cannabisnews.com: Protesting Another Misguided War





Protesting Another Misguided War
Posted by FoM on January 07, 2001 at 07:23:28 PT
By Sean Mitchell
Source: Los Angeles Times 
Director Steven Soderbergh taps into intense feeling with 'Traffic,' his much-lauded exploration of the nation's futile effort to fight drugs.   When the new movie "Traffic" was being previewed at test screenings last fall, its director, Steven Soderbergh, took note of how much time audiences were spending filling out their report cards afterward and the emotion they brought to the focus groups discussing the film. 
Something was different, thought the director of such films as "Erin Brockovich," "Out of Sight" and "sex, lies and videotape." "It was like they'd been waiting for someone to ask them about this issue," Soderbergh says.   The "issue," America's vaunted and enormously expensive "war on drugs," is the focal point of Soderbergh's multicultural dramatic thriller recently judged the best picture of the year by the New York Film Critics Circle. Yet the director, in a self-effacing stance, says he believes that with "Traffic," the ideas on display engaged preview audiences as much as the film itself.   "I've done a lot of these previews and it's never been that intense," he says. "They wanted to talk about this."   Turned down by every major studio and finally produced by USA Films, "Traffic" barely got made at all, yet now looks to be connecting with a slowly building critical mass of thought questioning both the efficacy and wisdom of the long-accepted military approach to combating drug abuse that took shape almost 30 years ago during the Nixon administration. Even outgoing U.S. drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey, said in an interview at the end of the year (without reference to the film), "We've got to drop the metaphor of 'the war on drugs.' "   Indeed there are some signs the political winds are beginning to shift. In November, California voters passed Proposition 36, which will divert nonviolent drug users from state prison into treatment programs. New Mexico's Republican Gov. Gary E. Johnson is an outspoken foe of the drug-war approach to the problem. And in the film, California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer makes a cameo appearance at a Washington, D.C., cocktail party lobbying for the passage of a treatment-on-demand bill. (She's among several senators making cameos, including Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who has taken flak for appearing in an R-rated, politically charged film.)   "Personally," says Soderbergh, "I just felt like it was time to try to get a handle on this subject and that a movie was a really good way to do it."   But drug movies--or for that matter, films with a political theme--generally have not done big box office. Rebuffed by studio executives who didn't see the commercial viability of his idea, the director lowered himself to the level of Hollywood shorthand. "I kept describing it as 'Nashville' crossed with 'The French Connection,' but I don't know that that was helping."   "Traffic" opened in Los Angeles and New York on Dec. 27 to some of the best reviews of the year. It went into wider national release on Friday, boosted by the buzz of critics' awards (Soderbergh was chosen as best director by several critics' groups for "Traffic" and "Erin Brockovich") and talk of an Oscar nomination for best picture.   Based on a 1989 British television miniseries and relocated by screenwriter Stephen Gaghan ("Rules of Engagement") from Asia and Europe to the Americas, "Traffic" employs three separate but interlocking story lines to illustrate, in the director's words, "a sort of 'Upstairs, Downstairs' glimpse of what's going on, from how policy gets made to how the stuff [cocaine and heroin] gets from Mexico to a street corner in Cincinnati."   Michael Douglas plays an Ohio Supreme Court justice tapped to be the nation's next drug czar whose conventional assumptions about the morality of the "war" are shaken by his own teenage daughter's addiction and revelations about the inner workings of the Mexican drug cartels.   On the other side of the border, Benicio Del Toro plays a Mexican border policeman trying to uphold the law without angering members of his government who have a stake in the drug trade.   "In some ways, I'd been researching a movie about the war on drugs for 20 years," says Gaghan, a native of Louisville, Ky., who had been developing a script about drugs and gangs at Palisades High School for producer Ed Zwick when Soderbergh and producer Laura Bickford found him. With Zwick's consent and "to his everlasting credit," adds Soderbergh, Gaghan's project was merged with the adaptation of the British miniseries for "Traffic."   Gaghan was sent on an extensive research trip to Washington, D.C., and the U.S.-Mexico border. He found out, among other things, that "an honest cop on the border has a life expectancy of 30 days," "how much Tijuana has changed, with drug addiction, prostitution and petty crime going through the roof" and that "7% of all people for the last 5,000 years in all cultures have been addicted to something."   Stunned by the illogic of our national drug policy and laws that have made it necessary to build more prisons to house nonviolent users while education and treatment programs go begging, Gaghan was at first inclined to write a satire, a "Dr. Strangelove" about the war on drugs. But Soderbergh wanted something else.   "He told me, 'I want it big. I want to do an epic,' " recalls Gaghan.   While the movie hardly condones drug use and contains some harrowing scenes of cocaine and heroin addiction, it refuses to demonize the drug culture; instead it brings it close to home. "I wanted to show this family in John Hughes country," says Gaghan, referring to the bland suburban habitat associated with the movies of the writer-director of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." "Ferris Bueller country, that's where it starts."   Soderbergh says that the example set by Douglas' character, who comes to view the problem differently after finding his daughter in its midst, is true to life. "With the research we did, when you talk to law enforcement officials and say, 'Your 16-year-old is caught with drugs, do you turn them in to the cops?' And all of them said, 'No.' And that's the point. When it's your family, it's a health-care issue; when it's someone else's family, it's a criminal issue.   "That's the problem with our policy right now: It doesn't address the disconnect that everyone feels."   "Traffic" dramatizes some of the same facts uncovered in the recent "Frontline" documentary on PBS that showed several U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials stating publicly that the war on drugs has been, in effect, a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. Recalling a 1984 raid in which 12 tons of cocaine bound for the U.S. were confiscated and had no discernible impact on the availability of the drug, one DEA official said on camera, "That's when we realized at DEA that you better start focusing on something besides law enforcement."   In the film, Douglas' Ohio judge is a conspicuous creation because despite what McCaffrey and the DEA have said about the failure of interdiction, it is still taboo for most politicians to say the same even in a year when both presidential candidates spoke about youthful indiscretions involving drugs and alcohol.   "That was one issue that didn't get talked about in the campaign," says Soderbergh. "By the time somebody reaches 22, conservative estimates are that 75% to 80% have tried something. Twelve to 15% of those people end up having a problem with it. But what happens to the others, who apparently like George W. Bush and Al Gore tried it and maybe even went through a very intense period but got out the other end and moved on? How do we address those people for whom it is not life-threatening? The zero-tolerance attitude doesn't track."   Soderbergh and Gaghan brought different experiences with drugs to the subject. "I've had friends who've had problems, who are in that 12% to 15%, and for most of them moderation was not the issue," the 37-year-old Soderbergh says. "It was literally an all-or-nothing thing. Those are the people who need help and once they've gotten help, stay on [a program] for the rest of their lives.   "But I don't know the difference between people who have a couple of cocktails every night and people who smoke a joint. Those are very similar things to me--mood-altering substances. I feel fortunate that it's not something that's ever played a part in my life that I had to deal with. It seems that in my family, none of us are very addictive personalities. For instance, when we're shooting, I'll have a cigarette at lunch, and when we're not shooting, I don't. I have a pretty good sense of the difference between enjoying something and needing it. And whenever that starts to happen, I back off. But I'm lucky."   For his part, Gaghan says, "I do have an addictive personality. I've experimented with everything and some of my closest friends have died." Louisville, he says, was an incubator for an array of legal intoxicants.   "It's a town where smoking cigarettes is jingoistic," he says, referring to the local tobacco industry. "It's a city that's all about booze, tobacco and horse racing."   He recalls at an early age being tuned into the semantics of addiction. "In Louisville, there are a lot of euphemisms. I remember when an aunt or an uncle would disappear for two weeks, we were told, they were 'taking the waters,' which I later learned meant they were drying out somewhere. It was a hard-drinking environment. In Kentucky, you learn how to drink bourbon."   The movie scenes of bright, angst-ridden upper-class kids getting high after school are based on things Gaghan saw and experienced as a student at Kentucky Country Day. (In the script, he moved the action 100 miles up the Ohio River to Cincinnati Country Day School, a reference the school is protesting.) He estimates that 80% of his high school class (1983) had tried marijuana and "got drunk or high once every two weeks."   Gaghan says he had hoped "Traffic" would help scare straight his Louisville friend and fellow writer, Robert Bingham, but Bingham (author of the novel "Lightning on the Sun") died of an alcohol and heroin overdose a month before the movie went into production.   Gaghan faults the politics and bully pulpit policy of the former Reagan secretary of education and George Bush drug czar, William Bennett, as a factor in Bingham's demise. "The reason he's dead is that he couldn't talk about his problem publicly," says Gaghan, "because of the stigma, and the stigma comes straight from William Bennett," whom he believes lent a religious fervor to the war on drugs. "When you have a heroin problem, you die in private."   A few critics have faulted "Traffic" for lacking a coherent point of view about drugs and the problems attendant to their sale and distribution. But the film does seem unequivocal in its dramatization of the need for treatment programs.   "You talk to any cop," says Soderbergh, "they'll tell you, education and treatment pays off like gangbusters. The supply? We're never gonna stop that."   Yet as the movie attracts critical praise and opens wider across the country, the U.S. is stepping up economic and military aid to Colombia, where the war on drugs continues apace despite this being a strategy renounced by DEA officials, as shown by "Frontline."   Possibly the political climate will change with a new administration. But based on his law-and-order record as governor of Texas, President-elect Bush seems unlikely to risk endorsing a policy that might be considered soft on crime.   "I don't know," says Soderbergh. "I feel absolutely that it's in the air right now. I felt that when the movie was threatening to fall apart last year, when we were bouncing back and forth between studios, and actors were dropping out and coming on and there was a question whether the movie was going to happen. I felt anxious because I felt this is the time to do this."   "Traffic" is not full of hope, exactly, except for that inspired by the lonely courage of Del Toro's wily and oddly romantic border cop, and the transformation of Douglas' conservative judge. There is a climactic moment that seems to carry the filmmakers' clearest message, when Douglas, reeling from his up-close education in the drug trade, says to a gathering of reporters, "If there's a war on drugs, then many of our family members are the enemy. And how can you wage war on your own family?"   "He's absolutely right," says the director. Sean Mitchell Is a Regular Contributor to CalendarSource: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: Sean MitchellPublished: Sunday, January 7, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles TimesAddress: Times Mirror SquareLos Angeles, CA 90053Fax: (213) 237-4712Contact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Traffic Official Web Site http://www.traffic-movie.com/Drugs: The War To End No Warshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8221.shtmlScenes From The Drug War http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8211.shtmlTraffic Spins Gripping Tales of the Drug Wars http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8159.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #65 posted by observer on January 18, 2001 at 09:23:45 PT
Prohibition: US vs. THEM
(To again beat a dead horse.) I came across this recently, and couldn't help but recall what was said here.The worst thing the marijuana legalization movement suffers from is turnouts at their rallys full of guys like that guy, the type of people who stereotypically use it, with their long dirty unkempt hair, the emaciated bodies and the god-awful tie-dyed shirts. Geez, it makes me wanta puke. And that's why I want marijuana to remain illegal.. . .What is the iron law of Prohibitions? Prohibitions are always enacted by US, to govern the conduct of THEM. Do you have me? Take the alcohol prohibition. Every single person who has ever written about it agrees on why it collapsed.Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Do you have me? What? The right answer to that one is Huh? Want to hear it again?Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Want to see it? [...] Huge numbers of people in this country were in favor of national alcohol prohibition who were not themselves opposed to drinking.. . . Every criminal prohibition has that same touch to it, doesn't it? It is enacted by US and it always regulates the conduct of THEM. And so, if you understand that is the name of the game, you don't have to ask me, or any of the other people which prohibitions will be abolished and which ones won't because you will always know. The iron law of prohibitions -- all of them -- is that they are passed by an identifiable US to control the conduct of an identifiable THEM.And a prohibition is absolutely done for when it does what? Comes back and bothers US. If, at any time, in any way, that prohibition comes back and bothers us, we will get rid of it for sure, every doggone time. Look at the alcohol prohibition if you want a quick example. As long as it is only THEM --- you know, them criminals, them crazy people, them young people, them minority group members --- we are fine. But any prohibition that comes back and bothers US is done for.The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States,Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School (1995)http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #64 posted by Dave in Florida on January 10, 2001 at 06:12:51 PT
Neil = Adrian = Jose = Sinbad = Troll
Neil sounds like a troll to me. If any of the regulars here do not read or participate in the CNN "War on Drugs", I would suggest you check it out.. It is a lively discussion at times. Neil said:> If you can cultivate a secret plant and trim off a daily dose and not succumb to the temptation of making a living (or a killing) growing it than you're probably going to be left alone as I have been left alone doing so for nigh on twenty yearsWell, I am not an experinced grower, but I don't think that those that do "trim off a daily dose". I believe you need to let the plant grow and mature before it is harvested. FOM, this has to be a record for comments.. I just had to put in my 2 cents..Dave, in Florida
http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?13 46.4C5pdyprAUn^2 .ee70d85
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #63 posted by observer on January 10, 2001 at 00:03:12 PT
Prohibition, For The Children
I always understood the word prevarication to mean shading the truth. Not an outright lie but a manipulation of the truth. It's subtle. Does the word "untruth" mean "lie"? I don't think so in the same way I don't think "prevaricate" means "lie". But having said that, ...As with just about everything you've said so far here, this one's pretty easy to show you're wrong about the definition of the word "prevaricate", too... Main Entry: pre·var·i·cate . . . : to deviate from the truth : EQUIVOCATE synonym see LIEhttp://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=prevaricate if I had realized that you could call someone a "liar"  and not get kicked off then I would have used the word "lie" instead of  "prevaricate". Oh ... very clever! It's a lie to say 39 plants was possession and not commercial growing. No, you're wrong: no sales or distribution were ever shown, and the man was growing fewer plants than the Kubbys 265 plants that were not "commercial" to the jury. It's a lie to say people are rotting in jail in the U.S. today for merely possessing marijuana.No, that's false too. The laws are on the books and they are enforced. You offer nada but your overblown opinion, never anything remotely resembling evidence. You don't refute the existence of the laws that were shown to you. 700,000 people were arrested last year for cannabis in the US. The marijuana laws (see: http://www.norml.org/legal/state_laws.shtml ) are still on the books, and they are still enforced. Your evidence otherwise? Nothing. It's a lie to say Will Foster was denied a jury trial when he received one.Oh, that would be a lie. Of course, no body said he was "denied a jury trial." (I.e. you just handed us another fib.) It's a lie when you promote the legalization of drugs without considering the negative and demoralizing effect it will have in the U.S. when even more stupid people get drugs that make them even more stupid. We're quite honest about wanting to return, to give back to adult Americans the freedoms over their own bodies that they once had.  Spin that however you please, but it's no lie. It's a lie if you say legalization won't lead to more kids using drugs. It didn't in Holland ...http://www.marijuananews.com/drug_czar_lies_about_the_dutch_a.htm It's a lie if you say the people of the U.S. will respond the same way they did in Holland.Whereas in Holland, when the Dutch people were returned to them their right to use cannabis things didn't "go to hell in a hand-basket", in America, Americans mustn't ever never have any of their traditional freedoms returned to them, oh no! Because, if we give American adults back the freedom (they had before 1937) to use cannabis, the whole rotten edifice of a putrid, decaying, decadent, immoral, lazy (shiftless etc.) society will come crashing down! Oh, thank you for that insight! The DEA, the narcs ... they're our Saviours! And ... jail, why, it is good! Yes, I see now! (Oh fie! How could I have been so blind?) The movie, "Traffic" was full of lies. Every subplot was a lie. Soderbergh is a liar. Hmmmm. Well, I haven't seen the movie, so I guess (based on your accuracy elsewhere here), that I'll just have to take your word for that. (Just kidding!) If you were hoping "Traffic" would help your movement, you're wrong."Your movement"? Intersting choice of words. It very well may have completely destroyed it. Doesn't sound like that from the reviews so far: About 95% of the reviews appeared to use the movie as a springboard into discussion of legalization. (Heh ... so many new "legalizers", must have the folks at DEA/ONDCP/etc. feeling mighty fine.) Gary Johnson, liar. He knows it isn't going anywhere. But who except those in New Mexico knew his name before he blew his lying horn. He's a liar but he only lied after he was in his last term so it wouldn't cost him anything. A liar and a chicken too. The last thing he wants is to be accountable for the results of policy resulting from his own lie. Not realy: Gov Gary Johnson was very shrewd to time things the way he did. Isn't it interesting the way his poll numbers have come back up to as high as they ever were too, after an initial drop, too? Interesting that all of this gets you so worked up, though. I imagine it has lots of other prohibitionists hopping mad, too. That's why he wouldn't take the Drug Czar's job if it was offerred.I don't think he'll be offered the job, but it would be interesting to see what wuld happen if he were. He'd be paralyzed with fear. I doubt that. He's a very corageous man, and stands up to a lot of flack. He's doing a great job, despite the desperate gnashing of prohibitionists.Afraid to go forward because he knew how devastated his society would become as a result of his lie all because he needed the third side of the corruption triangle--fame.Right: as "devastated" as Holland is ... as "devastated" as the US was from the nation's founding till 1937 when marijuana was made illegal. You argue convincingly. Prohibition: jail for cannabis users. It's for The Children, of course. Sure it is! It's always "For The Children", isn't it?
Truth, a Casualty of the Drug War
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #62 posted by dddd on January 09, 2001 at 23:26:18 PT
Aha!
 If we choose to probe deeper into the Neil event,we cannot avoid the item that was dominant in his responses,and seemed to be most disturbing to him.He definitly think that being called a "liar",is the worst of besmerchments. Is it just me,or does it not seem a bit off target,and imbalanced to suggest that calling someone a liar,would be grounds for the webmaster,or host to bar them from commenting?,,,,,,,,What?? I think this says something about Neil.Anyone who suggests Neil is a liar has had it.Call him an asshole,or a hypocrite,call him arrogant or pompous,,call him anything you want,,but dont call him a liar....If you called Neil a liar to his face,,,,them would be fightin' words......He would do his best to beat the shit out of you.......He probably didnt like you anyway.I hope you're not going to abandon us Neil.All are welcome to express their point of viewAnd be careful about your soft spot of being called a liar.If you know you're not a liar,then explain yourself,,dont freak out. I hope you can maintain your sanity.It aint pretty being on the edge.I gotta go now too.I'm gonna go hang out in some doorways with parents who smoke weed and cigarettes around their kids,and emaciated scraggly people in tie dye shirts that dont have collars or buttons,,people who are not ashamed to smoke the herb,friendly good people,who never get called "liar",because they never lie.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #61 posted by i_rule_ on January 09, 2001 at 22:49:21 PT
HEHE
                :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #60 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 22:47:29 PT
Then you don't mind my calling Observer a liar?
I always understood the word prevarication to mean shading the truth. Not an outright lie but a manipulation of the truth. It's subtle. Does the word "untruth" mean "lie"? I don't think so in the same way I don't think "prevaricate" means "lie". But having said that, if I had realized that you could call someone a "liar" and not get kicked off then I would have used the word "lie" instead of "prevaricate". It's a lie to say 39 plants was possession and not commercial growing. It's a lie to say people are rotting in jail in the U.S. today for merely possessing marijuana. It's a lie to say Will Foster was denied a jury trial when he received one. It's a lie when you promote the legalization of drugs without considering the negative and demoralizing effect it will have in the U.S. when even more stupid people get drugs that make them even more stupid. It's a lie if you say legalization won't lead to more kids using drugs. It's a lie if you say the people of the U.S. will respond the same way they did in Holland. The movie, "Traffic" was full of lies. Every subplot was a lie. Soderbergh is a liar. If you were hoping "Traffic" would help your movement, you're wrong. It very well may have completely destroyed it. Gary Johnson, liar. He knows it isn't going anywhere. But who except those in New Mexico knew his name before he blew his lying horn. He's a liar but he only lied after he was in his last term so it wouldn't cost him anything. A liar and a chicken too. The last thing he wants is to be accountable for the results of policy resulting from his own lie. That's why he wouldn't take the Drug Czar's job if it was offerred. He'd be paralyzed with fear. Afraid to go forward because he knew how devastated his society would become as a result of his lie all because he needed the third side of the corruption triangle--fame. That's all, Adieu.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by dddd on January 09, 2001 at 22:37:17 PT
thread?
This is no longer a "thread" FoM,,it's a ropei_rule,,why would he need to join the dea?.............. again?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by i_rule_ on January 09, 2001 at 22:30:18 PT
Prohibitionist and pot smoker in one?
Isn't that like uh...hypocritical? Seems a lot like the jarhead in American Beauty, who hated gays, but wound up wanting to make it with Kevin Spacey. If you smoke pot, and support prohibition, you are no better than Bush, Gore, Clinton and others who toke, then sign bills to imprison others for the very same thing. Discreet? You mean chicken shit, right? At least the long dirty unkempt hair, emanciated bodies and God awful tie-dyed shirt guys have the balls to live what they believe. Neil, you believe in prohibition, but smoke pot. Why not be a real man and go all the way. Quit smoking pot and become a DEA agent. With your hypocritical lifestyle, you would fit in just perfectly. Sounds like you are the one with the internal weakness. Not man enough to either be a head or an anti. So you try to combine both. Here's a hint. It doesn't work. dddd and Obsever have literally crammed the truth down your throat, and like the anti's, you choke on it and barf back lies. Busted. One joint in wallet. Roach in ashtray. Automatic felony for possesion of a narcotic. Jail time whether you believe it or not. You need to stop smoking cannabis, Neil. You give us legalize activist a bad name. Get help with your hypocratic condition. Then join the DEA. You probably were planted by them here anyway. When you look in the mirror, I bet you see two faces. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by FoM on January 09, 2001 at 22:15:39 PT
Very Interesting thread
Maybe I should have said level headed multiple personalities. Don't mind me. LOL! PS: Neil my job isn't to throw people out. I'm not the bouncer type.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by observer on January 09, 2001 at 21:56:03 PT
re:
NiftySplifty writes:Anyone who's ever smoked knows this is a typical "I know what I'm talking about because *insert big fat lie*" kind of thinking.I get that same feeling, I have to admit.Neil writes:... Unless of course, Observer is NiftySplifty too. More insinuation. (They just get more and more wild, don't they?) Seems to ba a habit with you, when evidence, logic, reading, and argument fail. NiftySplifty called me a liar. That's a flame. Do your job, throw him off. Is calling someone a liar a flame? I never knew that. I don't think that's really a flame in itself; your milage may vary.Interesting that you'd try to have people here thrown off here, though. You can throw all the big fancy sounding quotes out of all the legalize marijuana cottage industry books you own and it still isn't going to change the fact that you prevaricate when you state that, let's see, how did you put that again, "people are rotting in US jails right now, for no other reason than they were caught possessing cannabis." -- NeilYour words are just a touch hypocritical, Neil.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by dddd on January 09, 2001 at 21:56:03 PT
Outstanding!
Nothing quite like a brisk exchange of ideas....I guess I might as well fess up,Neil.Actually I am Skeezix,NiftySplifty,FreedomFighter,Observer,and many others.This has all been a big setup I did on you,,,just to mess with your mind.I will be in touch with your employers,and give them an insight into your real views. We will continue to evaluate you,so please,dont be afraid to say what's on your mind.Your views are just as valid here as any of my multiple personalities are.We find you very interesting.We cant believe you are normal.We wonder how many people you pretend to be....You are probably not even the real Neil Bush.................You dont act like him.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by FoM on January 09, 2001 at 21:44:55 PT
Sorry Neil
I'm sorry Neil. It's a long thread and I missed the comment but still I won't throw anyone off. We get along well here. We have good level headed people that regularly post and that's not an area where I would want to go.Sorry Again, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 21:24:28 PT
FoM, you got it wrong
FoM: I don't need you to throw Observer off. Unless of course, Observer is NiftySplifty too. NiftySplifty called me a liar. That's a flame. Do your job, throw him off.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by FoM on January 09, 2001 at 21:17:08 PT
Just a comment
Hello Neil, I sure don't mind you, Observer or anyone else debating. I won't throw Observer off this site. That is out of the question. That's not the policy of Cannabis News. We really don't talk about growing here but we do talk about drug policy reform. That's just smart because lots of people read these comments. Thanks FoM!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by observer on January 09, 2001 at 21:16:59 PT
re: Play Fair
Observer: you wouldn't be "skeezix" by any chance would you? No. You're getting more amusing by the minute.http://www.cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=skeezixNo, that's not me, Neil.  (But I do appreciate the kind words from skeezix and everyone!) Do I need to create a cheering section too. Clever but cheap propaganda trick. Temper, temper. No trick, Neil. Looks like someone just following the dialog. Did you learn that one in that same book? More insinuation from you. Neither is that much of an argument for locking up marijuana smokers (ike you claim to be), Neil. By the way, you didn't nail anybody. If anybody gets the award for ridicule and sarcasm, it's you. If you say so, Neil.
Hear Fear
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 20:57:38 PT
Play fair
Observer: you wouldn't be "skeezix" by any chance would you? Do I need to create a cheering section too. Clever but cheap propaganda trick. Did you learn that one in that same book? By the way, you didn't nail anybody. If anybody gets the award for ridicule and sarcasm, it's you. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 20:47:07 PT
How about the appeal?
Why weren't violations of his constitutional rights revealed on appeal?Nifty: What am I supposed to say? You call me a liar? A good webmaster would throw you off this sight for that. I think I know a little more about growing than you or Will Foster. I've been doing it for twenty years and I have some mighty cool tricks. But don't even waste your time; it takes discipline.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by observer on January 09, 2001 at 20:45:19 PT
Ridiculing Medical Marijuana
Observer: it would take too much time to do so but I think this quote of yours would be an appropriate response to just about every bullet criticism you've made concerning my written opinions and comments.Not really, you're just upset because you were so squarely nailed, Neil. You're the one who attempted to ridicule medical marijuana. Let me refresh your memory: "Marijuana for medicine? Now there's a laugh. Any excuse to get high legally. It's too hilarious." Classic ridicule technique. You should be more discreet. I think you mean, "I sure wish observer would stop pointing out the gaping holes in my claims!"I understand. You're becoming what you loathe. I doubt that, but will let others judge for themselves. I'll keep on keepin' on, though. In any event, I'm pretty sure you're just about the last person I'd ever look to for advice. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by skeezix on January 09, 2001 at 20:40:17 PT
my opinion
I dont comment here much,but I have to say that if I was judging a debate,I would say Observer kicked Neils ass bigtime.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by observer on January 09, 2001 at 20:34:11 PT
Yes, Will Foster had Trial & Jury
Yes, Neil, he had a trial. Turned down the "deal".``Will refused to take a 'deal' and asked for a jury trial instead. However, he never had the chance to confront the witnesses against him, as the judge refused his Sixth Amendment right to do so. Furthermore, he was denied his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure and nameless warrants. The prosecution poured on the pressure and the jury convicted him. He was sentenced to a total of 93 years...''http://www.hr95.org/Foster,W.html``The jury was not allowed to hear his medical defense. Foster was convicted and sentenced to 93 years.''http://www.hr95.org/action.htm#fosteretc.Trial. Jury. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by NiftySplifty on January 09, 2001 at 20:30:24 PT
I think Neil's just full of it. Let him pretend.
I happened to like this one: "I do okay with one and with good care I get about twelve ounces of pot per plant every four months." Aside from getting some great yield from his alleged grow-op, there's not much point to note that he says he has one plant, yet can't wait for the "period" to contradict himself. All his comments sound to me like a non-smoker who wants to pretend to have "inside" information, and try to give what we should perceive as some sort of logical argument (e.g. Prohibition should continue, drugs are bad, etc.). It's like a person I once heard saying that he was a pot-only dealer, but knew that his clients were turning over people's houses looking for jewelry and guns and anything they could to get their "next fix", like some sort of crack-head. Anyone who's ever smoked knows this is a typical "I know what I'm talking about because *insert big fat lie*" kind of thinking. Also, the "I'm going to Amsterdam!" line is a red-flag. Kinda like, a person using the newest term for weed: "Hey, I just scored some 'nugs'. Aren't I hip?"I think we should just leave Neil alone, because he is really wasting rational people's time. Nifty...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 20:28:31 PT
The pot calling the kettle black?
Observer: it would take too much time to do so but I think this quote of yours would be an appropriate response to just about every bullet criticism you've made concerning my written opinions and comments. You should be more discreet. You're becoming what you loathe.``Indirect name calling is used when direct name calling would antagonize the audience. It is a label for the degree of attack between direct name calling and insinuation. Sarcasm and ridicule are employed with this technique.'' ("Propaganda Techniques" http://www.zoehouse.com/is/sco/proptech.html , http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a360d496e0c97.htm etc.) 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 20:14:24 PT
good question
How come this doesn't happen in "Amsterdam", where mamma and papa can toke up all they want, legally at home, in front of the kids, even? (That's where you say you're headed, remember?)Actually, that's one of the reasons I'm going over there. Not the main reason or only reason but one of them. I'm very curious myself about that aspect of the Dutch situation and I'm going to search for the truth myself. If I find a bunch of kids smoking pot in doorways over there, standby.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 19:58:56 PT
Did he have a jury trial or not?
Observer: I've read it again but I'll admit I'm slightly confused by what he's saying. Did he or did he not have a jury trial? It sounds like he didn't even though he was about to when he decided he didn't want one. Something about protecting his wife. Wouldn't her testifying against him at his jury trial have been protection? How much time did she do? And why is the website devoted to Will Foster so careful about telling everyone that donations to him aren't going through her. Was she the one that called the cops? INTERVIEWERDid they offer you a deal of some sort?WILL FOSTERBefore we went to trial, the best deal that they would give me was 25 years, a $150,000 in fines. At the time that we were getting to go to trial, the day of the trial when we were getting ready to put a jury up, they offered me 10 years and $50,000 in fines. If I took the 10 years, then they could come and prosecute my wife as it stood at that time, she would get a misdemeanor, no jail time, if she would testify against me. So if I didn't go to jury trial, they would just come back and try to enforce more years on her in jail. INTERVIEWERSo you were taking a gamble, for...WILL FOSTERWell, it was me go to jail and a jury trial. Or me going to jail taking a plea bargain and her going to jail at the same time. INTERVIEWERAnd what did you think the outcome of the jury trial would be? WILL FOSTERWell, I figured with the way that the judge ran the courtroom, the things that he wouldn't even motion on like, the confidential informant, the unsigned affidavit for the search warrant, I mean, I didn't have chance. I knew I was going to go to jail. INTERVIEWERHow do you think you ended up with a 93-year sentence for marijuana? WILL FOSTERWell, I'm the first person ever in Tulsa county to take the drug case to trial. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by observer on January 09, 2001 at 19:39:16 PT
correction
... Do you use the one-half pound (eight ounces) of pot per month that Observer says most marijuana users smoke?... I never said anything about "most marijuana users smoke". You have a bad habit of misreading (giving you the benefit of the doubt, here). I quoted a report showing that the US Federal Government gives out eight ounces per month to each of the people that federal medical marijuana program. Nothing about "most marijuana users smoke": I doubt that non-medical users really consume that much. But that is how much the Feds give out per person per month: eight ounces. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by observer on January 09, 2001 at 19:28:16 PT
There But by the Grace of God, Go You (1)
 Good for Gov. Keating Observer: According to Will Foster's interview with Frontline that I just read, it was he that declined the jury trial. He didn't have it denied to him. Hoo boy. You really do need to read more carefully, Neil. WILL FOSTER: Well, I'm the first person ever in Tulsa county to take the drug case to trial. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/cases/foster.html He was growing too many plants. Uh, yeah: that's what the cultivation and "intent to distribute" convictions were for... But as far as what he needed for medicinal use, his yield would have been far less than what the US Government is now giving out to people. It was stupid what he did. He lost everything because of it. You're desperately cavilling, scratching and clawing for some rationale that makes his marijuana growing any different from yours. In front of a jury, I can see how you'd have the book thrown at you for your "operation", also. By the way, Will Foster was an employed computer professional, with short hair. I, too, feel that the sentence is outrageous Well there's another concession. Good for you. but all he has to do is admit that he was growing commercial amounts of marijuana and he'd be out Again, where do you get this stuff? Same place you "discovered" that he was punished as a "third strike"? (which was more "BS": no "strikes" involved, you just made it up)His parole board recommended him for parole. They all wrote individual letters of recommendation to Gov. Keating. That's unheard of. But nothing anywhere about "but all he has to do is admit" etc.: you just made that up, too. and he could move to Amsterdam where I'm going in March. That's nice. Hope you make it out there. Will must have had one incredible appetite for pot if he needed 39 plants to support his needs. Hardly: it looks like he'd have less from his plants than the US government gives out to the patients in the federal medical marijuana program, now.The amount of light the plants receive is as important as the number of plants, anyway. What stage of growth were his plants? Seedlings? How many were males? I do okay with one and with good care I get about twelve ounces of pot per plant every four months. Sure you do, buddy: sure you do. Whatever you say... All I need is a half ounce per week and I'm fine. I've found that if I want more then it's time to take a break and stop using for awhile. A couple weeks later and it's fine. People using cannabis for pain and other medical reasons tend to use more, again the feds give out 8 ounces per person, per month. That's four times what you say you use. I don't care if you smoke one joint every other decade. Medical users, as the amounts that the Fed Gov gives to the medical mj patients shows, use lots more than you claim you do. Like I said, you've got to be discreet, responsible and mature. Right: keep your nose clean. Always look on the bright side of life. A penny saved is a penny earned. Etc. I know this is going to pain some of the people reading these posts but I've had times when I thought I had too much unused pot in my house and I've destroyed it. (Precinct incinerator?) That's nice, too. Whatever floats your boat. It's sort of like tobacco. There was a time, not too long ago, when you could smoke just about anywhere. Restaurants, bars, cafeterias, supermarkets, laundrymats, even some classrooms permited smoking. Now, here in California, nicotine addicts can't even smoke in bars. I fail to see how jailing people for smoking a plant is "just like tobacco" (recall that people aren't thrown into jail for smoking cigars). Unless you're talking about the stunningly effective prohibitions in the 1600's: c. 1650     The use of tobacco is prohibited in Bavaria, Saxony, and in Zurich, but the prohibitions are ineffective. Sultan Murad IV of the Ottoman Empire decrees the death penalty for smoking tobacco: "Whereever there Sultan went on his travels or on a military expedition his halting-places were always distinguished by a terrible rise in executions. Even on the battlefield he was fond of surprising men in the act of smoking, when he would punish them by beheading, hanging, quartering or crushing their hands and feed. . . . Nevertheless, in spite of all the horrors and persecution. . . the passion for smoking still persisted." [Edward M. Brecher et al., *Licit and Illicit Drugs*, p. 212]Ceremonial Chemistry : The Ritual Persecution of Drugs, Addicts, and Pushers by Thomas Szasz (Appendix) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556910193/quoted in http://www.freespeech.org/4chaos/timeline.txt And the price just keeps going up. And it's just going to get worse for them because they just can't figure it out. If they could just be discreet about it. Not smoke where other people have to share the air. Not smoke around kids. Not smoke at the entrances of buildings where people have to walk. I would agree that it is as wrong to force one's smoke on others as it is for force one's own morals on others.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by observer on January 09, 2001 at 19:26:53 PT
There But by the Grace of God, Go You (2)
 But no, they're so rude that they actually serve as the best argument around to make the rules even stricter in order to get them to behave in a social manner. That's pretty silly on a number of different levels. First, "they", the smokers, aren't all alike; they're individuals. Some smoke "discreetly", others do not. Also, the rules are changing on them: people who grew up in before the 70's were able to smoke where they pleased, and few cared. With the hypersentization and excessive, unctuous PC attitudes concerning smoking, things have changed. Maybe those people huddled at the entrance of a building think they're doing you a favor because they're not smoking inside?Anyway, I disagree with laws that dictate how people can or can't smoke in private buildings. Public spaces are one thing, inside a private building is another. It's basically a territorial conflict and most people, including me, don't want to have to go through the whole thing over again with marijuana I see: so you'd rather subject yourself to prison. Very wise. Oh that's right, you're too slick and too much of a wise guy to have to worry about the law, because you're so mature and discreet. and all the rude people incapable of policing themselves. I don't think that's a distinction that will cut much ice with the prosecutor/judge when you're popped for a marijuana manufacturing grow operation. They'll simply claim you had more, if that's all that stands in the way of the prosecutors career. You're deluded if you think that you're legally safer than Mr Foster, merely because you have a smaller (you claim) grow op. I like it the way it is now, I get to smoke pot because I'm discreet and responsible You don't "get to smoke pot" any more then Will Foster did. You just haven't been busted, yet. You're no different from Will Foster was the day before they kicked in his door. You claim that you're safe because his grow op was bigger than your grow op is? You're dreaming. A prosecutor could throw the book at you every bit as much as Will Foster, regardless of pathetic whimpers about "But Willy's grow op was bigger than mine!" and I'm spared the displeasure of walking through clouds of marijuana smoke at the entrances of buildings placed there by kids of parents who weren't qualified to have them. Oh, now you're giving us a logical argument why adult cannabis users (like you) should be thrown in jail. So that you're spared your horrific kiddy scenario you claim would fall upon "society" when it returns to adults their traditional freedom.How come this doesn't happen in "Amsterdam", where mamma and papa can toke up all they want, legally at home, in front of the kids, even? (That's where you say you're headed, remember?) I can only hope that someday tobacco is illegal also where the only people that will be successfully smoking it are the discreet, responsible people secretly growing their own. I'm sure that's just about to happen. First tobacco is banned in the ever-so-politically-correct bars in California, next tobacco growers will be "executed". Thanks for sharing Neil: that's very special. It would truly be a better world. Sure, Neil, sure. ... and, "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony..." (tears welling up in eyes) Marijuana for medicine? Now there's a laugh. Any excuse to get high legally. It's too hilarious. ``Indirect name calling is used when direct name calling would antagonize the audience. It is a label for the degree of attack between direct name calling and insinuation. Sarcasm and ridicule are employed with this technique.'' ("Propaganda Techniques" http://www.zoehouse.com/is/sco/proptech.html , http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a360d496e0c97.htm etc.) Check. Marijuana for medicine? Now there's a laugh. Any excuse to get high legally. It's too hilarious. Yes, Neil, glad to hear you mention that. Cannabis has been used as medicine for about 5,000 years, maybe more. Of course, prohibitionists (whose jobs depending on arresting/inprisoning mj smokers like you, Neil) and their lackeys (some who even claim to smoke/grow), need to erase history, and instead promote images of Cheech and Chong, in place of facts. I suppose prohibitionists/camp followers would have a harder time selling the arrest of 700,000 cannabis users a year if word got out about Queen Victoria's medical marijuana usage, or English clergyman Robert Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, in 1621, and so on.seehttp://www.rxmarihuana.com/http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_timeline.php3http://www.google.com/search?q=medical+marijuanaetc.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by dddd on January 09, 2001 at 18:21:17 PT
amount
I smoke maybe a quarter ounce a month lately.I have been through times when I smoked alot more than that.I think your missing the point here.Who's business is it how much I smoke,or if I smoke at all?Do you think that the government should say how many drinks you can have?Would it be a good idea to make laws that limit how much food you can consume in a month?More people die from obesity,than marijuana use. It's too bad there are no laws that limit hypocracy,,you would have already gone way past the three strikes law.Let's pray to Darwin that things get better,and we all can be happy.I dont think you're as bad as you seem.I like you contraversial and dissenting opinions.It makes for a robust discussion........dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by dddd on January 09, 2001 at 18:06:39 PT
quit pot
Neil,I'm glad you're one of a kind.If people who use marijuana were all like you,I would probably quit.I hope your staying in Amsterdam.We dont really need your narrow minded,radical ass here in California.No,,,I'm just kidding.You are entitled to think what you want,live where you want,,but it's not legal for you to do what you want,when you smoke marijuana.If I was an M.D.,I would not hesitate to write you a precription for medical marijuana.You need it.I dont understand why you think medical marijuana is some sort of joke.Are you saying that the only reason you have for smoking weed,is to get fucked up,and cop a buzz?Be real Neil............dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 18:03:12 PT
The plants in the closet, not me
ddddd: I hope you're not serious. Why would I want to do something stupid. It's illegal. Highly illegal. As long as it stays that way I'm happy. The minute it's legalized, I have to start dealing with many many more stupid people using it.As for the leading a double life. It's not so extreme as that. The subject seldom comes up. If it does, I just point out that legalization would increase use among children which is the truth and my honest opinion and they all assume I don't use. Everyone has a mask on. Even me. Even you. Go without your shields up in America too long and you're history. It's a very Darwinian place.How about you? Do you use the one-half pound (eight ounces) of pot per month that Observer says most marijuana users smoke? That's a lot of pot. I use two ounces per month now and I just can't imagine what kind of mental state I'd be in if smoked four times as much.There's nothing wrong with using marijuana as long as you're discreet, responsible and mature about it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 17:43:04 PT
Good for Gov. Keating
Observer: According to Will Foster's interview with Frontline that I just read, it was he that declined the jury trial. He didn't have it denied to him.He was growing too many plants. It was stupid what he did. He lost everything because of it. I, too, feel that the sentence is outrageous but all he has to do is admit that he was growing commercial amounts of marijuana and he'd be out and he could move to Amsterdam where I'm going in March. Will must have had one incredible appetite for pot if he needed 39 plants to support his needs. I do okay with one and with good care I get about twelve ounces of pot per plant every four months. All I need is a half ounce per week and I'm fine. I've found that if I want more then it's time to take a break and stop using for awhile. A couple weeks later and it's fine. Like I said, you've got to be discreet, responsible and mature. I know this is going to pain some of the people reading these posts but I've had times when I thought I had too much unused pot in my house and I've destroyed it. It's sort of like tobacco. There was a time, not too long ago, when you could smoke just about anywhere. Restaurants, bars, cafeterias, supermarkets, laundrymats, even some classrooms permited smoking. Now, here in California, nicotine addicts can't even smoke in bars. And the price just keeps going up. And it's just going to get worse for them because they just can't figure it out. If they could just be discreet about it. Not smoke where other people have to share the air. Not smoke around kids. Not smoke at the entrances of buildings where people have to walk. But no, they're so rude that they actually serve as the best argument around to make the rules even stricter in order to get them to behave in a social manner. It's basically a territorial conflict and most people, including me, don't want to have to go through the whole thing over again with marijuana and all the rude people incapable of policing themselves. I like it the way it is now, I get to smoke pot because I'm discreet and responsible and I'm spared the displeasure of walking through clouds of marijuana smoke at the entrances of buildings placed there by kids of parents who weren't qualified to have them. I can only hope that someday tobacco is illegal also where the only people that will be successfully smoking it are the discreet, responsible people secretly growing their own. It would truly be a better world.Marijuana for medicine? Now there's a laugh. Any excuse to get high legally. It's too hilarious.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by dddd on January 09, 2001 at 17:08:57 PT
thanx
FreedomFighter,your list of comment titles was a cool idea....Thank you...dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by freedom fighter on January 09, 2001 at 16:48:28 PT
The Movie Sucked!
The Movie Sucked!Who or what sucked?????? You???Settle down DankHankWhy all this heat?Neil's not aloneLegal in whose lifetime?This IS a great filmNeil, Neil, Neil... Repeal -- 1920: ''Impossible'', 1933: ''Fact.''Observer rules!Alright, cut the BSTrimming the bullddddduuhre: Alright, cut the BSNeilGeez Observer, you're scary when you're angryBush, the last name's BushMy 2 centsParentI don't qualifyEvidence vs. OpinionsProper Parenting & Jacob's MandrakesI like NeilOnly lessonThirty-Nine Plants96 Ounces a Year from Uncle SamJust a little humor in this threadYou said itObserver dishes out ass-whippin's like cole slaw.Foster was growing for personal consumptionNeils' own little world I am in awe
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by freedom fighter on January 09, 2001 at 16:03:30 PT
I am in awe
knowing that there are folks who would rather put 2 million more people in prisons in the next 10 years because of this false ideology, "The fewer people on drugs in society the better off that society is even for those that use."I am in awe that there are folks who believe that prohibiton stop people from doing drugs. 400 billion$ a year on drugs and they still say, "Fewer people on drugs".We do not wish to convince you for you are doing the job in convincing others who do not do drugs to legalize the drugs.Yes, we want to legalize drugs now because we know that if we keep up with the prohibition, the damages to the society will be worse than if the society that acknowledge that people do drugs. 1, 39, 265, 1000 plants, who cares? You never did. You would be lying if you said it did. "Fewer people on Drugs" is not a very good excuse and you know that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by dddd on January 09, 2001 at 15:17:51 PT
Neils' own little world 
I think Neil lives in his own private world.I'm very curious as to what you do for a living Neil?You obviously are deceiving most everyone you know,into thinking you dont smoke weed,and that you are against anyone who does You are forced to live a double life,lying and misrepresenting yourself to others.This makes it so part of you has to live in your own private small world,with a seperate set of rules for yourself,,,rules that others are not entitled to because they lack the enhanced level of discretion that you claim to posess.In your world,people are not equal.In your world there is you,and there is everyone else.It's easy to see that you are under alot of stress,and it's a lucky thing that you allow yourself to use marijuana,because it relieves your stress. It seems to me that your not playing with a full deck.One paddle in the water type thing.Come out of the closet Neil.Quit being ashamed of you secret herbal enjoyment.Stop burying the truth and hiding from everyone.Admit that there is nothing wrong with using marijuana.It would do you alot of good to get busted,and spend some time behind bars.It would give you a whole new perspective...............peace......dddd 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by observer on January 09, 2001 at 14:27:48 PT
Foster was growing for personal consumption
Observer: You said it, Proposition 215 doesn't apply in OK. Right: but people don't use different amounts of medicine, depending on which state they live in: which is the point, which you ignored. Last time I checked, people in California use the same dosages of medicines as people in other places, including Oklahoma. Nothing happens to human bodies that causes them to require differing dosages of medications, when a state line is crossed. Comparing the Kubby's to Foster is really reaching. Hardly. It is easy to see who is resorting to increasingly desperate cavils. You (understandably) have ignored the 6 pounds of US Government cannabis supplied by the US government to various people in the nation right now. That's 96 ounces, per year, per person. Will's 39 scrawnly little seedlings under his limited lights never produced near that much. Foster was growing for personal consumption Uh yeah. That's the whole point, remember? You argued that Foster was distributing solely because of the number of plants. Now you flip around and say, "Foster was growing for personal consumption". Okeee... Glad you conceed this, now. and you don't have any credibility because you don't have any common sense I think it is plain to people reading this thread who has credibility and evidence, and who's just blowing smoke. if you try to convince the average guy on the street that he was. If not barred from defending himself in court (like Will Foster was), I'm sure an impartial jury would find him innocent of the charges, much like the Kubby trial outcome. Bible-belt juries, steeped in years of reefer madness, devil's weed propaganda, would admittedly be a harder sell. A jury would find Foster guilty. I sure hope Foster isn't doing 93 years as a stubborn effort to make people like you right because you're hardly worth it. Like me? Now that's amusing, also. I didn't play any part in Foster's trial, I'm just relating the facts of it to people here. 39 plants for personal consumption, Yes, it seems like very little, when put next to the 1/2 pound (8 ounces ~ 224 grams) per month per person that the US Federal Government hands out. Yes, it is understandable that you'd need to ignore that, too. tsk, tsk. Get real. Oh, the "tsk tsk" argument. Very logical and persuasive! Foster needs to apologize to the court, to the judge and to the state, get parole and then spend the rest of his life being discreet. His parole board recommended he be paroled, last year, Neil. Governor Keating, grandstanding to "the good people" turned him down. After years in prison, Oklahoma Governor Keating received Will Foster's parole papers Dec. 21 and rejected it against the unanimous advice of the Parole Board. Will received outstanding commendations from his direct supervisors at the prison he has been incarcerated at. They all personally wrote to Keating on Wills behalf asking that he be released.http://www.hr95.org/action.htm Foster owes no one an apology for growing and using cannabis, any more than you owe anyone an apology for growing cannabis. (Your rank hypocrisy, well now, that's another matter...) I read you haven't seen the movie yet. Why did you ask the same question twice, then? Go see it. I think you'll be disappointed. I'm sure I'll see it, eventually. No rush. Lest ways not on thy recommendation... And keep up the argument. Thanks! I shall, Lord willing. As long as people like you are the spokesmen for the legalize drugs movement, I have no fear. I use drugs and can see through the errors of your argument. I can tell! Perhaps, one day, you'll be able to share what you see (evidence, I mean; as opposed to your opinions), and cogently share it with others. So far, you've failed to do that. (But your bit about executing tobacco farmers: now that's a real gem!) How are you going to convince those that don't use to legalize when you can't even convince me. I don't need to convince hard-core prohibitionists, hypocrites, etc. Folks like you serve fine as foils, nicely illustrating the hypocrisy of prohibitionism, and its camp followers. The fewer people on drugs in society the better off that society is even for those that use. That's your repeated hollow statist platitude. On the other hand, many argue that a just society that returns to people their traditional freedom over their own bodies is preferrable to the coercive police-states that prohibitionists have dreamed up.Whenever "A" attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon "B," "A" is most likely a scoundrel. -- H.L. Mencken  
DRCNet: Cops against the Drug War
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by NiftySplifty on January 09, 2001 at 13:18:24 PT
Observer dishes out ass-whippin's like cole slaw.
I happened to have short hair, nice clothes, and my own business, but I'm with all the people "with their long dirty unkempt hair, the emaciated bodies and the god-awful tie-dyed shirts". One day, that nut will crack.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 13:07:54 PT
You said it
Observer: You said it, Proposition 215 doesn't apply in OK. Comparing the Kubby's to Foster is really reaching. Foster was growing for personal consumption and you don't have any credibility because you don't have any common sense if you try to convince the average guy on the street that he was. A jury would find Foster guilty. I sure hope Foster isn't doing 93 years as a stubborn effort to make people like you right because you're hardly worth it. 39 plants for personal consumption, tsk, tsk. Get real. Foster needs to apologize to the court, to the judge and to the state, get parole and then spend the rest of his life being discreet.I read you haven't seen the movie yet. Go see it. I think you'll be disappointed. And keep up the argument. As long as people like you are the spokesmen for the legalize drugs movement, I have no fear. I use drugs and can see through the errors of your argument. How are you going to convince those that don't use to legalize when you can't even convince me. The fewer people on drugs in society the better off that society is even for those that use.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by FoM on January 09, 2001 at 09:29:40 PT
Just a little humor in this thread
This is a serious thread and I'm not taking it lightly but dddd cracked me up again with this.I gotta go now. I'm glad you reminded me about the bath thing. It's that time of the month. Once a month,whether I need it or not....First thing in the morning,I'm gonna go shopping for tie-dye shirts that have collars and buttons. You are right,it's time to stop living in the past.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by observer on January 09, 2001 at 09:05:47 PT
96 Ounces a Year from Uncle Sam
Observer: Will Foster had 39 plants and then tried to convince the judge he was growing them for personal consumption. The Kubbys had over 265 plants, and the jury (with the exception of on exceptionally brainwashed drug-warrior) and that was ruled within the medical guidelines. So your "point" about the number of plants looks like prosecutorial fluff. The amounts Foster had were well within the Prop. 215 guidlines (as an example, not that Prop. 215 applies in OK).As another example, the US Government itself determined that people use about 8 ounces a month ...For years, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has provided about a half-pound of marijuana a month to a handful of seriously ill patients. The government grass is grown on a heavily guarded 7-acre plot at the University of Mississippi. The university farm ships 300 perfectly rolled cigarettes, each containing about a gram of marijuana, to the patients' doctors each month. . . http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n662/a08.html (5/2000) How big were his plants? Seedlings? If 265 plants was not ruled excessive for the Kubbys, and the Feds themselves ship a pound every two months to the people in that program, how can 39 plants be excessive? Foster was punished for asking for a jury trial, another extralegal and unconstitutional (de facto) punishment.Plea bargains are another method of compelling self-incrimination. If an accused person will confess to a crime, perhaps even a crime that was not committed, other charges are dropped. Mandatory sentencing laws expedite the plea bargain process. Mandatory sentences give prosecutors, rather than judges, the power to determine what level of punishment shall be administered upon conviction for a criminal act. One act can violate multiple drug laws ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. "Mandatory" punishment for that one act is optionally determined by the prosecutor who draws the indictment. If a prosecutor threatens a person with long imprisonment unless the person confesses to a lesser crime, such a confession is coerced. Yet in the name of drugs, courts refuse to recognize the coercion. Plea bargains also neatly erase the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of trials. If an accused person can receive graver charges and greater punishment upon demanding a trial, a trial is no longer a right. Through plea bargains, drug warriors have gained a power similar to one seized by the Gestapo. Drug warriors cannot choose from a range of punishments as broad as that available to the Gestapo. But within perimeters of the permissible range, drug police and prosecutors have broad power to administer punishments.Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pg.54http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425 If a guy is going to display complete contempt for the court by insulting it's intelligence, he's going to get the maximum sentence. Like I was saying, it would be almost amusing (given your extreme hypocrisy) to watch you attempt to convince a career-building prosecutor that you one plant (you claim) was only for personal use. Foster wasn't displaying contempt for anyone: he was and is insisting on the truth. If Will, at his next parole hearing, tells the truth, he'll probably get parole. He was "telling the truth" (your evidenceless hot air and insinuation, aside): that's why Will went to trial, rather than accept a "deal" from ze State, which forced him to lie. Granted, a 93 year sentence is a bit extreme, but then the judge is trying to send Will a message. Yes, that's a Nazi legal principle: "the educational nature of the law". Historian Richard Miller details how both Nazi and (now, in the name of drugs) American courts adopted this principle. You're "in character" when you use it, also. The second principle of Nazi legal authority was the educational nature of law. Under this principle, the courts were to use the law to teach the people a lesson. One Nazi theorist announced the rule: No crime without punishment.(21)review of Nazi Justiz, Richard W. Stevens http://www.ccops.org/justiz.htmlNazi Justiz, Richard Lawrence Miller, 1995 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275949125/ Don't lie to the court. Your baseless insinuations aside, Will didn't "lie to the court", and "the court" never established he did. The prosecutor (you cheer for) was the one using lies and insinuation, and Will was barred from defending himself. No customers, no evidence of sales of any kind was given. Will refused to take a 'deal' and asked for a jury trial instead. However, he never had the chance to confront the witnesses against him, as the judge refused his Sixth Amendment right to do so. Furthermore, he was denied his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure and nameless warrants. The prosecution poured on the pressure and the jury convicted him. He was sentenced to a total of 93 years 70 years for marijuana cultivation, 20 years for possession of marijuana in the presence of a minor child (his own), 2 years for possession with intent to distribute, and 1 year for not having a tax stamp. http://www.hr95.org/Foster,W.html You seem to know a lot about Will, what were his previous two convictions before he struck out in the three-strikes ruling? Where do you get this stuff? You just make it up as you go along? He wasn't convicted under a "three-strikes ruling". You just handed us another false insinuation. (Of course, if you want pull his NCIC record, and share it with us, we'd be interested in whatever you're able to do. Which will have to be better than the evidence-less insinuation you've handed us, so far.) seehttp://www.hr95.org/Foster,W.htmlhttp://www.gnv.fdt.net/~jrdawson/willfoster.htmhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/cases/foster.html etc.No "three-strikes ruling", prosecutor. What was it you were saying about credibility? That you haven't much? By the way how'd you like the movie? Did you not read my answer, earlier? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Neil on January 09, 2001 at 07:18:00 PT
Thirty-Nine Plants
Observer: Will Foster had 39 plants and then tried to convince the judge he was growing them for personal consumption. If a guy is going to display complete contempt for the court by insulting it's intelligence, he's going to get the maximum sentence. If Will, at his next parole hearing, tells the truth, he'll probably get parole.Granted, a 93 year sentence is a bit extreme, but then the judge is trying to send Will a message. Don't lie to the court. You seem to know a lot about Will, what were his previous two convictions before he struck out in the three-strikes ruling?What was it you were saying about credibility? By the way how'd you like the movie? See you all later this evening. I'm dressed for work in my jackboots and jodhpurs. My swastika is neatly sewn on my sleeve and I'm off to spread discomfort amongst the tie-dyed, long haired past century crowd. Stay discreet.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by freedom fighter on January 09, 2001 at 03:05:19 PT
Only lesson
I have learned is thatThere are folks who believe in racism.There are folks who pretend to care about children when they do not even know what is like to have a child.Neily bushy, you still have not answered my questions honestly.I should warn you not to try to tell me how to handle my children. You fuck do not know how!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by dddd on January 08, 2001 at 22:43:19 PT
I like Neil
 I respect you for cuttin' the crap,and saying what you think,however wreckless it may seem. I get the feeling that you are under alot of stress.You seem to have a tendency to look down on other people and condemn them in large groups.You recommend that Observer not stereotype himself.This is an understandable thing for you to say,because it seems to me,that you are quite prone to stereotypifying people yourself.Your fixation on children and parents makes me curious about what your own parents were like.Did they drink?Did they use drugs in front of you?Were they really strict and authoritarion during your youth? ....The reason I ask all this,is because it seems like you have this bitter,chip on your shoulder way of presenting your opinions.One gets the feeling that you are quite intolerant of those who disagree with you,and that you are a person who hates. Would it be unfair for me to suspect that you are narrow minded?It would not be unfair for you to say that I am rather strange,and that I ask too many questions.I gotta go now.I'm glad you reminded me about the bath thing.It's that time of the month.Once a month,whether I need it or not....First thing in the morning,I'm gonna go shopping for tie-dye shirts that have collars and buttons.You are right,it's time to stop living in the past.Are you sure no one will laugh if I get a haircut?....If I make these upgrades,with the bath,shirt with buttons and collar,and haircut,are you sure you wont find something else you dont like about me?Peace....May JAH Shine on you Neil..................................dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by observer on January 08, 2001 at 22:34:02 PT
Proper Parenting & Jacob's Mandrakes
 Oh yea, if you've really got kids, you need to get off drugs. Completely. Parenthood should be a privilege, not a right. A rather lofty assertion there. I'm always amused when hypocrites go on about how it is "wrong" to "do drugs" when you're "a parent." I can't help but laugh when I think of the "parent" of the nation of Israel, an ancestor of the same Jesus so many claim to derive their morals from. ``And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes. And she said unto her, [Is it] a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes. And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night.'' Genesis 30:14-16 The Bible never mentions that Jacob's use of "drugs" (hallucinogenic mandrakes) is "sin", "wrong" or "bad for the children." We are not told that Jacob did "screw up with drugs" his life, children or anything.Next time some politically-correct pro-prison person tells you you deserve a totalitarian government between you and your children, ask him about Jacob's mandrakes, and listen to him weasel out of that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by observer on January 08, 2001 at 22:16:24 PT
Evidence vs. Opinions
 I stand by my assertion. There's nobody doing time for possession. You're wrong, and most can see it. I offered you two counter examples, and you offer ... nada, zip. More denials. You're not credible.State marijuana laws: http://www.norml.org/legal/state_laws.shtml(note: state jail time for possession in most places, jail for "distribution" everywhere; federal penalties for mere possession include jail.) I know you would like to get the general public to swallow the untruth that there are but most are too informed to fall for false argument like that. Chuckle. You offer no evidence to back up your denials. Because you can't, which is because you're wrong. The laws are on the books. Your denials that such laws exist and/or are enforced is absurd. You offer nothing but your opinion. People aren't going to allow themselves to be intimidated by scare tactics which is what you're attempting to do. No "intimidation", just the facts, ma'am. Why don't you run along, and produce some evidence (hint: your opinion isn't evidence) that the laws on the books aren't enforced (as happened to Will Foster). You can throw all the big fancy sounding quotes out of all the legalize marijuana cottage industry books you own I can tell such quotes bother folks like you, so yes, you can count on me quoting others' material, material that fully refutes your assertions. It is understandable that material showing you to be incorrect would irritate you. and it still isn't going to change the fact that you prevaricate when you state that, let's see, how did you put that again, "people are rotting in US jails right now, for no other reason than they were caught possessing cannabis." Yes, that describes Will Foster completely, for example. No prevarication there, Neil. Just an example, a counterexample that nicely refutes you. Yea, he had a joint and a cop came up and put him in jail and now the judge is sending him to the big house for a whole year. Yea right. I can't help it if you're ignorant of what happens to people like Will Foster: people who grew and did not sell any. Police/prosecutors look at a tiny little plant, and tell the credulous jury, "This plant would yield a pound, at least."Then again, people like Will Foster are lucky compared to Donald Scott, who, although he had NO marijuana at all in his possession, was killed by police. "Agents had hoped this raid would lead to asset forfeiture of the property Scott would not sell. The coroner's report listed the cause of death as a homicide. No marijuana was found. Scott did not even smoke it." http://www.hr95.org/Memorial.html#scott,d Don't come at me with any more bull about how Will was only possessing. I'll come back here with whatever information I choose. Yes: just exactly like what you claim you do, Will Foster was just growing. No witnesses or buyers were ever produced to attest to anything other then possession.I mean, you claim you only grow for your own use, but hey: you say you have a whole plant. And, after all, everyone knows you get at least 16 ounces, maybe more, from a single plant, so that looks like you, Neil, are into "distribution", too. You say you don't "distribute"? Oh sure: that's what they all say. That's what Will Foster said, too. And Donald Scott: his widow said he never even touched pot. The truth is more than that and you know it. No, I don't "know" what you claim (sans evidence) is true. If you have any evidence about Will Foster, that "the truth is more than that" (other than your opinions, I mean), then be my guest, and please share this evidence. The publically available information on Will Foster tells us he sold to no one. Be discreet. Don't stereotype yourself. Also, buy low and sell high! Don't take an wooden nickels, etc., etc. Sage advice, all. The country is a far better place when most people don't use drugs. Platitudes. By the way, how'd you like the movie? I saw the BBC "Traffick" mini-series a decade ago (was interesting), but have not seen this movie yet. Like a Jew defiling the Torah, or a Christian the Host, an American using an illicit drug is guilty of the mystical crime of profanation -- a transgression of the strictest and most feared taboo. The drug abuser pollutes himself as well as his community, endangering both. This is why, while to the secular libertarian the drug abuser commits a "victimless crime" (that is, no crime at all), to the normally socialized person he is a dangerous defiler of the sacred. Hence, his incapacitation is amply justified. After all, what greater good is there than saving the family, the clan, the nation, indeed the whole world from certain destruction? Thomas Szasz, Our Right To Drugs, 1992, pp.62-63http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815603339 
The Drug Reform Coordination Network
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Neil on January 08, 2001 at 21:51:11 PT
I don't qualify
dddd--I don't qualify. I use marijuana. Highly discreetly of course but I use nevertheless. If you use marijuana, you don't qualify either. If I decide to become a parent, I'll stop using marijuana. Forever. It's too important a job to screw up with drugs and example is one of the best guides and teachers of youth.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by dddd on January 08, 2001 at 21:41:23 PT
Parent
Neil,,Would I be correct in assuming you are a parent?You seem to know alot about it........dddduuuh
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on January 08, 2001 at 21:35:06 PT
My 2 cents
The only member of our family that ever went to jail was for marijuana and he was 16 years old at that time. He served 6 months in a juvenile jail that is known as a very rough place. A friend wanted a joint and he gave it to him and someone saw it and went to the Principal. The reason was he was too close to his school. First offense too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Neil on January 08, 2001 at 21:24:49 PT
Bush, the last name's Bush
Freedom Fighter--I hope you learned the lesson. You need to be more discreet next time. I wonder if there's a book on that subject alone. Oh yea, if you've really got kids, you need to get off drugs. Completely. Parenthood should be a privilege, not a right.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Neil on January 08, 2001 at 21:15:22 PT
Geez Observer, you're scary when you're angry
I stand by my assertion. There's nobody doing time for possession. I know you would like to get the general public to swallow the untruth that there are but most are too informed to fall for false argument like that. People aren't going to allow themselves to be intimidated by scare tactics which is what you're attempting to do. You can throw all the big fancy sounding quotes out of all the legalize marijuana cottage industry books you own and it still isn't going to change the fact that you prevaricate when you state that, let's see, how did you put that again, "people are rotting in US jails right now, for no other reason than they were caught possessing cannabis." Yea, he had a joint and a cop came up and put him in jail and now the judge is sending him to the big house for a whole year. Yea right.Don't come at me with any more bull about how Will was only possessing. The truth is more than that and you know it.Be discreet. Don't stereotype yourself. The country is a far better place when most people don't use drugs. By the way, how'd you like the movie? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by freedom fighter on January 08, 2001 at 21:05:04 PT
Neil
What is your last name?I myself got arrested two months ago for growing aaaaaaaa plant. The law said no charge if my boy would snitch for them and they had nothing on my boy. Would you let any of your child be a snitch?But of course, you would not believe that it had happened somewhere in the United States of Amerika!Anyhow, I need to snitch on someone, what is your last name?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by observer on January 08, 2001 at 20:35:28 PT
re: Alright, cut the BS
Observer: Sorry, but there isn't anybody in jail because they USED marijuana. They're there because they sold marijuana or distributed marijuana or crack or heroin or cocaine or LSD or Ecstacy, etc. It is true that many have accepted that sorry little prohibitionist tale.You're deluding yourself if you think that people aren't rotting in US jails right now, for no other reason than they were caught possessing cannabis. Mandantory sentencing guidelines are ruthless. A first offense of simple marijuana possession now carries a five-year federal penalty.234 Escalator clauses take advantage of the repetitive nature of drug use. First-time possession of crack can be punished by five to twenty years if the amount exceeds five grams. A second offense brings the same punishment if the weight exceeds five grams. And a third offense brings the same punishment of the weight exceeds one gram. "Three felony convictions for drug offenses carries mandantory life with no parole, and it is a felony to commit a drug offense within 100 feet of a pinball or video arcade containing more than 10 games."235 Possession of a marijuana cigarette is such a felony. Federal law permits a $10,000 fine for possessing one marijuana cigarette.236 An Oklahoma man received a life sentence for felony possession of marijuana, 0.005644 of an ounce.237 (Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pgs.63-64) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425 Of course, as we all know, police/prosecutors/judges like to "up the charges" by saying "distribution" based on the claimed amount busted (or what they claim X many plants might possibly maybe yield). But we all know how that police/prosecutors lie when it comes to "distribution", don't we?People -- marijuana users who did not distribute -- are sitting in jail, people like Will Foster. He "distributed" to no one... Of course, corrupted police/prosecutors claimed "distribution" anyway. (But they have careers to look out for, so what's a little police lie here and there?) Will refused to take a 'deal' and asked for a jury trial instead. However, he never had the chance to confront the witnesses against him, as the judge refused his Sixth Amendment right to do so. Furthermore, he was denied his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure and nameless warrants. The prosecution poured on the pressure and the jury convicted him. He was sentenced to a total of 93 years - 70 years for marijuana cultivation, 20 years for possession of marijuana in the presence of a minor child (his own), 2 years for possession with intent to distribute, and 1 year for not having a tax stamp.http://www.hr95.org/Foster,W.html There are lots more like Mr Foster, contrary to the confident assertions of those who think, "they're there because they sold marijuana or distributed marijuana."So, again, it is not a matter of "convenience", as some say, it is a matter of prison.  This is why police/prosecutors squeal so loudly when it is suggested that people not be thrown into jail for using cannabis. Busting pot smokers -- and pretending it is "distribution" -- is their bread and butter. It is almost amusing when they claim no one never, ever goes to jail for marijuana, honest. Don't believe them! My point was that there are a lot of people out there that like to smoke marijuana and I don't have any problem with that as long as children don't get mixed up in it. That's nice and that's noble. I feel the same way about sky diving and fast cars: I don't care if adults indulge as long as the "children don't get mixed up in it." If you can cultivate a secret plant and trim off a daily dose and not succumb to the temptation of making a living (or a killing) growing it than you're probably going to be left alone as I have been left alone doing so for nigh on twenty years. It doesn't take great intelligence, more just a cautious mature discretion. I'm happy for you, but if you think you're any different from Will Foster and aren't one confidential informant away from a cultivation charge and comparable sentence, I think you're sadly mistaken. There were Jews that hid in closets all the way through WWII in occupied territory. I'm sure the more discreet they were, the better their chances of survival, also. That other stuff, that hard stuff, that highly addictive, deadly stuff, execute those that commercially grow, sell, distribute or smuggle tobacco and the problem goes away. Execute tobacco growers, too, in your utopia? Why can't we just let farmers grow what they can sell, i.e. return to farmers their traditional freedom to grow what they please?I'd rather take my chances with having traditional freedoms returned, than be in a place where tobacco farmers are executed. Executing politically incorrect farmers reminds me too much of communist China and Stalinist Soviet Russia....The worst thing the marijuana legalization movement suffers from is turnouts at their rallys full of guys like that guy, the type of people who stereotypically use it, with their long dirty unkempt hair, the emaciated bodies and the god-awful tie-dyed shirts. Geez, it makes me wanta puke. Oh, that's the "the marijuana legalization movement suffers from", in your opinion? Unstylish clothing and unruly hair and non-buff bodies? Hey buddy: that's deep! And that's why I want marijuana to remain illegal. I think this takes the cake for superficiality and self-contradiction... Your argument for continuing to arrest and lock up marijuana smokers (for smoking what you say you smoke), is that some others (who also use cannabis like you say you do) have "long dirty unkempt hair, ... emaciated bodies and the god-awful tie-dyed shirts." Great argument. I get to smoke it because I'm discreet about it and I don't have to suffer the hassle of looking at all the irresponsibles wallowing in the bad behavior caused by their internal weakness. Aren't you something? You're so cool, unlike those having "long dirty unkempt hair, ... emaciated bodies and the god-awful tie-dyed shirts", and because of your superior taste in style and body-sculpting, you deserve to be left alone, whereas, they (the unwashed rabble), deserve prison. Gotcha. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Neil on January 08, 2001 at 20:14:37 PT
ddddduuh
Several ounces? How many is several? Like I said, discretion is the key word. I'm sorry, but if I were a judge, I would say your friend had enough that he intended to sell. Sorry your friend got busted but that's what happens to those that get greedy. Somehow I think there's more to the story.Children need to stay clear of drugs, all drugs. And it's bad news when they witness their parents or other adults they respect using them. It's rough enough growing up today without the baggage of that stress weighing on them.It's okay, we're in the 21st century now. No one will laugh if you get a haircut, take a bath and wear a shirt with buttons and a collar. It'll be like time warping thirty years into the future (or should that read the present?)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by dddd on January 08, 2001 at 20:00:00 PT
Trimming the bull
Neil,I'm glad to hear you try and clarify your viewpoints.It is quite rare to hear from someone who smokes weed,and favors prohibition. I must disagree with your belief that only dealers are behind bars.I have known several people,who just like you and I,used marijuana discreetly and responsibly.One guy had the cops come to his door because someone had stolen his car.They caught a slight scent of marijuana but didnt mention it that night.The following evening they returned with a search warrant.He happened to have several ounces in seperate bags.With no other proof than the separate bags,he was sentenced to a year in prison.He had never even had a traffic ticket prior to this. Someday,I think you will realize that we need to acheive a balance in our laws.The way law enforcment is allowed to nail people on heresay is way out of control.Furthermore,the conjured up frenzied theory that you have bought into,that somehow children are being destroyed by marijuana is pure BULLSHIT. I appreciate you expressing your views here...Dont stop.Long scraggly haired tye died old hippie,,That's what I am,and I'm proud of it!...Peace....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Neil on January 08, 2001 at 19:03:38 PT
Alright, cut the BS
Observer: Sorry, but there isn't anybody in jail because they USED marijuana. They're there because they sold marijuana or distributed marijuana or crack or heroin or cocaine or LSD or Ecstacy, etc. My point was that there are a lot of people out there that like to smoke marijuana and I don't have any problem with that as long as children don't get mixed up in it. If you can cultivate a secret plant and trim off a daily dose and not succumb to the temptation of making a living (or a killing) growing it than you're probably going to be left alone as I have been left alone doing so for nigh on twenty years. It doesn't take great intelligence, more just a cautious mature discretion. That other stuff, that hard stuff, that highly addictive, deadly stuff, execute those that commercially grow, sell, distribute or smuggle tobacco and the problem goes away.Morgan--didn't realize the use of all caps and exclamation marks was a sign of anger. I always thought it meant to convey emphasis. But yea, in a way the movie really pissed me off. Soderbergh had a great opportunity and he wasted it turning it into his version of a Miami Vice episode. Come on, can you imagine the daughter of General McCafferty being a crack addict selling sex to her black pusher in some run down inner city ghetto. Ridiculous. I just recently moved from San Diego and I can't remember the last time I saw on the news that somebody's car blew up in a parking lot. Or that machine gun fire erupted at the storage facility as cops swooped down on the bad guys. Plenty of LaJolla fat cats facing jail time for tax evasion, but drug smuggling? They aren't that stupid. The biggest objection I had to the movie was that it completely ignored the benign nature of marijuana and the hypocritical legal status of tobacco. Soderbergh was too busy trying to make us believe that any prep school twerp would even dare venture into the type of ghetto portrayed in that movie. I know you're dying for some pro-drug message but that movie was hardly it. There was one guy in the audience when I saw it, maybe it was you, that would laugh at every slightest nuance of a pro drug message. He had one of those laughs like someone who's taken too many hits on the bong, who defines his entire being on the fact he likes and takes drugs. The worst thing the marijuana legalization movement suffers from is turnouts at their rallys full of guys like that guy, the type of people who stereotypically use it, with their long dirty unkempt hair, the emaciated bodies and the god-awful tie-dyed shirts. Geez, it makes me wanta puke. And that's why I want marijuana to remain illegal. I get to smoke it because I'm discreet about it and I don't have to suffer the hassle of looking at all the irresponsibles wallowing in the bad behavior caused by their internal weakness.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by NiftySplifty on January 08, 2001 at 18:43:12 PT
Observer rules!
I just can't help but feel like a sports-fan rooting on his favorite team each time I read one of your posts. Thanks.Nifty...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by observer on January 08, 2001 at 12:36:18 PT
Repeal -- 1920: ''Impossible'', 1933: ''Fact.''
So you want to smoke a joint. Go ahead. Trim a bud off that innocuous plant stuck back in the secret greenhouse closet you have set up. Yea, sure, it would be more convenient if it were legal and you could run down to the store to buy a packNasty and vicious little insinuation technique there, Neil. I've seen this technique used before: anyone who criticizes the current drug laws is accused of just wanting to get high. Like you just insinuated. It is not that people find wrong the current jailing of peaceful adults who use cannabis; oh no: it is just those little 'dopers' and 'potheads' who can of course be dismissed because they just want to smoke a joint.see: http://www.november.org http://www.hr95.org http://www.spr.org etc.You're missing the point: repeal of prohibition isn't about convenience, it is about prison. but then we'd have to smell the second hand smoke coming from every punk kid who would steal his mom's stash in the same way you pass though it now coming from their foul cigarettes. I'm looking, but you still didn't hand us any reasons why adults should be thrown in jail for using cannabis.before alcohol prohibition: ``Now, never in my occupation as a Catholic clergyman have I found children drinking hard liquors. I have never found the youth, anywhere from fourteen years old to eighteen or nineteen that drank hard liquors.''during alcohol prohibition: ''And now you see children drink. You see them drunk. I have seen them drunk myself. There were a few children last year found drunk in the schools of the towns, public schools, and had bottles of it in their pockets. . .'' [Kobler, John. Ardent Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, p.252 from http://cpcug.org/user/billb/prohibition.html ] As long as children remain part of our society, legalization ain't gonna happen in your lifetime.If people who earn their living from the current drug laws (police, prosecutors, judges, prison guards, private jail corporations, UNICOR [i.e. prison forced/slave labor], testing equipment companies, paper and pharmaceutical and alcohol companies with products that compete against cannabis), all have their wish, you'd be correct.Yet more and more people are waking up to differences between "drugs" and prohibition. They're beginning to see through the pro-jail lies of police-state propagandists and seeing that the drug laws cause more harm than drugs alone could ever cause. As increasing numbers of people get wise to prohibitionist falsehoods, the pro-prison prohibitionists will continue to lose credibility and power.Our prohibitionists sought to put their cause beyond the reach of public opinion. They have now discovered that they reckoned ill with the resourcefulness and determination of democratic America. . . .The whole is a fresh and overwhelming demonstration of the fact that in this country public opinion rules. In the end it will have its way. . . we have this instructive showing that our political methods and policies are always subject to control by the enlightened and deliberate will of the people. In 1920 this looked impossible. By 1933 it has become an established fact.33 ["An Epoch-Making Reversal," editorial, The New York Times 8 Nov. 1933: 20., quoted in http://cpcug.org/user/billb/prohibition.html ] 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Morgan on January 08, 2001 at 11:28:20 PT
Neil, Neil, Neil... 
Gee Neil. I toasted some marshmallows over the heat of your anger eminating from your post. Where's this come from?You must be a hard core film buff. Or a hard core something.___________________________________________________________
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Harvey Pendrake on January 07, 2001 at 21:32:00 PT
This IS a great film
I saw "Traffic" this afternoon and I think it's brilliant. I can understand how folks who already understand how counterproductive the drug war is might find it lacking. But those aren't the people who need to be reached!There are important aspects of the WOD that aren't addressed in the movie, like the massive non-violent prison population, the obvious parallels to alcohol prohibition, the erosion of the Bill of Rights...But the things that ARE addressed, even if briefly, will spur discussion among people who don't usually think or care about the WOD. Things like racism; or the fact that the more draconian the drug laws become, the richer, more ruthless, sophisticated and corrupt the underground drug trade becomes; the hypocrisy of alcohol use by righteous drug warriors; and most important: the pervasive nature of drugs in our society, that is, who are we fighting?Don't go see "Traffic" thinking it's a documentary. It isn't. And don't go thinking this is the film that hits everyone in the audience over the head with the stupidity and futility of the drug war. A movie that did that would sell about 50,000 tickets, and be dismissed as "pro-drug". Different people will have different reactions. It works on multiple levels, as all great films do. I believe it will change some minds, or at least fuel conversations that wouldn't have normally taken place. Remember, movies rarely influence public opinion or policy. If this one does, even a little tiny bit...that's a good thing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Dankhank on January 07, 2001 at 19:53:49 PT:
Legal in whose lifetime?
sorry to disabuse you once again, Neil ...Marijuana will probably NEVER be legal for kids ...so what obviates your claim is this ...Marijuana was made quasi-legal in four towns in Massachusettes. It is legal for medical use in about 8 states.Granted, there are problems in a few of the states, but they're working on it ...It is legal for the federal government to give marijuana to 8 people in the USA, and they do get it.so how legal do you mean?We got a ways to go, but we're trying to mitigate the hate and misery every day.The movie, with all it's warts, will encourage and allow discussion that today is missing from the national scene.Kinda like "That 70's Show," not great TV, but allows discussion of tender topics.More hate and evil has been done for "the children" than any can imagine.By the way ... I got my first buzz in 1965. :-)
HEMP n STUFF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by dddd on January 07, 2001 at 13:54:50 PT
Neil's not alone
I heard several people who saw the film and they had somewhat similar critiques as Neils'.I can understand how a veteran hippie who is well seasoned in some of the items the film supposedly deals with,would have a cynical reaction to it.It was probably written and produced by yuppies. I've already said too much.Now I'm gonna have to hassle with going to see it.At least I know better now,not to get on Dankhanks bad side.,,,,,,(just kiddin')Peace...............dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on January 07, 2001 at 13:04:05 PT:
Why all this heat?
Neil, I haven't seen the movie, yet, so I can't comment on it's style or substance. But I would like to know why you disagree with it so virulently.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Neil on January 07, 2001 at 10:45:39 PT
Settle down DankHank
Settle down DankHank. You're more shrill than the movie. I did think that one comment you made was very interesting."It is NOT possible to tell the truth of the misery of the drug trade and culture in America because no one knows all of it. Collectively, the hate, violence, misery, pain, heartbreak, death and crying is too widespread for anyone to know."You having said that, could it not be possible that the truth of the misery is far far less than what has been portrayed and that the hate, violence, misery, pain, heartbreak, death and crying seem so widespread because it's actually very rare? There's always going to be a percentage of screw-ups screwing up their lives even if they don't have drugs to do it with.So you want to smoke a joint. Go ahead. Trim a bud off that innocuous plant stuck back in the secret greenhouse closet you have set up. Yea, sure, it would be more convenient if it were legal and you could run down to the store to buy a pack but then we'd have to smell the second hand smoke coming from every punk kid who would steal his mom's stash in the same way you pass though it now coming from their foul cigarettes.As long as children remain part of our society, legalization ain't gonna happen in your lifetime.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dankhank on January 07, 2001 at 09:55:09 PT:
Who or what sucked??????  You???
Sorry Neil, but your tirade deserves another one.There HAS in fact been a recent high-ranking Mexican General in place to fight the "drug war" who was exposed as being in the pay of the smugglers.For you to be so sure that NO woman in America is ignorant of how her husband earns money is for you to ignore reality, but that's evident due to your ravings.I promise you that there are DEA agents in america who have kids that use drugs? Don't believe it? It's easier jto believe than YOUr comment.Been to Tijuana, lately? Guess that's how you are so sure ... :-)The point you missed, Neil ... is this:It is NOT possible to tell the truth of the misery of the drug trade and culture in America because no one knows all of it. Collectively, the hate, violence, misery, pain, heartbreak, death and crying is too widespread for anyone to know.I saw the movie yesterday and it is very good. Not brilliant, but good, a vehicle off of which we in America may begin to talk more about solutions.It's a shame you missed the forest because of two or three large trees in front.Peace, Neil ... and tell your friends and anyone to see it and then ask THEM how they feel ...Peace to all ...
HEMP n STUFF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Neil on January 07, 2001 at 08:41:31 PT
The Movie Sucked!
There's no corrupt General Salazar down in Mexico serving the Juarez drug cartel as a high ranking member of the state. There's no high society princess living in LaJolla that doesn't know her husband smuggles drugs to pay for her lavish life style who then turns into the drug kingpin herself to support her high society habits after her husband is busted. There's no daughter of the head of the DEA who's strung out on crack and sells sex for a hit from her black dealer. There's no good cop down in Tijuana with a heart of gold who betrays his boss and squeals to the DEA all so that the kids of TJ can have lights around there baseball diamond for nighttime play. The movie was a shrill and prevaricating exagerration of the problem designed to create hype so that the pitiful actors and director of the movie can MAKE MONEY. Soderbergh wasted an opportunity to portray it realistically because realistically doesn't get him the most money. TWO THUMBS DOWN!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: