cannabisnews.com: The Politics of Pot










  The Politics of Pot

Posted by CN Staff on October 07, 2006 at 07:12:25 PT
By Mike Peters 
Source: Greeley Tribune 

Colorado -- You would think, just by seeing his pickup truck, that Bill Smits would favor the ballot initiative in the upcoming election that would legalize marijuana possession in Colorado.His pickup, which has the professionally-painted sign, "CANCER SUCKS marijuana saved my life!" in his back window, obviously draws attention as he drives around Greeley. But Smits' sign isn't about legalization. It's about medicinal marijuana.
As a teen, Smits had a cancerous tumor on his brain stem, and he had to undergo almost constant chemotherapy, drugs, radiation and surgeries. Because of the chemo, he was nauseous most of the time."I lost 84 pounds in one month," says Smits, who is now 22 and cancer-free. "Everything I ate, I threw up."He tried Marinol, a drug that has some of the chemicals of marijuana, but it didn't work. Then he got some marijuana from friends in Boulder and it stopped the nausea. Smits was able to keep food down, and he began to get well.If you ask him how he survived cancer, he'll give you a one-word answer: "Weed."But because he still considers marijuana dangerous for some people, he is undecided on a ballot initiative that would make the weed legal in Colorado."I think it's important for some people -- those seriously ill -- to have marijuana if they need it. But it shouldn't be abused, either," Smits said.Smits said he no longer uses marijuana because he was afraid of becoming addicted. He tapered off after the cancer was in remission."But I'm still not sure how I'll vote on the question," Smits said.Two people are convinced of their positions on the question, Weld County Sheriff John Cooke and the man who led the election to get the marijuana legalized in Denver, Mason Tvert. Here is a summary of their arguments:Cooke:* "There's a lot of reasons to be opposed to marijuana. The initiative is a slippery slope -- first medical use, then legalization of marijuana, and eventually legalization of all drugs."* "Alaska legalized marijuana for a time, and because of all the problems it presented, they voted to make it illegal again."* The way we're going, we will eventually make cigarette smoke illegal and marijuana smoke legal."* "We know it's a gateway drug -- it starts young people on the path to using more and more dangerous drugs."Tvert:* "Government tests and medical labs have shown over and over that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol."* "Forty-seven percent of America's population have smoked marijuana and they had to get it illegally."* "The Denver election showed that the people don't want marijuana to be illegal anymore."* "The only way it's a 'gateway drug' is when the police arrest people for minor possession, and that starts them through the gate into being criminals."Cooke and Tvert agree that if the initiative passes, marijuana will continue to be a federal crime. And, both agree that no federal agent will bother to arrest anyone with a small amount of the weed.Amendment 44 would legalize the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana for adults 21 years of age or older. Still illegal would be:Possession of marijuana under 21.Possession of more than an ounce.Transfer to person under 21 years old.Growing marijuana.Selling marijuana.Open or public display of marijuana.Driving under the influence of marijuana.Newshawk: MayanSource: Greeley Tribune (CO)Author: Mike PetersPublished: October 7, 2006Copyright: 2006 Greeley TribuneContact: letters greeleytrib.comWebsite: http://www.greeleytrib.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Safer Choicehttp://www.saferchoice.org/Safer Coloradohttp://www.safercolorado.org/Hippie-Hating and Baitinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22244.shtmlExpert Says Law Would Increase Marijuana Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22228.shtmlAdults Should Be Allowed To Choosehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22225.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #47 posted by global_warming on October 10, 2006 at 16:13:46 PT
re: What is another nailing on the cross?
Vote Yes on Amendment 44In Colorado.Receive Blessing Everlasting GloryIt Is Time, 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by global_warming on October 10, 2006 at 15:48:42 PT
You Know But are frightened
OPN, is like KGB and DEA, they exist only to take human beings to "prison" forget not the FBI and the good souls at the CIA.Stalin and Nixon whould be Happy knowing that their world views are working into the flesh and soul of human beings on this blue planet.What is another nailing on the cross?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by whig on October 10, 2006 at 00:24:36 PT
Storm Crow
I don't actually know who OPN are and what they are supposed to be doing.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #44 posted by Storm Crow on October 09, 2006 at 21:59:50 PT

Randy Brush and me.....
No, I've never met Randy. Never even been to Ohio. I"m just a California gal who just though he got a really ****ing bad deal for doing what I do LEGALLY in California. It was just too unfair! I can't afford to help Randy financially, but I can talk and post! He is rather upset with OPN because they haven't written him, and from his latest letter, he says that they seem to be a bit upset with ME for posting his letters at various sites. ????? All I'm doing is trying to get the word out about an injustice to a sick man. Anyway, if you have a spare minute or two, drop Randy a line. In prison, a letter is a lifeline! Even a postcard is good! Let Randy know he isn't forgotten.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #43 posted by whig on October 09, 2006 at 11:40:49 PT

Storm Crow
Do you know Randy personally?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #42 posted by FoM on October 09, 2006 at 11:24:26 PT

Whig
Anyone that wants to talk about him can do that. I don't have a problem with that at all.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #41 posted by whig on October 09, 2006 at 11:22:24 PT

FoM
I didn't mean to suggest that you personally need to talk about Randy Brush. The "we" means all of us.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #40 posted by whig on October 09, 2006 at 11:13:17 PT

FoM
Here is what you do if you want to see something interesting.Go to: http://www.drc.state.oh.us/offendersearch/Details.aspx?id=A502945&pg=xClick on Victim Info under the Offense Information heading.Why aren't we talking more about Randy Brush here?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #39 posted by FoM on October 09, 2006 at 07:57:59 PT

Storm Crow 
I've never been associated with OPN so I don't know what they do actually. I just do CNews and try to keep a focus. I wonder if there was more to it then 4 plants. It seems unheard of but that might not be in the area where he lived. Some big city areas seem a little harsher.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #38 posted by Storm Crow on October 09, 2006 at 07:44:44 PT

OHIO AND RANDY BRUSH
Randy Brush grew 4 plants and had some stash... and got 3 years in Ohio. His ex turned him in. He had no previous record. He got a "hangin'judge". He is in a wheelchair much of the time. He nearly died of a ruptured appendix because the COs thought he was faking his pain. He's a smart and funny guy. He feels abandoned by Ohio's OPN because NONE of them have written to him. (If you're a member..hint, hint) You can read his story at Freerandybrush.com  Randy would welcome your letters. Randy Brush #502945
PCI
POB 209
Orient, Ohio 43146
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #37 posted by whig on October 08, 2006 at 22:28:57 PT

FoM
I'm also not sure if the possession charge was for cannabis or MDMA, which is off-topic if so. Anyhow that was my experience of Zanesville.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #36 posted by whig on October 08, 2006 at 22:26:47 PT

FoM
Yes, I know he did not get jail. He had a really arrogant defender though, who was making fun of the fact that there were three people who were following his client around and traveling across the state to go to his trial to support him. He just couldn't understand how someone like my friend could have friends like us, I guess.I'm not sure if it's relevant and didn't occur to me as an important detail at the time, but my friend who was on trial was a dark-skinned black man, and the three of us were light skinned, among whom two were male and one female. It probably makes no difference but I wonder if he would have been treated as well by the system if he had faced it alone.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #35 posted by FoM on October 08, 2006 at 21:11:35 PT

Whig
I don't know of anyone that has gone to jail for possession of marijuana since they changed the laws back in the 70s from a 20 to 40 year sentence. I remember one story where the police stopped a car and found 8 ounces. They took it and told the person that it was just too much to possess. That's all.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #34 posted by whig on October 08, 2006 at 20:56:34 PT

FoM
I believe that my friend got community service of some kind as a sentence.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #33 posted by whig on October 08, 2006 at 20:55:34 PT

FoM
Once I traveled from Pennsylvania with some friends who were defending a citation for possession, in Zanesville, OH. I remember that the road that terminates there was Route 666. We got a picture of the sign at the end of the road, but it was not my camera and I don't have a copy now.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #32 posted by FoM on October 08, 2006 at 20:46:42 PT

charmed quark 
I guess there are a few states that people go to jail for a small amount. Ohio's laws have worked for a long time. Because the penalty isn't bad the police don't focus on marijuana. I don't know how other states are but swat teams are unheard of around here. Even people that I have read about in our local papers don't get a big sentence for even cocaine. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #31 posted by charmed quark on October 08, 2006 at 14:13:37 PT

FoM - depends on the state
I remember back in the 70s, Texas had life for possession of any amount. Some poor teenager was sentence to life because they vacuumed out his pockets and found one seed and some microscopic fragments.Luckily, they have changed their laws. Now, 2ozs or less gets you 180 days; 2-4 ozs a year. More than 4 ozs is a state felony. Generally, being convicted of possession means you only have small amounts. Most states define having over a certain amount as intent to distribute, even if there is no evidence whatsoever that it is for anything but personal use. The statistic I gave earlier would, by definition, mean they were thrown in jail for possessing relatively small amounts. Certainly not pounds, probably more than an ounce.In most states, more than an ounce can send you to jail. But my guess is that most of the people in jail are there because they have been arrested for possession more than once. As you said, many states give the "forced treatment" option for first offenses, but not for subsequent ones.Just skipping around NORMLS' state law site - Indiana 30 grams or less gets you jail, but you might be given the "forced treatment" option if you are nice and it's a first time offense. But more than 30 grams and it's into jail.Oklahoma - any amount gets you 1 year, but with the possibility of "forced treatment". Any subsequent convictions and it's 2-10 years.Ohio is surprisingly lax - less than 100 grams is a minor misdemeaner. No jail, no forced treatment, no criminal record - the thing that really screws up the lives of a lot of people arrested for possession. 100-200 grams is a minor misdemeaner of the 4th degree. 30 days and/or a $250 fine.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #30 posted by afterburner on October 08, 2006 at 09:09:41 PT

So, the Solution Is Obvious
RE global_warming #1{
Schwarzenegger claims to be "for" medical marijuana, but by the logic of his veto message he would have vetoed Prop 215 had it been enacted by the legislature instead of the voters. (Laws created by initiative take effect immediately and don't require the governor's signature.) Former Gov. Pete Wilson -who is now a Schwarzenegger advisor, vetoed medical marijuana bills passed by the legislature in 1994 and 1995, citing federal law as his rationale. 
}The hemp legalization forces need to use a Hemp Initiative; just make sure that local strain diversity is included in the wording. A Hemp Initiative would bypass the need for obstructionist Governor vetoes. However, in order for the Hemp Initiative to pass, the hemp lobbyists must seek the support of the dreaded medical cannabis supporters! What a pickle!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #29 posted by FoM on October 08, 2006 at 06:49:59 PT

charmed quark 
I'm sorry I only meant if a person is caught with a small amount as in possession. I would like to know the stats on how many people are in jail for under an ounce. No one goes to jail for possession in my state. Under 100 grams is a $100 fine and treated like a traffic violations. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #28 posted by charmed quark on October 08, 2006 at 06:38:34 PT

FoM: Jail for cannabis users
The Federal government has been seeking severe prison sentences for a number of medical marijuana users. Rosenfeld, Steve William Tuck, Kubby, Peter Williams are just the most obvious ones off the top of my head. A couple ended up dead because of this.According to the latest stats I could find:"43 percent of state drug prisoners are behind bars on possession charges alone, and the vast majority of those are for possession of marijuana"So you only get "forced treatment" if you are lucky.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #27 posted by whig on October 07, 2006 at 15:04:22 PT

FoM #23
I think there are those who despise what we believe and consider us the enemy, and jail too good for us.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #26 posted by whig on October 07, 2006 at 15:01:13 PT

Recreation
I don't think there is such a thing as marijuana use that does not re-create. Cannabis is the recreational plant.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #25 posted by whig on October 07, 2006 at 14:59:18 PT

gw 
A grand jury has been convened to investigate.http://cannablog.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/convention/
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #24 posted by whig on October 07, 2006 at 14:57:54 PT

gw 
I am being too authoritarian again. Please forgive me.You do not need to bow to me, but I do ask whether you truly want an eye for an eye.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #23 posted by FoM on October 07, 2006 at 14:36:08 PT

charmed quark 
No one should be thrown in jail for using Cannabis. I can't imagine anyone even those who oppose us that think that would help. They believe in forced treatment not jail. I don't think that helps.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #22 posted by charmed quark on October 07, 2006 at 14:28:12 PT

FoM - medical use
I agree that a lot of what is called recreational use is actually medical use. If nothing else, it might be for the antidepressant effects. And that can be important, as we all know depression can kill.But when I first got involved in this we tried to only deal with the "serious" medical condtions like AIDS, cancer, MS, etc. Otherwise, we were afraid we would be accused of supporting cannabis to treat hangnails ( an accusation you often hear from the drug czar).I see at this point that it was probably silly of us to worry about this as we would be accussed of secretly doing this to promote recreationally use no matter what we did. As for purely recreational use - it's probably a lot safer than standard legal recreational drugs. Anything can be done to excess. But should the government be throwing people in jail because some people might overindulge?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by global_warming on October 07, 2006 at 13:54:11 PT

re: 19 comment
"My interest is medical cannabis only. "That is deep water,Can I rest here for a moment
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by FoM on October 07, 2006 at 13:48:21 PT

charmed quark 
When I started doing CNews I was only interested in medical marijuana because of my son having Aids. I believe Cannabis is good medicine but even if the only effect was a placebo effect and it made someone feel better then it still is good medicine to me because it did what it should. Now after all these years I realize how difficult it is to change the laws because of the powers that be fighting reform so hard. As far as recreational use I don't know how I feel about that. To me whether a person says it's just for fun it makes them smile and feel better so isn't that medicine too? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by charmed quark on October 07, 2006 at 13:41:15 PT

Medical vs. recreational cannabis
My interest is medical cannabis only. For years I tried to keep that issue separate from recreational cannabis. However, because the Federal government refuses to see the distinction, I think the separation is moot.Even at the state level it has been problematic allowing medical cannabis use while not allowing recreational. The police claim they can't tell the difference and so arrest everybody. And there have been also sorts of access issues since medical users have to depend on their own ability to be farmers. IF it was politically possible to legalize recreational use, that would sure solve the medical cannabis problem.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by global_warming on October 07, 2006 at 13:28:12 PT

I Will Bow and Be Simple
And Be Free,I Will Bow and be Free
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by whig on October 07, 2006 at 13:15:14 PT

gw 
Do you want to free the hostages or do you want blood first?Give peace a chance.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by global_warming on October 07, 2006 at 13:02:34 PT

It Is Tme For Justice
Best you get a good lawyer,
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by global_warming on October 07, 2006 at 12:58:57 PT

Compañeros=Patriots
American Bloody Patriots and The War,It is time.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by global_warming on October 07, 2006 at 12:39:23 PT

re: 10.. C'mon, Smits the Moron
"Compañeros, victory is our destiny. We must not falter, we must unite and continue the struggle," a broadcaster at La Ley radio station announced."
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by global_warming on October 07, 2006 at 12:16:36 PT

re: Everyone is confused right now, 
Not Everybody.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by whig on October 07, 2006 at 12:09:37 PT

gw 
Perhaps LEAP will interface with these police officers and help them understand.Everyone is confused right now, so we need to tidy up a bit and present the whole truth. That's why it's a bad idea to try to split the truth into little half-truths, like talking about hemp as something other than cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by whig on October 07, 2006 at 12:06:49 PT

gw #8
Yup. Same same. And we have a problem here because we have to rehabilitate these people once the war is concluded, which will be shortly.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by mayan on October 07, 2006 at 11:57:17 PT

C'mon, Smits
Smits said he no longer uses marijuana because he was afraid of becoming addicted. He tapered off after the cancer was in remission.You'd think the guy might want to learn a little bit about the substance that saved his life. Cannabis can be psycholigically addictive but so can Twinkies! Is he against every prescription medication that can be addictive? What a moron.On an unrelated note, at least Mexicans know what courage is...Radio Waves Incite Rebellion in Oaxaca: 
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1006-05.htmTHE ONLY WAY OUT...Another Smoking Gun: Condi & Crew Knew!
http://www.ny911truth.org/articles/condi_knew.htmThe real “state of denial” 9/11 red herrings as bipartisan election-year volleyball:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1287.shtmlFear the Penis: 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20061006/cm_huffpost/031111Alex Jones' Terror Storm (video):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322&q=terror+storm9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB - OUR NATION IS IN PERIL:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by Celaya on October 07, 2006 at 11:48:14 PT

Since No One Else Has Done It Yet................
DEBUNKING TIMESheriff Cooke says:* "There's a lot of reasons to be opposed to marijuana. The initiative is a slippery slope -- first medical use, then legalization of marijuana, and eventually legalization of all drugs."Lumping and fear. Classic, mindless, prohibitionist rhetoric. If we're going to lump, logic demands you lump alcohol and tobacco in as well. Lumping is idiotic, and is only used because it's a proven propaganda tactic. "Alaska legalized marijuana for a time, and because of all the problems it presented, they voted to make it illegal again."Cooke borrowed that half-truth tactic from Attorney General Suthers. Yes, there was a vote that attempted to overturn the Alaska court's decision that marijuana prohibition was an invasion of privacy, BUT, it was overruled by the courts as unconstitutional. It is now legal to have up to one ounce of marijuana in the home. Amazingly, prohibitionists will not admit this truth, and seem convinced the public will not bother to check the facts.The way we're going, we will eventually make cigarette smoke illegal and marijuana smoke legal."Mix exaggeration with propaganda induced fear. Yes, marijuana will be legal. So what? No, cigarette smoke will never be illegal in the home, or anywhere else it does not present a public nuisance."We know it's a gateway drug -- it starts young people on the path to using more and more dangerous drugs."The gateway myth has been proven false by every legitimate study, but that doesn't stop unethical prohibitionists from dragging it out if they think they can get any mileage out of it.Lies, deception, fear mongering. Nice people these "public servants."
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by global_warming on October 07, 2006 at 11:32:26 PT

5 comment
"Don't think that the main body of police are hateful people that want to come in and hurt you. No, they are for the most part just doing what they are told to do, and which they don't understand to be wrong."Like good soldiers marching off to war, did not the German soldiers in WW2 try to get off on same line?It did not work then and it is still wrong.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by Hope on October 07, 2006 at 11:21:23 PT

Paul Peterson
Absolutely outstanding work, Paul.I've bookmarked it for future reference.Thank you!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by Hope on October 07, 2006 at 11:20:49 PT

Oops  got one posted on the wrong thread!
I'll drag it over here...next comment.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by whig on October 07, 2006 at 11:16:35 PT

One movement
Fred Gardner said,

Perhaps "separating the issue" made sense when they were seeking votes from Republican legislators, but once the bill went to the governor for signing -the stage that savvy John Lovell knew was make-or-break- it made no sense at all. Most Californians -including quite a few Republican farmers- know that marijuana is safe and effective medicine and that the federal prohibition is absurd and costly. The Vote Hemp campaign separated the issues, never demanding that Schwarzenegger stand up to the feds re Prohibition. They emphasized the environmental benefits of hemp, economic benefits to California farmers, how easy it would be for law enforcers to tell the difference between good hemp and that bad marijuana Schwarzenegger sensed weakness -political and intellectual- and gave them the big "Nicht."

Whether or not this was Arnold's reason for vetoing, I agree with Fred that the separate-the-issues approach is weak and encourages a deception, even if it is not one that is made by the backers of the issue themselves. For police to be able to distinguish "good" hemp from "bad" marijuana is dumb. Yes, it is really easy for anyone who has a clue, but they really don't have a clue.Don't think that the main body of police are hateful people that want to come in and hurt you. No, they are for the most part just doing what they are told to do, and which they don't understand to be wrong.We should not present a compromise that makes us seem like we're splitting hairs for the sake of some don't-ask-don't-tell cannabis culture. Because that's what this looks like to me. And if you're caught, you still go to jail. It makes us no better off.Yes, hemp is damn important. Cannabis is essential.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 07, 2006 at 10:48:40 PT

Good Going Paul
I found it.http://mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n1338/a01.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by paulpeterson on October 07, 2006 at 10:44:25 PT

FoM-new editorial in Des Moines Register 9/27/06
I got an editorial in the DM Register entitled "Lifesaving properties of marijuana going to pot" which you may want to post here. You can find it on Mapinc.org. I don't know how to pull it over myself. Thought I would let you know.Keep up the good work here. PAUL
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 07, 2006 at 10:11:17 PT

Global_Warming 
You set that article up very well. Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by global_warming on October 07, 2006 at 10:09:27 PT

The way we're going
* The way we're going, we will eventually make cigarette smoke illegal and marijuana smoke legal."You bettcha..link to Fred Gardner article about Arnold the traitor..http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner10072006.html"Schwarzenegger vetoed the hemp bill in deference to law enforcement, according to Patrick Goggin, an attorney employed by the Hemp Industries Association and a Virginia-based lobbying group called Vote Hemp. "At the 11th hour John Lovell, representing the California Narcotics Officers Association and a number of other police groups, sent out a memo expressing extreme opposition," 
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment