cannabisnews.com: NORML Launches Video Blog 





NORML Launches Video Blog 
Posted by CN Staff on September 05, 2005 at 15:50:25 PT
By Jolmsted, Digital Reporter 
Source: i-Newswire
Port Townsend, WA -- NORML, The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, announced today the NORML Video Blog, -- http://www.normltv.blogspot.com -- a FREE online international public educational resource for their community to showcase medical, industrial and personal use of marijuana. FREE video hosting communities that have sprung up on the web over the past six months will allow everyone with a marijuana story to share it. These sites include:
· http://www.blip.tv· http://www.current.tv· http://video.google.com· http://www.ourmedia.org· http://www.vimeo.com· http://www.youtube.comContributorsVolunteer contributors to the NORML Video Blog will data mine these repositories as well as produce original programming. If you would like to be a NORML Video Blog contributor, post a paragraph about yourself with a link to your website, blog or videos in a comment of the most resent entry.Video Clips (2-7 minutes) The Video Blog will showcase personal point-of-view stories, news reports, cooking/how-to-shows, documentaries, music, art and educational programming. “During the summer, I shot a lot of video interviews and produced several customer product testimonial videos seeking an organization that would embrace video blogging and take it to the next level, “states Jack Olmsted, NORML Video Blogger Coordinator. “The next level is to develop an online video-on-demand syndicated channel that is distributed to Internet TVs, PCs, PDAs, video iPods and cell phones and accessible to an international audience anytime, anywhere. The management team at NORML has the vision to step-up to the plate and be the pioneers in this emerging communication, distribution frontier.”About NORMLNORML's mission is to move public opinion sufficiently to achieve the repeal of marijuana prohibition so that the responsible use of cannabis by adults is no longer subject to penalty.Since its founding in 1970, NORML has provided a voice in the public policy debate for those Americans who oppose marijuana prohibition and favor an end to the practice of arresting marijuana smokers. A nonprofit public-interest advocacy group, NORML represents the interests of the tens of millions of Americans who smoke marijuana responsibly.Contact:Jack OlmstedNORML Video Blog CoordinatorWebsite: http://normltv.blogspot.comContact: frefair yahoogroups.comPhone: 360/379-2964Note: The National Organization Reform Marijuana Laws Is The First Association To Utilize FREE Online Video-On-Demand Community Distribution Networks. Complete Title: NORML Launches Video Blog Focused On Education And Personal Point-Of-View Source: i-Newswire (Web)Author: Jolmsted, Digital Reporter Published: September 06, 2005Website: http://www.i-newswire.comContact: http://i-newswire.com/contact.phpNORMLhttp://www.norml.org/CannabisNews NORML Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/NORML.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #54 posted by afterburner on September 08, 2005 at 03:33:33 PT
Nostalgia and Courage
Nostalgia: "I'm on my way to New Orleans this mornin',
Leaving out of Nashville, Tennessee,
They're always having a good time down on the bayou,
Lord, them Delta women think the world of me."
--Ramblin' Man by 
Allman Brothers [more]
http://www.bluesforpeace.com/lyrics/ramblin-man.htm******Courage:"We're a winner
And never let anybody say
Boy, you can't make it
'Cause a feeble mind is in your way
No more tears do we cry
And we have finally dried our eyes
And we're movin' on up (Movin' on up)
Lawd have mercy
We're movin' on up (Movin' on up)"
--The Impressions - We're a Winner
Written by - Curtis Mayfield [more] 
http://www.twin-music.com/azlyrics/i_file/songs/impressions/were.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by Hope on September 07, 2005 at 22:56:35 PT
oops...too many windows open
Jake Leg comment should have gone on another thread. Sorry.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by Hope on September 07, 2005 at 22:55:39 PT
Jake Leg
jake leg. n : a paralysis caused
by drinking improperly distilled or contaminated liquor. (Named for a product called Jake, which was a Jamaican ginger extract.)It wasn't a temporary paralysis, either.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by FoM on September 07, 2005 at 22:10:16 PT
Afterburner
Thank you. That's a big list.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by afterburner on September 07, 2005 at 22:04:30 PT
NORML Canada Has its own Board
Advisors include former Executive Director of NORML, the parent body in the USA. The NORML Canada board, directors and staff contains two cannabis reform lawyers, John W. Conroy QC and Alan Young; Alison Myrden, the only female LEAP speaker and former NDP candidate for Oakville West; Dominic Cramer, Canadians for Safe Access, one of the co-founders of the Toronto Compassion Centre, and owner of Toronto Hemp Company; Tim Meehan of Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis, OCSARC; Mike Patriquen, Nova Scotia Marijuana Party leader; and Boris St.Maurice, founder of the Marijuana Party of Canada; and others that I am not familiar with. Other Canadian cannabis activists are among the advisors, including (Canada)
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin - Conservative Party of Canada; 
Marie Andre Bertrand - former member of the LeDain Commission; 
Michael Bryan - former Le Dain Commission special assistant and Health Canada drug policy advisor;
Judith Renaud, M.A. - Executive Director of Educators for Sensible Drug Policy;(USA)
R. Keith Stroup, Esq. - Retired Executive Director NORML USA; 
Kirk Tousaw - US Lawyer and Former legislative Counsel to BC Civil Liberties; 
Dr.Lester Grinspoon renowned Psychiatrist and Author, Harvard Medical School;
Richard Lake - Map Inc.;(World Wide)
Robert Connell Clarke - Renowned Botanist and Author - Amsterdam.   
The NORML Canada Board, Directors and Staff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by FoM on September 07, 2005 at 20:59:46 PT
afterburner 
That is a good statement. Is NORML Canada run by NORML in the states? I really don't know. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by afterburner on September 07, 2005 at 20:41:30 PT
Check This Out!
NORML Canada Official Statement of Principles
http://www.normlcanada.org/article78.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by Toker00 on September 07, 2005 at 14:33:03 PT
Not to argue
but, money and power is their religion. They erroneously think themselves to be Gods.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by dongenero on September 07, 2005 at 09:25:46 PT
they do have a God
it is money and power......greed
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by Hope on September 07, 2005 at 09:25:37 PT
C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia
I remember from one of the books...maybe it was The Silver Chair, but I think it was The Final Battle...there was a scene concerning a warrior, a commander, highly placed in one religiously oriented rulership. There was a huge battle and this fearful "god" creature showed up and Lewis describes the expression on the face of the warrior at the reality of the thing as that of a man who is faced with the sight of a god that he never truly believed existed although he proclaimed to believe in it. He was, appropriately, horrified.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by Hope on September 07, 2005 at 09:18:22 PT
Religion with no God?
That's amazing and it's right on target. I believe you're right. It's obvious that so many people have a great deal of religion....but no God. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by Toker00 on September 07, 2005 at 09:05:52 PT
Thanks GCW
That last post was worth every ounce of effort you put into it. One God. No Religion. They are One Religion, No God.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by E_Johnson on September 06, 2005 at 18:23:48 PT
That's stretching things a bit dongenero
Just because the person who currently holds the office of President believes HE is divinely guided is no reason for you to insult the intelligence and intentionality of everyone else in the entire American political system.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by The GCW on September 06, 2005 at 17:16:15 PT
Through the Spirit of truth: the advantage!
Dongenero #19 and some before that,,,Dongenero, realize what You said is incomplete: “There is indeed a movement to guiding our governments decisions not by the constitution but by religious doctrine.”You should have said: DISOBEDIENT religious doctrine.  They’re doctrine is the opposite of “love one another.”It matters, when the “Christian right” says they are Christian; because they are saying they are of the Jesus Christ path… It would matter less, if the disobedient ones in office said they were not Christian, because then it doesn’t say they are on that path. BUT once they say they are Christian AT ALL, they are to not go on a different path; ESPECIALLLY THE OPPOSITE PATH OF CHRIST.(Christ’s don’t fix problems with machine guns M-16’s and F-16’s... Christ doesn’t hang a machine gun from His shoulder. Christ is not the executioner. Christ didn’t cage humans for using cannabis and did not pursue such…deeds.)The people that say they are Christian today must come to realize if they can not say they are OBEDIENT CHRISTIANS, that that is their immediate goal.All of Us must love one another; OBEDIENT CHRISTIANS FIRST.THCUEvangelical Christians…MormonsCatholicsBaptistsThey are all DISOBEDIENT CHRISTIANS!If they don’t teach the sheep to refuse to kill for the warlords, they are failing Our Father’s request for clergy to teach the truth.If it’s ok with the church in mention to cage Us for using what God says is good on the very 1st page, then they can not receive the Spirit of truth. PERIOD! We are talking disobedient Christian! People that deny Christ God Our Father from the beginning! Suckers stuck living with the deluding influence.Failed clergy is screwing Christ God Our Father; THE ECOLOGICIAN, as much as any wicked evil politician, including Bush the exterminator.333Most of them don’t even say they’re Christians when they come knock on Your door.Q. What are You?
A. I’m a Mormon; or I’m a Catholic… They don’t come out and say: I Am a Christian.WHAT THEY SHOULD COME OUT AND SAY IS: I’M A DISOBEDIENT CHRISTIAN, FOR I SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND CAGING HUMANS FOR USING MARIJUANA IS OK AND GOOD.333Everyone must run this whole thing through the test. We’re told to test the spirits.Christ Jesus made it simple for those who SEEK;;; and for those who don’t see, they are left with the deluding influence. (see Man of Lawlessness / 2 Thessalonians 2:11 or read the whole thing; Thess. 2)SEEK AND HE WILL SEEK YOU.I Promise.We need a new church; with no building;WE NEED INDIVIDUALS THAT RECEIVE THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND HELP OTHERS RECEIVE IT.WE ARE THE CHURCH AND IF WE FAIL, THERE IS NO OTHER CHURCH.Obedient Christians; must be COMPRISED OF INDIVIDUALS WITH CHRIST IN USWho decides who is obedient and who is disobedient?Christ; ANY CHRIST.How about the one who’s influence is vividly repeated in JOHN 14-16 & 1 JOHN?LOVE ONE ANOTHER LOVE ONE ANTOHER LOVE ONE ANTOHER LOVE ONE ANTOHER Any questions?Love one another; IT’S THE KEY TO RECEIVING THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH; AND IT TEACHES ALL THINGS.THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS IS WITH THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH.THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.The fact is, people can be taught to know about and receive the Spirit of truth; but it takes obedient clergy because disobedient clergy is unable.It takes people that want the truth enough to seek it; it takes work.It takes the Spirit of truth to teach other people how to receive the Spirit of truth.It takes people looking from the inside out to help those looking from the outside in.Nothing can replace the Spirit of truth.The Spirit of truth is the advantage We must receive to progress from this fulcrum point.The work that We must all do is spiritual.We must tap into Christ Jesus’ communication system; The Spirit of truth.The Green Collar Worker
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by dongenero on September 06, 2005 at 15:34:05 PT
theocracy
theocracyn 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidanceBush has certainly indicated he is governing by divine guidance. And he's indicated so on more than one occasion.
