Pipe Dreams: Serving Time for The Politics of Pot

Pipe Dreams: Serving Time for The Politics of Pot
Posted by CN Staff on June 14, 2006 at 13:06:27 PT
By Jennifer Merin 
Source: New York Press
New York -- Screenwriter Josh Gilbert became filmmaker Josh Gilbert when he learned his old pal, Tommy Chong, had been arrested for selling signature bongs via the Internet.“I saw it announced on the CNN crawl that Tommy Chong, my old friend and childhood hero, a guy with whom I’d collaborated on several projects, had had his house and business raided by a fully-armed SWAT team that was part of the government’s $12 million drug paraphernalia sting operation,” says Gilbert.
“It happened shortly after 9/11, which I—like many people in New York—had experienced and took very personally. I’d been watching how the Justice Department was taking advantage of that tragedy to expand its authority in ways that were intellectually and viscerally very upsetting to me. Then I saw them employing that same egregious misuse of power towards Tommy Chong, the comedian, whom they arrested because he represents counterculture. It made me fucking furious. I had to do something about it.”MERIN: Did you make the film to help Tommy or as a political statement?GILBERT: Both. I was convinced that the case—the situation, really—had to be documented. I felt this even more strongly when I found out Tommy had to withdraw from a “60 Minutes” interview because the authorities threatened to go after his wife and son. I was outraged that the government was robbing a comedian of his first amendment right to free speech. You know, at Tommy’s sentencing hearing, which was held on the second anniversary of 9/11, they even brought in Cheech and Chong’s film, Up In Smoke, to indicate that Tommy represents a threat to the children of America: a film he made 30 years ago [used] as condemning evidence.With threats against his wife and son in the air, was Tommy OK with the idea of the documentary?Yeah, he was very willing. Everyone thought it was a good thing to do. They were all completely freaked out by what was happening, and the film project became a focal point that helped them get through the calamity. I think Tommy’s not appearing on “60 Minutes” had to do with his plea—which would have him in jail for nine months. But if he didn’t accept that deal, they indicated they would go after Shelby (his wife) and Paris, his son who was responsible for running the bong factory, and push to get maximum time for all of them. The film, on the other hand, wouldn’t be out until after Tommy had done the nine months and a year of formal probation.How’d you manage to film Tommy in jail?Actually, I’d been trying to bring cameras into the jail for three months before they gave me permission. It came unexpectedly, and the way it came about is a funny story. The prison’s in the small town of Taft [California], which sits on the largest oil reserves in the contiguous United States. Taft was an oil town before it was a prison town, and they have a truly amazing oil museum that they’re rightfully very proud of. Somehow, because I was fascinated by the museum, I met the town’s former mayor, Pete Gianopulos. Pete just happens to have breakfast every day with the prison warden, and one day they decided I should be allowed to film Tommy in jail.The film’s funny and seriously informative. Did you have a formula for balancing elements?Editing was a huge challenge. We’d shot 300 hours of original footage and had all that great archival footage: great clips from the Cheech and Chong movies; TV appearances and their comedy recordings; plus news footage and featured appearances by Cheech, Jay Leno, Bill Maher, among other notable commentators. My career’s been in writing and doctoring scripts—and editing is like doing that, but you’re often using images instead of, or as well as, words. I understand the film still doesn’t have a distributor. What’s the story with that?Well, I was offered a $1.5 million deal but turned it down because, when I did the math, I realized what we’d get wouldn’t pay back our investors. I know many independent filmmakers who’ve taken distribution deals and later regretted having done so. I have a masters degree in film producing—that’s roughly equivalent to an MBA—so I knew how to figure out what a deal means in the long term. It was a hard decision, but we would have been selling off all potential future earnings from foreign rights and DVD. I just couldn’t do it.[Instead] we’re working with activist organizations advocating for marijuana policy reform that will protect patients using marijuana for medical purposes from federal arrest. More specifically, Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Alliance and Norml will screen A/K/A Tommy Chong at advocacy house parties nationwide starting July 8. There’ll be about 300 house party screenings by the end of summer. Then we’ll take the film to college campuses. We’re utilizing a grass roots—pun intended, of course—marketing approach to get the film’s message out.Do you smoke pot?Oh, yeah.Is it important to you?Yes, it is.Why?Because I hate Prozac, and I can’t function on mushrooms.Directed by Josh GilbertSource: New York Press (NY)Author: Jennifer Merin Published: Vol 19 - Issue 24 - June 14-20, 2006 Copyright: 2006 New York PressContact: themail Website: Articles & Web Site:He's Taking One Big Hit Is Your Government on Drugs Chong’s Next Movie 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #37 posted by ekim on June 15, 2006 at 20:23:06 PT
what does the spare tire say
Mass leads recall
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by ekim on June 15, 2006 at 20:14:28 PT
i hope that every one will look at this picture
of saving the youth.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by Hope on June 15, 2006 at 13:47:44 PT
Comment 32 Afterburner
Right on."Pray for Sandra."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by Hope on June 15, 2006 at 13:46:06 PT
The pain and grief
She's still in the depths of it. She's still lashing out and laying blame.That's walking into a situation that breaks my heart and I know I wouldn't be good at handling. She's rather "nuts" right now...and it's understandable and forgiven. She's hurting. The "Deceiver" this case the DEA and it's supporters are "comforting" her and using her. The problem is...she's cheerleading the very thing that, were it's mission not what it is...might have saved her son's life...had it not exhisted and drugs were truly regulated and managed for safetyThe DEA didn't save him. It doesn't save anyone.If they were an inspection and labeling bureaucracy...stories like Sandra's might have played out better in the end.Her son did those drugs because he was curious and he liked enough of the experiences to enjoy doing some of them again. The DEA didn't change that. If their mission wasn't a "War on Drugs (and possessors and users)"...perhaps he might have said, "Screw this." "Mom I need you." "Hurry".The DEA didn't keep me from trying acid the times I could have. The users description's are what made me ultimately decide that it wasn't my cup of tea. The DEA didn't stop me...or anyone. They might have destroyed a bunch of it and put people in jail and stolen their property...but they didn't stop the people who wanted to use it from getting it...or something like it...or not. They say they took some drugs off the streets...some that people won't ever use. True enough...for a moment. Then there were likely other places to "shop" for what they, the willing consumer, wanted.Somehow, the drug and cannabis prohibitionists are saying they are saving some imaginary child from drugs...obviously, not the ones they "honored" with their vigil...yet they are obviously, and truly murdering obviously real children and older people. Alberto Sepulveda. Esequiel Hernandaz, Charity Bowers. Donald Post, Veronica many.Her pain has blinded her.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by FoM on June 15, 2006 at 13:00:14 PT
That's how I feel too.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by afterburner on June 15, 2006 at 12:54:12 PT
Sandra #31 FoM
Unfortunately, grieving people not only blame themselves but also look for others to blame. The DEA capitalizes on this need by presenting Us as a convenient scapegoat. Or a pharmaceutical company responsible for a drug-induced accident will give money to help start another anti-drug advocacy group. Then, by surrounding themselves with prohibition-minded people, grieving people filter through only those facts that these groups and individuals feed them. By turning grieving people against us, prohibitionists prevent them from hearing our facts, or even our concern. Concern first. Facts later. Turn the other cheek. She knows not what she does. Pray for Sandra. Send her love. Don't try to convert her yet. She's too tender. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by FoM on June 15, 2006 at 12:27:03 PT
I wanted to mention something else. We complain that people like Sandra help those who fight us. When a person is grieving they are very needy. They are confused, hurt, blame themselves, empty and heartbroken. It is easy for someone feeling those emotions to get sucked into the drug war. Where is anyone who will reach out to those people that are shattered? Answers are what they need and honest ones too.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by Hope on June 15, 2006 at 11:28:48 PT
The DEA is behind so many unnecessary deaths and wounds.It's sad that she's aligning herself with the mad dogs at the DEA.The DEA isn't saving anybody...and it's using people like Sandra. It's a government bureaucracy...doesn't she realize what it is, and yet she still apparently trusts "it".I wonder what she's really getting out of it? Friends? Assistance? Advice on how to keep the drug war going and well funded? Lot's of advice on "fighting back" at people like us who want things to get better is one obvious thing she's getting.If she's sincere, then she's obviously the victim of some sort of Stockholm Syndrome type phenomena that effects quite a few people in this time of a War on Drugs.Kaptin, you are doing a great job in trying to pull the veil from her eyes...but I don't think she can bear it. I suspect she won't be back. If she reads your words and allows herself to understand them, many of her "foundations" will crumble to nothing. She probably isn't strong enough to endure it and get a really good look at the facts.The DEA will protect her. It "protected" her son to death. She doesn't have to really think or worry. The DEA will save her and all the other "children", too. Of course it's "good"'s the government. The government is always "good" and always "right". They always are. Aren't they?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by FoM on June 15, 2006 at 11:13:19 PT
She might not be sincere but she might be sincere. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by kaptinemo on June 15, 2006 at 11:07:40 PT:
FoM, I doubt her sincerity on medicinal cannabis
Recall who she has allied herself to: the governmental organization that seeks to eliminate medicinal cannabis in the States where it is legal. (I am purposefully avoiding using the one word I am most sorely tempted to use to describe the level of awareness that this suggests.)Does she actually think that her 'friends' in the DEA have a single shred of compassion for those whom she indirectly intimates she does? I bet the surviving members of the raid on the WAMM would not agree. This move reeks of her 'friends' coaching. And yes, as Afterburner has posited, I believe it to be a ham-handed attempt at driving that wedge he mentioned between MMJ patients and drug law reformers. Her 'friends' would like nothing better. Given the DEA's propensity for self-serving publicity stunts (and partly because, as I have mentioned countless times, the budgetary axe-men are sizing up potentail victim agencies, and with the DEA's inabilty to prove said efficacy they are at the top of the list for reductions) I am of the opinion they thought they had an excellent opportunity to try to score a 'two-fer'. Use the situation to both hold off the axe-men and try to score points off of the reform movement. Recall that this did not take place until after Pete Guither began his own counter-vigil and the media began to show interest in it. Just as with Froma Harrop's editorial calling the DrugWarriors out as a bunch of self-serving ticket punchers using the DrugWar to feather their nests elicited a rebuttal from the head of the DEA, this is a calculated move on their part to attempt to, as I put it, stifle legitimate criticism by using a grieving mother as a political human shield. It is disgusting, the very kind of tactic the prohibs claim that we use. The cast-iron cauldron is calling the white ceramic bowl 'black'. I am only pointing out the obvious.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by observer on June 15, 2006 at 09:54:55 PT
political prisoner
Serving Time for The Politics of PotOne who is "serving time" (jailed) for "politics", is, by definition, a political prisoner. But then, I suppose the fact that America is chock full o' political prisoners is really only a surprise to the ignorant, willingly or otherwise. Definitions of political prisoner :
  * someone who is imprisoned because of their political views  * A political prisoner is anyone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, because their ideas or image either challenge or pose a real or potential threat to the state. In many cases, a veneer of legality is used to disguise the fact that someone is a political prisoner. ...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by Hope on June 15, 2006 at 09:43:06 PT
I didn't get to watch.I'm not "political", but I'm not into asking any Republican for any thing, even a tv show...and we only have one TV.Besides...he loves his TV time.:0)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by Hope on June 15, 2006 at 09:40:56 PT
That's what I keep thinking, Kap...
How is putting people like Jerry in prison supposed to have saved people like her son from impure drugs?How did Esequial Hernandaz's, and Ashley Villareal's, and that sweet little Sepulveda boy's wrongful deaths do anything to save her son's life? Killing Charity and Veronica Bowers somehow saved...or nearly would have surely almost saved her son's life and surely almost will lot's of others, so we should stay involved in the tactics that cost these innocent bystanders their lives?Their death's at the hands of the Killer's she has aligned herself with are just the cost of doing a war?In my best Texana...I don't's just "too skanky" for me to get a good grip on yet.I'd like to ask her "Why?" Why do you think what you are doing is right?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by FoM on June 15, 2006 at 09:35:18 PT
Losing a child is the most painful experience that a parent can have. It's not meant to be that way. She said in the comment about alienating them as a group from the medical marijuana issue. I don't want to be a divider but a person who wants to hear what someone feels based on their own personal loss because of drugs. The dry wall contractors were here today and I asked the one person who worked on our house last year about the death of the wife of the main contractor that just happened a little while ago. I asked how he was doing and what caused the accident that killed his wife. He looked at me and said quietly that she was addicted to pain pills. There was no other car involved and she was on a straight road but the skid marks going back and forth told them she passed out at the wheel and was killed. I look at the drug issue differently then many people.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by afterburner on June 15, 2006 at 09:31:11 PT
#14 FoM 
This is how the prohibitionists divide and conquer. They play on the legitimate feelings of grieving parents to drive a wedge into the cannabis and medical cannabis reform movement. They accuse us of cynically *using* the sick and dying to "legalize" because that is how they think, speak and act. Many parents don't seem to understand that prohibition is the greatest threat to their children's safety. Their grief is too overwhelming, and they are easily manipulated by the truly cynical drug war jihadists. whig's link in VH1 Chronicles America's Drug Culture 
shows the hideous cynicism of the US government's actual involvement with dangerous addictive drugs through CIA dirty tricks funded by illegal drug promotion and sales.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by kaptinemo on June 15, 2006 at 09:23:11 PT:
FoM, I'm commenting based upon context
Speaking only for myself, based upon what I have read of her comments so far, I believe that Sandra is being coached. And not coached very well.You should read her latest repsonse to our last round of critiques; true to standard prohib tactics, she is failing to answer any of the (very pointed) criticisms that have been made of her points, preferring to use the typical 'shotgun blasts' of emotional appeals, in hope that she can make up for in sheer volume of emotionalism what she cannot provide in facts. She is making blanket statements such as "There are no drugs that can be used safely." I believe the FDA might take issue with that, as that is their (supposed) responsibility.I am well aware of her personal tragedy, but to allow yourself to be cynically used by an organiztion that is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of children like hers, some of whom were far too young to ever use any illicit drugs themselves, is passing naivete and bordering on dishonesty. It is a propaganda tactic of the foulest sort, and I am calling both her and her handlers on it; it must be exposed for what it is. The reform community has been lashed repeatedly by DrugWarriors using this cynical, underhanded tactic to tug at people's heartstrings in order to get them to forget the mountains of factual information disproving the prohibitionist's positions, in order to pressure their legislators to vote for ever more damaging legislation. It is as old a game as the original 'parent's movement' that thought it would light a fire under government anti-drug organizations, but were in turn used like toilet paper and discarded once the bureaucracy began 'gold-digging' on top of their efforts. If I seem harsh in my criticism, it is because I recall how many people, some of whom like Jerry Sisson, now reside in prison, because of atrocious, bureaucratically self-serving laws spawned from those tactics. By their premeditatively amoral use of people like Sandra, the shameless antis think they can shame us into silence, thus using a grieving mother to do their dirty work for them. This is abominable, and I will not stand silent. Not with so much at stake.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by Hope on June 15, 2006 at 09:20:00 PT
When I can, 
I want to post to Sandra.It's a very delicate situation to try to reason with a person in such awful pain.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by Hope on June 15, 2006 at 09:15:48 PT
Did that term come from people laying on roofs and leaning out over the eaves over a window to overhear private conversations.? My grandmother said that it was a big problem during prohibition. People hung around in the dark outside people's homes and listened to what they were doing.She said that the only protection in those days from that was a good dog...and those kinds of neighbors and people didn't like for people to have good watch dogs. They would get someone...or do it claim a dog was "mad" and had to be put down.She and her mother were barely able to save their "good" dog's life from such men. They started shooting at it in broad daylight...saying it was foaming at the mouth. It scurried under the house, the shooters in hot pursuit. My great-grandmother told the men the dog had hightailed it out the back to the woods. She got the dog out from under the house and took it to a friend far away from the "Listeners".Spying on whether you might be drinking or not or overhearing information about a bootlegger.Is spying on people's privacy not worse than having a drink….or twenty?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by FoM on June 15, 2006 at 09:04:28 PT
Yes it is true. Medical Cannabis can help young people. Sometimes by my being selective people don't understand what I mean. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Hope on June 15, 2006 at 09:00:09 PT
Conversation as a tool to help end the misery of drug prohibition.That's true. That wasn't originally true. We informed and comforted each other and tried to keep up with what was going on as far and wide as possible.But guess what?We're worthy of "eavesdropping".We just talk to our "eavedroppers" a lot.:0)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by Dankhank on June 15, 2006 at 08:55:13 PT
how about this ...
FoM first I misinterpreted your comment and went to find this link ...Then I understood and figured we should revisit this story ...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by FoM on June 15, 2006 at 08:15:30 PT
I am a mother and I understand the pain of mothers who have lost a child for whatever reason. I want to see the laws on Cannabis changed for medical and adult use not children. I wouldn't want an under age person to drink. There is no difference to me. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by whig on June 15, 2006 at 08:06:52 PT
One thing that bugged me a bit is that Pete's original article on DWR referred to someone that overdosed on MDMA but when I looked up the specifics of the case it appears that the person took something other than MDMA which was misrepresented. Might have been PMA or anything else, but it wasn't clean.But I don't want to introduce that on his site into a thread where you're trying to debate a prohibitionist and it just seems like a less social and friendly place than CNews to be talking amongst ourselves.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by FoM on June 15, 2006 at 07:40:16 PT
I read the link. I understand where Sandra is coming from and she said it. She said this issue of drugs is alienating them from ( medical marijuana) us. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by Toker00 on June 15, 2006 at 03:49:12 PT
OT: A message from Ramsey Clark, if I may share.
A message from Ramsey ClarkThe case for impeachment is clear beyond question.The list of Bush's crimes is long. The “Shock and Awe” invasion was Bush’s war of aggression -- a crime identified as the “the Supreme international crime” by the Nuremberg Tribunal. Remember Falluja, the American Guernica, a virtual destruction of a defenseless city by superior military technology (36,000 homes, 8,400 shops destroyed in the final assault alone); Abu Ghraib, the shameful celebration of sick forms of sexual torture; Haifa Street, Baghdad, where a U.S. helicopter gun ship killed 13 unarmed people and injured 50 dancing around a burned out Bradley Armored Vehicle; Abu Shifa, a small village, where U.S. soldiers were accused of rounding up civilians, forcing them into a room, then opening fire, killing 11 people, including a 75 year-old, a 6 month-old baby, and five children under the age five; Haditha, where Marines murdered 15 defenseless civilians, and injured many more, most women and children; and tiny Guantanamo, where the U.S. has compiled human rights violations in four years that have been denounced by the entire world including the United Nations. Yet President Bush arrogantly refuses to close the Guantanamo prison, or return the land and sovereignty to Cuba while U.S. officials fret over three prisoners who committed suicide in one day to “embarrass the U.S.”The grand total of civilian deaths in Iraq is probably more than 250,000, and rapidly growing. (The Lancet Medical Journal) U.S. military deaths exceed 2500, the seriously injured number more than 15,000 and the number who will suffer mental and physical impairment from the occupation of Iraq is in the unknown tens of thousands. What respect for human dignity! What reverence for life! What better way to make enemies?The necessity for citizen action to secure impeachment is also clear beyond question. The Congress will not act unless We, the People demand it and vote those out of office who fail to respond.Our government is geared for war as directed by transnational corporations, domestic industries, and the corporate media.Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way. Consider,  * (1) Regime Change in Iran (1953) the Shah replacing democratically elected Mossadegh; Eisenhower (R);
  * (2) Regime Change in Guatemala (1954) military government for democratically elected Arbenz; Eisenhower (R);
  * (3) Regime Change in Congo (1961) assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Eisenhower (R)
  * (4) the Vietnam War (1959-1975), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R);
  * (5) Invasion of Dominican Republic (1965), Johnson (D);
  * (6) Contra Warfare against Nicaragua (1981-1988), resulting in regime change from the Sandinistas to corrupt capitalists; Reagan (R);
  * (7) Attack and occupation of Grenada (population 110,000)(1983-1987) Reagan (R);
  * (8) Aerial attack on the sleeping cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, (1986) Reagan (R);
  * (9) Invasion of Panama Regime Change (1989-1990), George H. W. Bush (R);
  * (10) Gulf War (1991), George H. W. Bush (R);
  * (11) "Humanitarian" occupation of Somalia leading to 10,000 Somali deaths (1992-1993) George H. W. Bush (R) and Bill Clinton (D);
  * (12) Aerial attacks on Iraq (1993-2001) Bill Clinton (D);
  * (13) War against Yugoslavia (1999) 23,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton (D)
  * (14) Missile Attack (21 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles) destroying the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Khartoum which provided the majority of all medicines for Sudan (1998) Bill Clinton (D);
  * (15) Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, Regime Change (2001-present) George W. Bush (R);
  * (16) War of Aggression against Iraq and Hostile Occupation (2003)-present) George W. Bush (R);
  * (17) Regime Change in Haiti (2004) Democratically elected Aristide for three years of chaos and systematic killing, George W. Bush (R).  There have been major aggressions every several years.Click here to help impeach bushRemember that every Congress in the past half century has approved excessive military budgets and the last three have approved increases that have made the U.S. military budget larger than those of all other nations combined.The U.S. will remain a military threat to the world until it vastly reduces its military expenditures. The single highest priority for peace is cutting the U.S. military budget. The United States government may have been able to outspend the Soviet Union into economic collapse in the Cold War arms race, injuring the entire planet in the process. Now Bush has entered a new arms race and is provoking a Second Cold War with China. Yet what can China do, as the U.S. builds a first-strike oriented missile shield and uses Japan and a huge advanced military base at Pyongtaek on Korea's west coast, not 500 miles from Beijing?The U.S. at this time is capable of striking any place on earth with a nuclear armed missile within one hour of the order to fire, launched from a Trident II, or other nuclear weapons system. We are at this time spending billions on a new generation of nuclear weapons that can be used tactically, against four blocks of Falluja, or an alleged Al Queda camp in Pakistan. At the same time, we threaten Iran and others for seeking to develop nuclear energy with the claim that they may build a crude bomb. Yet the only defense a nation today has to U.S. militarism is the threat of nuclear retaliation. The U.S. is seeking total dismantlement and prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction everywhere else, because it possesses the vast majority of all WMD’s and far superior delivery systems.George Bush loved being a War President while he was winning - winning over the bodies of impoverished and defenseless people, that is. Someone told him only war presidents can be great presidents. He will love war again if his polls go up. President Bush would rather make enemies by the use of force to have his way, than seek agreement with friends by helping others and recognizing their rights and interests. He prefers to go it alone, and then entice or coerce whatever help he can get from others, whether it is for Iraq, global warming, the prohibition of land mines, or the use of minors in war, addressing hunger, poverty, AIDS, natural disaster relief, or most United Nations activities, and absolutely, the International Criminal Court which might indict him. He is spared defeat at the polls because he cannot seek re-election. He can be held accountable only by impeachment. The American people must not acquiesce to his crimes.Consider that all the major candidates, Democrat and Republican -- Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, McCain, Frist, -- voted for the war and/or favor the Iraq Occupation.To stop U.S. militarism, the U.S. must vastly reduce its military expenditures, 50% in five years and further down from there on. It must use those savings to combat poverty, hunger, sickness and unemployment at home and abroad.The U.S. must seek friends by word and deed, rather than make enemies. The harm George Bush has done to the way the rest of the world sees our country will take a generation to overcome, after we change our warlike ways.But the only way to convince the world that We the People do not approve of the conduct of George W. Bush is to impeach him. Otherwise we can only be seen as approving of his acts, or as powerless to prevent them.And the only way we can deter the next, and future Presidents, from seeking war rather than peace is to impeach George W. Bush and his key advisors now. Only then will political leadership know the American people will not accept more war.Last week placed an ad calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush on the second page of the internationally read newspaper, USA Today. The impeachment movement has placed similar ads in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. The time to impeach is now. This movement has grown with your continuing support. Please make a donation to the campaign today so that the movement will grow in the coming months. Click here.Ramsey Clark
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by kaptinemo on June 15, 2006 at 03:14:37 PT
OT: We got a real, live prohib at DrugWarRant!
Friends, in case any are interested, we have an honest-to-God prohib who has chosen to cross swords with reformers over at DWR: . Admission is free; come one, come all.My trusty turkey carving knife is slicing so much the motor's about to give out, 'cause I'm smelling ozone. Other reformers are giving fact for lie so furiously that I doubt she'll last, so don't delay.I haven't had this much fun since Joyce graced us with her presence...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by afterburner on June 14, 2006 at 21:48:23 PT
RE Comment #2
I'm not sure if I read the following:If you support prohibition, you support criminals.or if my mind just summarized the conclusion of the article in the link:{nearly all politicians brag about being "tough on drugs." Thus they guarantee that the narcotics trade will remain in the hands of criminals.}
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by afterburner on June 14, 2006 at 21:40:23 PT
RE Comment #4 
Thanks, Toke. I'm looking for a way to send this report to the Steven Harper government in Canada because of their plan to introduce mandatory minimums. They originally campaigned in the election to enact such penalties for cultivation and trafficking. In order to pave the way for such outdated and counter-productive measures, they have picked extreme targets that no sensible person would condone, namely for gun violence and street racing. However, the wisdom of the U.S. Conference of Mayors should be taken into account before the door is opened to taking away the judges' ability "to determine appropriate sentences based on the specific circumstances of the crime and the perpetrator's individual situation."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by whig on June 14, 2006 at 19:06:16 PT
Picture was worth a lot more than a thousand words.PravdaIzvestiaITAR-TASSRadio MoscowSee the vast diversity of media?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by mayan on June 14, 2006 at 18:25:33 PT
Misuse of Power
“It happened shortly after 9/11, which I—like many people in New York—had experienced and took very personally. I’d been watching how the Justice Department was taking advantage of that tragedy to expand its authority in ways that were intellectually and viscerally very upsetting to me. Then I saw them employing that same egregious misuse of power towards Tommy Chong, the comedian, whom they arrested because he represents counterculture. It made me fucking furious. I had to do something about it.”9/11 was carried out by those who are threatened by the amazingly versatile cannabis plant. Remember the momentum we had before 9/11? I believe cannabis would be totally legal right now had it not been for the inside job that occured on that dreadful day. There were many motives for the PNAC fascists to carry out 9/11. Using it to erode the civil liberties of the cannabis law reform movement was certainly one of them. Remember all of the DEA raids on medical cannabis clubs shortly after 9/11? Where were their priorities? The FBI now admits that there is no solid evidence that Bin Laden was even involved in the 9/11 attacks. If that is so then why did all of the mainstream media convict him within minutes of the attacks? Because they are complicit also...A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN... MercuryMedia Takes On 9/11 Documentary: does a thinking, ethical person do with the nightmare facts of 911? Change - Get The Word Out 9/11 (Operation Lets Roll): a Plane Into the World Trade Center? Why Not Fly Out of LaGuardia? Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Toker00 on June 14, 2006 at 18:18:44 PT
I still have to be the optimist and say we've come a long way, and our progress is baring fruit pretty often these days. It's gonna take a lot of embarrassing public officials, and those not so public, with a steady bombardment of what we all do so well here, Truth. (Just a quick thought - We could be called CannabisViews here, as well.) I just don't see Prohibition II surviving any more public outcry than the first one. We aren't at that level yet, but look at the people who are now paying attention to what each other are saying. Doctors, Lawyers, Clergy, Nurses, Foreign medical research personnel. A lot of people are only now allowing themselves to think outside the box. I say they (The Prohibians) can't hold out much longer. I know what "Amerika" wants, but i also know what "Americans" want. Am I wrong to remember that only half of Americans have computers in their homes now? Or is it more? Anyway, when the other half get online, how many more will learn the truth about this misguided war, and others? They don't learn about cannabis on their job, at church, or at the court house. (Unless their kids get busted, and then they learn about the damage caused by prohibition, not cannabis.) They don't receive pamphlets on their door knobs, or in their mailbox. Their doctors (most) will never tell them. They probably listen to FOX and CNN, and most of them not even conscious there ARE alternative news media. I think a lot of people online right now, were against legalization or even debating the issue in public, who are now among some of our most loyal supporters, at least for medical cannabis. So, if we keep doing what it is we and others like us are doing, hitting Joe Prohib between the eyes with conversation, literature, and a dvd now and then, we will prevail. I know this, just don't ask me how. : )Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by freewillks on June 14, 2006 at 17:31:10 PT
OT:Court house lawn sprouts "ditch weed" 
This made me smile!SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — After reporters pointed out that wild marijuana, commonly called ditch weed, was growing on the lawn at the federal courthouse in Sioux Falls, the greenery was eliminated.City officials and a developer said seeds in dirt brought in for construction must have sprouted.KSFY-TV in Sioux Falls had it tested to be sure it was ditch weed and brought it to the attention of federal officials last week.None wanted to comment.Low-grade, wild marijuana was initially grown as hemp to make rope in World War II. But it contains a small amount of the ingredient that makes marijuana smokers high.Congress made it illegal in 1970 to grow any form of the marijuana plant.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by OverwhelmSam on June 14, 2006 at 16:11:54 PT
The US is afraid that cannabis legalization will cause cannabis to become all everyone needs. Worst case scenerio: pharmaceutical, alcohol, tobacco and the black market industries collapse financially, practically overnight. You know, like Fight Club.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Toker00 on June 14, 2006 at 15:55:32 PT
U.S. conference of Mayors.
Looks like the local elected officials may be getting the Prohibition Kills message. Seems to me they are attacking prohibition itself and not just the manditory minimum sentences. Got this at DWW.  OPPOSING MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES  WHEREAS, fair and effective criminal justice policies are in the interest of the citizens of every U.S. city and town; and  WHEREAS, 2006 marks the 20th anniversary of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1986 which established federal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses; and  WHEREAS, twenty years of mandatory minimum sentencing has resulted in a tremendous increase in the U.S. prison population, particularly of drug offenders; and  WHEREAS, people incarcerated for drug offenses return to their communities facing barriers to employment, housing, public assistance, and education opportunities; and  WHEREAS, the cost of providing services to returning prisoners is borne primarily by local governments; and  WHEREAS, almost two-thirds of prisoners have dependent children, and their prolonged absence destabilizes families and threatens the economic and social vitality of communities; and  WHEREAS, mandatory minimum sentencing reflects a "one-size fits all" approach to administering justice that does not allow courts to impose sentences appropriate to the crime that take into account the offender's role in the crime, and the characteristics of the offender, and  WHEREAS, mandatory minimum sentencing has been ineffective at achieving its purported goals: reducing the level of substance abuse and crime and increasing penalties for the most serious offenders; and  WHEREAS, mandatory minimum sentencing has exacerbated racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and, particularly when used to punish drug offenses, has resulted in the disproportionate incarceration of African American offenders,  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The United State Conference of Mayors states its opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing on both the federal and state levels, and urges the creation of fair and effective sentencing policies that permit judges to determine appropriate sentences based on the specific circumstances of the crime and the perpetrator's individual situation; and  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that states should review the effects of both federal and state mandatory minimum sentencing and then move forward.Yeah, move forward and END CANNABIS PROHIBITION! Toke.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by global_warming on June 14, 2006 at 15:53:52 PT
excellent article
My question,Why am I paying my hard earned dollar,For this insane drug war?If you want to kill yourself go right ahead,It is less expensive to bury you, than to lock you up in some prison.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Toker00 on June 14, 2006 at 15:40:50 PT
Good article from mapinc. sanity actually becoming mainstream?Toke.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Toker00 on June 14, 2006 at 14:59:29 PT
Now there's a message I can relate to!
Do you smoke pot?Oh, yeah.Is it important to you?Yes, it is.Why?Because I hate Prozac, and I can’t function on mushrooms.Good a message as any to legalize. Here's another. I hate alcohol and can't function on pharmaceuticals.Maybe now is the time to ask everyone who possibly can to donate what they possibly can, to these Reform Organizations so they can support important projects like this one. I would love to see that footage of Tommy.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment