cannabisnews.com: NORML's Weekly News Bulletin - March 27, 2008










  NORML's Weekly News Bulletin - March 27, 2008

Posted by CN Staff on March 27, 2008 at 11:31:01 PT
Weekly Press Release 
Source: NORML 

 Congress To Consider Legislation To End Minor Pot Arrests -- First Marijuana Decriminalization Bill In Over Two Decades To Be Filed Imminently March 27, 2008 - Washington, DC, USAWashington, DC: US Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) will introduce legislation in Congress to strip the federal government of its authority to arrest responsible cannabis consumers. Representative Frank made the announcement last week on the nationally syndicated television show, "Real Time With Bill Maher."
"It's time for the politicians to catch up with the public on this [issue]," Frank told host Bill Maher, who sits on NORML’s Advisory Board. "The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly."Frank's pending bill seeks to eliminate all federal penalties prohibiting the personal use and possession of up to 100 grams (3 1/2 ounces) of marijuana. Under this measure, adults who consume cannabis would no longer face arrest, prison, or even the threat of a civil fine. The bill also eliminates all penalties prohibiting the not-for-profit transfers of up to one ounce of pot.NORML Legal Counsel Keith Stroup, who worked closely with Frank's staff to draft this legislation, said, "If passed by Congress, this legislation would legalize the possession, use, and non-profit transfer of marijuana by adults for the first time since 1937." The bill incorporates the primary recommendations of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (also known as the Shafer Commission), which affirmed to Congress 36 years ago, "The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance."Currently, 12 states and numerous municipalities have enacted versions of marijuana decriminalization, eliminating criminal penalties for minor pot violations. Passage of these laws has not led to increased marijuana use.To date, the only US government study ever commissioned to assess whether the enforcement of strict legal penalties positively impacts marijuana use found, "Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people."Similar statewide legislation is pending in New Hampshire and Vermont. Additionally, Massachusetts’ voters will likely decide on a statewide decriminalization measure this November.According to a nationwide CNN/Time Magazine poll, more than three-quarters of American adults favor decriminalizing marijuana.For more information, please contact Keith Stroup, NORML Legal Counsel or Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500.DL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7563  California: Fifth National Clinical Conference On Cannabis Therapeutics To Be Held Next Week   March 27, 2008 - Pacific Grove, CA, USAPacific Grove, CA: Patients Out of Time, in conjunction with the California Nurses Association, UCSF Medical School, and California State University at Monterey Bay, will hold the Fifth National Clinical Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics on April 4 and 5 at the Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, California.Featured at this year’s symposium are international cannabis researchers Natalya Kogan (Department of Medicinal Chemistry, The Hebrew University: Jerusalem, Israel), Manuel Guzman (Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Complutense University: Madrid, Spain), and Mark Ware (Department of Family Medicine and Anesthesia: McGill University, Montrael, Canada), as well as numerous patient advocates and health professionals, including Donald Tashkin (Medical Director: Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA), Melanie Dreher (Dean: Rush University College of Nursing in Chicago), and NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano.The conference is accredited by the UCSF School of Medicine..Conference agenda and registration information is available online at: http://www.medicalcannabis.com/DL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7565  Pot Decriminalization Does Not Increase Marijuana Use, Scientific Journal Says  March 27, 2008 - Amsterdam, the NetherlandsAmsterdam, the Netherlands: Liberalizing marijuana laws is not associated with increasing cannabis use among the general public, according to a scientific review published this month in the journal Current Opinion in Psychiatry."[T]he vast majority of people who use cannabis do so for a limited period of time with few or no negative consequences," states the review. "[T]he negative effects associated with cannabis use are small compared with the negative effects associated with other pleasure drugs, such as nicotine, alcohol, and cocaine. "[P]rohibition and criminalization [are] not very likely to lead to different [cannabis] consumption rates or less risky drug use patterns, whereas it may lead to increased contacts of its users with the criminal scene and the legal system, leading to negative effects on their future development."For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500. Full text of the review, "Decriminalization of cannabis" appears in the journal Current Opinion in Psychiatry.DL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7564Source: NORML Foundation (DC)Published: March 27, 2008Copyright: 2008 NORML Contact: norml norml.org Website: http://www.norml.org/CannabisNews NORML Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/NORML.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #50 posted by Hope on April 02, 2008 at 21:44:28 PT
Afterburner
I forgot to keep track of them. I kept dozing off, too. The ones I did notice looked like the same old commercials that I usually see, but I failed to pay attention like I meant to. Someone probably took careful note though and will let us know.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by afterburner on April 02, 2008 at 21:29:19 PT
Hope
In Canada the sponsors were action/thriller/terror movies and various fast food restaurants. The CRTC (Canada's FCC) lets Canadian broadcasters/cablecasters substitute Canadian commercials for the American ones. What kind did you get down there in Texas?I wonder if DEA will have an episode based in California taking down those 'nasty' medical cannabis dispensaries.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by FoM on April 02, 2008 at 21:24:58 PT
VH1 Classic: The Drug Years
There is a good program on VH1 Classic right now about the Drug Years.http://www.vh1classic.com/schedule/?day=04%2F02%2F08
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by Hope on April 02, 2008 at 21:05:32 PT
Adrenaline junkies will be disappointed.