It's obvious by the mandate professed by the Evangelicals and by Bush. When government policies are being shaped by religious doctrine rather than by our constitution, I believe that earns the term theocratic.Now, I'm not saying that what is happening with this administration constitutes a fully realized theocratic state. We are certainly not an Iran but, there are theocratic progressions taking place and being attempted. I am opposed to that. I am for a strong separation of church and state.As for being opposed to the word "theocracy" or "theocratic",I've not yet come across a good synonym.
By definition, I would say it is the proper word.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by goneposthole on September 06, 2005 at 15:26:15 PT
no, not really, EJ
Neocons 'make' reality. the 'other' reality doesn't count anymore, reality itself. Remember and remember it well, Leo Strauss believed in three kinds of people: The Wise, The Gentlemen and The Vulgar (they don't need to know who they are).The Wise (a Saudi Prince, super wealthy inhabitants of Dubai) tell The Gentleman (people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc.) what The Vulgar need to do.A kind of new form of slavery in the world going on right now.Making reality is the wave of the future. Welcome to the New America. The republic is now dead.Yachts and private jets are the only things The Wise know.The land locked Vulgar need to wait for orders.That's 'made to order reality' in 2005. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by E_Johnson on September 06, 2005 at 15:16:16 PT
This is so deja vu
In the eighties the big word being passed around and misused was "patriarchy".Now people are misusing the word "theocracy".People should fight realistic dangers. It's realistic that the neocons are screwing up the country, it's realistic that we have a fight over the exact role religion plays in our country, but it's ridiculous and overblown and frankly counterproductive to go to the distance of labeling the danger they present as "theocracy".Okay it's a convenient shorthand word, just like patriarchy was in the eighties.But the same thing is going to happen -- people will feel manipulated when you use it, and you'll lose credibility in the process.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by dongenero on September 06, 2005 at 15:04:06 PT
Sorry EJ....I guess I don't understand
what it is you're saying. Is it that you are opposed to people being opposed to things?You chided MikeEEE in his comment regarding the theocratic direction of our country and his opposition of that ideology.I'm not saying the theocratic direction is necessarily the end of the world. Yet, I do not think the end of the world has to be imminent for someone to be opposed to something.
The gloom and doom references were all in your posts EJ, not mine.Your point seemed to be, and I'm paraphrasing, "look, I was opposed to this and that and see, it turned out the other way."I then drew the conclusuion that you were arguing don't oppose religious ideology and it will reverse itself.If that was not what you were saying then, I've somehow missed your point. If you are saying don't worry about anything, don't oppose what you think is wrong, don't stand up for the way you believe things should be, then I would say it is you who are defeated.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by E_Johnson on September 06, 2005 at 14:45:00 PT
dongenero now I am really angry and insulted
I was referring to the arguements from E_Johnson and Nick Thimmesch, where they implied that we should not oppose theocratic ideology in politics due to that fact that it historically backfires and provides the opposite result.I think that is a feeble line of reasoning.I would never suggest agreeing to religious ideology guiding government in the secret hope and belief that it will backfire and give me the opposite result.********************************************************I never said anything of the kind and I demand a retraction.What I'm saying is that this whining useless doom and gloom attitude is something I've already lived through and discarded.For you to twist that into some kind of "support for the theocracy" is feels pretty manipulative and dishonest on your part.Nobody ever won a war by whining.You are ofering up the bitterness of the defeated.Well, we haven't lost yet. So take your bitterness and shove it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by FoM on September 06, 2005 at 14:14:34 PT
dongenero
Thank you. He did make us laugh. Yes he was arrested for cannabis. I remember that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by dongenero on September 06, 2005 at 14:11:33 PT
Bob Denver passed away
Bob Denver; forever in reruns the most clueless castaway of Gilligan's Island, died at a North Carolina hospital Friday from cancer treatment-related complications, his family announced Tuesday. He was 70.Denver underwent quadruple bypass heart surgery in May."He gave us the gift of love and laughter," the Denver family said in a statement, "even in his passing." I posted this info as Bob was a celebrity cannabis user. He was arrested in 1998 for possession of 2 ounces or so. I wonder if he used cannabis during his cancer treatment.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by FoM on September 06, 2005 at 14:02:57 PT
MikeEEEEE
I like the new commercial about the sucking tv. That's funny but the Geico commercials tend to drive me a little crazy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by MikeEEEEE on September 06, 2005 at 14:00:31 PT
dongenero and FoM
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn't read all the thread to make that connection.FoM, I find the Geico commericals stupid distractions, especially the one about the caveman. I use the mute button a lot. About 1%-2% of TV commericals are truely creative. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by dongenero on September 06, 2005 at 13:47:58 PT
MikeEEE
I was referring to the arguements from E_Johnson and Nick Thimmesch, where they implied that we should not oppose theocratic ideology in politics due to that fact that it historically backfires and provides the opposite result.I think that is a feeble line of reasoning.  I would never suggest agreeing to religious ideology guiding government in the secret hope and belief that it will backfire and give me the opposite result.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by FoM on September 06, 2005 at 13:46:16 PT
goneposthole
I'd just love to be able to put that little Geico lizzard on my shoulder and flick him into kingdom come! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by FoM on September 06, 2005 at 13:42:58 PT
MikeEEEEE
I don't like paying taxes but you have to pay taxes. Just try not to pay for awhile and see how fast until they find you. I just wish the taxes we pay could be put into what we feel is worthwhile. I don't want my taxes to go to the war but would be happy if my taxes went to help down south now after Katrina. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by goneposthole on September 06, 2005 at 13:40:41 PT
nicht so schnell
With Katrina wreaking havoc in the Southland, those southern states that have been so cruelly ignored by the federal government are seething with anger, they may just secede from the union.The federal government is quickly being neutered by its inability to act.Compassionate conservatism isn't being bought when Baton Rouge and Houston are essentially now concentration camps.Some people in New Orleans claim that they heard explosions before the levees broke. It is suspected that they may have been dynamited to save downtown New Orleans.http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/3941.phpN'rlens is worse than Baghdad. Barbara Bush's heartless comment about the 'refugees' being underpriviliged doesn't help the compassionate conservatives one iota. So what does that mean? Reefer time!And, I saved a bundle by switching to Geico. (just kidding, don't get angry)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by MikeEEEEE on September 06, 2005 at 13:30:31 PT
FoM and dongenero
FoM, I still associate with society, and most of them aren’t bad, but I usually get the same response when I ask about govt. change.  They say they’re powerless to do anything and are too busy with life to worry about it. I keep an open mind, that is, open to reality, not the reality we’re lead to believe on TV programming or the media propaganda fed through the corporate system.FoM, you say you believe in paying taxes. Imagine you’re buying food. Do you like paying for something you don’t like, or paying for a failed leader managing the store? I get the sense people deep in their minds don’t like paying for the corruption and failure of govt. Yet they deal with it, in a sort of denial that things may get better.dongenero, you wrote, "agree to what you don't want because then opposite will happen?"I think what you’re saying is wishful thinking. I didn't agree with high energy prices, and yet they still go up.dongenero, you wrote, "if you don't agree with the theocratic direction of government policy, you should support it nonetheless because, it will actually backfire"I agree with you that it will backfire, that's because through-out history people have fought back oppression. I have to disagree with your method, that’s because while putting everything back to norml, people are suffering. Nature always restores the balance, however long it takes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by FoM on September 06, 2005 at 12:54:55 PT
One More Comment
I want to clarify my last comment. The more I see happening the more I believe that we should do our best to stand on our own two feet. I believe in paying taxes and that we will continue to do. Beyond that we want to be able to survive away from a city because now more then ever we all see the problems after Katrina. Where will the next disaster happen? In the country it gives people who have lived in the country a sense of security. Our friends also feel the same way. People are moving into our county and surrounding counties from the east coast. They've decided it's too much tension and time to re-locate. That comes from a local real estate appraiser.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by dongenero on September 06, 2005 at 12:21:02 PT
so, the logic is....
agree to what you don't want because then opposite will happen?EJ said: "Back in the eighties, conservatives in America were against women working, they wanted women out of the corporate workplace and kept in the home, they were against women in the military and they played the race card mercilessly.The feminist vision of a conservative-led future was a vision of slavery. We really thought we'd all be slaves iof an evil patriarchy by now, seriously. All our rights would be gone, taken back by the religious right government.But NOW, 20 years later, many conservatives are secretly wishing Condoleezza Rice woud be open to running for President against Hillary."and Nick T said: "Right now, women are supposed to be sexual or reproductive slaves with no rights to move about or live on their own.That didn't come true. IN fact, what came true was that the cause of feminism became normalized so that even conservative Christian women feel its benefits in a greater respect for women's rights within conservative Christianity.The dire future didn't happen, what happened was a gradual shift in values that changed the nature of the conflict in question."So, let me get this straight, the proposal is that if you don't agree with the theocratic direction of government policy, you should support it nonetheless because, it will actually backfire and go the opposite way thereby giving you what you really wanted all along.That is some convoluted logic. I'm dizzy just from reading through the spin on that one. Quite funny.I'll stick to saying what I mean and meaning what I say.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by FoM on September 06, 2005 at 12:19:07 PT
MikeEEEEE
I am preparing for the worst. We are doing our best to be as far removed from society as possible. Basically I don't want to be involved with the way it has become. That's sad but I feel for us it is wise. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by MikeEEEEE on September 06, 2005 at 12:10:54 PT
The American Experiment
When Bush won the 2004 election his supporters (the religious right) said, they deserve more power (because they got him in), and would take more action in govt.History tells us that before WWII the Nazi's took freedoms in a slow process toward their goal of control. The Nazi culture almost religious in its scope, had a type of cross to mark its members.At the start of America, the idea of a prolonged democracy was called an experiment. Keep your options open and have an emergency plan; no-one wants to become the lab rat in an experiment gone badly.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Jim Lunsford on September 06, 2005 at 12:04:28 PT
Theocracy?
Thought we were ending one. Personally, I think the right wing fundamentalists aren't quite as popular as they used to be. Or won't be soon. Maybe this is the final death spasms of the dark ages. 
  That death spasm began with the introduction of the printing press. Once people learned to read, Europe entered the first phase of the death of organized oppressive religion as we know it. Now, we have the internet. Personally, I think they are about done. But, that's just my opinion.
  On the brighter side, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Hempco!Rev Jim Lunsford
First Cannabist Church
Compassion: It's just a choice
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Nick Thimmesch on September 06, 2005 at 11:58:51 PT:
Off topic...
...again, but I just wanted to send "kudos" for EJohnson's wise sensibilities:Right now, women are supposed to be sexual or reproductive slaves with no rights to move about or live on their own.That didn't come true. IN fact, what came true was that the cause of feminism became normalized so that even conservative Christian women feel its benefits in a greater respect for women's rights within conservative Christianity.The dire future didn't happen, what happened was a gradual shift in values that changed the nature of the conflict in question.JOHNSON has it right: I personally witnessed the powerful rise of women -- Christian, hard core "right wing" conservative women -- throughtout the GOP and/or the "conservative movement" for the past twenty years.THIMMESCH would appreciate hearing from JOHNSON at nick.thimmesch earthlink.net
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on September 06, 2005 at 10:56:50 PT
dongenero 
It's ok please don't stop responding if you want too. I am quiet because I don't like to get into political discussions since I really am not into politics at all. We are a community and we have fears and hopes. I am terrified of the direction we are headed. I was really hoping that I would see change in my lifetime but each day that goes by we are getting more suffocated by this administration and it's goals. We need to become quiet, submissive and don't rock the boat. They want law and order. In many respects they are getting what they want.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by dongenero on September 06, 2005 at 10:49:36 PT
please don't put words in my mouth
Yes, EJ conservatives were against women working and thought they should not be in the coprporate workforce but, at home where a good wife should be. Interestingly, this is exactly the sentiment expressed in the past by John Roberts,
who now has the nod as our next chief justice of the supreme court.I never implied that we are destined to a future of slavery under the conservatives, though they are clearly not a party of inclusion but of exclusion. I guess it depends on your definition of slavery.It is unfair to push anothers concerns over faith based politics to necessarily being the extreme of female reproductive slaves,all of our rights taken away, etc.
This all or nothing, black and white view you have is much like the view of the evangelical neo-cons.
The truth is that things are not black and white extremes but rather gradual movements and errosive shifts that over time absolutely can take a toll. There is indeed a movement to guiding our governments decisions not by the constitution but by religious doctrine. The administration has said as much, straight out. Oh, but of course, they'll respect the constitution while they're doing it. Right.For you to state that I have wishes and hopes for a dire vision of the future as a theocracy is way out of line. To the contrary,  I would hope to draw attention to the issue so that we approach nothing of the sort. Your odd, accusatory defense of the theocratic direction our government is taking would lead me to believe that perhaps this dire vision some of us fear is your vision for the future.There is nothing ridiculous about recognizing a power play of fundamental christianity in our government. History has shown that it is a cause for concern.FoM, this is all I will be saying on this subject and I will try keeping it to cannabis from here on out. I just needed to respond to these strange comments insinuating what my hopes and wishes are.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by kaptinemo on September 06, 2005 at 10:29:54 PT:
I stand corrected...partially
True, Rehnquist did dissent in favor of raich/Monson. But he has also upheld the unwarranted search of persons and vehicles using drug dogs with the specious argument that since you aren't supposed to have illicits, if a dog alerts on you, you have no expectation of privacy. I repeat, Rehnquist was a Statist to the end, and the damage done to the average person's rights and liberties by such an orientation cannot be undone by a rare divergence from that course.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by E_Johnson on September 06, 2005 at 10:10:06 PT
As an example of what I mean
Back in the eighties, conservatives in America were against women working, they wanted women out of the corporate workplace and kept in the home, they were against women in the military and they played the race card mercilessly.The feminist vision of a conservative-led future was a vision of slavery. We really thought we'd all be slaves iof an evil patriarchy by now, seriously. All our rights would be gone, taken back by the religious right government.But NOW, 20 years later, many conservatives are secretly wishing Condoleezza Rice woud be open to running for President against Hillary.Now, 20 years later, it's the conservatives who are raising a stink about women being mistreated and discriminated against in the military.You just can never tell with this country. Things change. People change. The political landscape is always shifting and people are always trying out new ideas to see how they fit.I thought Rehnquist was a sure sign of coming doom, but he voted to protect my life before he died.Every lash has its backlash.This current religious lash will have a huge backlash in the next ten years, just watch and see.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on September 06, 2005 at 10:03:56 PT
Just a Note
I've been looking for some news to post with a little substance but so far I haven't found anything. I'll keep looking though.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by E_Johnson on September 06, 2005 at 09:48:49 PT
dongenero been there, done that
dongenero, I was a feminist in the eighties and we said a lot of ridiculous things too, that were just as extreme and also born out of fear and frustration.We're supposed to be in Republic of Gilead right now, according to eighties feminism's dire predictions of the theocratic America to come.Right now, women are supposed to be sexual or reproductive slaves with no rights to move about or live on their own.That didn't come true. IN fact, what came true was that the cause of feminism became normalized so that even conservative Christian women feel its benefits in a greater respect for women's rights within conservative Christianity.The dire future didn't happen, what happened was a gradual shift in values that changed the nature of the conflict in question.So we'll see whether your wishes and hopes for your dire vision of the future pleases and rewards you by coming true.But I doubt it will, just like the country failed to become the sexually repressive Taliban-like horrorshow that got feminists all hot and self righteously lathered up in the eighties.
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by dongenero on September 06, 2005 at 08:19:23 PT
US theocracy MikeEEE
In support of MikeEEEE, I would say it is moving in that direction.
I don't think a theocracy would be controlled by any of the moderate Christian groups EJohnson names but, by the fundamental christians, much as the Islamic theocracies are controlled. I suppose it would intially be Evangelical Christians whose view of christianity is more about old testament judgement and punishment than it is about love and compassion. These would be the chritians whose true God is power and money, all wrapped up in a nice facade of christianity that cannot be questioned. MikeEEEE makes valid points though I would hope common sense will prevail in this country before theocratic control gets too far or too deep. I'm just not sure your average American pays enough attention to see it coming, whereas the fundamentalists are so bent on control, that when faced with people who don't seem to care, they are quite capapble of wresting control.Many people just want more cheap gas for their SUV, the latest must have tech gadget and to know what P-Diddy wants to call himself today.In the meantime the fundamentalists are obsessing about control. Make no mistake about it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Jim Lunsford on September 06, 2005 at 08:05:58 PT
Just a note from the headlines
Seemingly unrelated to the legalization movement is this little tid bit of information I just gleamed from the headlines: The toxic brew of chemicals and human waste in the New Orleans floodwaters will have to be pumped into the Mississippi River or Lake Pontchartrain, raising the specter of an environmental disaster on the heels of Hurricane Katrina, experts say. The dire need to rid the drowned city of water could trigger fish kills and poison the delicate wetlands near New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi. (Allen Fredrickson/Reuters) since we can just about substitute oil with hemp in almost all applications, what do you think the toxicity would have been if we were already on a hemp based economy? I'd say it woudn't be an issue. Human waste will decompose, and so would hemp based products. Think that people aren't going to make the connection? Then let them know. Educate people and let them know they have been mis-led. Supreme Court judges don't mean squat compared to an angry populace. Just a little bit of effor by everyone is a hell of an impact. Just a thought, tell someone.Rev. Jim LunsfordFirst Cannabist ChurchCompassion: It's just a choice
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by VitaminT on September 06, 2005 at 07:34:01 PT
Kapt
I won't argue with your take on Rehnquist because I can't evaluate his career in total, but I will say this: he was among the dissenters in Raich v. Gonzales.Statist or not, he was a federalist when he cast his last vote.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by afterburner on September 06, 2005 at 07:28:40 PT
The Seed of an Idea
"Two, a court case in which the very foundations of cannabis prohibition were dredged up for all to see in such a way that it would become political suicide for maintaining it. Imagine the reactions of African- and Hispanic-Americans in the jury box when they hear the words of the arch-prohibitionists referring to them in the racially bigoted pejoratives common to their statements. And to have so-called 'experts' forced to admit their most cherished 'facts' about cannabis are nothing but opinions based upon that bigotry...and politically motivated distortions of scientific studies later soundly refuted."
--Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on September 06, 2005 at 05:03:01 PT: 
My take on the Supremes and cannabis We have to find a way to get the racist and unscientific origins of cannabis prohibition into the court record. The prosecution has the right to use Voir Dire to 'weed' out potential pro-cannabis jurors. The defense attorney also should be allowed to use Voir Dire to 'weed' out potential anti-cannabis jurors. The pre-1937 use of cannabis as a medicine is a good starting point.Excerpt FROM: Comment #30 posted by Hope on August 19, 2005 at 10:09:35 PT 
Pizza and Jury Nullification IN: NORML's Weekly News Bulletin -- August 18, 2005
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/21/thread21042.shtml#30{Jury Nullification is worrying me. I recently got called to jury duty. Amazingly, it was for a misdemeanor marijuana case this time. I get called a lot.{I haven't talked about it because I'm still thinking about it a lot and worrying...and praying, about it.{During Voir Dire the prosecutor actually spoke to the potential jurists about legalization of marijuana. Something that gave me heart is, she said that it had not been legalized "YET", emphasizing the word. {That talk was to weed anyone out who disagreed with the law. It's wrong, of course. Just like it's wrong to keep anyone off a possible death penalty case because they don't believe in the death penalty. It's definitely stacking the jury against the defendant. {She asked if anyone had any strong feelings about the law or thought marijuana should be legalized or if we thought they were wasting resources by prosecuting it. She talked about legalization quite a bit, and not negatively, either. {Since then I've studied it more, and if I had gotten on the jury I would have been in danger of prosecution myself, for "obstructing justice", I think it would be called, because of not spilling my guts during voir dire (to speak the truth)if they ever got an inkling of my activism or that I had viewed the law unfavorably before I was selected. {If you do get on a jury, you'd better not even think the word "nullification" unless the majority of your fellow jurors seem to be going for "not guilty". {In those situations, when you are the only "holdout" on a guilty verdict, I think all you can hope for is a hung jury...but you'd better not mention "nullification" or "unjust laws"...just that for some reason, like not believing the evidence, you cannot find the defendant guilty. {Regardless of my feelings, I could have delivered a fair judgment "based on the facts". Those who would put stumbling blocks in our way would not see it that way, though. {Voir Dire is very serious and apparently, they are watching vigilantly for us and doing all they can to screen us out.{Chris Conrad has a piece on "Surviving Voir Dire". http://www.fija.org/conrad_on_jury_duty.htm {I sort of wish I had stood up, when I had the chance, since I didn't get chosen and said the law was unjust. Maybe I might have "tainted" the remaining jurors. With the way our government acts these days, they might have cuffed me then and dragged me off to a cage.{Vior Dire in these instances is rough. I wonder how those folks who were against slavery managed to survive voir dire in the days of the slavery law cases. It's getting caught between "a rock" and "a hard place".{It's a fine line to walk. They consider keeping quiet about your beliefs, if they ask about them, lying. They didn't ask me individually or directly what my feelings were. They just asked "is there anyone here who..." so I didn't get up and lie to the court at all. I just didn't raise my hand and say "Yeah...it's an unjust law". But, to the governmental powers that be, my silence would have been "lying" and therefore, "obstructing" or "subverting" "justice". I know that I just wanted to bring some "real" justice into the picture.{You want to help the unfairly persecuted and the government wants to forbid anyone who might lean towards mercy from being on the jury. It's hard for a person with a working brain and an active conscience to not get eliminated in a case like this one was.{By the way the case is over, so I can talk about it. I don't know what they did to the defendant. I'm sure I would be sad to know.{It's time to think long and hard about what you would say if they asked you directly what you think of the law. Of course, when you tell them...you're eliminated from being a juror. Yeah. They "lie". So it's hard not to tell yourself it's ok to lie to a liar, but when you're like I am and wish to avoid a lie of any degree like it was a poisonous spider, but you want to do the right thing, which is to help the unjustly persecuted, it's a quandry of huge dimensions.}As for the dilemma that Hope describes: anything's possible. "I am willing to look at the facts with an open mind and to make a decision once all the facts are known." The legal sham of not allowing Ed Rosenthal and others to mention "medical marijuana" because of federal superstitious and unscientific propaganda is NOT All the Facts.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on September 06, 2005 at 05:03:01 PT:
My take on the Supremes and cannabis
The matter of whether Mr. Roberts is a 'paleo-' (translation: 'traditional conservative') or a neo-conservative has already been rendered moot.The present gaggle of Supremes understand fully that the entire edifice of the powers usurped by the Executive back in the 1930's to 'legalize' the vast burgeoning of the Federal; government that took place under FDR would be endangered by a literal interpretation of the Constitution. That's why the majority voted against Raich/Monson. They made that quite clear in their positions. I knew the fix was in when Scalia make the crack about thinking before that the Wickard case was bad law, but he didn't think so now; it was reliance upon Wickard which led to the negative ruling.It won't matter if Roberts says he is a 'strict Constitutionalist'; both parties have built upon the 'wrong turn' that was taken back then and both parties have benefited greatly from that power, and both parties want to be able to claim that power again in the future. IMHO, one of two things will have to take place in this country to allow the truth about cannabis to be able to overcome this Juggernaut's inertia. One, a Constitutional - or budgetary - crisis forcing Uncle to pay for his spendthrift ways would affect the kind of scaling back of Fed power necessary for cannabis to get a fair hearing. Or at least to be less of a priority for enforcement; you can't lock up the cannabists if you can't pay for the upkeep of the jail and the jailor's salary. Things will rapidly escalate in this direction courtesy of Katrina: the cost of the emergency recovery bill (10 Billion dollars) just passed is already one-quarter of the entire Fed 'drug-fighting' efforts alone. The money has to be allocated from other agencies; agencies that perform poorly become sized up for appropriation re-allocation; the money has to come from somewhere. And that's just the beginning; Katrina will tuern out to be one very expensive lady.Two, a court case in which the very foundations of cannabis prohibition were dredged up for all to see in such a way that it would become political suicide for maintaining it. Imagine the reactions of African- and Hispanic-Americans in the jury box when they hear the words of the arch-prohibitionists referring to them in the racially bigoted pejoratives common to their statements. And to have so-called 'experts' forced to admit their most cherished 'facts' about cannabis are nothing but opinions based upon that bigotry...and politically motivated distortions of scientific studies later soundly refuted.Prediction: Mr. Roberts will be confirmed and sent to the Supremes and maintain the Court in its' present divergence from literal interpretation. His presence will have no noticable effect upon the issue of cannabis re-legalization; like the Taney Court which pitched the hot potato of slavery back to the deadlocked States, the Rehnquist Court has done the same for the issue of cannabis. In passing, I should note that Mr. Rehnquist was supposedly for 'States's Rights', but when it came to the cannabis issue he proved himself just another 'Statist', someone who favors government power to interfere in individual, and therefore, 'State's Rights'. THAT is his true 'legacy'; he talked the talk, but like most of the Supremes, wasn't able to walk the walk.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Nick Thimmesch on September 06, 2005 at 03:15:52 PT
Dittos...
"The battle around Cannabis would be over in an instant if the constitution was interpeted conservatively"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Skillet on September 05, 2005 at 22:11:53 PT:
Game Over
The battle around Cannabis would be over in an instant if the constitution was interpeted conservatively. It is useless to try and persade a bloated Federal Gov't to do the right thing. I don't care which party is in power at this point. The fed isn't going to step aside and let the states (local people) control this contry again, until we MAKE THEM! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Taylor121 on September 05, 2005 at 22:02:40 PT
That's just it
"If he is a true conservative; he won't care what the states do. A win-win situation if you ask me. Peace"People are speculating him as a neo con. I hope you are right. I like Thomas, maybe not his ethics but I like that he interprets the constitution properly. I hope Roberts is a true conservative with respect to individual states.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Skillet on September 05, 2005 at 21:59:45 PT:
Conservative Justice
Roberts has indeed argued AGAINST the over reaching power of the Interstate Commerce clause. We need justices who will interprit the Constitution conservatively, giving states back their power. Then we can govern on a more local level without the Feds butting in. That was the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. All powers not specifically given to the Federal Gov't were States Rights. As noted in the recent decisions on Property rights and Medical MJ, it was the conservatives, like Thomas, that wrote the minority opinion. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Jim Lunsford on September 05, 2005 at 21:33:28 PT
Supreme Court
How is the placing of one person in a box more important than the thousands of deaths in Louisiana? This hurrican is far more devestating than a bunch of tired old men wearing bathrobes. In fact, I bet the hurricane pretty much changes the court. We've just had the biggest natural disaster we've ever had in this country, and hurricane season lasts through November. With so many people already deployed to New Orleans and such, I'm betting the rest of the hurricanes coming pretty much cancel out anything those tired old men say. Imagine 8 more Katrinas. They don't even have to hit in the vital areas after this one. Our resources will have to shift if we have that many more. The 20 states that took in refugees are already beginning to grumble a bit. Public fear will ensure that even a "minor" hurricane recieves prompt attention. That might keep them a bit busy as well with everyone adjusting to all of this. Besides, who cares what those yahoos say up there in Washington? I suspect marijuana will be legal even faster with Roberts in there. If he is a fake conservative, the increasing pressure on the right side will be balanced out by the people. Unless we remain meek. Then we get the earth we deserve. If he is a true conservative; he won't care what the states do. A win-win situation if you ask me. PeaceRev Jim LunsfordFirst Cannabist ChurchCompassion: It's just a choice
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Taylor121 on September 05, 2005 at 20:00:52 PT
I really liked him
Rehnquist, Rest in Peace. Good man.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on September 05, 2005 at 19:54:57 PT
Let's think about this calmly
Okay MikeEEEEE -- since you're tell us that we actually really need to fear an actual real theocracy in America -- tell me which Christian denomination is going to take up the reins to annoint our new divinely-appointed ruler?The Methodists? The Baptists? The Lutherans? The Episcopalians? The Catholics? The Mormons? Or an interfaith group comprised of representatives of all of the above?I'm curious how this theocracy is going to work.Why don't you tell me, since you think it's such an urgently realistic fear?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 05, 2005 at 18:57:56 PT
MikeEEEEE 
I know and it made my heart sink when I saw it today on the news.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on September 05, 2005 at 18:36:16 PT
Off-topic: Theocracy here we come
Sometime after hunging some black people down south (PR damage control for the failure he is) Bush is reshaping the government.Monday, September 5, 2005 by Doug Ireland 
Bush's Roberts-for-Chief Ploy: A Black Day for America 
 
George Bush's announcement this morning that John Roberts is his nominee to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a clever move. The Senate Democrats have already thrown in the towel on confirming Roberts as an associate justice -- there have been a few grumblings, but the Democratic leadership (and its troops) have their eye on the off-term legislative elections next year, Roberts is polling extraordinarily well (the carefully constructed photo ops of the attractive Roberts and his family in the days following his first nomination played well in the country, which judges on image more than record) and the Democrats saw no political points to be made, when the country goes to the polls next year, in opposing Roberts for associate justice. There is not a single Democratic Senator who has as yet announced opposition to Roberts for that post -- let alone the dozens that would be needed for a filibuster. So much for principle. Thus, Roberts' confirmation as Chief Justice will be fairly easy sailing -- rapid favorable action by the Senate, which is under pressure to give the Court a Chief before its fall term opens October 3, is a foregone conclusion; and the Democrats, eager to get this issue out of the way and resume beating up Bush on Katrina -- will quickly fall into line in favor of the new Chief. As horrific are the results of the Katrina disaster and Bush's failure to prepare for or respond to it, in the long run it is the death of Rehnquist and the nomination of Roberts that are far more important and will have the most lasting impact on the country. By being able to fill two Court vacancies -- Bush will soon nominate a new associate justice in Roberts' stead -- this most conservative White House since the Coolidge era will be able to put a conservative lock on the Supreme Court for decades (Roberts relatively young age means he's got a good thirty-plus years of judicial mileage left on him) . With two new hard-right judges, any microscopic hopes of putting together five-member Court coalitions to frustrate some of the Republicans' more outrageous Constitution-shredding assaults on what remains of our civil liberties are eradicated. The Bill of Rights is already under ferocious attack from the conservative Republicans and their Christian right shock-troops. This symbiotic collaboration has a host of cases -- some brought to challenge liberticide legislation passed by the Republican Congress, some by Christer lawsuits designed to further demolish the barriers between church and state and roll back the clock on progress by women and gays -- are already making their way up the judicial food chain to the Supreme Court, and a number of them are to be heard in the Court's coming fall term. One of the most attention-getting will be the case involving the Bush Administration's legal assault on Oregon's right-to-die-with dignity law, which John Ashcroft began the effort to nullify and which Alberto Gonzales is also committed to erasing. The new Chief Justice is a devout Roman Catholic, and his church was in the forefront of the Terri Schiavo case. The ultra-right Christer lobby, the Family Research Council, has already given its stamp of approval to Roberts, telling the Washington Post this morning, "We have a measure of confidence that he would be better on our issues than Sandra Day O'Connor." What FRC means by "our issues" are things like diminishing abortion rights and the criminalization of homosexuality (O'Connor voted against the former and for striking down the latter). The political character of Bush's new nomination for associate justice is hardly in doubt. After all, in 2002 Bush declared, ""We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." That's what he's been doing, and that's what did when he made Roberts chief, and that's what he'll do with his second Court nomination to guarantee the Supremes have an unshakable theocratic majority. Lawsuits trying to prevent the federal government from spending tax-payer dollars on political patronage and religious propaganda disguised under the anodyne label "faith-based initiatives" will be definitively doomed. And so will future challenges to Patriot Act-style intrusions on an individual's right to privacy in political thought and action (a careful examination of Roberts' record reveals he doesn't really believe there is a Constitutional guarantee of a right of privacy -- which is also the basis for Roe v. Wade). Once these liberties and protections against theocracy are gone, we won't get them back. That's why Rehnquist's death giving Bush two Supreme Court nominees -- and Bush's announcement this morning of a new committed anti-privacy theocrat as Chief Justice -- is a very black day for our country's future. 
 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment