Cannabis News Stop the Drug War!
  So Why is Pot Really Illegal?
Posted by CN Staff on October 26, 2006 at 10:54:42 PT
By Andy Nicewicz 
Source: Rocky Mountain Collegian 

cannabis Colorado -- Two weeks ago I talked about some common arguments used against the legalization of marijuana such as: It will make you crazy, it will seriously affect your health, it is a gateway drug and/or will make you lazy and stupid. In that same column I also discussed how none of these claims is significantly backed up by facts or scientific findings.

So why is marijuana really illegal? Well, here's my theory.

Historically, the fact that marijuana is used by "fringe groups of society" was a major factor in making it illegal. The first state laws passed to make marijuana illegal were instituted largely in part to persecute unwelcome Mexican immigrants who used the drug.

When marijuana was made illegal across the country in 1937, racism was again a major factor. Black jazz musicians were the main fringe group targeted this time.

Henry Anslinger, the director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics at the time, had this to say: "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." and "...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

As times changed, so did the fringe groups who gave reasons to keep marijuana illegal. During the Red Scare, Communists were thought to be brainwashing Americans into pacifists through marijuana. During the 60s and 70s, dirty un-American hippies were the main group associated with marijuana use.

Nowadays, the government can't single out groups of people like that as a reason to keep marijuana illegal. But it's still ingrained in many people's minds that marijuana is only used by criminals and free-loaders.

Marijuana has been illegal for so long now that most people can't remember a time when it was legal. We've grown up in a society where marijuana is considered a harmful drug and is basically grouped in the same category as other substances such as cocaine, heroine and methamphetamine.

Legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, are not lumped into that category, although their addictiveness and adverse health affects perhaps warrant them to be so much more than marijuana. But since tobacco and alcohol use is common in mainstream America, they are accepted by society.

But since marijuana doesn't receive that same acceptance, it remains in the "drug" category. Something needs to be done to educate people that marijuana is not the same as cocaine, heroine or methamphetamine; is not even remotely close to cocaine, heroine and methamphetamine; and should have nothing to do with cocaine, heroine and methamphetamine, but should instead be deserving of its own distinct (legal) category like alcohol and tobacco.

However, children are taught to "just say no" to all drugs, and there is little distinction between marijuana and harder drugs. But people still try marijuana, and when they do, they often realize it's not as bad as everyone would have them believe.

This can easily lead to the conclusion that if marijuana is illegal but didn't hurt me, maybe the government was blowing smoke up my ass about other illegal drugs as well.

If marijuana were to become legal, the artificial connection between marijuana and much more harmful narcotics would disappear. Not only that, but the cynicism and mistrust that comes with the realization that the government has been lying to you (or at the very least manipulating the facts to get you on their side) would also be alleviated.

This would be worth having a few more kids getting high.

Andy Nicewicz is a senior political science major. His column appears every Monday in the Collegian.

Source: Rocky Mountain Collegian, The (CO Edu)
Author: Andy Nicewicz
Published: October 23, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Rocky Mountain Collegian
Contact: letters@collegian.com
Website: http://www.collegian.com/

Related Articles & Web Sites:

Safer Colorado
http://www.safercolorado.org/

Safer Choice
http://www.saferchoice.org/

Safety at Heart of Pot Debate
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22317.shtml

No Logical Reason To Punish Adults for Marijuana
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22312.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #35 posted by FoM on October 31, 2006 at 08:26:34 PT
Our View: Don't Eat French Fries

October 31, 2006

Colorado -- With all the seemingly "pro-pot" editorials we have written, we must make something clear: marijuana is not good for you. It doesn't have the nutritional value of, say, a granola bar. It will probably make you lazy and too much of it could rob you of your ambition.

And this goes without saying, it clearly impairs your ability to think (that's kind of the point, though).

So, to make clear, the Rocky Mountain Collegian does not support pot consumption. Or alcohol consumption. Or French fries consumption. Or reading People magazine

But we will fight to defend your right to make a fool out of yourself at a party and spend hours vomiting afterward; clog your arteries with America's favorite side order; and have a superficial take on life.

And to be consistent, we will fight for your right to feel that special giggly feeling after smoking the plant. Ladies and gentleman, freedom is on the march. We know this because our president says so.

But with all this freedom running around in foreign lands like a drunken sailor thrashing a broken beer bottle at anyone in sight, though, one would think giving people the choice of a drug clearly more benign than legal alcohol wouldn't even be up for debate in America. But for some outdated, puritanical reason, it is. Let's change that next Tuesday.

Vote "yes" on Amendment 44.

Copyright: 2006 Rocky Mountain Collegian

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #34 posted by Toker00 on October 27, 2006 at 09:00:10 PT
Whig
I wasn't aware that they (witches/Joan of Arc) used cannabis. Wow. I guess you learn something old every day.

Toke.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #33 posted by Synesthete on October 26, 2006 at 18:42:18 PT
Whig.
Well, I'm a Synesthete (as suggested by my name).

Any visible pattern causes me to see sparks, glitter, and flashes of color (so I'm basically tripping out all the time).

I've found that cannabis also affects my "disorder" (quotation marks because I love it). When I'm high, my vision clears and I can see things like they really are. Strange.

Anywho, I agree. Drugs don't cure psychological problems. In the end, the change has to come from the person's mind. If they BELIEVE it's going to help, then it probably will. If not...it may or may not help temporarily.

I don't support medical mind-candy. Opiates are horrifying drugs in and of themselves, and synthetic dopamine might as well be cocaine since dopamine is the neurotransmitter linked to dependence. Some good friends, family, and a good-old-fashioned therapist will get the job done 1000 times better than any federally-approved pill.

Synesthete

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #32 posted by whig on October 26, 2006 at 18:25:25 PT
Synesthete
I would suggest that cannabis is helpful to schizophrenics, too, but they need some talking therapy to figure their way out of confusion too. It's not sufficient to just give them drugs and send them home, whether that is a neuroleptic or cannabis, but as far as what medication helps more, neuroleptics are purely pacifiers, they encourage the brain to shut down and function at a more basic level (no wonder many diagnosed schizophrenics seem like they must be mentally retarded, the drugs they are given do that to them).

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #31 posted by Synesthete on October 26, 2006 at 18:18:18 PT
Grrrr!
I'm extremely sick of these people claiming marijuana is stronger now than it was back in the day. Yeah, it is stronger, but not MUCH stronger. Hell, back in the 60's and 70's when it was so mainstream, the reason it wasn't so potent back then was because the majority of the weed siezed was ditchweed from Mexico and other parts of the country. Now that the government destroyed most naturally growing cannabis patches, the only samples they have are bits of ditchweed, some of the mids that amateurs grow outside or in their homes, and then the TOP quality hydroponic and other types of bud that most people buy now.

However, they stretch the truth to look like (since it's a more concentrated drug) a higher potency makes it a different drug.

*imitates a buzzer*

So incredibly wrong. As we all know, if the bud is a higher potency, then the person is going to smoke less of it. It doesn't create a different chemical entirely by growing it better, it just means more bang for your buck. I even read once that some governments have deemed sinsemilla (seedless bud) as a narcotic because of its extreme potency for addiction (which is a fallacy) and it's effects on the brain and body (which are -exactly- the same as any other cannabis.

Moving on, they claim that today's cannabis is chemically made to hard-wire a person's brain. THAT is ridiculous. Same chemicals as any other cannabis, like I said before. No serious mental effects (except cannabis use tends to amplify latent psychological problems) to speak of...no physiological harm except from that due to smoking. Speaking of which, the ONLY harm in cannabis (unless you're a slight schizophrenic) comes from smoke, which high quality cannabis helps reduce. So...it's actually a damn good thing that cannabis is so much stronger now than it was back in the day.

Synesthete

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #30 posted by mayan on October 26, 2006 at 17:44:07 PT
Racism and...
SHADOW OF THE SWASTIKA: The Real Reason the Government Won't Debate Medical Cannabis and Industrial Hemp Re-legalization: http://www.hempfarm.org/Papers/Shadow_of_the_Swastika.html



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #29 posted by whig on October 26, 2006 at 17:13:40 PT
Toker00
I think that even if church ladies had been the first group to use cannabis widely, they would have been the demonized group. I bet they would even have gone as far as to call them WITCHES and the like. And they would have been demonized by their own kind, other church ladies.
Fortunately, we don't burn witches any more. Unless they weigh the same as a duck.

Seriously, you're right. What do you think Joan d'Arc was accused of using?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #28 posted by global_warming on October 26, 2006 at 16:51:36 PT
Tell Me Again
Why is Cannabis Use A Crime?



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #27 posted by global_warming on October 26, 2006 at 16:40:11 PT
You have my Amen Brother GCW
Thank God that you are here in this world.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #26 posted by The GCW on October 26, 2006 at 16:32:54 PT
FOURTYFOUR
This is a good article that could continue and continue.

Toker00,

They did burn women who used cannabis calling them WITCHES, didn't they???

FOURTYFOUR

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n000/a379.html?274131

US CO: PUB LTE: Amendment 44 Supported by the Bible

Pubdate: Tue, 03 Oct 2006

Source: Rocky Mountain Collegian, The (Colorado State U, CO Edu)

AMENDMENT 44 SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE

We're indebted to Mason Tvert and his work, re-legalizing cannabis in my lifetime ( Pot Fliers Flap Shrouded in Haze, Sept. 28, 2006 ), placing Amendment 44 on Colorado's election ballot Nov. 7.

This is a chance for citizens to change an ignorant, anti-Christian law. It is a chance for parents and mothers to help protect children from prohibitionist society and its harms. A chance to guide police toward serving and protecting, rather than maintaining a misguided prohibition. A chance for true conservatives to stop government from unsuccessfully spending more money to control what people put in their bodies. A chance for DARE graduates who've been lied to to speak out. And it's a chance for Christians to acknowledge what it means when Christ God Our Father indicates He created all the seed-bearing plants saying they are all good on literally the very first page of the Bible ( see Genesis 1:11-12 and 29-30 ).

It's time to stop caging and persecuting people for using what God says is good.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #25 posted by whig on October 26, 2006 at 16:22:20 PT
Interesting, isn't it?
That last comment was 4:20.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #24 posted by whig on October 26, 2006 at 16:20:48 PT
Dark Angels speak
Please watch.

http://cannablog.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/speak-everyone/

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #23 posted by global_warming on October 26, 2006 at 15:48:00 PT
nice catch max
http://antiquecannabisbook.com/

Unfortunately there many who are still indoctrinated in the ways of Islam, Judausim and them confused Christian Evangelical Beliefs.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #22 posted by Max Flowers on October 26, 2006 at 15:38:51 PT
A really interesting website
For those interested in the medical history of cannabis, this site http://antiquecannabisbook.com/ is cool because it shows lots of antique bottles and packages and has some good historical info.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #21 posted by FoM on October 26, 2006 at 15:21:50 PT
Paul
You're very welcome. Please let us know how it all goes.

Please be careful. It's rough out there.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #20 posted by global_warming on October 26, 2006 at 15:07:59 PT
Excellent Article
By Andy Nicewicz, Thanks I wish more good people could sort out the confusion, it would help to save a lot of people who's lives are currently being destroyed by this madness and very costly campaign or war on drugs, which is more correctly said a war on people who mis-use drugs.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #19 posted by publicbulldog on October 26, 2006 at 15:06:29 PT:

RESCHEDULE
In Seattle Washington On November 2 2006 there will be a rally At Health and Human services on 2201 6th ave. We need to stop traffic and force the hhs people to look at the latest scientific information and reschedule Marijuana to at least class 2. This would take the DEA out of the mix. Activist from all around should help set up rallies at HHS at various locations around the country, to force a reschedule of marijuana.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #18 posted by paulpeterson on October 26, 2006 at 15:05:42 PT
FoM
Thanks for noticing, for looking, and for responding. I will update you with any real articles I get punched by punching through this paper wall again Tuesday. Paul

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #17 posted by FoM on October 26, 2006 at 15:02:47 PT
Paul
I wish you good luck with your endeavors. I did a look around the newspaper but couldn't find anything.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #16 posted by paulpeterson on October 26, 2006 at 14:29:36 PT
FoM
Hello there, friends of marijuana:

On Halloween (10/31) I will again appear before the county board in BV County, here in Northwest Iowa, to again seek a decriminalization ordinance and to publicize my candidacy for state rep-in a special election to replace Mary Lou Freeman, who died recently of breast cancer complications. This lady was a "closet" supporter of our cause-at least in 1991 when she worked very hard to get one of the 5 federal smokers approved-before they shut the program down cold.

My local friend has MS and is still smoking federal smokes-can still get out of a wheelchair after some 20 years with the disease-and has not progressed in her symptoms in many years. Recently someone stole all of her MRI records from the local hospital's vault (hmmmm).

I am calling my new political party "ICCAN" (Iowa Cures Cancer & Alzheimer's Now). I also plan to talk about how the local county attorney has viciously and vehemently persecuted and prosecuted me-he even suborned perjury at my criminal trial 8/23/06. As soon as this goon's lying lawyers finished their lies-the judge dropped the charges cold-at state's expense. But now there is sworn testimony on the record which proves they committed perjury.

This is par for the course out on the golf-course of the criminal system in this state and nation. The manic drug goons will routinely lie to discredit outspoken voices for change. And change will come.

FoM: go to the Storm Lake Pilot Tribune-today there is a story about me and my Halloween press event-if they put it on-line, that is. You might want to look at it. You might want to post it on your site if you wish to help people like me get the press which is necessary to help us folks get things done, if you even care about sleepy Iowa and sleepier NW Iowa.

Over and out-wish me luck next week. PAUL PETERSON

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #15 posted by FoM on October 26, 2006 at 13:56:11 PT
Toker00
I like your comment and song. That is really cool.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #14 posted by Toker00 on October 26, 2006 at 13:42:54 PT
FoM
I think that even if church ladies had been the first group to use cannabis widely, they would have been the demonized group. I bet they would even have gone as far as to call them WITCHES and the like. And they would have been demonized by their own kind, other church ladies.

Just what the hell is wrong with PEACE AND LOVE AND JAZZ AND BROTHERHOOD AND UNDERDTANDING AND TOLERANCE AND SPITIUALITY, AND FREE WILL AND GOD's LOVE AND GOD'S WILL? None of it brings the profits that slavery to wars and the energy/medicine monopoly does. Those "Hippie" things don't bring control of others, they bring True Freedom. Only the rich can afford to be free, don't you know? For now, anyways.

Oh give me a home,

Where the Kind Bud is grown,

With the fear of arrest gone away.

Where seldom is heard

A Prohibian word

And the sick can find comfort all day.

Toke.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #13 posted by Max Flowers on October 26, 2006 at 13:31:18 PT
The very definition of addictive
...is that if you become habituated and then stop, there is a serious physical or psychological withdrawal syndrome to contend with.

Cannabis presents neither. If you stop, you might not sleep as well for a couple of days, and perhaps be as irritable as a deprived coffee freak for a couple of days. Big deal.

About Ed: great news. Those trumped up charges are all going to fall apart, I can already feel it.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #12 posted by lombar on October 26, 2006 at 13:02:10 PT
Celaya
Well said!

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #11 posted by dongenero on October 26, 2006 at 12:21:16 PT
baseless Fox article---oops redundant
"Today's pot is far stronger than before. It's chemically-designed to addict."

That is a bald faced lie! Chemically-designed?! Chemically-designed to addict?!

Not that Fox news is known for its credibility but, jeez, that is so blatant. I didn't bother to watch the video but, did it by chance feature the "bat boy" from the World News tabloid. How about alien abduction?

What a ridiculous excuse for journalism....oops Fox News, redundant...again.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by FoM on October 26, 2006 at 12:09:29 PT
Skillet
That was really off the wall. Thank you. The boy got caught because he started selling marijuana and had to quit ( forced treatment most likely ). It's interesting how he described withdrawal. He couldn't eat very well or sleep very well for a week. That's nothing like the pain when withdrawing from legal narcotics. If I stopped drinking coffee I would be grouchy and hard to be around for a while. When we give up something we like it is hard and will make us irritable. That isn't addicting in my opinion. Even dieting and giving up the foods we like will make us feel bad.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #9 posted by Celaya on October 26, 2006 at 12:05:33 PT
FoM
Thanks! That's a great service.

The second link I posted is working though.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #8 posted by FoM on October 26, 2006 at 12:02:39 PT
Celaya
The link didn't work because it only allows so many characters but the comment can handle longer urls. You can use this link and it is good because it shortens the url up.

http://tinyurl.com/create.php

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by Celaya on October 26, 2006 at 12:01:06 PT
Skillet
That Fox story was absolutely outrageous!

Find one teenager who's willing to say they were addicted, a couple of "treatment" industry spokespersons, mix with the lie about "25 percent THC content" and EXCLUDE any viewpoints from the other side, and PRESTO!! You have typical Fox "news."

Fox News = Drug Czar mouthpiece

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 26, 2006 at 11:55:50 PT
A Comment On The Article
Excerpt: As times changed, so did the fringe groups who gave reasons to keep marijuana illegal. During the Red Scare, Communists were thought to be brainwashing Americans into pacifists through marijuana. During the 60s and 70s, dirty un-American hippies were the main group associated with marijuana use.

My Comment: And what was wrong with the Hippies? Why do people buy the lies? Being a Pacisit and not wanting to see our young people killed is a bad thing? I think that shows we love our young people even when they aren't our own children. I always think about the children and I don't want them to die in wars.

Excerpt: Nowadays, the government can't single out groups of people like that as a reason to keep marijuana illegal. But it's still ingrained in many people's minds that marijuana is only used by criminals and free-loaders.

My Comment: Everyone but people in a few states with medical marijuana laws that has ever used marijuana is a criminal. That's why the laws must be changed because it is immoral to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by Celaya on October 26, 2006 at 11:48:25 PT
Alternate
I'm not sure why that link didn't work. Try this one:

http://www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2006/10/23/Opinion/So.Why.Is.Pot.Really.Illegal-2381366.shtml

Failing that, just do a search on "Andy Nicewicz." That's how I found it.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by Skillet on October 26, 2006 at 11:47:46 PT:

Teens Finding Despite Common Belief, It is Addicti
FoM

I saw this story air while in Chicago on a visit this week.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1278006&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by Celaya on October 26, 2006 at 11:44:13 PT
My Comment Posted At The Rocky Mt. Collegian
It's great that folks are moving past the distracting "harms" debate to looking at the real reasons marijuana is illegal.

The history is good, but I think much focus needs to be placed on why it is STILL illegal. Nicewicz mentions the Federal government is lying and manipulating about marijuana, but why is that?

I have been involved in marijuana reform for more than ten years, and from my long observation, I can boil it down to one paragraph.

Why do we still have this barbaric persecution? Because police and politicians build their careers and empires on it. Because industries like alcohol and pharmaceuticals don't want the competition. Because other interests like the drug treatment/testing industry and the prison industries depend on it for their life's blood. Because much of the astronomical sums generated by prohibition are invested back into the economy and so serve as a false support which we are addicted to. These monies also create a large pool of funds for government black ops (secret operations). And because government uses marijuana prohibition as a means of controlling minorities and the poor.

Once we start shining the light on these dark interests, we will truly begin to end the long nightmare of marijuana prohibition that arrests 800,000 Americans EACH YEAR - giving them permanent "criminal" records that marginalize them for life. Plus, ALL Americans will start to live in a free country once again. The war on marijuana consumers has trashed so many rights and freedoms over such a long period, most people don't realize we are more a police state than a land of liberty.

Our "leaders" seem to think the "benefits" are worth this cost. We need to send them the right message. (They should be sent to prison for this monstrous crime against humanity!)



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by whig on October 26, 2006 at 11:43:29 PT
FoM
The update was confusing and I think mixed up some details. I believe four, not three, counts were dismissed against Richard Watts. Counts 2,3,4 and 5. There was some confusion in court about this too, at one point the judge said 2,3,4 and the defense counsel reminded him he had said count 5 as well and he confirmed that.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 26, 2006 at 11:30:34 PT
Update On Ed Rosenthal
Government Case Against Rosenthal/Watts Shows Cracks

***

By Clark Sullivan

Thursday Oct 26th, 2006

In a major victory for medical cannabis patients, Judge Charles Breyer dismissed three counts involving marijuana cultivation against Richard Watts

San Francisco, CA Oct 25, 2006 -- In a major victory for medical cannabis patients, Judge Charles Breyer dismissed three counts involving marijuana cultivation against Richard Watts, ruling that the U.S. Attorney's Office had violated the Speedy Trial Act. Judge Breyer, who sentenced Ed Rosenthal to one day in jail after previous trial, openly challenged Asst. U.S. Attorney George Bevan several times about the federal government's justification for retrying Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Watts. Saying the only question for him to decide was whether or not to dismiss the case "with prejudice", Judge Breyer appeared annoyed that the government was continuing it's prosecution of the case and remarked that he had already tried Mr. Rosenthal once.

Ed Rosenthal's co-defendant, Mr. Watts, son of Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts, has been awaiting trial since his arrest in February 2002. However, due to a serious automobile accident later that year, Mr. Watts was not tried along with Mr. Rosenthal for their involvement with the 6th Street Harm Reduction Center. Nonetheless, Rick was declared competent to stand trial in May 2003, but the government failed to pursue it's case against him and hoped that the superseding indictment, filed last week, would justify continued prosecution on the basis of new charges of money laundering and tax evasion.

Judge Breyer let the old conspiracy charge stand, along with the two new counts against Mr. Watts and suggested that the count of tax evasion be separated in a different trial for both defendants and ordered Ed and Rick to appear in U.S. District Court on December 6th, so he can decide how to proceed with the case.

Ed Rosenthal, noted cannabis expert and author, was previously convicted in 2003 of three marijuana-related counts but had his conviction overturned in April because of juror misconduct by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The superseding indictment containing the new charges was issued by a recent grand jury in which two witnesses refused to testify, citing their 5th Amendment rights.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/26/18323503.php

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

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 October 26, 2006 at 10:54:42