The agents are so sweet, kind, polite, laid back, and warm that they are nearly cuddly. It's enough to make a person want a sweet little DEA doll. When they show raids... there's like a sound track of garbled noise and you can't hear a single MF being uttered. No violence except breaking in doors, rather quietly and easily, and putting a few people on the ground. They only showed that twice, I think, and you couldn't hear what they were saying.They're just really sweet guys.Right. I'm believing that.They let everybody off, it looks like, if they give them someone else.Would they let a murderer off if he gives them another murderer? Would they let a rapist off if he gave them another rapist? Would they let a thief go, drop the charges, if he gave them another thief?Weird. How bad a crime is it if they drop the charges for the crime if they give them someone else?Adrenaline junkies, will, as I said, be severely disappointed. I fell asleep twice during the program.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by FoM on April 02, 2008 at 19:28:58 PT
Hope
I am so glad we don't have that stuff go on around here. I would be so afraid if I lived in an inner city. I never watch any shows about cops. I watch political shows these days and watch the Animal Planet or one of the Discovery Channels after the news is over for the day. I don't find anything edifying to watch them. They would make me angry and I don't like being angry. It makes my blood pressure go up. They aren't worth having a Stroke over.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by Hope on April 02, 2008 at 19:11:13 PT
It's on an hour later than I realized...
So, I guess I'll watch it. It's not something I want to see... but I do feel like I should.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by FoM on April 02, 2008 at 18:57:12 PT
Spike TV
We are watching MSNBC and they previewed the DEA show. They call it flipping when a person rats on another. I wouldn't watch that show. They wonder why Detroit has such high murder rates. This stuff creates it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by Hope on April 02, 2008 at 17:39:14 PT
The DEA show...
I'd rather watch Destination Truth which comes on at the same time. It's exciting without having to bust people's doors in and kill and terrorize people.Besides keeping up with the wrongness of it... we need to check the sponsors so we'll know who to boycott.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by afterburner on April 02, 2008 at 15:52:48 PT
Hope #36
"I feel like I need rabies shots first, or something" LOL! Too much. I'm going to watch it too, just to see how much propaganda is used, how honest it is and how effective. I suspect it will backfire on them as the following link indicates:War on drugs a total bust.
Apr 02, 2008 04:30 AM.
Vinay Menon.
In the end, the U.S. war on drugs comes across as futile in the new six-part series DEA. 
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/Television/article/408924
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by Hope on April 02, 2008 at 11:49:15 PT
Commonsense
No... you don't sound hard hearted or cold at all. You are the epitome, it seems to me, of your moniker.And thinking along the lines of where you have my thinking going... it wasn't our parents generation, as much as the generation before that, that tended to be the ones that upheld the things we found wrong in "The system".I don't like labeling... but I can be using my own "label maker" before I realize what I've done.A lot of it boils down to attitude towards cannabis and cannabis use. It's not that bad a thing. Why are they persecuting people about it? What are they so afraid of? They, the prohibitionist/preventionists are ignorant and dangerous in their wholly unreasonable fear. No sane reason for it for sure. Cannabis prohibition is about bigotry, hatred, lack of reason, cruelty, and fear. I see that as very wrong, unreasonable, extremely harmful, and something that a reasonable person has to stand up against.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by Commonsense on April 02, 2008 at 11:31:59 PT
Hope
I hope I don't sound cold hearted. I'm actually a public defender, so I do my share of taking care of the downtrodden and persecuted. I'm also not saying I think everything young peple did in the 60's was bad either. I know I would have been against the Vietnam War too. I remember being a kid when the war ended and when Nixon resigned. I was only a little grade schooler but I was happy to see Nixon go and happy to see us get out of that conflict. There was actually a lot of good that came from questioning the power structure in society, some of our norms and so on. Usually if I'm having an argument over Baby Boomers, it's going to with right wingers who blame Baby Boomers for what they view as society's great demise. Boomers really do get a bad rap. Conservatives tend to blame them for "moral decline," excessive politcal correctness and socialist programs, and liberals will often accuse Boomers of selling out. I'm not in either camp. I think Boomers came in all different stripes, like any other generation. Many were just little kids in the sixties and even to some extent in the seventies. All were young and kind of riding the waves started by people older than them to begin with. I'm just not really comfortable putting some collective blame on a generation of people for anything. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by FoM on April 02, 2008 at 10:43:30 PT
Jesus Freak
Hope you made a really good point. My look into the hippie movement was based on my faith and the qualities I felt were necessary to be a good person if that makes sense. It was a spiritual journey for me. It helped me sort out my crazy catholic upbringing and put faith into a proper perspective.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by FoM on April 02, 2008 at 10:17:47 PT
Hope
We are so much alike. I also was busy with my family and working hard to buy our own home and getting on with life but I love what I learned about peace and non violence from the 60s hippie generation. I think Vietnam was the catalyst for the hippie movement. It was the Draft actually.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by Hope on April 02, 2008 at 10:10:57 PT
Commonsense
You're right. I am expressing disappointment at the few of us that have gotten into places of power. I need to concentrate on the ones who are doing the best they can, like Frank and Kucinich. I wasn't a hippie, myself. Too busy making a home and life for my family that I thought was good for them. The thing of that time, that I connected with, was not to be so judgmental, intolerant, racist, or bigoted as the last generation. To really seem to care about all people.... rich or poor and any race. To hate war and to love life and care for the struggling. To love. I don't mean sex. Sex isn't love to me. It can be part of being in love and part of loving relationships, but sex drive has nothing to do with real love. It was real love... like the love that Jesus taught that mattered to me. I've always been a Jesus Freak... so I liked that about many of my generation... a rebirth of the kind of Love Jesus spoke of... a new and real spiritual awakening. A lessening of the value of materialism and increase for caring about the plight of the abused, despised, and not so easily loved.But all this that we have now in the name of government... it's so un-Jesus like. I need to take a deep breath and "chill". There are still people that care about the down trodden and wrongly persecuted.You can call me a "Bleeding heart"... but you can't call me a "Cold and hard hearted" person.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by Hope on April 02, 2008 at 09:53:54 PT
Afterburner
I've seen the commercial several times. It's disgusting and I think about the wrong house raids, Ashley Villareal and other people they've killed in their frenzies of apocalyptic shadenfruede. I hope it backfires on them, big time. Of course they'll be very careful with their editing. You think they'll show them calling people "MF"s? I doubt it. You think they'll show an Ashley Villareal episode? Or one of them arresting patients? Do you think many will see it for what it is? The state gone wild on the people and showing people the real and greatest danger in the so called "War on Drugs"? Them? I doubt it. They know better than to show too much of the truth of what they are.Once again, like the DEA agent that was the only one capable of safely handling a Glock... and shooting himself in the leg in front of a room full of children, I'm hoping they shoot themselves in the leg showing people are wonderful they are. Wonder if they'll show that guy's demonstration of his ability to manage arms well? He was making a big show of his big guns and super human abilities. They'll be more careful though. They'll be careful to not show any screaming, terrorized children or dead dogs. Of course, so many people work for the government now... and are drug warriors... that they may already have a built in audience that will suck up their evil like it's candy.Normal people should despise this show. I don't know how many people there are left in this country with a conscience though. Wonder if they'll show lying informants setting up innocent people and sending them to prison?Probably not. It comes on tonight. I should watch it... but I don't think I can bear it. It will make me think too much of the Gestapo and Crystal Night and Ashley, I'm sure. I don't think I'll be able to bear to watch it... but we probably should... just to see what they're up to...but I don't want to watch it, strategically, either... because they might see it as a good rating... since someone's watching it.I think I need to try to watch it, though... but I feel like I need rabies shots first, or something.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by Commonsense on April 02, 2008 at 09:52:01 PT
Hope
Personally I think it's too early to judge Boomers. Much of what they get blamed for was done by previous generations. Baby Boomers didn't turn our government into what it is today. Baby Boomers are really just taking over the reins. It has always been the elders in our society who run it. Young people generally do not occupy important and powerful positions.  Just last year for instance the average age of Democrat committee chairmen in Congress was 69 years old. The oldest Baby Boomer last year was 61. The average age of Senators crept up over 62, and of course the more powerful members, the committee leaders and the real movers and shakers who run things behind the scenes tended to be the old codgers, not the young whooper snapper Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers are now just becoming the majority in Congress, even if they don't yet dominate the realm of the real power brokers in the House. Soon they'll be the majority in the Senate. In the next few years they'll be at the height of their power, in politics and as voters. You know of course that older voters, say 50 and above, are a good twice as likely to vote as younger voters, say 30 and below. Older people run this country. Boomers are now becoming our elders, taking the reins. Judgment of their performance should be withheld until they've had their shot running this country.I don't look for Boomers to be hugely different than previous generations though. Maybe I'm way off base, but I don't believe they were all that different as youth, not on the whole. I don't think all or anywhere even close to a majority of boomers were "hippies." I think the media played up that angle because it was fun to talk about free love and drugs and wild new ideas, but they were distorting the truth because they were focusing on a very small segment of Baby Boomers but attributing all these things to the entire generation. I was born in 1965 and I never knew any hippies growing up, that was all California stuff. Other than maybe some of the clothing fashions of the time, we really didn't have much of the hippy thing in my part of the country. And people here are going to hate me for this, but I never got hippies, all this talk about love and free this and free that but very few workable solutions for anything. The reason all these marvelous changes never occurred is that for the most part there was nothing to work with but pipe dreams, impractical solutions that could not work in the real world. And a lot of what they did was just plain destructive. That turned a lot of people away, horrible drug addictions, sexually transmitted diseases, neglect of children born in fatherless homes, etc. I'm sorry, but I personally cannot put hippies on a pedestal just because they were hippies. Much of that time and that movement was not good at all. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by afterburner on April 02, 2008 at 07:35:05 PT
Hope #33: Check this out
Talk about ramping up the "drug" war: I saw a preview last night on Spike TV for a new reality show glorifying the DEA! It showed them using a battering ram to force entry through a locked door. How will this play? How many voters will be fooled by the gritty cinema verite approach, adrenalin-pumping action like Cops? How many will be shocked at the federal disregard for civil rights and will see through the "smoke screen" realizing that most raids actually target cannabis?The following details are not intended as advertising, but instead as a warning to watch your back, my good cannabis friends:SHOW TITLE: DEA. 
EPISODE: DEA vs. Heroin Kingpin. 
CATEGORY: Reality. 
SYNOPSIS: A drug and weapons trafficker turned informant helps DEA agents burrow deep into Detroit's drug underworld. 
CHANNEL: SPIKETV. 
DATE / TIME: April 2: 11:00PM. 
April 4: 11:00PM. 
April 5: 11:00AM. 
April 6: 11:00PM. 
April 8: 10:00PM. 
April 19: 8:00PM. ***SHOW TITLE: DEA. 
EPISODE: Deadly Chase. 
CATEGORY: Reality. 
SYNOPSIS: A dangerous chain of events leads agents to a deadly standoff with 2 dope dealers, an escaped bank robber and a fugitive, who stop at nothing to flee the city. 
CHANNEL: SPIKETV. 
DATE / TIME: April 9: 11:00PM. 
April 10: 11:00PM. 
April 12: 11:00PM. 
April 13: 10:00AM. 
April 14: 12:00AM. 
April 15: 10:00PM. 
April 19: 9:00PM. ***SHOW TITLE: DEA. 
EPISODE: Up the Ladder. 
CATEGORY: Reality 
SYNOPSIS: Group 14 goes on a series of undercover missions and raids targeting dope rings. 
CHANNEL: SPIKETV. 
DATE / TIME: April 16: 11:00PM. 
April 19: 10:00PM.Talk about saturation broadcasting! Just like commercials! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by Hope on April 01, 2008 at 23:31:07 PT
What I meant, Commonsense. 
""Baby Boomers". Too many have become what they once despised."Not all of them, or of us, but too many, when they got a chance to fix the "System", which so many disliked, and some even despised... instead of making it better... they grew it... into the bigger than ever, crueler, harsher, more judgmental, more dangerous, and more invasive "Nanny State" that we have now, with about four million new rules and laws and restrictions on their fellow man's freedom. Probably Bill Clinton is a good example of what I mean.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by FoM on April 01, 2008 at 19:09:03 PT
afterburner
I wanted to mention one more thing. When Canada elected a Conservative I knew trouble would happen. They have adopted our failed drug war and that really is sad. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by FoM on April 01, 2008 at 17:51:53 PT
afterburner
That's cool!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by afterburner on April 01, 2008 at 17:43:09 PT
Good news, FoM, the Doobie Brothers are touring.
The Doobie Brothers are touring with Chicago.Doobie Brothers - Listen To The Music (High Quality) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Aj5VqHq6I&feature=relatedDoobie Brothers Tour Schedule
http://www.vividseats.com/concerts/doobie-brothers-tickets.html?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Rock
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by FoM on April 01, 2008 at 17:07:53 PT
 afterburner
Thrasher Wheat is a great Neil Young web site. He is touring in Europe this year. I really mind when when they put drugs in with marijuana like they are the same thing. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by afterburner on April 01, 2008 at 16:44:22 PT
FoM Commonsense Hope
As you no doubt noticed governments around the world are trying to ramp up reefer madness. Perhaps kowtowing to Canada's Conservative Anti-drug federal government, one insidious media technique is to refer to "drugs" without specifying which ones. This plays into the irrational fears of the oldest generation that all drugs are the same, are destructive to the social fabric. For example, in today's Toronto Star a large downtown bust is reported: Dozens arrested in drug, prostitution sweep
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/408696All the suspects involved with "drugs" had cocaine as revealed by the included link in the article: Toronto Police website. Only one of those with cocaine also had marijuana. Cocaine is not mentioned in the article and neither is marijuana. This blurring of facts follows the Consevative government's party line that all drugs are dangerous, that we need to crack down on all drug users, traffickers and producers.FoM, on a lighter note, I found an interesting Neil Young fansite: Lyrics Analysis of Neil Young's Songs 
http://www.thrasherswheat.org/2006/07/lyrics-analysis-of-neil-youngs-songs.html 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by FoM on April 01, 2008 at 13:57:26 PT
CommonSense
I wanted to mention that I never thought President Carter wanted to legalize just decriminalize marijuana. There's a big difference there. As far as our culture upsetting the powers that be it upset mostly people on the right but not on the left. We have been controlled by the right for so long it's a miracle I see any spirit left in people but the young once again are waking up and getting involved and hopefully this time they will win. I am seeing history repeat itself. Drugs use particularly LSD and Marijuana opened people's eyes to a different way and they didn't like thinking young people anymore then they like thinking young people now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Commonsense on April 01, 2008 at 13:35:43 PT
FOM and Hope
Hope:I wouldn't really know about Baby Boomers becoming what they despised. I was born a few months too late to be a Baby Boomer and the Boomers I knew growing were for the most part just regular people who wanted to grow up and get good jobs, be successful in life and that sort of thing. I was too young for the whole flower children thing and we didn't have much of that in my neck of the woods in the sixties anyway. That was more of a curiosity people in my area watched on TV, something happening way out in California or up in New York, far removed from small towns in the Bible Belt like where I grew up.FOM:I understand what you are saying. I think a lot of people back then thought legalization was right around the corner. Now all these years later tens of millions more people have smoked marijuana and it's still not legal. Carter really didn't "almost legalize" marijuana though. He talked about it. He may have been for it, but he had nowhere near the support for it in Congress and the Senate. It was a complete nonstarter. The backlash we saw during the Reagan years was already starting from all of the excesses in drug use during the sixties and seventies that really did cause genuine problems. What in fact happened during Carter's presidency was that we hit an all time record in the number of people incarcerated in this country in 1979 both in total numbers and per capita, and this increase in the number of people incarcerated was largely due to drug convictions and drug related crimes. Carter may have pulled a lot of young voters with his support for decriminalizing marijuana, but in the end there was no way he was selling that to the old fogeys in the legislative branch or his older voter base.  Now finally all these years later we're seeing real support for marijuana legalization growing among voters and politicians. People who were partaking back when Carter was president are now old enough to be the leaders in our society. The old guard is slowly but surely being replaced by people who in many cases have smoked marijuana themselves. We've seen now decades of a prohibition that obviously doesn't work. Even though the anti marijuana forces are keeping up the reefer madness propaganda, most people now realize that marijuana isn't that big of a deal. Support for the wasteful counterproductive war on marijuana is crumbling. People are sick of it. Most politicians may still be afraid to openly support legalization, but a lot are talking about smaller reforms. It's only a matter of time before we start seeing large numbers of politicians coming out publicly for legalization. They've figured out that is is safe to admit they've smoked pot, and sooner or later they'll realize that it's now safe to suggest that we ought to just regulate marijuana like alcohol, tax it and so on. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by FoM on April 01, 2008 at 11:19:25 PT
Hope and CommonSense
We've been waiting for a longtime and it should be over by now. Jimmy Carter almost decriminalized and I have been waiting since that time for it to happen as many of us have been. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Hope on April 01, 2008 at 11:11:47 PT
Sigh...
I'm fifty nine and I do feel very betrayed already by many of the so called "Baby Boomers". Too many have become what they once despised.FoM and I are not "Old". We're "Older".:0)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Commonsense on April 01, 2008 at 11:06:55 PT
FOM
I didn't realize that you were that old, not that 60 is all that old. I can see now though why when I say I think it will take ten or fifteen years or so to get marijuana legalized that you seem to really not like the sound of that. I'm in my early 40's so if it is legalized in the next ten or fifteen years I'll still be in my 50's, a youngster. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by FoM on April 01, 2008 at 10:57:04 PT
CommonSense
I am 60 so it is hard for me to say that younger people need to have more political control. I find it hard to relate to the 20 something group but younger people won't have that problem. I am not exposed to young people anymore. The young people are our future so I want them represented just like back in the 60s. I want young people to stand up and say enough and then get involved and I want politicians to listen.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Commonsense on April 01, 2008 at 10:43:03 PT
FOM
I don't know that people over 60 are necessarily too old to lead, but most of them today are definitely not going to look at marijuana the same as people born in the second half of the twentieth century. The 110th Congress is the oldest ever. The average age of Senators crept up over 62, and the average age of Congressmen went up higher than 56 I think. The senior politicians with the most power and that tend to occupy the most important positions on all the important committees tend to be older than average, so still people who came of age before pot became popular are running the show. That's very quickly changing though. In a few short years the majority of older voters say 50 or older will be people born in the second half of the twentieth century. The majority in our legislative bodies are going to be people born in the second half of the twentieth century too and most of those heading up the important committees will be Baby Boomers. I think this is going to make all the difference in the world in the debates on marijuana issues. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Hope on April 01, 2008 at 10:25:47 PT
This thread needs work by someone
who can articulate their response better than I seem to be able to do right now. Especially something needs to be added about the recent doctor's group saying something positive about medical cannabis recently.This is a well read site, for citizens of Texas, as well as legislators and lawyers and prosecutors and such.https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8597101&postID=4046009562707577876
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Hope on April 01, 2008 at 09:52:30 PT
Commonsense
I like to read your thoughts on all this very much. You're being kind of an insider around those who are prosecuting people for cannabis, and all.As far as politicians coming out to legalize pot, of course they can't, or won't, come at it from that direction, legalization, as you said. But they can come at it from the direction of stopping the waste and persecution and absolute needlessness, futility, and harm that's being caused by that prohibition. They will have to come out at it from the very stable point of view of that the prohibition is doing infinitely more harm in so many ways than legalization could do. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on April 01, 2008 at 09:27:14 PT
CommonSense
When I see people up in years deciding what is best for us I know they don't understand. I actually believe that politicians much over 60 are too old to be in charge. They need to be able to relate to young people and understand why things must change. They can't change the evolution of people and try to make it what they want instead of what it is. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Commonsense on April 01, 2008 at 09:14:46 PT
I agree
A lot of the old guys are retiring too now. We needed that. The average age of Congressmen and Senators has really been creeping up. We hit a new record a few years back with the oldest federal legislators ever. Congress and especially the Senate are being run by a bunch of out of touch old codgers. I'm glad to see a lot of them leaving and younger people taking over as the senior legislators. Things are going to be a lot different when the big majority in both houses are people born in the forties or later. There are still way too many senior legislators who were born before the Baby Boom who probably haven't ever even seen marijuana up close and who tend to be about as anti marijuana as you can get. The chances for marijuana legislaton we're going to like passing increase every time another one of these guys retires. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on April 01, 2008 at 08:27:36 PT
Commonsense 
I agree with what you are saying. I also look at the ages of politicians and know that we need to have younger people in politics that are more experienced with different life style issues. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Commonsense on April 01, 2008 at 08:19:31 PT
You may be right
We may see the feds decriminalize in the next four years. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a couple more states do it. I think it's less likely the feds would do it, but they might. Every little baby step helps and my bet is we see a lot more baby steps in the future. More states will decriminalize, more will get medical marijuana. I think the feds will lag behind some because so many of those legislators are from states where voters are far less inclined to legalize marijuana. Views vary a lot from region to region, state to state. Support for legalization or decriminalization will be lower in the South than in the West, for instance, so passing decriminalization legislation is probably going to be easier in most Western states than it would be in Southern Bible Belt states. In the federal legislative bodies there are Congressmen and Senators from regions where they are more open minded about marijuana and also those from regions heavily populated by a lot more gung ho prohibitionists. Not only that, but federal legislators are also older on average than state legislators and thus are more likely to be sticks in the mud when it comes to marijuana, even if they come from districts where the average voter is a lot more open to changing the laws. You know me though. I just don't see marijuana becoming legal in this country until a significant portion of our elders are people who have smoked marijuana themselves. When the old voters and the senior politicians and bureaucrats are mostly people who came of age in the sixties or later things will be a lot different in the marijuana law reform arena. We'll have a lot more in power who want to change the laws. Elder voters who tend to outvote younger voters by wide margins will be a lot more likely to support marijuana law reform than current elder voters. Politicians won't have to worry about paying a big price for being "soft on" marijuana. I am convinced that there are a lot of politicians who in their heart of hearts believe marijuana ought to be legal, but they are too afraid to talk about that now. As time goes on they'll be less afraid and they'll be joined by younger politicians more likely to believe as they do. We aren't there yet, but conditions are becoming more and more favorable. I'm almost always happy to read about an old dinosaur politician retiring because I know that odds are pretty good that his replacement is going to be less afraid of marijuana, more likely to seriously consider changing the laws. I'm not happy to see people dying, but when I look at the obituaries in the paper it is clear to me that the old people who came of age before marijuana became popular, those who tend to fear it most, are dying off. More and more the elders in our society are people who know marijuana is not that big of a deal. The laws are going to change. It's just going to take a few more years. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on March 31, 2008 at 12:51:02 PT
CommonSense
I know it will take a long time but it could start in 09 with Democrats if they are liberal Democrats in power. Legalization isn't what I think society is really ready for but decriminalization is getting closer. Ask a person if people should go to jail for possession of marijuana and most people would say no I think. We could be in a time for a whole new spirit to take over in politics. One where the politicians aren't like the Clintons but more like Obama and progressive. Barney Frank has nothing to lose to introduce a Decrim Bill and that is a start. I keep saying we need to take the sting out and we also need to not freak out people over the process. Change comes slow but it will come sooner if the Republicans stay out of power after the November election in my opinion. Young people are fired up! That's a great sign to me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Commonsense on March 31, 2008 at 12:34:39 PT
Too many typos in my last post.
I didn't proofread my last post until I posted it and I made a few typos. The following sentence was all messed up: "Over 40% of the American people think marijuana ought to be legal and regulated like alcohol and districts where support for legalizing marijuana is we're seeing more politicians come out and question our current marijuana laws."I meant to say that, "in districts where support for legalizing marijuana is high we're seeing more politicians come out and question our current marijuana laws."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Commonsense on March 31, 2008 at 12:28:51 PT
FOM
"It couldn't happen until 09 I think."You're more optimistic than I am. It's hard to know how things will change in the long term, but I think it's pretty safe to say that marijuana will not be legalized in the next year, or even in the next few years. Even if we have a Democrat president and a few more Democrat legislators in 2009, I don't think things will have changed enough for marijuana to be legalized. I don't think that could happen until the majority want it legal, and even then it will take time. The majority want medical marijuana to be legal and have for years, but the feds still fight against it tooth and nail. I would agree that are chances are better with Democrats in power than Republicans, but the way it is now most politicians who think marijuana ought to be legal wouldn't dare come out and say that in public. They know that the majority still want it to remain legal and they don't want to alienate voters. That's changing some in recent years. Over 40% of the American people think marijuana ought to be legal and regulated like alcohol and districts where support for legalizing marijuana is we're seeing more politicians come out and question our current marijuana laws. But you're rarely going to see a politician from a district where most of the people would vote to keep marijuana illegal come out and say we need to legalize it. That would be a good way for him to lose his seat come the next election. This is a divisive issue a lot of people feel really strongly about. In the part of the Bible Belt where I live I couldn't see anyone getting elected for any office if the came out and said they'd work to legalize marijuana. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that some politicians elected from my area believe that the best thing to do would be to legalize marijuana, but if that's true they darn sure keep that opinion to themselves.  I'd bet my life savings that marijuana will not be legalized in this country in the next four years. There isn't nearly enough support for that to happen. The feds would have to allow it to be legalized, and they are no where close to doing that. We'd have to do something about the international treaties and conventions on drug laws. The states would have to change their laws to allow it to happen. There just isn't enough support to even get the ball rolling in that direction on a national level. My thinking is that there is no way we'll get there between 2008 and 2012. The chances are better from 2012 to 2016, if Democrats are in power. And after that, from 2016 on who knows what will happen? The chances get better every year though because the percentage of people who believe marijuana should be taxed and regulated similar to alcohol keeps growing and the old folks who are most afraid of marijuana, our elders who outvote young people two to one or better, are steadily dying off and being replaced by people who in many cases have smoked it themselves and who on the whole are far less willing to buy all the reefer madness garbage about marijuana that the government uses to fight against marijuana legalization efforts.    
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on March 28, 2008 at 11:31:51 PT
ripit
That is interesting what you said about Carter. I think that too. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by ripit on March 28, 2008 at 11:15:22 PT:
its a start!
B frank will be doing more with this than anybody else has in a long time!last real dem we had in power imho was j carter.i just hope to h we get the dems back in. as far as i am oncerned most fed elections are rigged! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on March 28, 2008 at 07:57:01 PT
Taylor121
I wanted to add something to what I said. I believe if we get more Democrats in power change will come faster. The Republicans have had the last 7 years with all the power to do what they wanted and now it is the Democrats turn. I believe a house divided against itself cannot stand so by having a good majority of Liberal leaning Dems in power that will push our issue on marijuana forward. It might not happen in 09 because of the serious issues we have in our country because of this admninistration but I do have hope again.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on March 27, 2008 at 20:23:03 PT
Taylor121
I believe that people aren't really Democrats or Republicans. Some issues make people think like a Democrat and some issues like a Republican and we really are a combination of both Parties. It takes concerned dedicated people to make change happen. We need politicians that care more about the people then the rich interests that pull the strings now. It will take both Parties to change this mess.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Taylor121 on March 27, 2008 at 20:06:14 PT
Got a while to go
I have little hope that Democrats would pass such legislation even in 2009. We can always still hope though.I think we should have term limits on Congress. I'm tired of prohibitionists retaining their seats. We need more movement.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by The GCW on March 27, 2008 at 18:34:09 PT
"Reefer Madness" the play
US CO: "Reefer Madness" takes hold of Breck
 
 Webpage: http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20080327/AE/72243014Pubdate: 27 Mar. 2008Source: Summit Daily News (CO)
 
Contact: http://apps.summitdaily.com/forms/letter/index.phpWebsite: http://www.summitdaily.com/home.php
 Author: Leslie Brefeld"Reefer Madness" takes hold of BreckBRECKENRIDGE — Don’t be surprised if you walk out of the latest Backstage Theatre’s production with a bad case of the munchies.“Reefer Madness,” which opens tonight in Breckenridge, portrays a 1930s anti-marijuana propaganda film, but its satirical staging sends a different message.
“It’s over the top ... by the end you still have probably the most pro-marijuana message you could have in an anti-marijuana show,” said Dustin Murphy, who plays the all-American boy Jimmy Harper. “There’s lots of layers, and little pothead jokes.”Jimmy and Mary Lane (Megan Malsam) begin the show as two lovebirds with a perfect future ahead of them. But soon Jimmy is in need of dance lessons to keep up with his girl, which leads him to Jack (Nick Henderson) — the slick reefer dealer.
At the 420 den, Jimmy meets Sally (Murphy Funkhouser), who’s been “in more laps than a napkin,” and Ralph (Charlie Schmidt) who is consistently laughing hysterically. He also meets Nick’s girlfriend Mae (Lori Hansen), reduced to a doormat by her addiction.Cont.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on March 27, 2008 at 13:56:56 PT
Commonsense 
I wanted to mention something else. I know the President would veto it but I'm not thinking of this administration. I am looking to the near future when the Democrats are in power and win more seats and have a good majority. It couldn't happen until 09 I think.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by goblet on March 27, 2008 at 13:24:51 PT:
Commonsense
the fed policy is often cited at the state level as a reason for keeping state laws in place - look at governators veto of hemp farming "Because it is against the fed"....
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on March 27, 2008 at 13:11:37 PT

 Commonsense 
What you are saying makes sense to me. The reason that I am hoping it will change at the federal level is it could take the sting out of marijuana possession and it would make it easier for states to make their laws less harsh. My states laws have been fine since the 70s and I would be happy if other states were like my state. Over time it can become a non issue.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by Commonsense on March 27, 2008 at 12:58:46 PT

Federal decriminalization...
This is a little misleading. If the feds decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, that doesn't mean your state has to decriminalize too. The feds hardly ever bust people for simple possession. Almost all the simple possession arrests are made by local law enforcement under state laws. Those state laws would still be in effect if the feds passed this legislation. Nothing would change at all for the vast majority of marijuana smokers. I'm really glad to see Barney Frank doing this, but I hope people here don't get crushed when things don't turn out like they had hoped. I hate to be a party pooper, but there is pretty much zero chance Barney Frank could get this legislation passed by Congress, and even if he did, the Senate would kill it, and if the Senate didn't kill it the President would veto it. The feds aren't going to decriminalize marijuana anytime soon.  My bet is that if Frank actually does introduce this bill, it wouldn't get much more than 60 votes in Congress, if that, out of over 400. Odds are it's going to fail miserably. If they can't even come close to getting enough people to pass legislation protecting people from federal prosecution for involvement with medical marijuana in states that have approved it, decriminalization of recreational use isn't going to fly. An awful lot of these politicians think marijuana should be legal or at least decriminalized, but regardless of what they really believe, for the most part they're still too afraid to look "pro drugs." They'll say this legislation sends the wrong message to children and it will die. The good thing though is that measures like this get people thinking. Support among the people for legalizing marijuana is steadily growing and politicians get to see that when they look into legislation like this. They'll see the data from the polls. They'll hear from their constituants that want marijuana decriminalized or even legalized. Maybe we'll see some politicians who before would have been too afraid to vote for legislation like this coming out in support of it. It's a good thing, just don't set yourselves up for for huge dissapointment when it doesn't sail right on through Congress and the Senate and get signed into law by the President. Marijuana will be legal someday, but there isn't quite enough support to do it just yet. 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on March 27, 2008 at 11:38:47 PT

This Is Music To My Ears
US Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) will introduce legislation in Congress to strip the federal government of its authority to arrest responsible cannabis consumers. Representative Frank made the announcement last week on the nationally syndicated television show, "Real Time With Bill Maher." 
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment