cannabisnews.com: Who Smokes Dope? Who Smokes Dope? Posted by FoM on September 13, 2001 at 22:28:26 PT By Elizabeth Hille Source: San Francisco Bay Guardian I Smoke Pot. I could probably be ID'd as a pot smoker in a crowd, but come to think of it, in almost all crowds someone has a joint. It was ironic, then, that I recently found myself, a proponent of the decriminalization of all drugs, in one of those rare jointless crowds when I attended a lecture by the pied piper of the drug reform movement, Ethan Nadelmann. He'd come to San Francisco to speak at the S.F. Medical Society.As I waited for Nadelmann to take the stage, I overheard a conversation between two conservatively dressed, barrel-chested white men in their late 50s. The one with the curly white beard said to the other, "So my kid asked me, 'What's the difference between a pothead and a pot smoker?' ""And what did you tell her?" asked the one who looked a lot like Santa."Well, I told her that a pothead's life is all about pot, whereas a person who smokes marijuana does other things with his or her life. They contribute to society. They are active. They're passionate and compassionate thinkers."Nadelmann: Legalization's Poster Boy Even among people who get high or drop or roll or whatever, there's a need to distinguish between what one is and what one isn't. Pothead, pot smoker, patient, drug user, junky: it matters what word is used and with whom. Image and phrasing count, just as they do in the world of advertising. Unfortunately, this need to differentiate can lead to setbacks in getting progressive legislation passed.It seemed that the people in this crowd had come to hear Nadelmann because they don't think adults should be punished for what they put in their bodies. I'm sure the new head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Asa Hutchinson, doesn't hold this belief, since he has promised to enforce the federal ban on selling medical marijuana. But these people, most of whom were members of the affluent intelligentsia, were ready to fight for their right to puff. Standing in that room, it seemed to me that these mostly white, mostly middle-class types were so pissed off about our current war on drugs that they might be inspired to change our ineffective laws, as well as stereotypical images of who uses drugs. For instance, respected public figures such as George Soros, the billionaire bankrolling the Lindesmith Center's Drug Policy Foundation, are proponents of drug-law reform. Too bad Soros isn't on any public service billboards.Nadelmann, too, should be on a billboard; he's practically a poster boy for drug-policy reform. Nadelmann started the Lindesmith Center with Soros. By the time he was 31, he'd already worked for the DEA and been a Princeton professor. He doesn't look like a drug-policy reformer, and indeed, one of the issues he and the Lindesmith Center are working on is changing the public image of what drug users and drug reformers look like. If that image changes, so might the country's abstinence-only attitude. And this development could lead to the end of the war on drugs.In his speech Nadelmann stressed how the Puritan spirit is still strong in the United States. He said, "In the minds of many Americans, the approval of drug use, of any kind, means that we have to acknowledge that people use drugs, and many Americans would rather ignore this fact," he said. Following this logic, abstinence is the only alternative. This, of course, is the motto of the expensive and ineffective war on drugs.In the United States drug offenses make up one-third of all federal criminal cases, according to the Department of Justice. While countries such as Canada and the U.K. seem to be moving toward the decriminalization of marijuana, the United States is still busy fighting the war, with Hutchinson calling the shots. Most of the countries in the European Union have already made marijuana consumption legal. And some of those E.U. countries have even gone as far as decriminalizing small amounts of other drugs, such as heroin, as well."Junkies are the new persecuted group," Nadelmann argued. "Historically we, as a culture, have needed to put our fears onto someone who is an 'other.' " He explained how our society has persecuted religious minorities – women, people of color, and queers to name a few. Though this prejudice hasn't completely ended, Nadelmann said, we have delegitimatized attacks on those groups. Junkies and drug users are a new kind of other. Putting someone down by calling them a junky doesn't earn you a skeptical look, an admonishment, or even a head shake, Nadelmann pointed out.Perhaps, Nadelmann suggested, if we change the way we talk about drugs and drug use, we can change people's minds. Nadelmann ended his lecture by reiterating that "advocacy is not about self-statement; advocacy is about communicating."The Problem with Prop. 36 While the recently passed Proposition 36 (which would put drug users in rehab rather than in jail) is a step in the right direction for those advocating drug reform, a recent guideline passed in Oakland takes reform a step backward. A few weeks ago the Oakland City Council cut in half the amount of medical marijuana patients are allowed to have. Before the reform, medical patients were allowed six pounds of marijuana a year. When the rule goes into effect Nov. 15, patients will be allowed only three pounds a year. This compromise might ease the minds of some councilmembers and the cops, but for some patients, like Angel McClary, this severe cut will mean halving their medicine.McClary says the new law is a "death sentence." She is president of a patient-outreach company called Angel Wings and has been an activist for medical marijuana reform.A middle-class mother, she needs to smoke pot or else her health deteriorates rapidly. The first thing I noticed about McClary was how skinny she is. She told me she weighs 95 pounds on a good day; on bad days she has to ingest spoonfuls of nasty pot oil so she can eat. She has a brain tumor, endometriosis, scoliosis, seizures, and a wasting condition. Her marijuana prescription is considered a medical necessity. This means that a doctor has decided there is no other legal alternative that would meet her health needs. Before she started smoking medical marijuana, McClary was in a wheelchair."What's worse?" she asked me. "If my kids cry because they see me suffering, or if I eat a [pot cookie] in front of them?" For the Oakland City Council the answer isn't so obvious. According to her doctor, McClary needs to medicate every two hours, which means she requires two ounces of pot a week, or six and a half pounds a year. "I don't even get high off this stuff," McClary said. It's just medicine. Under Oakland's new guidelines, patients can get more pot with a doctor's permission, but then the doctor might face legal repercussions. When the law goes into effect, McClary says, she's going to have to choose between "my life and civil disobedience."McClary is worried about her own future, but she's also concerned about how the guidelines will be enforced by Oakland's police department. Hers is a valid concern, given the department's record of unfair practices. And now, with Hutchinson ready to enforce the federal ban, things could get far, far worse for medical marijuana patients in Oakland and the rest of the Bay Area.McClary's case is a prime example of what Nadelmann meant when he exhorted his audience to offer a more realistic picture of who takes drugs and why. Apparently, however, the image of emaciated people in pain isn't enough to convince Oakland's City Council or, it seems, Asa Hutchinson. Note: On the front lines in the war on drugs. Elizabeth Hille is a writer based in Oakland.Source: San Francisco Bay Guardian (CA)Author: Elizabeth HillePublished: September 12, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Bay GuardianContact: letters sfbg.comWebsite: http://www.sfbg.com/Related Articles & Web Site:TLC - DPFhttp://www.lindesmith.org/Leaders Discuss Drug War Policyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10893.shtmlPro-Pot Governor Debates DEA Chief http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10892.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #19 posted by Andrea on September 20, 2001 at 14:21:09 PT Drugs In High Schools I read this whole thing, and a lot of what has been said is true. I am a freshman at a high school in Milwaukee, WI, and many of the people that go here either smoke, drink, or other illegal substances. I have never smoked or drank, or anything else, and I hope that I never do...Other than for NECESSARY medical purposes where there is no other substance that you could substitute, I don't see why people feel they have to "get high." They are wasting their lives just to feel good or whatever their case may be. Drugs in high schools are a big problem. Teens begin using drugs and sometimes they never get help and then end up dying, and wasting what was their whole life...and we (as a country) haven't really done much about it because people are still dying and getting hurt from it...and because of the tragic events of 9/11...solving this problem will be lower on the list of things that need to be discussed and fixed... [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by kaptinemo on September 15, 2001 at 06:38:27 PT: It's a measure of our movement's strength and maturity when we can still laugh about ourselves in these terribly sad and threatening times. I am proud to 'know' you all. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Poisoned1519Days on September 14, 2001 at 15:22:39 PT Thanks skeezix! Thanks skeezix! [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by skeezix on September 14, 2001 at 15:00:43 PT good one poisoned I dont drool either,and I leave the porno at home. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Poisoned1519Days on September 14, 2001 at 14:31:51 PT drool? "One of the biggest weapons the antis use is stereotyping. Cheech and Chong. Shabby, long-haired, drooling, red-eyed, incoherent Dumpster-dwellers, chasing screaming kids down the street with porno mags in one hand and a hypodermic in the other. "HEY I RESENT THAT!! I DON'T DROOL!!( Nor have I had good pot in a long time ) [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by E. Johnson on September 14, 2001 at 10:16:28 PT I've heard this one before in another context The one with the curly white beard said to the other, "So my kid asked me, 'What's the difference between a pothead and a pot smoker?' ""And what did you tell her?" asked the one who looked a lot like Santa."Well, I told her that a pothead's life is all about pot, whereas a person who smokes marijuana does other things with his or her life. They contribute to society. They are active. They're passionate and compassionate thinkers."This reminds me very much of the way I used to hear white people talk in the sixties about African Americans, trying to decide the difference between a ni**er and a Negro. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Patrick on September 14, 2001 at 08:52:14 PT Kap Your mass media poster idea is awesome!!!!!!!!!!Now is the time to drive that message home. While america is blood thirsty for terrorists. (understandably) [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by dddd on September 14, 2001 at 07:13:18 PT One of Those Commercials... ..with Jimmy Carter would be awesome,,or howbout Cokie Roberts,,,or Ted Koppel,,or Hank Kimball,,,,or the ultimate.............Dick Clark!dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by The GCW on September 14, 2001 at 06:54:57 PT commercial message w/ a uniformed police officer If one of those commercials has a cop explaining the truth it would be productive.If one of those comercials had a minister explainging the Truth, it again would be helpful.There are more police joining in the concept of ending the war. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by tdm on September 14, 2001 at 06:51:17 PT kap's commercial What an excellent idea, Kap. Perhaps we could get the American Liberty Foundation to run such a commercial. I'll let everyone read for themselves what the foundation is all about. American Liberty Foundation [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on September 14, 2001 at 06:46:14 PT: Thanks, Doc, but the idea is hardly original And I got ahead of myself; I meant 'cheap convict labor, which could then be contrasted with what China does and the former Soviet Union used to do with it's Gulag.The antis have been beating the pants off of us for far too long in the 'access to public media' game; it's the only place they remain significantly unchallenged. It's long past time we crossed swords with them there. No more of this "Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutamus!" crap. No more fatalism. We've got to start fighting to win. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by The GCW on September 14, 2001 at 06:20:52 PT Polls show that 60+% of Americans are in favor of giving up some of their freedom for (perceived)safety... Peter Jennings news last Tue. night... [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on September 14, 2001 at 06:19:03 PT: An Excellent Idea Cut! Print it, Kap! [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on September 14, 2001 at 06:08:37 PT: We should take a page from the NRA Now, before some of you blow a gasket, hear me out:During the mid-1980's when the Republicans, (those 'staunch' 'Conservatives' of the right to bear arms) were busily selling out the average gun owner with the so-called Firearms Owner Protection Act, (that illegally banned semi-auto versions of 'assault rifles') the NRA ran ads of policemen who disagreed with the legislation. It had a powerful impact amongst responsible gun owners, like moi.Now, imagine this. Someone dressed in business attire, seated at a desk in a modern office, photos of smiling family members in evidence, talking on the phone, writing something as she speaks, looking at the camera.And the caption? "I am a working mother, a breadwinner, involved in our children's schooling, our community, my church, and have a son in the Armed Forces.""I also smoke pot. Responsibly. At home, to unwind at the end of the day. I don't smoke and drive, unlike far too many Americans do with drinking and driving. I don't abuse my children as so many who abuse alcohol do. I have never committed a single act of violence against anyone.""So why does the government want to imprison me? Why does it want to take my husband from me? My children from me? My home from me? Ruin my career, reduce me to joblessness, or lock me up for 'treatment' I don't require? WHY?"and then, in smaller print, go into the vested interests that the government has in pursuing an essentially failed DrugWar...like prison construction and cheap convict, piss-testing, the whole nine yards.Then at the end:"Too many people think that the drug laws are just slaps on the wrist, but innocent people have had their lives ruined and even been killed by overly zealous enforcement of laws directed against weeds, flowers and shrubs. Isn't it time we stopped the madness?" One of the biggest weapons the antis use is stereotyping. Cheech and Chong. Shabby, long-haired, drooling, red-eyed, incoherent Dumpster-dwellers, chasing screaming kids down the street with porno mags in one hand and a hypodermic in the other. But just try to stereotype the modern business woman, and watch out. The "Harry and Louise" ads sunk the Klinton health care initiative by raising similar questions; we can do lots better than that. I hope your staff is reading this, Mr. Soros. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by dddd on September 14, 2001 at 05:35:26 PT xxdr zombiexx .....You are cool my friend,,,and I'm not just saying thatbecause you said "I agree"...........In fact,,,You put it mildly ,,when you wrote;"I think there is going to be some political power "double-dipping" going on while everybody is whipped into a Patriotic fervor. People - americans - are too quick to give away thier civil libeties for the invariably FALSE promise of "saftey".Security, like saftey, is an on-going process: not a static product. But the powerful want a shoehorn around the constitution and Bill of rights."...Right on,,,,but calling it "double dipping",,is like calling Dick Cheneya champion soccer player,,,,,HA,,,,"double dipping",,,,,how wimpy ofan understatement can you make Doctor Zombie?,,,nope,,,,,,,,..."double dipping",just dont say it,,,,were talkin' Political Power Free for All,Gang-Bang,Rave Party Festival Jubilee Celebration of Wild and Excruciating Monetary Abandon.....They were gonna give Bush a blank check of our money of 20 BILLION,,,,,,,but in the good feeling of party unity,and "we're not fuckin around" showboating,,,,They said,,,,"We'll see your 20 BILLION,,,,and raise ya another 20 BILLION",,so now,,somewhere out there,,there exsists this "blank check",,,all it says on it,,,is "Not good if amount exceeds 40 BILLION DOLLARS",,,..... This will be nothing more than a corporate feeding frenzy,,,,thousands of new companies will suddenly appear with new contracts for services that are strange,and defy definition......this event is going to serve as an excuse for anything,and everything....the bigdogs are gonna party down BIGTIME,,,under the cover of fake-ness that has no boundaries,,,and few limitations......... Dont be shy Dr Zombie,,,I liked your other posting too......JAH be with your zombie soul.......dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on September 14, 2001 at 04:48:00 PT: An Opportunity to eliminate the bill of rights re: DDDD - I agree. This attack is more than enough for us to cope with, but it seeming to me to also have come at a time when the questionable presidency was struggling on all fronts: the coming scandal of the vanquished "surplus", dipping into social security, and Cheney's growing fight witht teh GAO to provide a roster of who was in on the energy legislative meeting where in all the power companies were handed the deed to the Arctic Refuge.Now, it seems they are on their way to carte blanche with both money and power: my fear is that this would be used as a shoehorn to further scrap our Bill of rights under the guise of promoting MORE security.That is a trick. Airport security and border security failed.What goes on in my home has nothing to do with those failures. They Still need to have probable cause. The failures are by-products -directly- of the War on druuugs. You will note that this AM there are reports Bush ok'd $40,000,000,000.00 for the initial "war" effort. The recent Business Week article about ending the war on drugs cites the yearly cost at exactly that number.I think there is going to be some political power "double-dipping" going on while everybody is whipped into a Patriotic fervor. People - americans - are too quick to give away thier civil libeties for the invariably FALSE promise of "saftey". Security, like saftey, is an on-going process: not a static product. But the powerful want a shoehorn around the constitution and Bill of rights.This attack happened in America, and nowhere else, because we have had the slackest security. That security has been much more focused on "druuuugs" than terrorists.The security failed both at our borders (Not the canadians fault: we let them in) and at the airports. Listen to pot-tv for 9.13.2001 about how a young woman was harrased then formally barred from america for having dreadlocks and a diary MENTIONING potsmoking. The terrorists that hijacked the planes went through the same border checkpoint. TOO FOCUSED ON CANNABIS to focus on real problems.I don't want to see the police -as damaged as they are - given a blank check to do what they want whenever they feel like it. They almost have that now and we see them in court and in scandals from sea to shining sea. without a total overhaul of police/FBI/DEA etc we are on our way to a poorly-run police-state.That has been the goal of Republicans since at least the 1970's POT TV 420 Marijuananews [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by LameBrain on September 14, 2001 at 04:46:17 PT hope In a strange way,there may be a small bright spot after the 9/11 attack.It's possible that much of the drug law enforcement focus,will be diverted into anti-terrorist security,boy,that'll make things way better. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by lookinside on September 14, 2001 at 04:35:02 PT: quantity... since my arrest, my wife has had to make do with what we canafford..about 3 oz. a month...down from a 1/2 lb. when i wasgrowing for her...restricting someone's medications(below the levelrecommended and necessary for treatment) for any othersubstance would be grounds for a jillion dollar lawsuit ifthe drug companies were manufacturing thesubstance...rediculous... [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by dddd on September 14, 2001 at 00:17:51 PT pot smokers the article begins with;"I Smoke Pot. I could probably be ID'd as a pot smoker in a crowd, but come to think of it, in almost all crowds someone has a joint."....Well,,,from now on,,they wont be looking for pot smokers incrowds,unless they are wearing a turban,,,but as far as beingstopped and searched,,you can forget any rights you thoughtyou still had before September 11,2001....No new laws,oramendments are necessary now.If a cop decides he wants tosearch you,,,your car,,your house,or your ass,,,he will basiclyhave carte blanche to do so....The only excuse necessary is tomention the word "terrorist",to justify probable cause....Nottoo many judges or jurys are going to rule against any cops whouse this excuse.Dark times ahead.....everthing changes......JAH remains the same....dddd [ Post Comment ] Post Comment