cannabisnews.com: Alaskans Weigh Privacy in Marijuana Debate










  Alaskans Weigh Privacy in Marijuana Debate

Posted by CN Staff on April 12, 2006 at 06:14:49 PT
By Anne Sutton, Associated Press Writer 
Source: Associated Press 

Juneau, Alaska -- Alaska's law on marijuana possession is considered the most liberal in the country - but its governor wants to change that, saying pot has evolved into "a dangerous drug."Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski argues that recreational use of pot should no longer be protected by Alaskans' right to privacy. He's pressing the Legislature to restore criminal penalties for marijuana possession.
Residents are now allowed to keep up to 4 ounces in their homes.The intent is to trigger a constitutional challenge and ultimately overturn the landmark Alaska Supreme Court decision that legalized the use of small amounts of marijuana. The American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska is poised to mount such a challenge should the law be enacted.The state's highest court concluded in 1975 that Alaskans' constitutional right to privacy outweighed any harm that might occur from using a small amount of marijuana in the home. State legislators set that amount at 4 ounces in 1982.Although 11 other states have "decriminalized" small amounts of marijuana for personal use, they generally set the limit at a single ounce and most levy a fine for possession, said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.Alaska's marijuana laws are "bar none" the most liberal in the country, he said.Federal law prohibits any use of marijuana, but 11 states including Alaska allow it to be used for medicinal purposes.Murkowski's marijuana bill is wrapped into legislation that seeks to curb the manufacture of methamphetamine and now awaits action in a legislative committee.House Majority Leader John Coghill, a Republican, said the marriage of the two bills has caused some resentment within his caucus, especially among members who do not support the marijuana measure. Yet he believes the bill will pass.If it does, Alaska would make pot possession of 4 ounces or more a felony. Possession of less than 4 ounces but more than an ounce would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail. Less than one ounce would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. The Murkowski administration insists marijuana is a different drug now than it was in the 1970s and 1980s.The bill says marijuana's psychoactive ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, is far more potent and dangerous today, especially for young people."If they're going to look at whether today's marijuana is still entitled to the same privacy protection, they need to look at what kind of drug we have now," said Dean Guaneli, the state's chief assistant attorney general.The state claims THC levels have risen tenfold or more over the last three decades. The state Department of Law provided legislators 30 years of data on THC potency of marijuana seized in Alaska.But opponents say the data are flawed because testing in the 1970s was faulty.The potency-versus-privacy issue is testing Alaska's image as a bastion of rugged individualism."It's the old thing of, you can do anything you want as long as you don't step on someone else's toes doing it," said Marc Hellenthal, an Anchorage-based pollster who grew up in Alaska.He says Alaskans' Libertarian-style leanings are alive and well in spirit.Rival pollster David Dittman disagrees. He points out Alaskans voted to criminalize marijuana once again in 1990 - later struck down by the state Supreme Court - and twice turned down citizen initiatives that would have legalized the drug."I think it's just kind of an urban myth, that laissez-faire Libertarian element," he said.Bill Parker, a former state legislator, thinks a majority of Alaskans fall somewhere in the middle."I don't think Alaska is ready to say, just like Safeway has a tobacco shop, there ought to be a marijuana section," said Parker, now a lobbyist for Alaskans for Marijuana Regulation and Control. "I'm not sure where they are but I know it's not where Frank Murkowski is." Source: Associated Press (Wire)Author: Anne Sutton, Associated Press WriterPublished: Wednesday, April 12, 2006Copyright: 2006 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Regulate Marijuana in Alaskahttp://www.regulatemarijuanainalaska.org/ 'Meth-ijuana' Bill To Change http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21710.shtmlCommittee Takes Up Marijuana-Meth Bill http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21709.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #60 posted by Had Enough on April 14, 2006 at 11:46:59 PT
FoM's Pool
Your pool water. Another good observance. Excellent.Got to get back to the daily grind. CatchYa Later.Thanks Again
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by FoM on April 14, 2006 at 11:37:54 PT
Had Enough 
You're welcome. Global Warming is an important topic. I agree that Florida is in for a hard time. The ocean warms and it causes it to swell. At least that's what I noticed when we had a swimming pool. On days when it was hot the water seemed higher and when it cooled off it went down. Expanding the volume of water caused by increased heat in the ocean will cause more serious problems in the deep southern states I believe. Pollution is also a real concern. Some of the whales up in Alaska are so toxic that when they die they have to treat them as hazardous material. Whales are the top of the food chain so the pollution issue seems even more important to me since moving from the deep south will make life better for people but pollution can hurt everyone.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by Had Enough on April 14, 2006 at 11:24:43 PT
runderwo
“Part of the conclusion was, just one volcano eruption, released a large amount of CFC’s in the atmosphere.”I can tell that you are considerably knowledgeable on this topic, and I do stand corrected in a statement I made. It should have stated: “Part of the conclusion was, just one volcano eruption, released a large amount of “Greenhouse Gases” in the atmosphere”. The links you provided are terrific. I haven’t checked them all, but the ones I saw looked good. I will look further into them. Thanks.The point that I was trying to make was about the scare tactics thrown out by extremists, and then followed up by sensational news reporting, then cashed in on by big business, with big government directing traffic. Hhmm; where have we seen this before?Big Government expanded another “Department of Wasted Taxpayer Money & Useless Bureaucrats”, while “Big Business” cashed in on new rules and regulations. We paid for it all, and are still paying, with more to come.When I start hearing about Global Warming, Ozone Levels, CFC’s, I tend to stuff it all in one sack. There is a lot of misinformation and misunderstood science that gets perpetuated. Then the Greed Miesters step in, to cash in. I agree with runderwo, these are really separate elements in a common issue, and are easily confused.Sulfur Oxide seems to be a culprit we can deal with here. Some coal-fired power plants have SO2 removal systems on them. Supposedly they remove over 90 percent. They are like a giant electronic air cleaner, or bug zapper, with high voltage grid wires, located between the furnace/boiler and the smoke stack. I think they are rather expensive to design and build, but not out of reach. If they do really work, maybe they should be installed on all fossil fuel fired operations. Certainly this can be done in a sane rational way without creating public hysteria, and ill effects on the economy. In the meantime a slow and steady conversion to bio fuel would be in order. Maybe Hemp Oil can be used. After say 7 to 10 years down the road, the air will be cleaner, and we will be less dependent on crude oil. Win Win situation for all except the oil companies. But still the jury is out on whether the damaging SO2 is coming from mans use, or if it a natural occurrence. It makes common sense to take rational steps to clean up the air around us, the part man spewed in the air.Global Warming I believe has been a trend since the ice age. Question is; how much has the activities of man contributed, and how much if any at all?As far as the ozone and global warming, it only makes since that IF man is producing gases that are interfering with the atmosphere, it would certainly have SOME effect on the rate of global warming. Just how much is the question.sam adams: Sooner or later the land we call Florida will be under water. Florida has probably been sinking since the earth was created. There is a theory that a meteor fell to Earth and created the Gulf of Mexico. If this theory is correct, it probably affected the rate at which Florida, is succumbing to the sea. This seems like part of a natural process to me, similar to the effects of the San Andreas Fault on the West Coast. Over the millions of years it looks like California has been falling off into the Pacific, piece by piece. One day, maybe tomorrow, or, maybe a million years from now, a big chunk might fall in all at once. Oceanfront property in Arizona? Waves from the Caribbean Sea washing up on the new southern shores of Georgia? Is it natural, is it effects of mankind, or is it a combination of both?Experiment. Dump a five-gallon bucket of dirt on the ground. Place a water hose at the base and turn the water on slow. Watch the way the dirt erodes. Sometimes a steady flow of dirt is washed away, and then at times larger chunks will fall and get washed away to form another dirt mass downstream of the water flow. The longer the water flows and the higher rate it flows, the more dirt will wash away, and at a faster rate. If rocks are in the dirt you will see how they help retain the dirt in some areas but helps disperse it on the other side. The dirt is not destroyed, its still there, but moved to another area. The dirt is the land on Earth, and the water hose represents the Oceans and rain, just a smaller scale.runderwo, thanks again for your input.FoM. Thank you for your tolerance on discussing this topic here. This shows the diversity of the people who visit and post to this board. We are all in this world together.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by runderwo on April 14, 2006 at 01:11:01 PT
sam adams
"Sometimes things can be made too complicated. If you look at graph of CO2 levels in the atmosphere since 1900 and worldwide temperature since 1900, the two lines move in almost perfect synchronicity - upwards. Upwards FAST since the 1970s."But that doesn't take into account local cooling trends, even while CO2 concentration continues to rise. And even if the correlation is close to perfect, this is still only a correlation. We don't know which way the cause and effect goes. It's no reason to ignore this issue, but jumping to conclusions is a poor approach."If that's not enough, then perhaps the massive Arctic sea ice meltoff that has occured quite literally in the last 2-3 years? The glaciers all over Earth that are melting, also in perfect sync with rising CO2 levels?"That's to be expected when the temperature is rising. After all, you do have a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. The question remains, is industrial society the cause of high CO2 levels - or is it the higher temperature, with some other cause for itself, causing the CO2 raise?I'm not saying it is a bad idea at all to reduce energy dependence, but what is a bad idea is to make the economic sanctions so great in the short term that it is impossible to invest into developing more eco-friendly energy generation. Without solid evidence that a disaster is looming, I think the best idea is to set a cutoff date that looms at some point far in the future, where the transition can be made at a pace comfortable to average citizens and investors alike, but where we know the direction that we should be moving in so that steps in the opposite direction are avoided. I think even 2030 is too close for a reasonable transition to carbon-conserving energy generation.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by runderwo on April 14, 2006 at 00:44:50 PT
Had Enough
Interesting links regarding CFCs, there has been a conspiracy theory for a long time that Du Pont was behind the CFC phaseout because patents related to Freon were expiring. It wouldn't surprise me at all that the science was shaky in that area. Though it raises the question of what else to blame for the ozone depletion if there is in fact anything at all to blame.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by runderwo on April 14, 2006 at 00:37:23 PT
Had Enough
Also, I'm not sure from your post, but don't get the ozone hole and global warming confused, they are separate issues. The fluorine in CFCs and HCFCs destroy the ozone molecule, and while I think they are greenhouse gases, they aren't present in significant enough amounts to make a difference to the greenhouse effect. Destruction of ozone means more of sun's energy in ultraviolet band reaches the surface, which leads to skin cancers. The global warming issue, if you assume that warming is being caused solely by the greenhouse effect, is that too much solar energy across the entire emissions spectrum is being trapped by greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is present in the highest concentration. The ozone hole does let a little more solar energy through, but if it weren't trapped to such a degree, it wouldn't be a problem.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by runderwo on April 14, 2006 at 00:26:59 PT
Had Enough
http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htmVolcanoes cause sulfuric acid (not CFCs) to be formed in the upper atmosphere, which is a greenhouse compound, but also causes incoming solar energy to be scattered. So volcanoes have little net effect on the climate inside the 'greenhouse', though they do emit quite a bit of material even compared to total human output.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 19:00:38 PT
Link To Harp Magazine Article
https://www.harpmagazine.com/news/detail.cfm?article=10623
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 18:58:11 PT
Toker00
I have been following these strange threads on the Rust List. The rumor has been that Neil made a protest album with a choir of 100 people. If this is really true Neil must be on a serious mission to risk doing something like this now. Here is an article from Harp Magazine. Could it be like Ohio? ***Neil Young to Announces New Album...And It's Already FinishedKatherine SilkaitisApril 13, 2006 It wasn’t too long ago that Harp’s own Jaan Uhelszki interviewed Neil Young and filmmaker Jonathan Demme at this year’s South by Southwest conference back in March. When SXSW Managing Director Roland Swenson opened the keynote interview, he never could have imagined how prophetic his statement "Neil, we need a new song" would be. Why? Because Young has done just that, and then some.Demme, who filmed the award-winning documentary Neil Young: Heart of Gold, writes in an e-mail, “Neil just finished writing and recording – with no warning – a new album called Life in War. It all happened in three days.” How rock ‘n ‘roll is that?Demme continues, “It is a brilliant electric assault, accompanied by a 100-voice choir, on Bush and the war in Iraq…Truly mind blowing. Will be in stores soon.”Details are pretty scarce, but the featured track, titled “Impeach the President,” features a rap with Bush’s voice set to the choir chanting “flip/flop” and the like.Another Article: http://www.jambase.com/headsup.asp?storyID=8330
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by Toker00 on April 13, 2006 at 15:37:51 PT
You know, whig,
it's funny. Those articles you posted about the Christian Coalition. They were so going to spank America for Clinton's sexcapade, that they didn't even realize they had elected the Anti-Christ-Like. But that's what they've done. Even Disobedient Christians have to revert back to being Obedient Christains, (Muslims, Hindus, etc.) for this "recognition/ awakening, of Truth" to happen on the scale it will have to happen for World Peace. We've all been led astray by the Laws and Minds of Man. I realize others are "finding" Truth, but I still feel we have not been "found" by the majority of those who work in the name of Truth, or Christ. They still believe Cannabis is bad. And that we, as cannabis users, are dangerous to their children. Because they were afraid to break Man's Law, in order to benefit from the Creator's Law, they demonize us. I want to go to a "Church" and profess my acceptance of Cannabis as Meat. Would I be arrested? Ran off and beaten? Or would they "Find" me, and embrace me as a fellow child of the Creator? Those are the "Christians" I am concerned with "Finding". Because they are the ones who have voted these Anti-Truth-Like Deceivers into office to protect themselves from US.I am still weak from my recent ordeal, but my Spirit is on Fire. We have SOOO many people to spring from the jaws of Prison. From the homeless shelters. From the women's shelters. From the Children's Protection Service. From the Schools of Lies. And from the Pathway to Hell. Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by Had Enough on April 13, 2006 at 14:17:54 PT
On Global Warming
Not sure of the validity of it. When the Montreal Protocol Agreement was being pushed, I remember a few things that were happening, and others things that were being overlooked.A small group of scientist was saying that jumping to conclusions without solid facts is wrong. They had sensors set up around different volcanoes, in various parts of the world. Part of the conclusion was, just one volcano eruption, released a large amount of CFC’s in the atmosphere. Another conclusion they had was we have been in a global warming stage since the ice age, with varying cycles, of cooling and warming, but the long term cycle remained in a warming trend.When the Montreal Protocol Agreement (MPA) was shoved a little harder, large companies started gearing up to cash in. The cost to the industries using CFC’s doubled almost overnight.When I mention CFC’s I’m talking about supermarkets, air conditioning – residential, commercial, and automotive. The cost of these things is in some cases are 10 times the amount they were before the MPA.I remember those pushing MPA made statements like “We have to do this immediately, we can’t wait for science. It might already be too late now” also I remember, “Whatever we do now will take 50 yrs to make a difference” meaning it takes 50 yrs for CFC’s released today to reach the ozone layer. Well about a year and a half, maybe two, after the MPA was enforced the Space Shuttle took samples of different layers of the atmosphere on one of its missions. CFC levels were down, and the pushers were saying, “See our efforts are already working.” Well now, they were either lying when they said it would take 50 yrs to tell the difference, or they were lying about, “See it’s already working”. Since then big business has really cashed in on this. When you buy something that needs refrigerated, or if you use your Air Conditioner, or any thing else, with refrigeration properties, you are paying the profits; the companies took of the table and put in their pockets. They loved it, and still do.Meanwhile this small group of scientist gave up the battle. Their data was pooh-poohed, ignored, and sometimes the reputations of these scientists were questioned. So they gave it up.The media stepped right up to the plate with this issue, almost every thing you saw in the mainstream was, and “The Sky is Falling”.Now if we are destroying the air we breathe, something must be done. But since this is still controversial, I suggest we reduce our consumption in a more stable continuous way, rather than through knee-jerk reactions, that allows big business and big government to cash in. How about Hemp Seed Oil. A transition from fossil fuel to bio-fuel will have to be done in the future, one way or another. Let’s do it. As they say, “We can’t wait any longer, it might already be too late”, or “Just in case” or, “It will take 50yrs for the effects to show up, this is imperative”. Use the same rhetoric on them to allow Hemp Farming again.Common Sense tells me that if we weren’t in a global warming stage, we would still be living in the Ice Age.Common Sense tells me that the double talk about the 50 yr theory might be hiding flaws.Common Sense tells me that if Corporate America is for it, it means their bottom line will be bigger.Common Sense tells me that when the government gets involved, the cost will go up, and Corporations will have their way with the bureaucrats.The hole truth about CFCshttp://www.sepp.org/ozone/holetruth.htmlConclusions
We may conclude from our first-ever three-dimensional assessment detects the effect of the MPA on atmospheric ozone but shows that CFCs do not play a major role in the observed recent variations of total ozone. …….
http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/SPARC2000_new/PosterSess3/Session3_4/Egorova/egorova.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by sam adams on April 13, 2006 at 14:14:45 PT
warming
Sometimes things can be made too complicated. If you look at graph of CO2 levels in the atmosphere since 1900 and worldwide temperature since 1900, the two lines move in almost perfect synchronicity - upwards. Upwards FAST since the 1970s.If that's not enough, then perhaps the massive Arctic sea ice meltoff that has occured quite literally in the last 2-3 years? The glaciers all over Earth that are melting, also in perfect sync with rising CO2 levels? No doubt there will still be disbelievers when Florida is underwater and we're all starving to death. I predict that in just a few years, maybe five, most scientific efforts will be focussing on ways to cool the Earth back down, and fast. It's possible that the worst damage of all will be done by us, trying to fix the problem. We won't have any choice when the coastal flooding, droughts, and famines begin. We'll be talking about months of survival remaining for the human race, not decades or centuries.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by runderwo on April 13, 2006 at 11:48:12 PT
global warming
Be careful. The science behind human-caused global warming is shaky at best. It relies on a chain of two correlations; the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature in ice core samples, and the correlation between human industrial activity and CO2 levels. For a while, another correlation was occurring, that of current high CO2 levels and global temperature. But we have actually been in a local cooling trend since 1998.Some things to think about.There are alternative explanations for the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature that involve the CO2 that is dissolved in the oceans as well as ocean life which thrives at high temperature and produces abundant CO2. It may be that high atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a byproduct of a warming trend provoked by other means.Industrial pollution used to be a mix of CO2 and particulate matter. While CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas, the particulate matter may have contributed significantly to blocking solar energy from entering the greenhouse. We have cleaned up industrial pollution but not found a way to manage carbon emission, so now more energy is entering the greenhouse. Solution: use an aerosol of some kind to reduce the amount of solar energy coming in?Some have speculated that according to historical record, we should be entering an ice age currently, but human activity creating a greenhouse has prevented that from happening.There aren't any foregone conclusions in this area. Beware of relying on computer simulations and consensus science, because they are easily subverted.The safest policy is to reduce individual energy consumption and/or reduce the current rate of overpopulation. We cannot both continue to reproduce at the current rate and reduce energy consumption, because people will simply die. We are dependent on energy in the West for convenience and luxury, but people are dependent on it for life in the developing world.My thoughts on the matter is that a couple should produce no more than two children and adopt any more that they want. This would hold the population constant at worst. Strangely, I've been accused of eugenics by holding this opinion, even though I think it should be a voluntary "good world citizen" thing to do, like recycling and turning off the lights when you leave. You could give strong tax incentives to people for producing only 0, 1, or 2 children.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 10:26:22 PT
kaptinemo 
I know what you are saying. I am just glad that because of who he is that he is speaking out like he has been. They talked about him at the Sundance Film Festival and he got nothing but praise. They said he up and moved to the left. Maybe if he doesn't change his mission might serve a good purpose. I don't have faith in any politicians but they are in charge at this point in time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by kaptinemo on April 13, 2006 at 10:18:18 PT:
FoM, it's more like what Kennedy may have done
JFK was no saint (anybody who'd cheat on that gorgeous, smart, sensitive Jackie was a *worm* as far as I am concerned!) but he was more loyal to this country than TO HIS CLASS. For which, I will believe to my dying day, was the reason for his assassination.IN RE: Al Gore; IMHO, given his past and continuing affiliations with the very industry blamed for global warming, he's probably being opportunistic; there's a rumor that he knew in 2000 how badly the dirty tricks like what ENRON was pulling was going to cause the economy to go into a tailspin, and said that he rejected the Presidency because he wanted Bush to get 'Hoovered', as in Herbert Hoover, the President who presided over the beginning of the Great Depression, whose name became synonymous with failure. The Gore family has, since the beginning of the last century, been the handmaidens of the oil companies. Hence my distrust. The words 'Judas goat' come to my mind when I hear him talking about the environment. Yes, it's a problem, but I'd sooner hear from people like environmental scientist David Suzuki from Canada before I'd believe Mr. Gore. Dr. Suzuki has only the level of involvement we all do, as denizens of this planet; Mr. Gore is maybe running on less altruistic motives; given those affiliations I mentioned, I can be excused for my skepticism...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by whig on April 13, 2006 at 09:52:11 PT
Toker00
We are lost but are about to be found.You have been found.Keep on finding more of us.That's what we're all doing now.We are finding one another.Don't you see? Here we are.It's the show. Now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 09:46:25 PT
kaptinemo 
Food for thought. What if he has stock in that company because sometimes it's better to know your enemy? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by kaptinemo on April 13, 2006 at 09:41:54 PT:
I saw the trailer
And I have to say I'm impressed...but.Many of the really long term members of CNEWS will recall I pointed out that Al Gore is a significant holder of Occidental Petroleum oil stock. For the curious, may I offer:http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/01/21/gore_cpi/print.htmlhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38c809001b91.htmGlobal warming is, as far as I am concerned, largely - literally! - fueled by the hydrocarbon technology that people like him and his super rich elite brethren have deliberately addicted this planet to in order to maintain their power base.The message is true...but I wouldn't trust the messenger further than half the distance I can spit...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by Toker00 on April 13, 2006 at 09:36:56 PT
But they don't get it yet, Kap.
'continuance of government'?No, no, no, no, NO!!'CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT'!From Man's Law to God's Law. From Artificial Law to Natural Law. It's so sad. We are on a dirt ball hurtling through space and time while spinning around and tilting and pulsating along with other dirt balls hurtling in their own circles and spins, around a Huge Ball Of Fire. Look out to the heavens. God gave us ALL of that. ALL of it. And we can't even appreciate this wonderful blue ball we call earth. We can't even appreciate the miracle mystery of being human. Why did we ever ask to know? Why couldn't we just be satisfied with the wisdom of creation? We fight and kill to conquer and control what God has already made ours from the beginning. We are lost but are about to be found.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 08:25:58 PT
siege
When I watched China Rising some of their workers have been down sized. How much lower in wages can it go? The pollution in China will kill the land they implied. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 08:22:06 PT
kaptinemo
Check out the trailer.'An Inconvenient Truth'Starring: Al GoreDirector: Davis GuggenheimOpens: May 26, 2006What the Movie's About: This captivating documentary chronicles former Vice President Al Gore's career-long crusade to raise awareness about -- and stem the tide of -- the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming.Here's the Buzz: The positive hype surrounding 'Truth' has caused something other than the climate to heat up, namely Gore's political career. Although Gore officially retired from politics in 2000, pundits are already speculating that the ex-Veep could ride the film's coattails into the 2008 Presidential race. Nothing 'Inconvenient' about that.Trailer: http://movies.aol.com/movie_exclusive_an_inconvenient_truth
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by kaptinemo on April 13, 2006 at 08:08:58 PT:
FoM, you've hit a number of nails squarely
But I fear there's a much larger series of problems coming right at us. Onlya few are able to see the storm clouds for what they are. And as usual, they are 'voices crying in the wilderness' and won't be listened to until it's too late.There are a number of things happening, all at once, some man-made, and others as reactions to what Humanity has done to this planet. As far back as the early 1970's there were studies commissioned by the CIA and done by the RAND corporation about the effects of climate change on Earth and how it will affect human societies. The results of those studies were made public in the late 1970's in a book entitled "The Weather Conspiracy" and they were bloody scary...especially when you realize WE ARE NOW LIVING WITH THOSE PREDICTED RESULTS. 'Resource wars' (oil now; food & water later), Superstorms (Katrina and Rita) and the chaos caused by their destructiveness leading to social breakdown (New Orleans), Increasingly repressive government resulting from such breakdowns (effective martial law in NOLA), etc. I keep telling people that between that and the tendency of government to become tyrannical at its' first opportunity (PATRIOT Act) that society as we know it will be indistinguishable from the Soviet form in a few years. Add an economic meltdown, and we have a recipe for a real 'dog's breakfast' of a future. The only good thing that might result from this is people learning to stand on their own again, and tell Gub'mint where to go (hint: it's very, VERY hot there) when it tries to re-insert itself into their lives after things blow up...which is why the USG seems so intent upon 'continuance of government' even at the expense of the vast majority of its' citizen's lives.Such a future would have no need of a DrugWar...or DrugWarriors. Who might find at best a chilly reception after they crawl out of their bunkers and try to re-assert their dominance, and at worst...well, IMHO, just like Jefferson said, a little revolution every generation or two might be a healthy thing...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by siege on April 13, 2006 at 08:08:15 PT
Stocks
what I have heard is that the ( stock market crash on 9-11- ) a frined of mine is a broker, he has avise that I put the funs some place other then there. this is the big thing about { social security } and Bush trying to support or assistance, assume he has an agenda and covers it up. Just look at the way it drops out ever few days. that is the 2nd time I lost there, in total there was 12 blocks Gone on 9,11. No more 
 stock market for me... I have made a lot back, by in and out the same day. commodities you can make funs and can lose your donkey there also, have learn a lot about them since 9,11. it is working out well so far. with commodties you have to go back for a few years in the papers and work it out, and have to hold them at times. China had a drug war at one time and killed a lot of people and found out they where wrong, and the U S is doing the same, and have not learned the passed from the world...
Bush: if I can't kill you, then you will work for free, sweatshop For the govt.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by FoM on April 13, 2006 at 07:21:21 PT
kaptinemo
I agree that our government is in debt beyond belief. I guess I feel all they'll do is print more money. We don't have a gold standard anymore. I watched a program called China Rising and it shows the problems of a rapidly growing country. One of the problems they are having is food. They have cut trees down and ruined fertile land and some of the land is returning to desert. We think we are such a mighty nation. We are nothing anymore compared to some countries as far as economic growth goes. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by kaptinemo on April 13, 2006 at 04:05:24 PT:
FoM, a partial answer
But not one that will be satisfying to most, because of its dire consequences.The US economy is on the ropes, 9 Trillion dollars in debt to foreigners who *have historical reason to hate us*. Namely, China and Japan. They are very worried about our spendthrift ways vis-à-vis the Iraq War and now saber-rattling at Iran, and are tired of their investments experiencing continued devaluation as our dollar sinks lower in value against other currencies. If they pull out of our economy, it'll be Weimar Republic Germany here, with paper money having less value than toilet paper...and being used for such.As to what that means for drug law reform? A government that is strapped for cash *cannot afford to blow it on chasing 'potheads'*. It's that simple. The only reason why many States are releasing their drug offenders is that they, much sooner than the Feds are feeling the pinch in their budgets, taking a hard look at their budget sheets, see the red ink rising, and must cut back their spending. (And I will keep asking this question, and I hope others will ask this of their legislators: IF THOSE PEOPLE WERE SAFE ENOUGH TO BE RELEASED, WHY DID WE WASTE THE MONEY TO LOCK THEM UP AT ALL?)But Uncle is like a drunk who had an unlimited supply of booze for so long he thinks it's the norm, and when things get tight, he still thinks the hooch will flow. It's inertia, and on the day the stock market crashes, you'll see Uncle sober up real quick. There will be calls to drastically cut spending, and only budget for absolute necessities. Which the DrugWar certainly is not. It was a convenient foil for a long time, a handy boogeyman to scare soccer moms with to get more toys for Gub'mint types to use against their own people, but those times will come to a screeching halt when the reality of a bankrupt Treasury becomes plain to even the dimmest citizen. Like I said, the likely future is not pretty. But reason and logical argument has not ended the DrugWar. Again, it's policy inertia. "We've always done it this way" is the usual refrain. But when you *can't afford* to keep 'doing it this way' (just as our Grandparents learned with alcohol Prohibition in the Great Depression) then and only then are the voices of reason listened to and followed. It's been my experience that the Gub'mint mule MUST get whacked between the eyes with the 2x4 before it pays attention to what it could have taken care of with minimal effort and fuss if it had been smart to begin with.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by afterburner on April 12, 2006 at 23:28:38 PT
MM Good
{"Nonetheless, we should not measure our freedom by the length of our leashes. Ultimately, we own our own bodies and souls or we are the property of the state."} Top Story: Medical Marijuana Endgame: "‘So go ahead and die.’ That would be all right?" "Congress has made that value judgment." Not Really, But The Bush Administration Has. The American People Have Not!
http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=894
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #34 posted by FoM on April 12, 2006 at 21:24:44 PT

ACLU Freedom Files: Drug War: Coming in July
Drug Wars: July 15th - Court TV and July 13th - Link TV***After decades of the "war on drugs," with its draconian criminal prohibitions and intensive law enforcement, drugs are more available than ever. This episode of The ACLU Freedom Files will focus on the war's unintended consequences—urban violence, the imprisonment of innocents, and families destroyed by irrational sentences—and show the suffering that has resulted from the suppression of valuable research.Guilty for Being BlackIn the town of Hearne, Texas, 15% of the young African American men were arrested on drug charges in 2000, based on the word of one unreliable informant. Many were intimidated into pleading guilty and are still in jail, despite the fact that the charges were dropped.Science StifledA woman whose terrible seizures were helped by marijuana got a license from the state of California to grow it. Nevertheless, the federal government raided her farm and arrested her and her husband. Meanwhile, doctors who want to recommend cannabis to patients with terminal cancer and AIDS are forbidden from doing so, while scientists are prevented from studying the health benefits of drugs.Our Newest OrphansThe Lomax sisters know firsthand the effects of mandatory minimum sentences. Their mother was sentenced to 27 years in prison for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, although no drugs were ever found on her. Left without a mother, these children are just three of the millions of orphans of the drug war.Spread the WordBecome part of the movement to protect civil liberties! Join millions of viewers who are watching The ACLU Freedom Files. To help get the message out and receive a free DVD, join the Freedom Files Producers Club: All you have to do is organize a screening or spread the word about the programs via email or the Web.http://www.aclu.tv/episodes/drugwars?PHPSESSID=eb34c23df3f2968dffcb9adc5818334d
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #33 posted by John Tyler on April 12, 2006 at 20:58:17 PT

busted
We recently had a story in our newspaper about some people getting busted over the last few months at our airport for a little cannabis in their luggage or on their person. The interesting thing about this is that, it wasn’t young adults. It was older adults in the 40 to 70-age range. One guy was going on a mountain vacation with friends and wanted to relive some old times. One lady was going to a Stones concert out of town. One said it was for medicinal reasons. Some didn’t realize it was left in the bag in the first place, etc.,etc. These were just regular folks that just like to smoke a little bit of cannabis once in awhile. They are not criminals and their possession and use cannabis should not be a criminal act.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #32 posted by mayan on April 12, 2006 at 18:17:28 PT

Do or Die
I have to agree with Kap'n. RepubliCrats will never represent us. I believe both parties conspired long ago to make the prohibition of cannabis the very foundation of the U.S. economy. That is why they will not give an inch in regards to cannabis law reform. Exposing the 9/11 inside job is the surest way to expose the criminals in both parties and bring about the rise of third parties, which are our only hope. Can we expose them before another "terror attack" dwarfs 9/11? That is the big question. It's do or die, for if there is another attack all freedom is lost. The neo-cons are going for all the marbles and they must invade Iran or the whole PNAC agenda falls apart. The thing is, Bush has zero credibility and Americans aren't ready for another war. Besides that, we don't have the military to invade a mountainous country three times the size of Iraq whose military hasn't been decimated. How will the war mongers get both soldiers and support? The next attack will likely make 9/11 look like child's play. They will make everyone once again think, "Our government would never do that to it's own people." They did it once, they can do it again. The Fraud of 9/11: Unfinished Business:
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060410222017325
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #31 posted by goneposthole on April 12, 2006 at 17:41:36 PT

kill them with kindness
Abu Ghraib photos, the Iranians enrich uranium, China keeps shipping shoddy goods, America continues to go deeper in debt, politicians don't know when to stop taking bribes (Duke Cunningham), migrant workers from Mexico march by the hundreds of thousands (real Americans, they have the cojones to do something about their plight), monthly living expenses double, the economy is in the doldrums (Ford and GM are weakening day by day), gold has more than doubled in price since the year 1999 or so, gasoline is 2.699/gallon, on and on, ad nauseum.The Republicans have been doing a heckuva job. They've got the power. That's all they've got. You would think they would have the brains to do things honestly, but they don't. They wouldn't have us in the pickle we're in if they did.The one thing they can't do? Have a drug free America. They can't do it and they never will be able to do it.It can't be done. Smoke some cannabis.'Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose'
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #30 posted by Sam Adams on April 12, 2006 at 17:07:22 PT

how long do we have to wait?
I don't know the answer but, as Bob Marley said, "The more man smoke herb, the more Babylon fall"
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #29 posted by global_warming on April 12, 2006 at 16:50:24 PT

and Freedom
stands on the head of Life
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #28 posted by global_warming on April 12, 2006 at 16:45:30 PT

Life is more potent
And everlasting LifeBelongs in the eternal Night sky,
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #27 posted by runderwo on April 12, 2006 at 16:26:05 PT

more potent
"The Murkowski administration insists marijuana is a different drug now than it was in the 1970s and 1980s.OK, they've added 1980s to their claim, but the testing data they always cite is from the 1970s. Reliable data starts in 1980:http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/hemp/general/mjmyth/Exposing_02_1095.htmlIf marijuana today is 10 times more potent than in the 1980s, it contains 30% THC. Where can I get some?"The bill says marijuana's psychoactive ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, is far more potent and dangerous today, especially for young people."No, in fact the THC in marijuana is the same THC it's always been. Are we trying to legislate facts?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #26 posted by global_warming on April 12, 2006 at 15:59:55 PT

re: comment 22
This sounds like a prison to me, someone who is caught in between, his choices both end up in some prison state of mind and futile existence.Can all these human beings on this planet agree that this is the place that mankind has wrought, is this what scholars in the future must understand?I hope that everybody on this planet can inhale that balm for the 'mind, that blessed revelation, that sits in front of your eyes, as you wonder, about 'eternity, have a gentle hand, as you witness, this world, and the many 'worlds that have given birth to the eyes that behold the Light in this 'Night.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #25 posted by FoM on April 12, 2006 at 15:51:05 PT

kaptinemo
I understand what you saying. I don't think either party cares much about marijuana issues. I do believe the only chance we have to see social change is with the Democrats. That is why as far as any hope goes we must make sure that the Republicans don't get any more power or I'm afraid we all are doomed and no progress will be made for many years to come. How long do we have to wait?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #24 posted by LarryH on April 12, 2006 at 15:14:50 PT:

As long as
the big pharmacutical giants, ( the REAL drug pushers ), the alcohol and tobacco industries are sending tons of money to politicians, I don't think "what the people want or say" has any effect on them. Our system is corrupt with a capital C. IMHO 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #23 posted by charmed quark on April 12, 2006 at 14:52:02 PT

Drug Wars
Clinton ramped up the drug war. While I really didn't want Bush to win, the silver lining was that he said medical marijuana was a states' right issue and he would respect their decisions. At the time I belived him as the party had been pushing states' rights for a number of years. And I felt the Democrats didn't have enough "political capital" in that area ( fighting a soft on drugs image) to do anything positive.We all know what happened - bed ridden MS patients cuffed to their beds.So I don't know what to think anymore.My main concern is medical cannabis. But as Cowan said recently, such laws tend to amount to nothing more than bad loopholes in bad laws.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #22 posted by kaptinemo on April 12, 2006 at 14:51:37 PT:

The Dems had their chance in 2004
Many of you were here when it became clear that Kerry, not Kucinich, got the nod from the Dem 'leadership' and it was mentioned here on an almost continual basis that with a voting bloc tens if not SCORES of millions strong, the drug law reform vote could overcome any voting machine chicanery.Almost immdiately after that, the Kerry Website was bombarded with reformers offering their votes if the issue would finally be taken seriously for the incredibly important matter it was. The "Miscellaneous' section contained more postings than all the others, and those from reformers. The writing was on the wall in big block letters 5 stories high and in neon orange paint - if Dems supported reform, they'd win.They didn't support reform. They dismissed the offers for help with chirpy vacuousness more suitable for patting 'developmentally challenged' children on the head, with a reminder to not forget 'to vote for Kerry!'. I knew when Kucinich didn't get the nomination that we would be doomed to more Republican rule, for the Dems were simply too castrated to risk the controversy such a move would have created (Kucinich was the most vocal of all the contenders in favor of reform). They are so timid, so frightened of their own shadows, so craven, that they were afraid to extend an olive branch to those who would have seen to it they would have tasted sweet victory. Instead, they taste nothing but ashes. The social effects of drug law reform are so incredibly wide reaching and deep that they affect every aspect of society. A return to the kind of freedoms our grandparents had with regards to drug law reform would have ramification far outside the immediate one of not being hounded/arrested/shot for engaging in behavior that harms no one, not even yourself. Such freedom is infectious, for it penetrates more than the moment, but echoes onwards.But such freedom is anathema to the minions of The State, for it returns the power back where it belongs, and takes it from the hands of those whose agendas require it being wielded over your head like a club. I mean, what if the plebs (that's you and me, folks) might get it into their heads that they want other freedoms back...like determining how their tax dollars get spent! The Republicans have pawned their ideological souls to the Devil. The Dems tried, but the Repubs offered ol' Lucifer a sweeter deal. Both parties deserve no further chances. It would take an iron clad contract of enormous punitive potential for breaking it on the part of the Dems to deal forthrightly with the drug law reform issue before I'd ever recommend supporting them again. By refusing to hear us out, they lived up to the reputation of their mascot, and I'm through dealing with asses.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #21 posted by lombar on April 12, 2006 at 14:06:53 PT

This must have been through here...
but if not...(excerpted)Key findings include:-Of the 450,000 increase in drug arrests during the period 1990-2002, 82% of the growth was for marijuana, and 79% was for marijuana possession alone;-Marijuana arrests now constitute nearly half (45%) of the 1.5 million drug arrests annually;-Few marijuana arrests are for serious offending: of the 734,000 marijuana arrests in 2000, only 41,000 (6%) resulted in a felony conviction;-Marijuana arrests increased by 113% between 1990 and 2002, while overall arrests decreased by 3%;-New York City experienced an 882% growth in marijuana arrests, including an increase of 2,461% for possession offenses;-African Americans are disproportionately affected by marijuana arrests, representing 14% of marijuana users in the general population, but 30% of arrests;-One-third of persons convicted for a marijuana felony in state court are sentenced to prison;-One in four persons in prison for a marijuana offense an estimated 6,600 persons can be classified as a low-level offender;-An estimated $4 billion is spent annually on the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of marijuana offenders.The findings in this report call for a national discussion regarding the zealous prosecution of marijuana use and its consequences for allocation of criminal justice resources and public safety. Law enforcement has focused disproportionately on low-level possession charges as a result of the nation's lack of a thoughtful strategy about how best to address the consequences of marijuana use. Consequently, police spend a significant amount of time arresting marijuana users, many of whom do not merit being charged in court. This diverts efforts away from more significant criminal activity while having no appreciable impact on marijuana cost, availability, or use. As state and federal resources become more limited, a rational consideration of the most efficient way to address marijuana use is critical; this discussion should take place outside the realm of political rhetoric. The findings in this study can inform that conversation with sound, empirical analysis of more than a decade's worth of data on the criminal justice system's treatment of marijuana offenders.(snipped)
The war on marijuana: The transformation of the war on drugs in the 1990s
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #20 posted by FoM on April 12, 2006 at 13:28:18 PT

Sam
I spent the first twelve years of my life in a well to do new suburban development. I don't remember disharmony. I was raised Roman Catholic and my one close friend was a Lutheran. No one was offended by anyone else. It was good. Then we moved to the country. I love being alone with my horses, dogs and nature surrounding me. That was my hope for my life that I would be able to live out far away from the hustle and bustle of the city so I could connect with what made me tick. Why is the city or suburbs or country and either or issue? It's like why is one place better or worse then the other?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #19 posted by FoM on April 12, 2006 at 13:13:15 PT

Sam
I have always thought that drug policy reformers were either libertarian or republican. They seem like they are from that type of political belief. I don't think they talk about what they are but I just feel they act like they are on the right side of politics not necessarily the correct side just the right side. I had to add that. LOL!

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #18 posted by Sam Adams on April 12, 2006 at 13:03:54 PT

Soros
sorry about so many posts, my cup is running over here. But I wanted to say yes, of course I understand what Soros is doing with his money. His whole political philosophy is driven by his family's experience at the hands of the Nazis (something conveniently forgotton by the right-wing antis when they're routinely slandering him). Bush stands for exactly what Soros is trying to fight against.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #17 posted by Sam Adams on April 12, 2006 at 13:01:37 PT

reagan
yeah, I voted for him too! I didn't understand anything though, it was my first vote. I grew up totally sheltered in a affluent suburban town. I'd never had any friends who weren't just like me. I was totally clueless about a lot of things.Most cities are massively liberal politically. New York state is Democratic overall, but not by much. Within New York city, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 5 to 1! That says a lot. It's hard to be hateful & fearful of other people when you're living right in with 10 million of them. Above you, below you, next to you, on the sidewalks, at work. Out in the suburbs, you don't see the other people. Suburbs breed intolerance. Everyone is off in their own little castle. I think the move to suburbs by most people is driving intolerance. Nobody in NYC sues their neighbor's kid for bouncing a basketball too loudly.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #16 posted by Sam Adams on April 12, 2006 at 12:57:23 PT

Hmmmm
My impression of DPA is that they're all Democrats, down to the last intern and office aide. I know Rob Kampia at MPP is a Libertarian.  But MPP certainly works with Democrats and Republicans.  My main beef is not with any party but with our election system. I don't know what it is, but it's not even close to fair representation. If 4% of the country votes for the Green Party, then 4% of the seats in Congress should go to the Green Party.If a candidate doesn't win 50% of the vote, then run-off elections should continue, narrowing the field until someone gets 50%. In primaries and general elections.It's very simple, this isn't rocket science, this is grade-school stuff. If the 2 changes above happened, we would find out very quickly that we are NOT a 2-party, red-blue country at all. We are a huge diversity of opinions and attitudes. These changes are hardly radical, they're the norm in most other "Democratic" countries. Even in places like the Ukraine and Israel. Germany. the list goes on and on. But here we are with our oceans, and the masses glued to the TV and Walmart. Europe may not even exist as far as most Americans are concerned. United We Stand baby!What's even more interesting is that most other countries routinely change the way elections & governments are formed. We seem to mired in status quo-ism. Nobody wants to reform anything, it's too easy to use your vast fortune to just buy what you want.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #15 posted by afterburner on April 12, 2006 at 12:54:48 PT

Safer-way
a marijuana section
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on April 12, 2006 at 11:43:29 PT

Sam 
I understand why Soros is putting more money into getting Bush out of power. Since the invasion of Iraq it has taken high priority. Unless I am wrong most of the people in drug policy reform are libertarians or republicans so I would direct my money for the time being into an area of more importance. They are on the same side as Bush you see? I don't know how to separate it.Fighting against Clinton's drug policy was right at the time I think.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #13 posted by FoM on April 12, 2006 at 11:08:30 PT

Sam
I think people believed the Hollywood image of Reagan. I am not proud that I voted for him but I thought he was a movie star and knew how things should be and he would let cannabis be legalized. I've now shaken my memory and Reagan and Kerry are the only two people I ever voted for. I thought maybe I voted one more time but I didn't vote but twice. I was wrong about Reagan and Kerry never had a chance. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #12 posted by Sam Adams on April 12, 2006 at 11:00:29 PT

el presidente
FOM you're right, Gore and Kerry almost won (maybe they did actually win), while Reagan totally wiped out his foes in a landslide.Ah yes, Reagan, the Republican who stuck to "weekend wars". I can't believe I actually miss anything from the Reagan years. But he did at least pick fights (Grenada, Panama, etc) that would be over in a couple of days.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #11 posted by konagold on April 12, 2006 at 10:46:28 PT:

high potency myth
AlohaI wish that some Alaskan would publicly challenge this rhetoric that pot is so much more potent than 30 years ago.30 years ago or even two thousand years ago high THC hashish was readily available, so the idea that better breeding has made available a 'new' drug is simply political balderdash.Aloha
Rev. Dennis Shields
 
http://thereligionofjesuschurch.org
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on April 12, 2006 at 10:36:35 PT

Sam
You mentioned Kerry and Gore making the rounds. Kerry and Gore might have been the President if the elections had been legitimate. Nixon lost and then won.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #9 posted by Sam Adams on April 12, 2006 at 10:30:14 PT

Democrats
I do hope the Democrats can take over again, but I'm afraid that we not see much progress on civil liberties if they do. It was Clinton who attacked the free speech of doctors in California over medical MJ. He did, however, prevent attacks on dispensaries. But maybe that would have changed had Gore won.I had an interesting revelation recently. Someone was telling me not to expect a whole lot of drug policy progress in the next few years. Why? Because George Soros and other left-leaning donors are sending all money toward getting Bush out of the White House. i.e., donating toward Democratic campaigns instead of MPP, Drug Policy Alliance, etc.So look at it from the DNC's point of view. Clinton is in office. George Soros gives big bucks to MPP and DPA, specifically to fight AGAINST Democratic drug policy.Now, Bush is in office. Soros takes the money AWAY from MPP and DPA, and gives big bucks directly to the DNC for 8 years running, trying to get Bush out.So, does the DNC really hate the fact that Bush is in the White House, or not? Do they really, really, want to take that White House back? Follow the money. A crazy right-wing president is the perfect foil for them. All they have to do is sit back & relax while all the liberals throw money at them.Obviously no one knows for sure, I'm just trying to fit all the pieces together. Trying to guess why they picked Kerry, somone who is barely able to get elected in the most Democratic state in the US, when they had a bonified military General war hero to run against Bush & Cheney.I'm trying to figure out why Kerry & Gore continued to make the rounds after losing. In the Reagan years, they used to whisk the losers away for a good 5 years after the election. Now it's more like some brand that they've invested in marketing. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #8 posted by Had Enough on April 12, 2006 at 10:16:27 PT

Comment #6
“It's not the laws that need scrutiny
It's the people who hold the government positions who are content at imposing their will on others.”Precisely accurate. We have a great and powerful country. To my knowledge, we are the only country that has to build fences to keep people out, while other countries build fences and walls to keep people in. It’s the people with saddened intents that cause the problems. These people can be voted out. Our founding fathers left that for us.Register and Vote! Vote! Vote! Take a friend with you and share the ride. Maybe stop at the local Burger Doodle on the way home for some Freedom Fries.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #7 posted by whig on April 12, 2006 at 09:56:51 PT

FoM
While I abstain from direct engagement with the political system, I fully agree that the Republican Party has become immensely destructive and is in need of having all power stripped from them as quickly as possible. With that said, however, I do not trust the Democratic Party to behave well with regard to our rights either. So I can understand and appreciate that those who choose to engage should do so in a way that is politically efficient, which presently means voting for Democrats, but I cannot turn myself to do this expedient thing without sacrificing an important principle that I cannot do or authorize non-defensive violence, even if of a lesser scope.Someone wrote an essay yesterday which I think puts this in a context that might make my perspective more clear.http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan154.html"Picture yourself wandering into a hall within which a large, all-male crowd has assembled, each man present anxious to argue his position on the subject of wife beating. Some attendees defend their right to beat their spouse whenever she has been annoying. Others regard that stance as too permissive, asserting that wives should only be assaulted over more important matters such as, for example, family finances. Yet a third faction holds that spousal abuse is only justified in the most vital cases and only if no less onerous means can guarantee the desirable outcome: for instance, when one’s wife will not contribute as much as one believes she ought to the family’s security."So what I am saying is that I am opposed to the abuse altogether. But I will still be glad to see it reduced.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #6 posted by goneposthole on April 12, 2006 at 09:49:58 PT

It's not the laws that need scrutiny
It's the people who hold the government positions who are content at imposing their will on others.Governor Murkowski et al just want to get their own way. It makes them mad when they can't. Give them all a rattle and a bottle of mother's milk.State government is there to serve Alaskans. Alaskans aren't required to serve the fickle whims of Alaskan government 'officials.' Vote them out on their ears.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #5 posted by dongenero on April 12, 2006 at 09:41:13 PT

I like that assessment whig
I think you are right.What remains to be seen is if these young, progressive thinking people will become activated in the process to promote change or will they be content to let a relatively small group of power mongers continue to take control and dictate policy that is out of step with the Constitution and the times.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by FoM on April 12, 2006 at 09:35:02 PT

whig 
In the next few years we might see Democrats in control. I know you aren't into politics and I am not either but I do see hope if we get out from under Republican control. Since Bush has been president we have watched so much hope disappear. I see that young people like those from Safer are on the right track. As far as medical marijuana I'm just am at a loss as to it's future. It is like we need to work on decriminalization city by city and state by state. Get rid of property forfeiture laws and that takes the money incentive out to chase cannabis people. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #3 posted by whig on April 12, 2006 at 09:25:45 PT

FoM
The political reform movement is absolutely dependent upon the transformation of the social environment. And in respect of the latter, cannabis is becoming increasingly accepted and prohibition rejected, especially among younger people.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #2 posted by FoM on April 12, 2006 at 08:36:52 PT

I've Been Thinking
Where is marijuana reform going? I am trying to figure out how we can win this war. I look back and see where mistakes have been made over the last 10 years or so but I also see what we have won. I wonder how we can win and how can we make those in power understand why we feel the laws are wrong and need changed?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #1 posted by Had Enough on April 12, 2006 at 07:24:09 PT

CAGW Names Gov. Murkowski Porker of the Month
Just a Reminderhttp://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9552

[ Post Comment ]






  Post Comment