the Court has agreed to hear a question posed by the US Attorney General: if RFRA can exempt any schedule 1 drug and will decide next session

The actual question the Supreme Court will be examining on appeal is: "Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., requires the government to permit the importation, distribution, possession, and use of a Schedule I hallucinogenic controlled substance, where Congress has found that the substance has a high potential for abuse, it is unsafe for use even under medical supervision, and its importation and distribution would violate an international treaty." caution 131 pages

For the Supreme Court Docket entries go to 1. Ashcroft v. O Centro Espirita, Docket number 04 A 469 2. Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita, Docket Number 04-1084


Rev. Dennis Shields

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by FoM on June 27, 2005 at 15:47:58 PT
Max Flowers
I'm sorry that we don't have an edit feature but when Ron Bennett made CNews is wasn't something written in to the program. I can edit but it's all in html and is very difficult for me to do and if I goof I could probably crash the site. I've never done any damage to CNews and that makes me very happy. There are disadvantages to editing ability. Years ago I would see a flaming post on other sites and after the person knew people saw it they would correct it and act innocent. In a way it is fairer to not have edit ability in my opinion.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by Max Flowers on June 27, 2005 at 15:40:12 PT
Spiritual, not "spritual"
Sorry for those typos... I sure still wish there could be an edit function on this site.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by Max Flowers on June 27, 2005 at 15:20:51 PT
Rev. Shields
Thanks Rev. Dennis. For the sake of myself and many other readers here, could you expound a bit on the RFRA thing? This subject fascinates me, even though I am not Christian and would be lying if I tried to associate my cannabis use with any form of Christianity. My use is spritual to be sure, just not Christian. What I believe fits more along Pagan, Native American and Buddhist systems, but is my own unique thing I suppose.

Anyway getting back to your experience, you said that RFRA was declared unconstitutional, but in the next sentence you said it is in effect protecting people. Sorry not to have done my homework on this, but I would like to hear more about that. I am currently trying to see how I can apply the same protections that you say the UDV has, to myself and what I believe even though it has no anchor in common religion (Christianity). To me, this would be a true test of Constitutional religious freedom because I would be *establishing a religion*, despite that it would be only me to start with (I am certain it would grow, however, as there are lots and lots of spritual, cannabis-using non-Christians out there, believe it or not).

I can only imagine how much harder it would be for government types to swallow since it would not be a Christ-based or "God"-based religion. But according to the 1st Amendment, I have a perfect right to establish/exercise religion without government interference, and I want to test that to see if in actual fact it is really there.

Will you help, despite that I don't share your same belief system?

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by Toker00 on June 27, 2005 at 15:05:41 PT
Max Flowers
Lucky You! ; ) Texas ain't so kind!


[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by runderwo on June 27, 2005 at 14:42:37 PT
alcohol poisoning
What's notable about that alcohol poisoning is that Kenya has a prohibition on the drink in question. The methanol makes its way into the drink from unauthorized and unregulated brewers mistaking methanol for ethanol. You get drunk off methanol, but your liver converts it into formic acid which then goes into your bloodstream and does nasty things (including killing the optic nerve usually).

If the government would acknowledge existence of this drink and regulate the sellers, this wouldn't be a problem. It's the same problem from 1920's prohibition where people would be poisoned by moonshine. And this is the same argument I use whenever someone trots out the tired "cannabis could be adultered with PCP or methamphetamine or contain poisonous pesticides".

BTW, in case anyone isn't familiar with chemistry, it is an extremely bad idea to use industrial ethanol in drinks too. The reason is that a small amount of benzene is added to dry out the remaining water, because 190 proof (95%) is the purest alcohol you can get without a drying agent. People drink this stuff assuming it's just like Everclear and are poisoned by the benzene.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by konagold on June 27, 2005 at 14:19:17 PT:

beware of those SELLING religious protection

In follow up to the fed or state religious protection question.

I went to trial claiming RFRA, among other things.

RFRA was declared un-constitutional with regard to the states just as I was filing state appeal

Currently RFRA and RLUIPA are in effect protecting religion from federal intervention

The UDV case has been to the us supreme court and upheld currently they import organic DMT with the DEA's consent


Rev. Dennis [one can lead the horse to water, one can introduce the mule to the 2 by 4, but please don’t milk the sacred cow for all its worth] Shields

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by konagold on June 27, 2005 at 13:11:17 PT:

beware of those SELLING religious protection
Aloha I am a member/minister of the Religion of Jesus Church since 1973.

We utilize and mandate the use of Cannabis sacrament for worship and healing.

In 2000 I ordained Roger Christie who subsequently used his affiliation to justify the THC-Ministry's so called claim at religious protection and subsequent sales of sanctuary. [One should ask Roger for a copy of the motion to dismiss filed by the federaltrial attorney in his recent failed attempt to enjoin the government prior to ones ascertaining the value and protection of sanctuary in his church]

Membership and sanctuary in the Religion of Jesus Church is FREE.

One will find Paypal button on the THC-Ministry site 'suggesting' a 200 dollar donation.

All one needs to do to demonstrate Religion of Jesus Church 'membership' is to simply print the page titled Cannabis Sacrament given at the Church's website which has been on the web since 1994 [I rather recently added the counter so it is not accurate]

These Mandates were created and written in prayerful collaboration between Rev. James Kimmel and myself and displayed at in their present form shortly after my 'conviction on my convictions' in state court in 1997.

The Religion of Jesus Church is [other than the differentiation between Reverend and member] a non-hierarchal peer to peer network of minister/members-believers.

One becomes a Reverend in the Church by becoming ordained One becomes ordained by first reviewing the Ordination Sermon given by Jesus to the Apostles found at paper 140 third section first paragraph of the Urantia Book

After reviewing this contract between you, Jesus, and 'God in you' and then agreeing to accept this sermon as your ministerial marching orders.

A ordained minister of the Religion of Jesus Church may then witness your acceptance of these terms by reading out loud this sermon and asking if one accepts this as ones ministerial marching orders

Upon the out loud witnessing of such commitment by the officiating Church Reverend one is then ordained with all rights and ministerial powers including but not limited to mandated Sacramental uses of Cannabis.

This is how Roger Christie was ordained in 2000

No charge, only the witnessing of commitment.

re Cannabis in the church

The Religion of Jesus Church was founded in 1969 in Sonoma CA thus pre-existing the Controlled Substances Act and can not be ex-post-facto-ed out of first amendment rights by a mere statute

Question, when Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan who took the wounded man to shelter and paid from his own pocket for the time at the inn for him to heal, did he intend his followers to charge $200 for sanctuary; or can one imagine in time of flood or hurricane being charged for sanctuary at the churches High ground at time of great peril??

Personally, I view the demonstration by Jesus with the money changers in the temple as a powerful reason and example not to profiteer from prophesy

To quote Bono "my God ain’t short of cash"

Aloha Rev. Dennis Shields The Religion of Jesus Church

PS there is no designation of "branch" in the Church it is simply The Religion of Jesus Church and its location is here and now

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by Max Flowers on June 27, 2005 at 10:42:48 PT
Indeed, it's not protection from the state but from federal government that I'm interested in. I'm in a state that is pretty tolerant (CA).

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Toker00 on June 27, 2005 at 03:27:20 PT
THC church
Ask the ministry to provide proof of religous freedom from prosecution. It may only be state protected, not Federal.


[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by Max Flowers on June 27, 2005 at 00:48:42 PT
Yes, let's hear from members
I second that: I would like to hear about any experiences anyone has had with either the THC Ministry or Reverend Adler's religious organization; I'm especially interested to hear what has happened to anyone who was busted and attempted to use the religious defense as supplied by either outfit.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by FoM on June 26, 2005 at 21:47:42 PT
Mayan and Jim
It is something to find out that China is more popular then we are. The sad thing it doesn't surprise me.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by Jim Lunsford on June 26, 2005 at 21:16:55 PT
THC church
On your experience with the THC Church, do you have any experience as to how much legal freedom it's members have? And also, FoM, I went to the news site you linked to concerning China being more popular than the US and happened upon this link:

This was a big case of alcohol poisoning. Killed quite a few people. Probably won't hear anything about that one from the feds. After all, it wasn't anything about the deadly effects of marijuana. As if it had any! Well, maybe the killer effects of this particular plant that I just inhaled. Take care everyone and be safe, Jim

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Dankhank on June 26, 2005 at 20:59:29 PT
THC ministry
Roger and crew are good people ...

They keep Hawai'i on the straight and narrow..

Peace to all who educate ../.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by mayan on June 26, 2005 at 20:48:37 PT
When the rest of the world holds China in higher regard than the U.S. it must be pretty bad...

China more popular than U.S. overseas:


Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job:

Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11" by Kristen Breitweiser:

The 'Truss Theory': A Fantasy Concocted to Conceal a Demolition:

Investigate and Impeach Bush for 9/11 Petition:

9/11 Truth Art Contest:

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Jim Lunsford on June 26, 2005 at 20:05:24 PT
Off the subject
Has anyone ever heard of the following church?

I am now a member. Any experience by anyone here?

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on June 26, 2005 at 19:17:11 PT
Very good. I truly am amazed at what you do. I believe if it's what you want you will be very important in politics someday. We need people like you involved in our government.

PS: I added a couple of pictures to the page on the raids. Here it is.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Taylor121 on June 26, 2005 at 19:04:48 PT
I wrote an article on legalization
If anyone is interested:

"My confidence is that there will for a long time be virtue and good sense enough in our countrymen to correct abuses"— Thomas Jefferson 1788.

Within each of us lies the ability to reason and objectively assess public policy if we can let go of our presumptuous assumptions picked up by one sided sources and experiences. A public policy is measured by what it sought out to do and the cost and implication therein. By any rational objective standard, the public policy relating to the prohibition of marijuana has become an atrocious failure claiming billions of dollars of public financing and disrupting the lives and family of millions of otherwise law abiding citizens.

The goal and purpose of the prohibition of marijuana is to eliminate the use of the substance for the health and fortitude of the citizens of this country, a lofty goal with grotesque implications including asset forfeiture, loss of college student’s financial aid, numerous citizens paralyzed by a criminal record, corruption of elected and law enforcement officials, crime itself increasing with a tendency to become ‘organized’, exposure to other illicit drugs, unregulated drug purities, intrusion on civil liberties, and exposure to in jail/prison to otherwise law abiding citizens. Where alcohol prohibition had similar goals but amounted to a complete failure, so has marijuana prohibition. Since marijuana was federally prohibited in 1937, 95 to 100 million Americans have admitted to trying it. That amounts to a substantial portion of our nation’s population being subject to potential criminal sanctions for nothing other than the use of marijuana. While deterrence is one of the main aims of total prohibition it is noteworthy that the threat of legal sanctions has been shown to play a very minor part in the decision-making of cannabis consumers. The fiscal costs and unrealized revenue lost as a direct result of marijuana prohibition amount to around $14 billion annually according to Harvard University study headed by Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman and endorsed by 500 respected economists. To put this in perspective, this is nearly enough revenue to pay for two times the full cost of anti-terrorism port security measures required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 every year. The Coast Guard has estimated these costs, covering 3,150 port facilities and 9,200 vessels, at $7.3 billion total. Even if you hate the substance itself, the fiscal costs and unrealized gains in revenue are more than enough to spark up a friendly conversation about the policy.

I suppose the worry that crosses the mind of so many Americans is the notion that marijuana use will explode upon the granting of legitimacy. However, evidence notes otherwise. The Dutch de-facto legalization experience is the closest laboratory example we have to a system of regulated cannabis in the world. In the May 2004 American Journal of Public Health, they specifically tested the premise that punishment for cannabis use deters use and thereby benefits public health. Want to know the result? “We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use. Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought.” More often than not, Americans do not like to look at other nations because of cultural dissimilarities. This is understandable, but we have no working examples of a regulated distribution system to the general adult population. What we do have to further the evidence is what is widely dubbed ‘decriminalization’ in roughly twelve states. This policy includes punishing the cannabis consumer with a civil fine rather than incarceration. The consequence of these laws has been effectively measured and the broad consensus is in. From the National Institute of Medicine in their report Assessing the Science Base "There is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use.” Onward down to the Connecticut Law Review Commission towards the California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse’s report in the 70s when decriminalization started to become policy, the same end result stands. Decriminalization does not appear to increase marijuana usage. Marijuana use has only gone up since its prohibition and with it comes all the burdens mentioned previously along with the “forbidden fruit” mentality that entices youth to use the substance simply to rebel. I am not saying the law has absolutely nothing to do with use trends, but its impact is relatively minor and as I mentioned before is a very small part of the decision making process.

What about the children? Apart from the forbidden fruit effect, prohibition puts a multi billion dollar industry in the hands of criminals that in large sell and market to children without a second thought. Children can get a hold of marijuana easier than beer despite beer being sold at every 7-11 in sight. This is mostly because convenient stores tend to card children otherwise risking their beer license. Put cannabis in a store separate from beer and require customers to be 21 before they even enter and let’s see what happens to availability for children. Couple that with a strong education campaign that is honest and forthcoming with children about the dangers of using cannabis and common sense restrictions on driving while intoxicated and using in public. Let us start recognizing what our reviews are telling us about cannabis use trends that are happening not just in the U.S., but all around the world. Let us use our history to guide our decisions and take alcohol prohibition as a lesson learned.

Last but not least, the government should stop lying to teens about marijuana’s effects. The result is devastatingly counterproductive when a teen sees his peers using marijuana without running children over on tricycles. The government losing its credibility to educate has the potential ramification of teens thinking the information about other more harmful drugs is also blown at of proportion. The drug czar frequently touts the potency of marijuana has risen substantially since the 1970s with the slogan “this is not your father’s pot.” All the while the implication therein is that marijuana is more dangerous because it is more potent. Two things Walters did not get in the memo. There is not one iota of scientific documentation existing today that I know of exposing any causal connection with marijuana being more dangerous because of an increase in potency. Perhaps this has to do with the utter impossibility of a marijuana overdose. Secondly, the figures cited are clearly called into question since the first part of the potency project had inept procedures for storing the cannabis at appropriate temperatures. The result was a measurement of 1% THC content in the 70s, an obvious paradox since 1% THC would simply cause a headache. The marijuana lost THC content, so although marijuana potency may have increased; it is not anything to write home about. The extra potency would rationally result in less smoke being consumed to achieve the desired level of intoxication with a desired result of less wear and tear on the lungs. Time to rename the Office of National Drug Policy(ONDCP) the Office of National Defamation and Calumniated Propaganda.

This is the point where society moves towards a sensible policy on marijuana. This is the time where people stop snoring with their heads in the sand on an issue that is costing this nation billions of dollars with a broad list of devastating social consequences without any positive result. Nobody is better off with our law enforcement taking hours out of their day to book a marijuana offender when they could be solving murders. The public is coming to terms with reality, are you?

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 26, 2005 at 18:16:24 PT
Thank you. I really don't know anything about politics but I really do care about the people who live in the USA. We aren't liked in the world anymore. The sad part is what made this nation great almost is lost now. I have a dream always meant a lot to me. A dream of a better tomorrow and a content today. If we could remember the wonder of pioneers settling land and establishing roots and bringing in their own culture and how good it was for many families it would be a good beginning once again.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by jose melendez on June 26, 2005 at 17:53:52 PT
NJ Governor Candidate Speaks
a 'must listen'

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Taylor121 on June 26, 2005 at 17:53:46 PT
I would vote for you assuming you didn't mention you know nothing about politics ;)

No really though, I think you know more than you think you do. You are very humble with your knowledge.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Taylor121 on June 26, 2005 at 17:52:12 PT
Sounds good to me. I would vote for you.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by jose melendez on June 26, 2005 at 16:20:54 PT
apoptosis anticarcinogenic anandamide and America
Israeli researcher develops cannabis compound with unique anti-cancer action

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on June 26, 2005 at 16:01:20 PT
Since I don't understand politics this is what I believe in if I ruled this country. I believe in people and their rights. I believe that Gays should have the financial benefits and obligations ( contracts ) of marriage if that's what they want. I believe that it's wrong to use illegal immigrants because they are cheap labor. I believe that women should have control over their own body just like men have control over their own body. I believe that suppression of minorities isn't acceptable. I believe that individuals rights override the governments rights. That's what I would act on if I ruled this country.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by jose melendez on June 26, 2005 at 15:55:51 PT
happy medium
Agreed, extremism in government makes for bad public policy.

This article might appeal to FoM, E_J and Hope:

"Well-behaved women rarely make history":

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Taylor121 on June 26, 2005 at 15:41:13 PT
This is where the New Deal liberalism back fires. I understand that I could do great things like end segregation and force states to comply with women's rights. On the other hand we now can experience why a strong central government is not the best answer. A strong central government should not interfere with state affairs that does not directly enter commerce, commerce defined by the founding father's documents you can find in Thomas's dissent to Raich.

I urge everyone here to embrace federalism and states' rights. We now know the danger of putting so much power in the hands of D.C. The body can now regulate Hawaii affairs from thousands of miles away.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by jose melendez on June 26, 2005 at 15:06:10 PT
Marijuana Party is recognized by U.S. Archives
" . . . wake up and realize that, in the case of prohibition, the cure is worse than the disease."

Loretta Nall

President, U.S. Marijuana Party

Aside from the strongholds of the Democrats and the Republicans, there is a wide array of other political parties operating in the United States. Candidates from these "third" parties have never been elected to Presidential office, but they make themselves known just the same.

Third Parties:

America First, American Party, American Heritage Party, American Independent Party, American Nazi Party, American Reform Party, Christian Falangist Party of America, Communist Party USA, Constitution Party, Constitutional Action Party, Family Values Party, Freedom Socialist Party/Radical Women, Grassroots Party, Green Party of the United States (Green Party), The Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA), Independence Party, Independent American Party, Labor Party, Libertarian Party, Light Party, Natural Law Party, New Party, New Union Party, Peace & Freedom Party, Prohibition Party, Reform Party, The Revolution, Socialist Party USA, Socialist Action, Socialist Equality Party, Socialist Labor Party, Socialist Workers Party, Southern Party, Southern Independence Party, U.S. Pacifist Party, We The People Party, Workers World Party.

Other Parties: American Falangist Party, American Patriot Party, Constitutionalist Party, Democratic Socialists of America, Knights Party, Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, Multicapitalist Party, Pansexual Peace Party, Pot Party, Progressive Labor Party, Revolutionary Communist Party USA, Social Democrats USA, The Third Party, U.S. Marijuana Party, Workers Party USA, Veterans Party of America, World Socialist Party of the USA.

The wide selection of political parties – some perhaps more far-fetched than others - is another example of the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. The citizens have the right to assemble and express their opinions, and are not pigeon-holed into being part of the elite political system if they so choose.

For more about third and other political parties in America, visit the Politics.Com web site.


- - -

from http://Politics.Com:

U.S. Marijuana Party - US Marijuana Party The US Marijuana Party (USMJP) is -- as you would expect -- a marijuana legalization entity espousing generally libertarian views. "The civil rights of Americans have been compromised by the war on drugs. Because the vast majority of citizens who use any illegal substance use only marijuana, the war on drugs is basically a war on marijuana.

If you can pull the plug on the war on marijuana, you end the war on drugs as we know it. You shut down the prison industrial complex, and you restore the liberties that have been eroded because of this futile war on marijuana," explains the USMJP.

The party -- which already has chapters formed in several states -- is seeking marijuana legalization on a state-by-state basis. The USMJP is seeking to field candidates in the various state to raise the public profile of the drug debate -- but none fielded to date on any ballots under the party banner. The USMJP was founded in 2002.

- - -

- How did you nail down the real story?

"I went back to DC and the national archives. I talked to people who'd been involved in investigation of Contras and drugs back in the 1980's. I had an unpleasant meeting with the DEA in San Diego. They were pissing and moaning like how dare I write things that would expose an undercover informant of theirs who had sold dope to the Crips and Bloods and they were so worried about exposing him.

They offered to make a deal that if I left him out of the story they would get me an interview with the drug kingpin that I really wanted to talk to, and that's when I knew something was very wrong: how does the DEA act as a press agent for drug kingpins? That's when I knew something was very messed up here."

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:


Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:

Return to Main Menu

So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on June 26, 2005 at 13:24:27