cannabisnews.com: Ballot Drive for Pot Rx in Arkansas Loses Its Legs





Ballot Drive for Pot Rx in Arkansas Loses Its Legs
Posted by CN Staff on July 10, 2004 at 11:34:02 PT
By Laura Kellams
Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 
A national organization pushing for the legalization of marijuana for medical use snuffed out its effort Friday to put the issue to a vote in Arkansas. The Marijuana Policy Project’s decision, which surprised and disappointed advocates who have pushed for similar measures in the state for years, came just a week after the Arkansas Alliance for Medical Marijuana submitted just over 67,000 petition signatures asking for a vote.
For the measure to qualify for the ballot, the organization needs 64,456 signatures to be verified as those of registered voters, which supporters said seemed unlikely. "It would be a miracle if it happens," said Chloe Crater, a spokesman for the alliance. "Right now, it would not be an advantage to continue... just because it’s extremely expensive, basically." Late Friday evening another Arkansas group was trying to pick up where the alliance left off. Members of the Arkansas chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws said they were meeting to see if they could come up with a way to take over circulation of the petitions. The Arkansas alliance’s effort this year had been funded chiefly by $330,000 in donations from Peter B. Lewis of Cleveland, chairman of Progressive Corp. insurance company, who has given to similar causes in other states. The Arkansas organization paid The Southwest Group of Las Vegas to gather signatures. Even if enough signatures were gathered over the next few weeks to make up for any shortfall, it would be too expensive to buy advertising time in the fall because Arkansas is a battleground state in the presidential race, Crater said. Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, the national organization supporting the Arkansas effort, acknowledged that the group has known for some time that Arkansas was a focus of the political parties this fall. But when it appeared the signature drive wasn’t as successful as hoped, the group looked at its resources and decided they’d be better spent elsewhere, Mirken said. "We agonized over this for several days and made the decisions when we felt we could," he said. Debbie Carter of Little Rock, a cancer patient who spoke on behalf of legalization when signatures were submitted July 2, was incredulous when reached by telephone Friday. "After all the signatures we gathered? Why? I find that really hard to believe after all the work that’s gone into it," she said. Carter suffers from a brain tumor and said that marijuana use could help her maintain weight as she undergoes chemotherapy. Advocates of marijuana for medical use say it decreases nausea and increases appetite. The initiated act proposed by the alliance would allow Arkansans with "debilitating medical conditions" to use marijuana, which they or a caregiver grow, on the advice of a physician. Users would obtain a registry card from the state Department of Health. Denele Campbell of West Fork, who has helped organize similar, unsuccessful signaturegathering drives twice before in Arkansas, learned from a reporter Friday afternoon that the national organization had pulled its support. She said she was disappointed for the patients and their families who thought their efforts would finally be successful this year. "I’m sure they’re even more devastated than they would have been if they hadn’t had their hopes raised with the commitment we thought was behind this campaign," Campbell said. She said state volunteers didn’t always see eye to eye with the national organizers. "There have been disagreements about how this campaign should be conducted," she said. "There were some issues that we were unhappy with." She wouldn’t elaborate. Campbell said her organization, the Alliance for Drug Reform Policy in Arkansas, will be back before the Legislature in 2005 hoping to get a similar law passed. The group has tried and failed at the legislative level before. Campbell said polls have shown overwhelming support for allowing medicinal use of marijuana, both in Arkansas and nationally. "We were so optimistic, with canvassers being paid, that this would allow us to get the signatures," she said. "We were confident if we did manage it get it on the ballot, it would be voted in." Larry Page, with the Coalition Against Legalized Marijuana, formed to fight the medical marijuana initiative, said he was pleasantly shocked to learn of the marijuana advocates’ decision. He said it seemed strange from the beginning that a national advocacy organization would focus its effort here. "Arkansas? What’s wrong with this picture? It seemed pretty obviously the wrong place, and for sure the wrong time," Page said. Even though approval seemed unlikely, he said, his organization wasn’t going to let the pro-marijuana group take a "free ride" and had planned a full-scale opposition campaign. Now, he said, he can focus more effort on supporting passage of a state constitutional amendment that would ban samesex marriage. The ballot committee pushing for that amendment said it had great success gathering signatures with more than 3,000 volunteers as canvassers. Leaders of the Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee said they submitted petitions June 1 signed by 200,693 Arkansans. That organization needs 80,570 signatures to be verified as registered voters. Carder Hawkins, elections coordinator for Secretary of State Charlie Daniels, said a contracted accounting firm should begin the process of verifying signatures next week. The plan is to count the marriage amendment signatures first because they were submitted first, he said. The marijuana initiative signatures still will be counted, Hawkins said. Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (AR)Author: Laura KellamsPublished: Saturday, July 10, 2004Copyright: 2004 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.Contact: voices ardemgaz.comWebsite: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Related Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Arkansas Alliance http://www.arkansasalliance.org/67,000 Add Names To Get Pot Initiative On Ballothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19132.shtmlRegistration is Tardy for Ballot Committeehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19046.shtmlMedical Pot Act in Works for November Ballothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18961.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #41 posted by ron on July 19, 2004 at 14:54:42 PT
Pot Politics Redux
Thought Richard Cowan's post yesterday was a fitting coda to our interesting discussion:http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=755Like Richard Cowan, I believe pot politics should be open. Solidarity be dammed if money can control the agenda. Psyop persecution specialists specialize in using cash (drug launder) to purchase credible supporters of a variety of movements (the Shah, Ngo Dinh Diem, Ahmed Chalabi et cetera). They've subverted foreign goverments with these techniques, so country bumpkin, peace loving cannabinoids are easy prey. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by FoM on July 12, 2004 at 17:26:32 PT
rchandar 
Just think how re-scheduling would help soften the laws in states that have very tough possession laws too. If Cannabis would be re-scheduled it would help stop them from taking people's property. That's just one thing I thought of. Our state is reasonable about laws on possession. Anything under 100 grams is just a small fine. I don't even think it's a misdeameanor just a civil type fine. Don't get caught with a bong though! Stiff laws against them in my state.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by rchandar on July 12, 2004 at 17:13:51 PT:
rchandar msn.com
well--last time it was the DEA who declared it wanted marijuana to remain Schedule I. My guess is that it would blow a hole in too many of the stereotypes which empower their reign of terror against marijuana consumers, the nefarious and dangerous image they have in our world. It would weaken their importance because it would be a slap in the face of the prohibition they enforce.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by FoM on July 12, 2004 at 16:47:19 PT
About Schedule I
I'm very tired of the Schedule I lie as Virgil calls it. It's wrong. Many things are wrong but how can they not re-schedule when everyone knows that Cannabis has medicinal properties? They say that Cannabis doesn't "cure" anything. Let's say that's so and all it does is give a sick person a better sense of well being. Why would that eliminate it from being re-scheduled? Oxycontin or Prozac or any of the many man made drugs don't "cure" anything either. Just my thoughts about Schedule I.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by Virgil on July 12, 2004 at 16:33:43 PT
It's that Schedule One Lie killing people
The greatest story never told in the cannabis world is the inhumanity of stonewalling a political position in cementing cannabis and all compounds that bind with cannabinoid receptores. It is a blatant lie of course and the big question is "On an intellectual level, what is rhe correct classification of cannabis on the Scedule of Narcotics?" I can see Schedle 4 and 5 as being defendable. Everything else is clearly wrong and Schedule 1 is a crying lie.There it is again- the biggest story and the biggest question.The Scedule One Lie is what you get with living with treason by a criminal government.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by schmeff on July 12, 2004 at 16:10:06 PT
RE comment #24 (but again off-topic)
Every time I try to convince myself that Team Bush can't get any more incompetent...they do. Why not just send an engraved invitation to Al-Qaeda?Dear Terrorists,If you would like to disrupt our elections, an attack would probably do the trick.Love, GWRemember after the 9/11 attacks, Bush told the nation that if we allowed this to disrupt our way of life, we would be handing the terrorists a victory. Then he told us to go shopping. Do you suppose shopping is a more important aspect of the American way of life than democracy?And isn't this type of flip-flopping exactly what the Bush campaign is always trying to criticize about the other guy?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by medicinal toker on July 12, 2004 at 10:52:48 PT
link to rescheduling site: DrugScience.org
There is a support the coalition link, but it does not work currently, nor does the contact link. Perhaps Patients out of Time would know how to contact the correct people. The rest of the site appears to work fine.
DrugScience.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by E_Johnson on July 12, 2004 at 09:26:55 PT
medicinal toker
Is there some way to contribute directly to the Gettman case? Do they have a PayPal link somewhere?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by FoM on July 12, 2004 at 09:25:10 PT
medicinal toker
That's good to hear. I hope legal mmj is soon available. That would make me and many others very happy. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by medicinal toker on July 12, 2004 at 09:09:01 PT
FoM -- rescheduling
Jon Gettman spoke about the latest rescheduling petition at the Patients out of Time Conference in May in Charlottesville. This one is rolling along, and it will be very difficult for federal bureaucrats to claim there is no medical use this time, with all the new research and developments.It's another front in the war on stupidity. I think that legal mmj is coming soon, but it can't be soon enough for patients who need it today.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by FoM on July 12, 2004 at 08:51:22 PT
medicinal toker
It's depressing to see this happen. I try to stay upbeat but when something like this happens it's hard to stay positive. Why don't we just try to change the law and work on re-scheduling Cannabis ( Cannabis has medicinal properties ) like we all know it should be? I don't understand these things very well. I have always felt re-scheduling was important.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by medicinal toker on July 12, 2004 at 08:41:49 PT
hopes dashed again
I feel sorry for the Arkansas patients whose hopes were raised, only to be dashed again. It is bad enough that our government has let patients dowwn so often, but worse when a reform group does it. I guess that is just business, but it sucks. People put their heart and soul into these efforts only to be shot down by someone a thousand miles away making a "business" decision.The worst part is, that for some patients, there wuill be no second chances. They will not live long enough to se this to a good end.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by FoM on July 12, 2004 at 07:56:38 PT
gloovins
Thank you for the update. It's frustrating when I think how many people worked so hard and then not to make it. I applaud the efforts by all that did their best to make it happen.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by gloovins on July 12, 2004 at 00:51:47 PT
Mich fell short this year...
Here is the email I got fm Z Harris organizer for the free marijuana movement there atapublicservice.com ".....finished up with about 92,000 signatures, far short of the 318,000. However, over 1400 volunteers collected signatures and we plan to build this organization up to our goal of 5,000 volunteers for another run next April – November 2005, when we’ll have much better weather. In the mean time we’re focusing on fund raising, tightening up the organization, and linking up with everyone possible! We plan on a state-wide seminar, probably in Flint, shortly after the November election to plan out the whole campaign.We still have a great petition that promotes Michigan’s right to regulate cannabis.In the meantime, the Detroit Medical Marijuana initiative will be voted on in August, the Lansing initiative in November!" -- I agree w/ Z Harris's points and think with more media (we had zero this year) we got a def chance in 2005 -- just keeping all abreast...stay well all! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by E_Johnson on July 11, 2004 at 19:50:34 PT
Anger eventually gets monotonous and limiting
At a certain point it becomes indistinguishable from repeated wanking.Except it doesn't feel as good.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Virgil on July 11, 2004 at 18:41:53 PT
The pot of pot at the end of the rainbow
With legalization comes Free pot. Now I tell you the people pissing me off now. It is these people saying tax the hell out of it and legalize it. That is not legalization. That is extortion. Legalization means that people can grow for they and theirs without treason being replaced by extortion.Well at the end of the rainbow is a change in the definition of freedom in the right direction and Free Cannabis means prettier rainbows.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by ron on July 11, 2004 at 18:37:14 PT
Anger is the basis of change
Anger is an appropriate response to the sadistic bigots who've dominated drug discourse most of this century. I feel it underlying many of the comments in this forum. Of course it has to be channeled to make it effective. I was only speculating on EJ's musings about pain and anger. It's easy for the powerful to distract people from the sufferings of others. Just how many innocents have been victims of collateral damage in the last few years? Maybe CN readers could name a few, but their names and stories are unknown to the general population.When people get angry, they write letters, attend demonstrations and confront lying officials. They also ask questions about people who are leading the movement. Politics may be the art of the possible, but some compromises are perverse. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by FoM on July 11, 2004 at 18:27:17 PT
Off Topic But Important
U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack 
By: Reuters 
 
 
 Sunday July 11, 2004 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by Al Qaeda.U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday. "I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition." Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election. Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information. Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day. The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday. The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections. In his letter, Soaries wrote that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election." Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress. "These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."  
Copyright: 2004 Reuters
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on July 11, 2004 at 14:30:49 PT
A Comment On Anger
The problem with anger is it only hurts the person who is angry. We can be angry with someone but it won't bother them. We can be angry with our leaders but it won't bother them either. Channeling anger and using it constructively is helpful. That's how I see it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by E_Johnson on July 11, 2004 at 13:20:19 PT
But anger reinforces fear
CP won't be conquered by making them see a big angry face. The natural response to an angry face is fear and rejection.Look at how far being good at showing anger got Howard Dean. Only so far and then it failed him utterly and completely.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by ron on July 11, 2004 at 12:52:47 PT
CN,  Anger, Pain and the Cause (of it)
Cannabis News has some great contributors. Virgil and kaptinemo write perceptive, informative and witty comments that should often be reprinted, verbatim, in the OPED pages of the nations newspapers. Jose and mayan have repeatedly broadened my education. And I can always count on EJ to have an original point of view.Maybe we don't show enough pain. Certainly the sins of Anslinger and his ilk have brought us a lot of sorrow. The enormity of suffering caused by persecuting people for a plant is overlooked in the press and in the pulpit. But for every horror story of DEA inspired asset forfeiture outrage, or slimeball undercover tactics, there seem to be a dozen puff articles about DARE graduations, the meth menace, the grow op threat to our way of life or the need to protect our children from the bogeyman they've created.I think anger will take us farther than pain. Repeatedly driving into dead ends doesn't help. Especially with so many people on the bus. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by E_Johnson on July 11, 2004 at 11:57:50 PT
How about simply crying on TV?
Maybe the men in this community would rather face prison than THAT?I wonder some times...We have a lot to cry about but the public isn't really hearing it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by FoM on July 11, 2004 at 10:21:48 PT
Oh goneposthole
That was funny but it made me stomach turn! LOL! Yuk!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by goneposthole on July 11, 2004 at 10:19:20 PT
How about a national referendum?
What if everybody got up in the morning, opened up a pack of Camels, a beer and eat three egg mcmuffins for breakfeast; followed by a Whopper value meal, a pack of Lucky Strikes and a halfpint of whiskey; later on, have a couple of more beers, open a new pack of Raleighs, and eat a double quarterpounder at Wendy's; wait a while, have another order of fries and a milkshake and take home a sixpack of Guinness stout. You can finish the Guinness before you fall asleep. You open a new pack of Chesterfields before so, too. Followed by a similar routine each and every day for a decade or so, what if they did? What do you think they'd look like?By then, it's time for medical cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by E_Johnson on July 11, 2004 at 10:14:25 PT
The trouble with real men though
Marijuana prohibition is mainly aimed at men, men are the biggest sufferers in the war by far. It's painful. But the public does not perceive it as painful. They perceive marijuana users as people who do not suffer pain from the law. I don't know if that's because of society or genes or hormones or whatever, but most men tend to be better at expressing anger than pain.Maybe society sees marijuana prohibition as something painless because the men who have been harmed by it are being too manly about it, and are expressing anger rather than pain.Just a thought.Technology is shifting our culture more and more towards an emotional and oral culture so it's more important to show emotion rather than to write with compelling and furious logic.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on July 11, 2004 at 10:06:19 PT
I Sure Appreciate Everyone Here on CNews
I just wanted to let you know.Thank You!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by ron on July 11, 2004 at 09:50:18 PT
Thanks for your views FoM
Like many others, I am grateful for all your work. This site is a gem. The eloquent analyses of many of the commentators makes it a daily must read for me. Since I was raised in an era when real men didn't type, I don't make too many comments, but I do read a lot about this shameful persecution. Like you, I appreciate the value of solidarity and understand that internal criticism gives comfort to the enemy. (I feel comforted when I read DEA Watch and realize they hate Bush and Tandy more than us.)MPP, with offices and lobbyists in Washington, has become the primary political voice for our cause. They are certainly the best funded group.However, I'm beginning to wonder if their conception wasn't a DEA psyops scheme. If we're all on a bandwagon that keeps making wrong turns, we might never reach our destination. The history of this despicable persecution over lifestyle choices makes people suspicious and paranoid. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by E_Johnson on July 11, 2004 at 09:35:16 PT
I can udnerstand everyone unfortunately
I can understand why the MPP chose to make their compromise.Everyone here is operating with a certain level of traumatic wounding from this war. We all have different ways to adapt to that and try to fight back.I can see the logic of compromise because that feels to them like it will lessen the total trauma for others.I can also see that others in the walking wounded in this war have a different way of fighting back, seeing compromise as traumatic in itself.That is also quite valid.Then there are tactical disagreements as usual.This is a nasty war and people will end up feeling hurt and betrayed by each other just because it is a war and there is plenty of hurt to go around.BUT people really do need to try out different tactics in the battle.And it's going to feel threatening or unwise or whatever, it's inevitable.We have to try to see and hear each other regardless.Because we all really just want this war to end and none of us really has the magic silver bullet for it by ourselves.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by runruff on July 11, 2004 at 08:14:47 PT:
hello to all my enlightened friends.
Preaching to the choire is not enuf. Everyone with knowlege should share, sure but it is the ignorant, ill informed, and complacent that needs to be educated and energized. I believe this is he most important subject in America today. Many lives and indeed our very planet my depend on changing the cannabis/hemp prohibition laws in this country.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on July 11, 2004 at 07:48:52 PT
Ron
You asked: I hope we can talk freely about cannabis politics in this forum.***We can talk freely about the politics of reform here and that's fine. The delicate line is if we are trying to bring down an organization rather then criticizing their actions. Many people that are fighting us read CNews. Do we want to give them ammunition to keep us in this mess we are in? I want the laws changed as most of us do. I know when not to speak. Think about how in politics repubs don't talk down about Bush etc. You see what I mean? Every organization has people in it that we don't like but do we risk all our progress just to vent publically? I don't want that for this site. If we really are upset with one or two individuals in an orgnization is it smart to tear them up in public? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Ganda on July 11, 2004 at 06:47:47 PT
talking of petitions....
just thought it would be worth posting this website addy...
http://www.petitionthem.comMaybe some want to set one up for their state or whatever. The UK one has over 14,000 which is nice.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Sam Adams on July 11, 2004 at 06:38:43 PT
Whoa - what are they thinking?
They already spent 300K on signatures, now they're going to throw it away? It seems absurd. They had 3 possible ballot initiatives this fall, they've spent 90% of the money to get them on the ballot, and they're 0 for 2. Wow.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by ron on July 11, 2004 at 01:38:57 PT
Potlitics - Part 3
Thanks for your comments EJ. The cause is all I've ever supported too. Like you though, I wonder about an organization that proposes mandatory minimums for anything. I also wonder about the effect of all that effort wasted in Nevada and Arkansas.   Seeing the banner at the top of the page made me appreciate your position FoM. I wish everybody well too. But when a spokesman I respect accuses a major leader in our cause of impropriety, I find myself very interested. Especially when the (alleged) impropriet leader seems to be ending up in cul-de-sacs. I hope we can talk freely about cannabis politics in this forum.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on July 10, 2004 at 22:07:38 PT
Just a Note
I thought I should explain a little better after reading my comment. When I say I'm not an organization type person that's true. I also have learned over the years that if I try to do too many things at one time I don't do very well. I believe the organizations have their purpose but I can't get involved because it becomes to much for me to handle. I want to keep my focus on news and what's happening and where we might be going. Every effort by anyone or any group is important even if it doesn't work the way we hoped. I wish success to all the organizations but most of all I wish success to all of us who have ever cared and that's many people from organizations or as grass roots type activists.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Virgil on July 10, 2004 at 19:58:05 PT
Everyone had a chance to do it in color first
I'll toke to that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Virgil on July 10, 2004 at 19:56:34 PT
E Johnson
I'LL TOKE TO THAT.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on July 10, 2004 at 19:36:50 PT
I try to support the cause more than the groups
I think social and political movements profit from diversity and I think it is inevitable that there will be disagreements in tactics and style and there will also be accusations of betrayal and backsliding and radicalism and so on, it's all part of the heat from the friction of social change.That being said, I think it did sabotage the Nevada measure to have such extremely tough penalties for selling pot to minors, because that did create an air of hysteria far over and above the level of caution and attention paid to people who sell alcohol to minors, which kills young people directly through ODs. For example -- the restaurant that sold alcohol to the Bush sisters when they were underage -- the owner was not going to go to prison!Nobody in their right mind would suggest putting the owner of that restaurant in prison. A fine is believed to be sufficient in cases such as that.It does not profit this movement to pander to anti-marijuana hysteria or attempt to placate these caught in its deadly grip. Placating the hysterics really just ends up validating them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 10, 2004 at 15:31:02 PT
Ron
I've heard it all too. I avoid conflict between organizations. On purpose I am not involved with any organization. I won't knock their efforts but their efforts might not be what I would do but then again I am not an organization type person. I believe we will win thru the courts. People Like Angel Raich, Mike and Valerie Corral and Ed Rosenthal's cases are what have brought us this far.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by ron on July 10, 2004 at 14:55:53 PT
Pot Politics #2
Especially troubling to me is RC's accusation that Robert Kampia "narked" NORML after he fired him. He has mentioned this incident several times, without elaboration, and repeated it last year when he resigned from NORML. http://marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=707In that article he also made the following provocative comments:First, let me assure you that I am pulling my punches and saying far less than I could… for the sake of the movement.and...Moreover, if I were alone in my opinion of Kampia, I would have just resigned quietly and let it go at that. But most of the leaders of the anti-prohibitionist movement share my view that Peter Lewis is making an enormous mistake. I appreciate your desire to stay neutral FoM. However, if someone of Richard Cowan's stature has such strong objections to MPP, I'd like to hear more about why. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on July 10, 2004 at 13:00:52 PT
ron
I hadn't read Mr. Cowan's analysis. I really like Richard Cowan. He's one person I would like to meet someday. I shouldn't really share my feelings because I should stay neutral because of CNews. It's hard for me to not speak up sometimes but it's best.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by ron on July 10, 2004 at 12:48:52 PT
Pot Politics
This article reminded me of Richard Cowan's piece on MPP last week. http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=751I respect Cowan's trenchant analyses of cannabis matters. His condemnation of MPP has made wary of them, but I would like to hear the other side. Anyone with insight care to comment?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment