cannabisnews.com: Another Soccer Mom's Take On The Drug War
Another Soccer Mom's Take On The Drug War
Posted by CN Staff on July 07, 2006 at 13:12:54 PT
By Karen P. Tandy, Administrator, U.S. DEA
Source: Denver Post
USA -- Jessica Peck Corry hopes her daughter will never smoke marijuana. Since that's the case, she should hope it remains illegal. The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes the legalization of marijuana, cautioning that "any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents." Marijuana is against the law because it's a dangerous, addictive drug.
This is a health issue. According to the American Lung Association, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more cancer-causing material than cigarette smoke. A June United Nations report refers to cannabis use as a "pandemic," noting an increase in cannabis- related health damage. This might explain why more teens now enter treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined, including alcohol. Today's marijuana is at least eight times more potent than marijuana of the 1970s. Accordingly, thousands of adolescents, whose brains are still developing, suffer from depression, memory impairment and diminished judgment because of marijuana. Under most legalization plans, drugs would remain illegal for those under 21. But nearly a third of current drug users are teens - so a black market would still exist to supply them. You only need to look at Prohibition to see that criminalizing an activity suppresses it, and legalization increases it. During Prohibition, alcohol consumption fell almost 60 percent and related liver cirrhosis and deaths fell dramatically. Today, alcohol consumption is more than three times greater than during Prohibition, and is estimated to cost our country at least $184 billion a year in lost productivity, crime, and health-care costs. In addition to directing the DEA, I'm a soccer mom, too. I'm doing everything possible to keep drugs away from my own children and everyone else's - not making drugs easier to get. Note: Re: "One soccer mom's take on the drug war," June 28 Colorado Voices column. Karen P. Tandy, Administrator, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Source: Denver Post (CO)Author: Karen P. TandyPublished: July 7, 2006Copyright: 2006 The Denver Post CorpWebsite: http://www.denverpost.com/Contact: openforum denverpost.comRelated Article:One Soccer Mom's Take on the Drug Warhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21948.shtmlCannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #99 posted by afterburner on July 12, 2006 at 09:40:47 PT
It's all been a pack of lies
In the Air Tonight - Phil Collins (Lyrics and Chords)
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/intheair.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #98 posted by kaptinemo on July 09, 2006 at 18:55:46 PT:
Ah, progress
It's nice to see when those who once sought to use the loftiness of their office to awe the yokels are now being forced to quit their fancy offices and get down in the trenches. The top leadership of the DrugWarriors used to think they were above the hoi polloi (who, of course, pay the bills for their salary, pension, office, etc.) and with Olympian disdain wouldn't bother to respond to editorials. Now, we get the top DEA taxpayer's-bloodsucker answering back, instead of leaving the chore to the local bottom-feeders of the prohib food-chain. I guess Ms. Tandy feels that such challenges as the editorial she is answering are potentially damaging to the DEA's carefully constructed PR ediface to rate her personal attention.We've said for many years that the prohibs will have to debate us eventually. That debate is beginning now, with the jab-and-thrust taking place in the editorial pages with media types making the (screamingly obvious!) observations about how the DrugWar seems to benefit the cops and the dealers only and no one else, and with Tandy making (weak) ripostes. The DrugWarriors have done everything they could to keep this discussion from ever impinging upon the public's mind, and now the public is being exposed to the reform point of view thanks to this kind of editorial. This the second time Tandy herself has responded to an editorial critical of the DrugWar; that shows just how seriously the prohibs are taking this threat to their gravy train.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #97 posted by afterburner on July 09, 2006 at 08:08:05 PT
Ireland -- Cannabis: why it should be legalised
Cannabis: why it should be legalised by Olaf Tyaransen (Sunday, July 9, 2006)
Sunday Independent (Ireland)
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1648941&issue_id=14328Excerpts:{Recently, in recognition that they were fighting a losing battle on drugs, Mexico's President Fox was set to legalise all illicit substances carried for personal use - including cannabis, heroin, crack, ecstasy, LSD and cocaine. George W Bush (a former cocaine-user himself) wouldn't allow it. To legalise drugs would be tantamount to a surrender in the "war on drugs". And seeing as America has already blown a staggering €500bn on this unwinnable war, why would they stop now? Or allow anyone else to?}{there's a very serious reality that nobody is addressing. Namely, that cannabis prohibition is a relatively recent, and utterly failed, social experiment. Illegal for less than one per cent of the time that it's been used by mankind, the prohibition has caused nothing but trouble. Until such time as they acknowledge this to be true, what exactly is the Irish Government's long-term strategy on cannabis? To continue to criminalise massive numbers of their own citizens for indulging in a habit that's proven to be far less harmful than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco? To continue sternly lecturing about the dangers of illicit drug use when at least 300,000 people are already ignoring them? To continue to allow criminal gangs (the fiercest opponents of legalisation) to enjoy a €375m business monopoly, with which to fund more socially damaging activities? Apparently, they are. In response to Wednesday's Oireachtas report, the committee has decided to print posters and booklets warning about the evils of drugs. The mind boggles!} Cost to the U.S. taxpayers so far for the U.S. continuing "Drug War": Half-a-trillion euros, that's more than half-a-trillion U.S. Dollars!Irish Government-supported Criminal Welfare caused by Prohibition II: 375 million euros; damage to society ... priceless!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #96 posted by rchandar on July 09, 2006 at 07:35:54 PT:
Joe Citizen
...oh it is a success......without the WOD, America wouldn't be the super-militarized police state that Capitol Hill Republicans craved so badly. without the WOD, average citizens wouldn't have that dangerous enemy living next door that organized all their great moral hatred and disgust....yeah, a success. But success is getting painful these days, people are dying for it.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #95 posted by ekim on July 08, 2006 at 17:52:42 PT
yes a Movie with Canada and USA working together
just like back when both counties banded together to end Prohibition. Gee so many great movie stars and funny men and women and wonderful songwriters and singers and bands come from Canada it would be a kick ass combo. sure to end this Prohibiton 2 -- it could be a tribute to Marc Emery.Comment #76 posted by charmed quark on July 08, 2006 at 10:07:57 PT
Homebrew and prohibition
Originally, many senators meant for the term "intoxcicating liquors" to mean only distilled alcohol. But there was a big fight and it was finally interpreted, in the Volstead Act, to mean anything with more than 0.5 percent alcohol.
The Volstead Act of 1920 is what actually implemented the provisions of Prohibition. It sort of allowed personal production. To quote the "Speakeasy Writer":"Each family could make up to 200 gallons per year of "fruit juices," and although the law's language didn't exactly condone fermentation, it implied that home winemaking was legal."This reminds me of the Swiss law that allows cannabis to be sold as long as it's not sold to be ingested. So they sell it as herbal aromatherapy products.The act also allowed the production of wine and spirits for religious and medicinal use. A doctor, for instance, could prescribe spirits to an alcoholic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
on behalf of
David Crockett Williams
http://www.myspace.com/davidcrockettwilliamsDavid was sayen that the Volstead Act had allowed the use of Cannabis both THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and alcohol -------have ol at the end of their names.
Question what does that mean-- ol at the end -- is the plant doing the distilling. cause nothing this geat ol herb does should surprise anyone.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #94 posted by Hope on July 08, 2006 at 16:39:18 PT
JR Bob Dobbs
Thanks for the comment about W.C. Fields. My husband is a huge fan of his and he just reared back and laughed so loud.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #93 posted by Hope on July 08, 2006 at 15:34:47 PT
Lombar...
We don't really want Jessica to "change her tune".I had trouble understanding the way the first of Tandy's piece was worded, too.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #92 posted by Hope on July 08, 2006 at 15:32:31 PT
Lombar
Jessica wrote the first article...for legalization. Tandy was addressing something she said at the beginning of the article that she wrote that she did not want her daughter to smoke marijuana...BUT...and then she went on to say she basically disagrees with it's prohibition.http://cannabisnews.com/news/21/thread21948.shtml
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #91 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on July 08, 2006 at 15:14:30 PT
Groucho Marx quote
Now we get to W.C. Fields. He was a friend of mine. He was a great drunk, and if they had had marijuana in those days, I'm sure he'd have been using it. He lived in San Fernando Valley, and he always carried a beebee gun. And he sat in the bushes and when the tourists would go past, he would shoot at them.One day he allowed me in his house, and he had a ladder there, and it led up to an attic, and in this attic he had 50000 dollars worth of whisky. Un-opened cases of whisky. And I said to him "Bill, what have you got that booze there for? We haven't had prohibition in twenty-five years." He said "It may come back."
http://www.ibras.dk/comedy/marx.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #90 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 13:22:28 PT
hempcanadian
Now I'm listening to Maria. Wow you are amazing. Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #89 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 13:19:42 PT
hempcanadian
Yes I absolutely love good music. I am listening to Good Woman now and you are good. Thank you! Power to the People.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #88 posted by hempcanadian on July 08, 2006 at 13:09:20 PT
Music-OFF topic
FOM I know your a big fan of music
So I uploaded a couple of my tunes to my website
for all to enjoy
The Hemp Canadian
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #87 posted by global_warming on July 08, 2006 at 11:46:51 PT
oops sorry
only passing troughthere is a better understandinga better worldand we a are living it
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #86 posted by global_warming on July 08, 2006 at 11:26:13 PT
re: scarier things out there than a plant
There is your soul,Your portal from where you observeJustice and Eternity
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #85 posted by lombar on July 08, 2006 at 11:08:01 PT
MBC
The media is complicit, they are corporations that profit greatly from the drug war as well. Think of all the 'big bust' stories that just would not be? Or all the angry letters from people who can't stand the DEA lies? Conflict is good for the news business, peace and order would be a disaster for the sensationalised media.When the law can call a non-person a person, a herb a drug, cause a shooting war against entrepeneurs, sick people, and peaceful citizens, its not the world, the drugs, or the people that are the problem, it's the LAW. If the law can declare things that are at such variance with truth and these are 'findings of fact in a court' then we are all forced to live in someone elses NIGHTMARE, a delusion forced upon us on fear of being intimidated, incarcerated or killed. ..wake up...wake up.. WAKE UP..
(;))
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #84 posted by user123 on July 08, 2006 at 11:02:05 PT:
The Usual
This article contains all the usual MJ scare tactics. Can't they come up with something new. Soccer mom from Colorado huh? Maybe you ought to be more concerned that your state just lowered the marrying age for females down to as low as 12 years old. Gee, think that has anything to do with the Mormons in your state? There are alot more scarier things out there than a plant.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #83 posted by global_warming on July 08, 2006 at 11:01:30 PT
be it resolved here
it must be resolved that corporations do not have the rights of people,..And so ratified Amongst the free people of this land.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #82 posted by whig on July 08, 2006 at 10:56:22 PT
lombar
I should say it's not an either/or. If people will find ways to strike corporate personhood in the meantime, do it. We could see some progress if the campaign reformers are ever successful in getting a form of public financing, to prohibit corporate giving to the same campaigns altogether. It will be a first amendment fight, and there will be strong arguments, but it must be resolved that corporations do not have the rights of people.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #81 posted by whig on July 08, 2006 at 10:51:12 PT
lombar
Striking corporate personhood is vital, I agree. It is the main prop of the corporate state, that corporations are the constituents of the system.With that said, it is easier said than done. Easier and better that we can get ourselves free to have and use cannabis, and from there we can help people to think more clearly and without the fear that keeps them in line under the current system.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #80 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 10:49:15 PT
I Am Not An Expert
There is a big difference between having knowledge and being wise. People that make the laws that control Cannabis have some knowledge but don't know what they are talking about. It doesn't matter what is right.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #79 posted by global_warming on July 08, 2006 at 10:44:36 PT
now there is a name Volstead
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAvolstead.htmWonder what bothered Mr Volstead deep in his heart, was it alcohol, was it how decent human beings started to express their dissatisfaction with government and law and how they were being "ruled" , the gentle hand of liberalism is so often met by the stern hand of disfuntional authoritarianism.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #78 posted by mai_bong_city on July 08, 2006 at 10:40:34 PT
how do they do this?
i mean, denver is where they voted to allow personal adult possession isn't it? how come the denver post just allows statements that are not backed by fact? because tandy is dea she's just allowed to spew her 'opinion' and lie in print? the american lung association lie, the potency lie, the addictive lie, the dangerous lie....
why?
don't they print the truth? why isn't there a huge rebuttal?
it's just getting sickening.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #77 posted by lombar on July 08, 2006 at 10:34:17 PT
Big Ticket
We've got to disallow lobby, industry, and corporate donations to political campaigns.The previous Liberal government here in Canada put a cap on the corporate donations while they were looting the treasury. There is already some money scandal with the new conservatives, I can't find the story(that happens when you think an organisation is so totally corrupt or full or crap that you don't need to catalog their BS)...The very first thing we need to do is revoke personhood from the legal entities we call 'corporations'. That would solve many problems for 'the people' but create a bunch for 'the owners'. They like challenges for us enough..Justice cannot be ju$tice as it is now. The system is skewed so that the 'persons' aka corporations have greater access to justice than the individual because of their ability to amass wealth far faster than a single individual.A corporation can fight in court for years to assert its 'right to gather' but a (insert cause here)-rally organiser cannot and must knuckle under. Corporations do not deserve constitutional rights when people have to fight just to get them.I could not help but think "Another Sucker Mom Taken by the Drug War". If your kid was facing prison for cannabis Jessica, your tune would change in a hurry... then again its hard for me to imagine the cruelty of throwing ones own children to the wolves to suit my ideology. Or into hell forever for a mistake...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #76 posted by charmed quark on July 08, 2006 at 10:07:57 PT
Homebrew and prohibition
Originally, many senators meant for the term "intoxcicating liquors" to mean only distilled alcohol. But there was a big fight and it was finally interpreted, in the Volstead Act, to mean anything with more than 0.5 percent alcohol.The Volstead Act of 1920 is what actually implemented the provisions of Prohibition. It sort of allowed personal production. To quote the "Speakeasy Writer":"Each family could make up to 200 gallons per year of "fruit juices," and although the law's language didn't exactly condone fermentation, it implied that home winemaking was legal."This reminds me of the Swiss law that allows cannabis to be sold as long as it's not sold to be ingested. So they sell it as herbal aromatherapy products.The act also allowed the production of wine and spirits for religious and medicinal use. A doctor, for instance, could prescribe spirits to an alcoholic.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #75 posted by Hope on July 08, 2006 at 09:41:54 PT
Somehow...
We've got to disallow lobby, industry, and corporate donations to political campaigns. It's the only right thing to do. Campaigns have got to be streamlined and for the individual voter...not wealthy interest groups and corporations.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #74 posted by Hope on July 08, 2006 at 09:37:59 PT
medical use...
Just thought of something else that hadn't occurred to me before. Of course they WOULD fight medical cannabis tooth and toenail. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to tax legitamate medical use cannabis.They better just hurry up and legalize it across the board for adults...before the medical use situation comes to full bloom, and they get no tax revenues, at all, or lose the donations they get from big pharmeceuticals because they allowed natural competition for the pharms to develop. I'm pretty sure there is no tax on pharmeceuticals by prescription.The longer they wait to make this thing right...the more they have to lose.Heck...if they wait long enough...it'll be proven that cannabinoids are so healthy and good for us that they will be in vitamin/mineral health supplements soon and recommended to all.Lol! It could happen. It really could.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #73 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 09:17:04 PT
whig
I don't mind if they tax the sale of cannabis either. I just want it to be like the way they treat people who brew their own beer.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #72 posted by whig on July 08, 2006 at 09:14:03 PT
FoM
I don't mind if they put any amount of tax on commercial sale of cannabis, if they decide they can make revenue that way, as long as there is no prohibition of home grown, because even if the tax amounted to a complete prohibition of commerce it would be possible to have legal cannabis.There will always be a market, however, so it would be best for revenue purposes that they set the rate such that it is not prohibitive.But if home grown is prohibited, then there is nothing I will compromise with. Not even complete legalization of commercial sale, if it means only privileged few may grow and process and transact. Do not take that mark.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #71 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 08:43:41 PT
JoeCitizen
Thank you. Money and control of lots of people is why they single out cannabis I believe. It is popular.Got to get that sin tax you know?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #70 posted by JoeCitizen on July 08, 2006 at 08:34:24 PT
FOM - Answer about Prohibition
The Eighteenth Amendment reads:Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.As you can see, while the manufacture, sale or transportation of liquor was banned, neither the possession nor consumption was. People were not made to give up their wine cellars.But you couldn't brew or distill anything new, you couldn't buy or transport it from anywhere else, so you were pretty much stuck with your dwindling reserve.I can't believe that Karen Tandy and her ilk still try to sell that "Alcohol Prohibition was a success" story. Reported rates of consumption and diseases directly related to consumption (like cirrhosis) may indeed have fallen. But black market alcohol brought all-time high levels of crime (Al Capone and the gangster bootleggers), disease (thousands died or went blind from wood alcohol), government corruption (wholesale bribery of police forces and the judiciary), and repressive government force (over 1300 victims of Prohibition laws being enforced.)It seems Republicans never stop fighting lost wars. They claim prohibition would have worked if it hadn't been undercut by the press. They claim we would have won in Vietnam if the Left hadn't protested the war. They think Joe McCarthy was a good guy who stood up to the Reds, and that it was just dandy that FDR interned all the Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. And they think the Drug War has been a screaming success.Is it any wonder they think were winning in Iraq now?Start voting the bums out in 2006. Finish the job in 2008.JC
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #69 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 08:29:18 PT
whig
Coca and opium aren't as popular as tobacco. People have smoked cigarettes for a long time and it has been ok up until recently. They want to control lots of people and since those substances are only used by a small number of people they will keep pushing against tobacco. Cigarettes are so expensive now. I haven't met one person that quit because of the high price. They know they will get lots of tax money from tobacco users so they will keep that push up.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #68 posted by whig on July 08, 2006 at 08:23:38 PT
Another Thought
Well, I don't think they can prohibit tobacco without causing a lot of tobacco smokers switching to cannabis, and that would be good for those smokers and good for us, so they won't probably do that.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #67 posted by whig on July 08, 2006 at 08:18:45 PT
FoM #63
You're right, I fear. I hate to admit this but I think it's coming. They know they cannot block cannabis from becoming legal forever. They know it's coming and they are going to be out of a job and with nothing to do unless they come up with something quick.Tobacco Prohibition is coming.For all the harms of Tobacco, it is as ridiculous to ban as any plant. But in order to defend Tobacco properly we will have to defend Coca and Opium. And it gets harder, because we can't as easily say that these things are safer than alcohol, they certainly are not safer than cannabis.Oh well, anything for them to maintain the police state is good in their eyes. And we shouldn't quit opposing that, but it's going to be a different thing in some ways.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #66 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 07:58:16 PT
Toker00
You're right. Everyone smoked marijuana at concerts and it wasn't a big deal. What is wrong with our country anymore?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #65 posted by Toker00 on July 08, 2006 at 07:55:51 PT
FoM
Reminds me of the good old days when cannabis was passed around at a concert, indoor or out, with cops standing two feet away. I'm sure they got a contact high. They knew it was not a dangerous drug. People didn't know how to use cannabis back then. It was just a rebellious thing to do. Not many of us even knew cannabis had been used as medicine in the past. If we had known cannabis was medicine, and not just a "high", many more of us could have responsibly kept using cannabis, and not set out on a journey of Alcohol destruction, just to keep from going to jail. Though many of us used both alcohol and cannabis, some could have been saved who had given up the Far Safer Cannabis for the Less Safe Alcohol. Most of these people STILL don't see the light. Some are Rabid Prohibians now, even as they die the slow, miserable, depressed DEAth of Alcoholism. Such a Tragedy.Concerts were the "Amsterdams" of America. There was such a great cross section of what was going around locally, plus some exotic SH*T to sample, too. It was GREAT! And we should be able to do it today, too. One day we will be able to do this again, with the cops doing their REAL job: Protection us while we do it.Thanks for the Kubby update info!! Wasn't it afterburner?Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #64 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 07:55:49 PT
Wayne
That was a good show about alcohol prohibition on the History Channel. I remember church people saying that it was the alcohol smuggling by the Kennedy's that put a curse on them. They called it the Kennedy curse. Such hate I saw in the churches when I went to church.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #63 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 07:51:11 PT
Another Thought
They are making cigarettes illegal. I know people who don't smoke don't care but what will be next? I don't drink alcohol so it isn't my concern if they make alcohol illegal. Soon they will raid people's houses for pain medicine from the doctor. I hope before everything is made illegal that the laws on cannabis are changed.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #62 posted by Hope on July 08, 2006 at 07:49:29 PT
Jessica Peck Corry
By the way, this Tandy piece was written in objection to this piece that Ms. Corry wrote.http://cannabisnews.com/news/21/thread21948.shtml
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #61 posted by Wayne on July 08, 2006 at 07:46:42 PT
gotta love the History channel
They had a 2-hour special on last night about Prohibition. It was very interesting, and had quite a bit of useful information that could be applied to marijuana prohibition. And they had a continuing theme: In its 7,000-year history, every time alcohol use has been taxed or prohibited by society (everywhere around the world), it only managed to force people to produce it in secret and make tons of money off of it. It never once curbed its use, and every time made the problem worse. This was true in the U.S., where alcohol has been prohibited on a state or federal level no less than 3 times since the Revolution. It was also true in Ireland, which drove its residents to emigrate here.Our government just refuses to accept the truth. The DEA is not stupid...they're just stubborn. They don't continue this charade because they want to hurt people. They continue it because they honestly believe that prohibition will eventually work someday, and every penny spent on the effort will be worth it. They feel this way about marijuana AND alcohol. Maybe they could use a nice 2-hour history lesson... this show really did put things in perspective. If you look at the entire timeline of history in regards to prohibition, you instantly see how ridiculous and hopeless it really is.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #60 posted by Hope on July 08, 2006 at 07:45:44 PT
Drug Prohibition was brought in on the heels
of the end of alcohol prohibition as job security for the agents called "Revenuers" of that time. Is it possible that they are gearing up for another alcohol prohibition to keep narcs in good paying jobs?Or maybe they are saying "You think drug prohibition is bad, wait till we lay alcohol prohibition on you again." Or maybe they are seeing how they could confiscate more property from citizens if they make alcohol prohibited again.Revisionist history is a bad, bad sign when it's coming from the government. This new revisionist history of prohibition they are spewing now could be an indication of more grief to come. Maybe they've just been waiting for enough people to die who remember what prohibition of alcohol was like...then they start working on the history...then they start promoting their scare tactics and making people afraid...then they will step in and say, "But, of course, we're here to protect you from that dread evil we told you about." Will teachers stand up and teach this revised history crap? You betcha. They want to keep their jobs. Will the media start helping them "revise" it by helping them obscure the truth. Maybe. Jake Leg, anyone? I'm pleased to see a remarkable amount of work on the part of the media, recently, to remember prohibition of alcohol. Even on one of those surprise redo things last night...they built a "real" historically based "Speakeasy"...with warning alarms, hiding places, secret entrances, and disappearing bar and storage in the basement of an ex-cop's home. If I could, I would plead with our government and it's enforcers to concentrate their efforts on true terrorists, murder, assault, rape, abuse of people, and theft (the "dread evil" we KNOW about and don't have to be lied to and brainwashed to make us be against it. I want them to be real police who go after REAL crime. I want them out of our medicine chests and homes and lives until their services are actually needed. We are adults. We don't need or want gun toting nannies threatening and running our lives.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #59 posted by FoM on July 08, 2006 at 07:34:18 PT
A Question
Even during alcohol prohibition wasn't it ok to consume alcohol?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #58 posted by afterburner on July 08, 2006 at 07:22:02 PT
John Tyler #54 Prohibition & Canada
They even *walked* across the frozen Detroit River using specially-outfitted trench coats with multiple inside pockets designed from transporting bottles of alcohol. I've seen the pictures!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #57 posted by John Tyler on July 08, 2006 at 07:18:43 PT
Prohibition from days of yore
We enjoy going to auctions and estate sales. Quite often there will be offered for sale these nicely made Prohibition cabinets. They look rather unassuming on the outside, but when opened they are furnished like mini bars with glasses, stirrers, tumbler for shaking drinks and places for your favorite bottles of alcohol. Prohibition cabinets came in different sizes and styles to fit your décor. Once we saw a rather fine old house for sale that featured a whole “Prohibition room”.
Alcohol Prohibition was widely flouted but the authorities did not come down as fiercely on the people as they do today. It was normalized by the popular culture. If you ever watched “It’s a Wonderful Life” you may remember Jimmy Stewart who played George Bailey, just after he graduated from high school talking to his parents about taking his flask of gin to a party as if it were a normal thing to do.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #56 posted by unkat27 on July 08, 2006 at 07:05:36 PT
Tandy is a Prohibitionist Whore
Oh, I just saw the author's name: Karen Tandy. Duh? Figures. That whore hasn't a second of real experience with cannabis to her whole life. She's just munching Asscroft, Bennet's, and Walter's asses, like a good little paid govt mouth-piece.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #55 posted by unkat27 on July 08, 2006 at 07:01:13 PT
More Prohibitionist BS
I just got to say it: "THIS ARTICLE IS TOTAL STINKING BS COWPIES"There isn't a second of truth to it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #54 posted by John Tyler on July 08, 2006 at 06:51:18 PT
Prohibition & Canada
During Alcohol Prohibition Canada played a big part also. Distilleries were built in Windsor Ontario just across the river from Detroit. People would row boats across the river and get a load of legal booze and bring it back. During the winter when the river froze, they would drive cars across the river and get booze by the carload. The cops managed to look the other way.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #53 posted by global_warming on July 08, 2006 at 06:47:51 PT
sounds like a plan
CQ, which may very well work. I sense that this excessive effort on the part of the government against cannabis hides their desperation, how long can they continue to arrest sick and dyeing people? I suspect that many Americans and people around the world are starting to wake up to the incredible waste of the governments abuse of hard earned tax dollars, dollars that would be better spent pursuing genuine hard crimes against life and property.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #52 posted by charmed quark on July 08, 2006 at 06:26:38 PT
Final prohibition comment
National and state prohibition was much less severe than cannabis prohibition. It banned most commercial activities related to alcohol but not the private possession and consumption of alcohol.You were still allowed (in most states) to make considerable quantities at home of beer, wine and hard cider for home consumption. You couldn't distill, though. Distilled alcohol was available by prescription and some commercial production of both wine and distilled spirits was allowed for religious and medical use.I've talked to many people who made their own beer and cider during prohibition. They'd make enough for their family and to serve to friends visiting. Totally legal. Wine drinking in the US was less common then, but a lot of Jewish people I've talked to made their own wine for Sabbath.I'd be willing to settle on that for cannabis. You can grow your own but not sell it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #51 posted by charmed quark on July 08, 2006 at 05:58:12 PT
More on prohibition
I forgot to add that many researchers feel that the data on cirrhosis is suspect, as it takes decades of drinking for it to develop. Yet the numbers suspiciously fall almost immediately at the beginning of prohibition and rise almost immediately with the repeal. Many think relatives and/or hospitals were unwilling to label deaths as due to liver cirrhosis during prohibition because of its association with illegal activity and would list the cause of death as heart stoppage, instead. After prohibition, this aura still hung around it, so it was underreported for years. A theory, only.More importantly, alcohol was almost totally illegal in the USA for quite a while before national prohibition - individual states had been banning it. By 1919 it was illegal most places. I've always wondered why people felt a need for a constitutional ammendment when the states were perfectly able to decide for themselves....I would say the same think about cannabis consumption, hmmmm?This paper tries to get a handle on what really happened - they measure arrests for public drunkeness in a number of major US cities from 1910 to 1925. This is an interesting measure because it should immediately show any effects in reductions of alcohol abuse. Looking at the arrest rates, there is a dip before national prohibtion but then a gradual rise to the end of the data. It's 4.5 per million in 1910 and 3.5 in 1925.Lot's of biases to think about, in my opinion. On the one hand, cities might want to enforce the drunkeness laws more to look good, but on the other hand people would be more careful about where they drink. Or maybe the city might under-arrest to show their progress in reducing drinking.More interesingly, this article implies that the arrests roughly mirrored cirrhosis levels as measured by another study (not the one the DEA refers to). It concludes that national Prohjibition had roughly no effect whatsoever on drunkeness and a 10-20% reduction in cirrhosis. And it suggests both may have been underreported during prohibition.But the article was written by a bunch of Harvard professors, not cherry picked by the DEA, so I guess it is pretty suspect.Here's to the DEA bringing back alcohol prohibition! Yeah! More gangs and street shootings. I can hardly wait. Maybe the DEA can get a great depression going, too. That might have had a major impact on consumption.http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/papers/drunk_revised_for_el.pdf
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by afterburner on July 08, 2006 at 05:57:43 PT
Canadian MP Takes Health Canada to Task
Canadian MP Libby Davies Speaks Out About Drug Policy
by Libby Davies (05 Jul, 2006) http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4786.htmlExcerpt: "By all accounts, Health Canada’s medical marijuana program has been a dismal failure. Since July of 2003, when a Supreme Court decision forced Health Canada to supply medical marijuana to chronically ill Canadians, the OCMA has been plagued with problems of providing those in need with adequate access to a safe and reliable supply of cannabis. As of April of last year, a mere 813 Canadians had benefited from this program."This is despite Health Canada’s own research which suggests that there are over 290,000 medical marijuana users in British Columbia alone! The OCMA has been unable to overcome the strict barriers put in place by the Medicinal Marijuana Access Regulations, leaving countless chronically ill Canadians without access to their only source of relief for chronic pain."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by charmed quark on July 08, 2006 at 05:29:07 PT
Prohibition
I don't know where the source articvle (Scientific America) got the reduction to 1/3rd in consumption. But what I've seen is that prohibition severely reduced the use of alcohol as food ( i.e., wine with dinner, a beer with a hotdog) but had only limited impact on alcohol abuse, the target of prohibition. Liver cirrhosis did fall during prohibition, but was still much higher at the end of prohibition than it is now with alcohol fully legal - it was 17 deaths per 100,000 in 1911, then fell to 8 per 100,000 by the end of prohibition, then very gradually rose until it peaked to 14.9 in 1973 and has been falling ever since. It is currently around 7.4 per 100,000 (1997). Cirrhosis deaths are an easily measured sign of alcohol abuse and obviously do not bear a direct correlation with the legality of alcohol.Alcohol is a poor model for cannabis use in any case - it is toxic and addictive while cannabis is neither. In the Netherlands, with cannabis semi-legal, use by all age groups is significantly lower than the UK where it is illegal. And their use is MUCH less than the USA in any age bracket.You can almost make a chart of western countries showing an inverse relationship between teenage cannabis use and the severity of the laws against it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by afterburner on July 08, 2006 at 05:15:26 PT
The Untouchables
A rebroadcast or remake of that once popular TV show would remind people, swayed by the outlandish statements of Karen Tandy and other Warriors on Medicine, of the dark side of Prohibition: the gang violence, corruption, and disrespect for the law. Don't they remember the "speak-easies"? They didn't call the Feds, "Untouchables," for nothing. It was a contrast to the oh-so "touchable" local police, bought and paid for by the criminal gangs. Those gangs committed unheard-of acts of extreme violence that shocked the nation. Strange(?) that the police today are the number one lobbyists to keep Prohibition II. You would think they care more about riding the gravy train of easy busts and forfeitures than about their own safety or the public safety they are sworn to uphold. CN BC: Editorial: Legalizing Marijuana Will Cut Out Criminals, Abbotsford News, (06 Jul 2006) http://www.mapinc.org/sknews/v06/n894/a02.html?420
The Kubby Chronicles
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by mayan on July 08, 2006 at 04:56:34 PT
Misc.
Activists protest medical marijuana raids and arrests:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060708-9999-2m8pot.htmlMarijuana dispensary faces uncertain future:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060708-9999-6m8smmari.htmlPolice seek help with illegal pot plantings:
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/headlines/ci_4026866
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by global_warming on July 08, 2006 at 01:39:54 PT
it was a good documentary
They mentioned how common pick pockets and two bit hoodlums were propelled into violent gangsters, the like of Al Capone, the Bernstien Brothers, organized criminals, corruption that reeked throughout entire large cities, much like you have today, with large cartels that have entire armies protecting their wares, cops, lawyers and judges who are becoming wealthy on the illicit gains that modern day prohibition has given birth.The do gooders have done it again, instead of helping they have fallen into the same trap they did in the 1920s, some things never change.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by Medical Marijuana Mi on July 08, 2006 at 01:05:32 PT:
alcohol prohibition
yeah, it appears Karen is advocating we bring back alcohol prohibition.
well, her "facts" are misleading at best.
consumption of alcohol by "volume" fell ? % due
to prohibition and bootlegger's smuggling the smaller volume more potent and therfore more profitable whiskey.so people drank less "volume" of beer but drank more hard whisky, great.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by global_warming on July 08, 2006 at 01:04:51 PT
re:prohibition
There was an excellent documentary on alcohol prohibition last night on the history channel it was called Rumrunners, Moonshiners and Bootleggers, Prohibition proves a boon for alcohol-smugglers.This should be required viewing by all the so called modern day prohibitionists.If it is ever aired again try to watch it, it was very informative.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by Hope on July 07, 2006 at 21:59:50 PT
Do you think that if any of us
had "accidentally" killed one of these children, much less all of them...that we'd get away with it?Add to that, that we, as citizens, are forced to pay the ones responsible for it, often outrageous salaries and pensions, and you have an intolerable situation. I'm sick of it. Many of us have been sick of it for a very long time. A lot of other people are getting sick of it, too. It has to end.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by Hope on July 07, 2006 at 21:33:15 PT
"They say what about the children?"
And immediately, I think... "Alberto, Esequial, Xavier, Charity, Ashley, and how many, many more?"And I think ..."Yeah...what about the children? How many more are you going to kill before you're satisfied?"http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 21:25:05 PT
It is Time
I hope soon it will be gone!!!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 21:22:50 PT
Hope #38
It goes just like that.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by FoM on July 07, 2006 at 21:13:20 PT
Hope
They don't know how to fight us anymore except by raiding dispensaries and hassling Doctors. There is no legitimate argument for them anymore. They say what about the children? I say what about adults. If adults don't have any rights because we must protect the children then what do the children have to look forward to when they become adults?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by Hope on July 07, 2006 at 21:07:44 PT
Remember when
they couldn't be bothered to even listen to, much less respond to anything we were saying? Karen Tandy, herself, no less.I think it goes kind of like this: First they ignore us. Then they ridicule us. Then they fight us. Then we win.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by FoM on July 07, 2006 at 21:06:55 PT
Toker00
After the intermission last night Neil said. The people on the lawn light a fat one and everyone applauded. Why is cannabis illegal if so many people cheered for it?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by FoM on July 07, 2006 at 20:59:51 PT
Toker00
I know it really matters. I really can't think of anything to say. I never was good at letter writing. I can type a comment but even then it usually isn't long. I hope that the prayers are helping him cope. When something really bothers me I often can't think of anything to say. I will keep praying for both of them and helping when they need help. Check out the peace sign from CSNY's Tour in Camden last night. Hrere's the link to the live concert that Roel has put online for the weekend. I think he is playing it all weekend. He is from Amsterdam and we are hearing it less then 24 hours after the concert. The Internet and how people use it is remarkable to me.Rust Radio: http://www.rustradio.org/Joann's Picture Link: http://rustedsister.smugmug.com/gallery/1641965/1/80237918
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by Toker00 on July 07, 2006 at 20:48:54 PT
It IS immoral, FoM.
Unconstitutional, as well as immoral. About writing, it wouldn't even matter if someone just put "Hi!" and a smiley face on a piece of paper and mailed it. It's the compassion that keeps them afloat, and that is what these guys hold on for. But I'm not trying to force anyone to write. That is a very personal decision.It gets frustrating beyond words, sometimes, that Lies continue to trump Truth at the DEAth. The only thing that keeps me going is the number of people and support we are gaining in spite of them. It feels good to be more credible that the DEA or FDA. Real good.Toke.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by ekim on July 07, 2006 at 20:43:32 PT
same goes for Tandy -ignored completely science
http://cannabisnews.com/news/21/thread21961.shtml
Comment #28 posted by E_Johnson on July 03, 2006 at 08:32:18 PT
Here's what I wrote their public editor
Dear public editor,
Why does the Times treat marijuana as if it is completely beyond the powers of science? You printed a huge article on the fight over a medpot club in San Francisco. Isn't that basically a local problem?Yet you ignored completely the two biggest science stories about marijuana this year:1. Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, the world's most noted expert in smoking and lung disease, announced at a conference that his research shows even heavy pot smokers do not get lung cancer from smoking pot. This strange result can most likely be explained, he says, by the natural tumor killing properties of the active ingredients in marijuana.2. A team of cancer researchers in Italy has confirmed a result known since 1974 -- the active ingredients in marijuana kill breast cancer cells with great efficiency and zeal.Why is a local fight over zoning so important to your paper, yet lung cancer and breast cancer are not?Really, why do you make this choice? The science is there. You're just refusing to tell people about it. Why?
http://cannabisnews.com/news/21/thread21874.shtml
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by FoM on July 07, 2006 at 20:17:12 PT
Toker00
I'm glad you got the letters written. I have a very hard time writing because I can't think of anything to say. I hope Jerry has been getting letters from many people. Jerry and Linda are good people and it really bothers me that he is locked away from his family on the other side of the USA. This war on people because of a plant named cannabis is immoral to me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by Toker00 on July 07, 2006 at 20:13:24 PT
Yes, Dan,
I would like to HEAR from them, too. ;o)Toke.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by Toker00 on July 07, 2006 at 20:09:58 PT
There. Now I feel better.
Jerry Sisson has a letter coming, and so does Randy Brush. Next, I'll send Linda a howdy. Why have we not heard about or from Kubby or Herbdoc 215? Are they required to stay away from our bad influence as a condition for probation? That sucks. I would really like to here from either one, even if it's through someone else.Toke.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by b4daylight on July 07, 2006 at 19:15:32 PT
I am for
I am for banning all drugs.If I can't smoke a joint then they should not be able to buy coffee or alcohol. Seems raccist to ban only the drugs you may never consume, yet keep your dugs legal as pie.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by rchandar on July 07, 2006 at 18:35:13 PT:
well...
this kinda article, methinks, gives soccer a bad name. no but seriously, all they have to do is present their cooked stats and millions of people believe them.Tandy is stupid and a disgrace. when will it be acceptable to our conscience to embrace punitive measures? when in any logic is it ok to say, some people ought to be locked up for the good of "health"? it's insulting, that's all.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by Wayne on July 07, 2006 at 18:32:03 PT
re: John Tyler
John, you have to keep in mind that this is the DEA. They have never used facts to back up their propaganda. Just fear.Discredit? It's impossible to discredit something that never had any credit to begin with.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by John Tyler on July 07, 2006 at 18:20:55 PT
tandy brings discredit to herself
You would think that for someone in her position making these wild outrageous claims that she would at least date and mention her sources so they could be checked. If she is incorrect in any part of her strident claims then the validity of her whole exposition is suspect. This discredits her and her organization.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by Wayne on July 07, 2006 at 18:05:02 PT
Soccer-Moms: The Anti-Drug
Most of you have already done a stellar job of unraveling Ms. Tandy's argument. But here's one more thing you might not have caught:"According to the American Lung Association, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more cancer-causing material than cigarette smoke."This came STRAIGHT out of her hind quarters. The ALA website say nothing of the sort. In fact, if you do a search for 'marijuana' on their website (link is at the end), all it says is this:"Tobacco use is associated with alcohol and illicit drug use, and acts as a 'gateway drug.' Adolescents (12-17 year olds) who reported having smoked in the past 30 days were three times more likely to use alcohol, eight times more likely to smoke marijuana, and 22 times more likely to use cocaine, within those past 30 days than those 12-17 year olds who had not smoked during that time. Tobacco use in adolescence is also associated with a range of other risky, health-compromising behaviors, including being involved in fights, carrying weapons, engaging in high-risk sexual behavior, and using alcohol and other drugs."So, in addition to the back-tracking that Ms. Tandy has done, the ALA now says that TOBACCO is the gateway drug (write that down) and that it also makes kids have sex. Unbelieveable. They should note that tobacco is also associated with coffee drinkers, alcoholics, prison inmates, and homeless people.Ms. Tandy, I hope you're reading all of these posts. If you are, all I have to say is this: I speak for MILLIONS of Americans when I say that I for one am NOT a soccer-mom, prohibition DOESN'T work, and that you, your agency, and your arguments are full of CRAP!!
American Lung Association
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 17:31:28 PT
Sam Adams #23
Sam you got that right!!!Every wordCool PostKeep Going
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by sam adams on July 07, 2006 at 17:31:06 PT
one more comment
You know, usually I'm very cynical and pessimistic when people here say "we're winning". But I think this time, you're right. This little piece from ONDCP shows that they're retreating as fast as they possibly can.- They've resorted to saying that Prohibition was a good thing? I've never seen that before- They're forced to piggy-back cannabis prohibition onto the current public health jihad against tobacco, instead of advocating cannabis as an urgent criminal justice crisis.- They're openly admitted that there is no reason to ban cannabis for adults. This is a major retreat. They're admitting that the only reason they ban cannabis for adults is to keep it away from kids.- They're specifically attacking "legalization plans". This may be the most exciting part. They're not insisting on more mandatory minimums, they're not calling for more arrests, they're not asking to poison more of Latin America. They're fighting a desperate rear-guard action. Yay!Maybe they really are afraid of MPP and their Nevada campaign after all.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by Sam Adams on July 07, 2006 at 17:24:25 PT
prohibition
Interesting stats on Prohibition - I'd like to see the research studies. Did alchohol consumption really fall during Prohibition? I wonder how they measured all this, back in the 1920's with the limited capabilities of science in that day. Most of America was rural farmland or factories, how could they possibly track alcohol use out in the boonies at that time?I know this stat is true: alcohol use by minors, and the murder rate among minors both increased during Prohibition. The alcohol gangs were fond of using kids to do their dirty work, just as the drug gangs are today.Let's face it, a huge, multi-trillion dollar government can probably produce whatever statistics they want. They fund much of the scientific research in the US. What people need to remember, more than ever, is common sense. We don't need Karen Tandy to tell us how to raise our kids. We certainly don't need the American Academy of Pediatrics. People have been raising kids for thousands of years, quite successfully, without these "experts". The Roman and Greek empires ruled the civilized world for thousands of years without the American Academy of Pediatrics, or a Drug Czar, for that matter.Prohibiting consensual crimes, drugs, sex, gambling, NEVER works. The only people that benefit from these laws are the political class. Everyone else comes out a loser.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by FoM on July 07, 2006 at 17:16:59 PT
ACLU Backs CA's Medical Marijuana Law
Audio: http://tinyurl.com/kj4lpBy Amy Isackson KBS SAN DIEGO (2006-07-07) The American Civil Liberties Union is stepping in to defend California's medical marijuana law in the wake of Thursday's raids of medical marijuana dispensaries in San Diego. The ACLU is asking the state court to force San Diego to comply with the state law. KPBS reporter Amy Isackson has details.California voters passed Proposition 215 a decade ago. It allows sick and dying patients to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes.Earlier this year, San Diego's County Board of Supervisors sued the state to overturn the law. They say federal law that prohibits medical marijuana trumps California's law which permits it. ACLU executive director Kevin Keenan says when officers raided medical marijuana dispensaries recently, they violated state law. He says that's ironic.Keenan: "The county is spending time focusing on prosecuting abuses when it could prevent abuses by having a better run system." Law enforcement officials in San Diego say they support medical marijuana laws and went after dispensaries that abuse them. Amy Isackson, KPBS news. Copyright 2006, KPBS
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 16:50:36 PT
issues
“This is a health issue.Words from her, she said it.Ok. I’ll buy that.That means it shouldn’t be a criminal issue.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by mayan on July 07, 2006 at 16:47:41 PT
Karen Tandy, She's a Dandy!
She could at least put one true statement in her little piece of propaganda just to give the impression that she has a speck of credibility. A third grader could dissect her mindless drivel. Amazing.THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...LOOSE CHANGE CREATORS RECEIVE 4 PAGE SPREAD IN THIS MONTH'S VANITY FAIR:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/loose-change-creators-receive-4-page.htmlMichael Wolsey Interviews The U.K.'s 9/11 Truth Chairman Ian Crane (mp3):
http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=107855Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett to Speak in Wisconsin - 7/9:
http://www.mwsocialforum.org/node/589Very Strange 9/11 Aircraft Registrations:
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/very_strange_markings_on_911_aircraft_registrations.htmScholars for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/index.htmlVeterans for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.v911t.org/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by WolfgangWylde on July 07, 2006 at 16:40:56 PT
Jessica Peck Corry......
... would change her mind right quick if her daughter ever got caught up in the legal system.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by Taylor121 on July 07, 2006 at 16:01:11 PT
You would think
You would think Tandy would know that the black market for alcohol doesn't exist right now for teens. It is actually labeled a grey market because the original source of the product is from the legal market.The same would apply for marijuana. The "dealer" would actually be buying from a legal source, but distributing to kids would be illegal.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 15:50:29 PT
PANAMA RED
PANAMA RED
(PETER ROWAN) CHORUSPANAMA RED, PANAMA REDHE'LL STEAL YOUR WOMAN, THEN HE'LL ROB YOUR HEADPANAMA RED, PANAMA RED ******ON HIS WHITE HORSE, MESCALITOHE COME BREEZIN' THROUGH TOWNI'LL BET YOUR WOMAN'S UP IN BED WITHPANAMA RED *****THE JUDGE DON'T KNOW WHEN RED'S IN TOWNHE KEEPS WELL HIDDEN UNDERGROUNDBUT EVERYBODY'S ACTING LAZYFALLING OUT AND HANGIN' 'ROUND MY WOMAN SAID, "HEY PEDROYOU'RE ACTIN' CRAZY LIKE A CLOWN"NOBODY FEELS LIKE WORKINGPANAMA RED IS BACK IN TOWN *****CHORUS *******EVERYBODY'S LOOKING OUT FOR HIM'CAUSE THEY KNOW RED'S SATISFIESLITTLE GIRLS LOVE TO LISTEN TO HIMSING AND TELL SWEET LIES BUT WHEN THINGS GET TOO CONFUSING, HONEYYOU'RE BETTER OFF IN BEDAND I'LL BE SEARCHING ALL THE JOINTS IN TOWN FORPANAMA RED *******CHORUS ********Appears on The Adventures of Panama Redhttp://www.nrpsmusic.com/music/lyrics/panamared.htmlNew Riders of the Purple Sage Websitehttp://www.newridersofthepurplesage.com/new_riders.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 15:39:53 PT
Confused: Six must be 9 by now
“Today's marijuana is at least eight times more potent than marijuana of the 1970s.”I’m really confused here; I thought not long ago they were saying up to 30 times stronger than that of the 70’s. You know like Panama Red, Columbian Gold, Acapulco Gold.Now it’s back to 8 times. Wonder what the figure will be next month?
I wish they would make up their mind on which Hooey to throw at the wall. It seems they are having a hard time finding something that will stick.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 15:17:48 PT
Go figure
Today, alcohol consumption is more than three times greater than during Prohibition.Well I’m not too sure about this either.Does anybody know how much the population has increased since then.What was her source for the figure of “3 times greater” come from.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by Toker00 on July 07, 2006 at 15:13:50 PT
Classic . The Blind leading the Blind.
Tandy - "Under most legalization plans, drugs would remain illegal for those under 21. But nearly a third of current drug users are teens - so a black market would still exist to supply them."This is incredibly ignorant. Cannabis Legalization means: THE END OF THE BLACK MARKET FOR CANNABIS!!! Even if they sneak a joint from Mom or Dad, it's STILL better than being exposed to the Hard Drugs over the curiosity of Cannabis. WAKE UP, TANDY!! Cannabis will become so boring to kids. With all the arrest time gained from Cannabis Legalization, the LEOs will be able to control the Hard Drug Black Market better (Until you realize that what works for cannabis would work for ALL drugs), reducing even MORE the chances of children getting their hands on Dangerous Drugs. More time to catch the Alcohol Abusers and save even MORE children. More time to catch the Child Molesters and Murderers, saving even MORE children. So, Tandy, save the children. Legalize Cannabis. Quit lieing for your paycheck.Toke.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 15:11:35 PT
words
pandemicmarijuana dependencyToday's marijuana is at least eight times more potent than marijuana of the 1970s.Look at her choice of words.I really love the new twist "pandemic"
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 15:05:13 PT
might and will
“A June United Nations report refers to cannabis use as a "pandemic," noting an increase in cannabis- related health damage. This might explain why more teens now enter treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined, including alcohol. ”Notice the word used is, “might”. How about when a teen is asked weather they would like to be jailed, or sign up for forced treatment “will” explain why more teens now enter treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined, including alcohol.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by global_warming on July 07, 2006 at 14:58:40 PT
that equals
alcohol consumption fell almost 60 percent and related liver cirrhosis and deaths fell dramatically = an equivilant rise in organized crime, bootleggers and corruption up to your mothers apron,..go on Ms. Karen, hope you can look your face in the mirror..
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Toker00 on July 07, 2006 at 14:51:27 PT
Sucker Mom.
Karen Tandy and everyone in the DEAth are Suckers. They have traded their very Souls for a steady Paycheck. Everyone knows Cannabis is Far Safer than alcohol. Everyone knows that LEGALIZING Cannabis would decrease alcohol Use and Dependency, helping with the problem of alcohol abuse, not adding another problem. The DEAth and Fools and Dumbasses Administration keep cures AWAY from disease, addictions, and mental illnesses. Then they approve medicines that CAUSE great Damage, even DEAth. And to top it off, they provide the very infrastructure (Drug Prohibition) to supply their own children and ours, with More Powerful and Unsafe Drugs. The Drug War has been Won alright. By Drugs! I got a letter from Brother Jerry. He speaks of the Horrors of Prison. Humility. Disrespect. Predators. The only subject of discussion in there, TIME. Suffering through another day, and another day, and yet another. The time before prison, the time in prison, the time to come after prison. And the only light these men have is the light of our letters, and the contribution to their commissaries. There is no release in prison, only stress. Jerry needs every single one of us. He needs us now, and he'll need us until he gets home. He misses his Wife, he misses his Dogs, and he misses his Life. Please send this very good man a ray of hope. It's all they have to think about besides TIME.NOTE THE CHANGES IN JERRY'S ADDRESS****Letters:Jerry Sisson #66424-065FMC DevensP.O.Box 879Ayers, Ma. 01434-0879Postal Money Orders:CommissaryFederal Bureau of PrisonsJerry Sisson #66424-065P.O.Box 474701Des moines, Iowa 50947-0001Jerry says the most important thing to him is the compassion we are showing when we write to him. It is his only GOOD thing in there. Please pray and write.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by daksya on July 07, 2006 at 14:43:51 PT
Black market
Tandy - "Under most legalization plans, drugs would remain illegal for those under 21. But nearly a third of current drug users are teens - so a black market would still exist to supply them."Just like the thriving black market that supplies alcohol to teens, right? ..right?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by observer on July 07, 2006 at 14:17:49 PT
analysis
[3]
The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes the legalization of marijuana, cautioning that "any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents."
(Sentence 3) re: "American" - Prohibitionists assert that the survival of the community, society, the nation, the world, etc. are at stake. Only continued and increased punishments for drug users can be contemplated, because, say prohibitionists, society will otherwise fall apart. (Survival of Society (propaganda theme 3) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme3.htm#3 ) re: "legalization", "legalization of marijuana" - Any mention of lessening the harshness of drug laws is portrayed as a sinful "legalization". Only total prohibition (or more jailings) will be righteous. (Total Prohibition or Access (propaganda theme 7) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme7.htm#7 )
[4]
Marijuana is against the law because it's a dangerous, addictive drug .
(Sentence 4) re: "dangerous", "addictive" - Drugs, claim the prohibitionist, cause insanity, violence, and terrible sickness. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 )
[6]
According to the American Lung Association, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more cancer-causing material than cigarette smoke .
(Sentence 6) re: "cancer-causing" - It is prohibition, claim prohibitionists, that saves people from drug crazed, whacked out, high flying drug users. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) re: "American" - The health of the "community" (read: government) is assured, prohibitionists explain, because drug users are punished. Jailing drug users is thus painted as upholding society. (Survival of Society (propaganda theme 3) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme3.htm#3 )
[7]
A June United Nations report refers to cannabis use as a "pandemic," noting an increase in cannabis- related health damage .
(Sentence 7) re: "cannabis use" - Prohibition propaganda claims that all use of any "drug" is abuse. (Use is Abuse (propaganda theme 4) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme4.htm#alluseisabuse ) re: "pandemic" - Unless the drug "war" is fought, claims the rhetoric of prohibition, an evil "epidemic" of drugs would be unleashed upon an unwitting public. (Demonize, War (propaganda theme 6) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme6.htm#6 )
[8]
This might explain why more teens now enter treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined, including alcohol .
(Sentence 8) re: "teens" - Being a prohibitionist means you can never shed too many crocodile tears for the "children". (As you lustily jail or kill their parents for using drugs.) (Children Corrupted (propaganda theme 5) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme5.htm#5 )
[10]
Accordingly, thousands of adolescents, whose brains are still developing, suffer from depression, memory impairment and diminished judgment because of marijuana .
(Sentence 10) re: "impairment", "depression" - The rhetoric of prohibition asserts that insanity, crime, and violence are caused by drugs, or are controlled by prohibition. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 )
[12]
But nearly a third of current drug users are teens - so a black market would still exist to supply them .
(Sentence 12) re: "drug users", "users" - The rhetoric of prohibition will try to use labeling and guilt by association to link drugs and drug users with hated groups. (Hated Groups (propaganda theme 1) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme1.htm#1 ) re: "drug users" - Prohibitionists try to hammer in the idea that 'all use is abuse.' The rhetoric of prohibition needs to deny that many people can use currently illegal drugs without abusing them. (Use is Abuse (propaganda theme 4) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme4.htm#alluseisabuse ) re: "teens" - "Nothing can so excite an adult population as can anything which appears to threaten their own children." [W.White,1979] (Children Corrupted (propaganda theme 5) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme5.htm#5 )
[13]
You only need to look at Prohibition to see that criminalizing an activity suppresses it, and legalization increases it .
(Sentence 13) re: "criminalizing" - Drugs, the prohibitionist explains, are a wicked bane on modern man. Why if not for the noble drug war (i.e. jailing drug users), exclaims the propagandist, then people will run amok, and violence, death, psychosis, and plague shall cover the land. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 )
[15]
Today, alcohol consumption is more than three times greater than during Prohibition, and is estimated to cost our country at least $184 billion a year in lost productivity, crime, and health-care costs .
(Sentence 15) re: "crime" - Prohibitionist propaganda claims that horrible dangers are caused by "drugs." (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) re: "our country" - The survival of society is assured, -- says the propaganda of prohibition -- as long as drug users are punished (jailed). (Survival of Society (propaganda theme 3) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme3.htm#3 )
[17]
I'm doing everything possible to keep drugs away from my own children and everyone else's - not making drugs easier to get .
(Sentence 17) re: "children" - "Chemicals have long been inextricably linked in prohibitionist literature with the ... corruption of young people." [W.White,1979] (Children Corrupted (propaganda theme 5) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme5.htm#5 )
[18]
Note: Re: "One soccer mom's take on the drug war," June 28 Colorado Voices column .
(Sentence 18) re: "drug war" - Drug users are evil fiends which, save for the noble drug "war", would multiply as the "epidemic" of drug use engulfs an innocent people. (Demonize, War (propaganda theme 6) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme6.htm#6 )
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by whig on July 07, 2006 at 14:17:38 PT
What this means
We have Succeeded in equating Cannabis Prohibition with Alcohol Prohibition.Even the US DEA Administrator agrees with us now.She happens to think BOTH should be prohibited.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by whig on July 07, 2006 at 14:14:38 PT
Whoa
Karen P. Tandy wrote:"You only need to look at Prohibition to see that criminalizing an activity suppresses it, and legalization increases it. During Prohibition, alcohol consumption fell almost 60 percent and related liver cirrhosis and deaths fell dramatically. Today, alcohol consumption is more than three times greater than during Prohibition, and is estimated to cost our country at least $184 billion a year in lost productivity, crime, and health-care costs."She is saying that Alcohol Prohibition Worked, and that Alcohol Prohibition Is A Good Idea.Do you think people can see through this yet? Do people want Alcohol to be Prohibited again?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by afterburner on July 07, 2006 at 13:52:55 PT
Karen Tandy, Out of Touch!
Karen P. Tandy obviously doesn't keep up with the research or she would know about the recent study that showed that even smoking cannabis does not promote cancer.If cannabis is illegal because its "addictive," then why is coffee, which is more "addictive," still legal?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by dongenero on July 07, 2006 at 13:51:46 PT
oh boy, Karen Tandy
A dangerous addictive drug?
I don't think so...my word against yours. I can back mine up with science.Cancer? The most recent studies indicate no higher cncer rate than non-smokers. In fact, these recent studies indicate that cannabis is protective against cancer.Eight times more potent? I don't think so, maybe they shouldn't be testing 30 year old cannabis evidence.You argue against availability for adults because someone would still sell it to teens? I don't even know how to address this ridiculous attempt at logic.Alcohol consumption is 3 times greater than during prohibition? So is the US population...duh.
The difference is that we no longer have gang related violence related to the alcohol manufacturing and distribution industry as we had under prohibtion. And no, minors should not use cannabis, but, neither should adults be arrested, jailed, their assets seized and their lives ruined by our government....all for a plant.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by Dankhank on July 07, 2006 at 13:43:36 PT
OT
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/fashion/story/0,,1815061,00.htmlstory about memory ... Brit style
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by FoM on July 07, 2006 at 13:21:45 PT
Another Question
How much alcohol can a person keep in their house until it would activate a Swat Team to bust down their door and take them to jail?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 07, 2006 at 13:19:18 PT
A Question
Why aren't people who drink alcohol locked away from their families and friends for having a drink? Double standards are something I was always told shouldn't be.Excerpt: You only need to look at Prohibition to see that criminalizing an activity suppresses it, and legalization increases it. During Prohibition, alcohol consumption fell almost 60 percent and related liver cirrhosis and deaths fell dramatically. Today, alcohol consumption is more than three times greater than during Prohibition, and is estimated to cost our country at least $184 billion a year in lost productivity, crime, and health-care costs.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment