cannabisnews.com: Weed Picking Up Speed?
function share_this(num) {
tit=encodeURIComponent('Weed Picking Up Speed?');
url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/24/thread24910.shtml');
site = new Array(5);
site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
return false;
}
Weed Picking Up Speed?
Posted by CN Staff on July 08, 2009 at 10:15:00 PT
By Mike Milliard
Source: Boston Phoenix
Massachusetts -- When the Phoenix published a cover story about the potential tipping point in the fight to end marijuana prohibition, we smelled something in the air: it seemed more than ever that such a resolution might be possible.Now another step forward has been taken. This past month, Democratic Massachusetts representative Barney Frank, for the second year in a row, filed two bills seeking decriminalization. The Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009 would lift punishment for the "possession or not-for-profit transfer" of small amounts of marijuana; it would also create a $100 civil fine for smoking pot in public.
The Marijuana Patient Protection Act, meanwhile, would prevent federal authorities from prosecuting growers and users of medical marijuana in any state where the medical use of pot is legal.The bills don't go as far as many would hope; they won't end federal prohibition against selling pot for profit, for instance — so any arguments about legalizing and taxing the stuff are moot. In addition, neither piece of legislation would change marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and neither upends any existing state or local law.The diehards in the marijuana-reform movement "clearly would like to have marijuana legalized," says Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "They see decriminalization as a half-baked loaf. But those of us here on K Street [in Washington, DC] that actually have to lobby and litigate this stuff, [see that] there is no support, overtly, in Congress for legalizing marijuana. So while the grassroots are harping for legalization and taxed access, I can say that, of the 435 members of Congress, there are probably five who genuinely, strongly support legalization. There's probably 200 to 250 who support the notion of decriminalization — but they've never had a vote on such.""I don't know what the difference is between legalization and decriminalization," argued Frank with characteristic bluntness when we spoke for our May 29 story. "Something is either legal or it's criminal. You may only legalize some aspects of it, but what is a 'decriminalized activity'? Does that mean you can do it? Then it's legal. If it's against the law, then it's criminal."Not exactly, counters St. Pierre, citing Massachusetts's recent decriminalization referendum by way of example. "Run out to Faneuil Hall right now with an ounce of marijuana; you'll pay the $100 fine." Try to sell it, on the other hand, and "you'll end up with a felony against you."But right now, the legalize/decriminalize debate shouldn't obscure the bigger issue, says St. Pierre. With support for pot-policy reform at a high ebb, it's time to act — and any realistic chance at chipping away federal marijuana laws should be embraced.Luckily, he says, these bills appear to have a fair chance of actually passing. "Unlike last year," when similar legislation filed by Frank and Paul never made it to a vote, "this year it would seem that they've really struck a note because of the marijuana Zeitgeist that seems to be around the United States these days."More and more Americans, having "seen the ineffectiveness of the all-out prohibition approach," with its "overcrowded prisons and overstretched law enforcement," are "more skeptical of government intervention," Frank told the Phoenix in May. Ultimately he hopes to convince his colleagues in Congress that "people should be allowed personal freedom if they're not hurting anyone else."Source: Boston Phoenix (MA)Author: Mike MilliardPublished: July 8, 2009 Copyright: 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group.Contact: letters phx.comWebsite: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/URL: http://drugsense.org/url/VeQlSdUYRelated Article: Is Now The Time To Legalize Pot?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24874.shtmlCannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #52 posted by museman on July 10, 2009 at 15:23:01 PT
Hope
"Oh Museman, that pool is too dark and deep and just look at what could be pulled out of it!"Like I said, 'contingent on a majority of consciousness'.I expect that the real good stuff, when it comes, will be a major surprise for all of us.But I'm not convinced that the current system is anything but corrupt, antiquated, and based on many false things. I see no redemption for it. And ideas for replacement are few and far between. Just as the dialogue for liberating the many who suffer under draconian 'laws' of prohibition hinges on the ability to embrace new ideas that come from honest thought and consideration, rather than the bought and sold, packaged 'realities' shoved down the peoples throat in the media and institution, so does the very 'cure' for the 'disease' that propogates itself as the 'Status Quo' which is the very source of all things apprehensible and manifest about prohibition, as well as the agendas of false authority in general. There is no dis-association in my mind.The dark pool of humanity is made dark by the contaminates of human systems of corrupted power, authority, and values, and as long as those systems have been in place, the Spirit of Man has struggled in bondage. The fear and ignorance of the bound is a large resource for those who bind us to their forced compliance, but it (the 'system') is neither just, nor fair. It is based on falsehoods, what other kind of fruit could it possibly bear? Its a catch-22 situation, yet the solution is literally in everyones hands, hearts, and minds. FREE CANNABIS FOREVER
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #51 posted by Hope on July 10, 2009 at 11:42:00 PT
AAAIEEIEIAAIIIIIIIII!!!
TED NUGENT?????!!!!!!!!!!!Good grief... I didn't realize until I contemplated that... that with the present system in place... at least ... no matter how much money he threw at it... he would not be elected. I hope.I do think comfort and safety are important, Museman. It's just when it's the idea of comfort and safety for some, and a real and active threat and danger for others, because of the first guy's personal idea of comfort and safety. There has to be reason. Should you be able to lock up and persecute my cannabis smoking friend whose only "crime" has been consuming an herb, just so you will have some false sense of comfort and safety? I think not! Ted Nugent? Oh Museman, that pool is too dark and deep and just look at what could be pulled out of it!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by FoM on July 10, 2009 at 10:24:16 PT
museman
Somethings are very important to me and somethings aren't. I'll tell you a story that popped into my mind. I was at a nursing home and as I was leaving I looked at the patients and wondered if they had been rich or poor as far as money goes in their productive years. Then I wondered which ones had a rich life and I could tell by the way they smiled or searched for something good. What will we be remembered for?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by museman on July 10, 2009 at 09:56:44 PT
FoM
I guess thats why when we see it, we marvel at it, because its so rare, even though it ought to be COMMON.But too many are staring hard at the invisible clothing trying to convince themselves of its substance, attempting with fervor and much waste of lifeforce (IMO) to identify with the 'uncommon' and unreal.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by museman on July 10, 2009 at 09:51:49 PT
Hope
"There are some hate filled people out there"And a lot of 'em have been waging war against us from their lofty positions of power for a long long time. Time for change.I am reminiscent of the past 8 years of hatred, death and destruction........ and the millennia of it before that.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by FoM on July 10, 2009 at 09:48:05 PT
museman
There isn't a day that goes by that I don't see something on the news or read something online that makes me ask myself where is the common sense in that approach.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by museman on July 10, 2009 at 09:45:09 PT
FoM, Hope
Of course this all is contingent on a wholesale embrace of commonsense values by a majority of people. I mean, obvioiusly there would have to be some filters in place. And even the Ted Nugents in the world deserve adequate representation from their government. Just not EXCLUSIVE representation like we currently have, so that someone like him could have a political bandwagon to jump on.What category would Nudent fall into I wonder?"Has-been, washed up, no talent hacks." Not too many people to represent in that category, but there are a few. Yes that department would be in charge of retraining (not the Orwellian kind), so that people like him could actually do something useful for society. ;-)At any rate, its just one idea. I'm sure that amongst aware people, there are a lot of options not even on the table -because they aren't being acknowleged, or heard.FREE DA HOIB
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by FoM on July 10, 2009 at 09:26:54 PT
My 2 Cents
What if Ted Nugent was picked? That's scary.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by Hope on July 10, 2009 at 09:21:45 PT
The thing I feel most uncomfortable about
and admittedly... it's because it's so different... probably. But dang... it sure is fishing in the dark and anything could be pulled up. There are some hate filled people out there.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by museman on July 10, 2009 at 08:48:44 PT
Hope
There is a few ways it could be done. But the only way that it would really work would be if it were kept entirely random, so that special interests and 'lobbyists' (which should have been recognized and established as unconstituional a long time ago, like prohibition) can't get in there and do the things that have rendered their system absolutely corrupt and evil.If it were up to me, I'd change more than just the way our representatives get selected (and even though we get to 'vote' for the selection, we have no say at all in the selection process)I'd change the offices to more reflect the various levels, cultures, and other strata of society, like Britain, only much less emphasis on the 'House of Lords.'The 'blue collar workers' (modern terminology for 'willing slaves') for example would have their own set of representatives, drawn from their own ranks. And the same with other labor groups, religions, races, etc.It isn't that hard to figure out, and would most likely be much simpler, with a lot less waste of resource in 'marketing and selling' a politician. And why should they get paid so much money as if their 'services' were somehow 'more important' than any one else's service?Take away the money/wealth/social standing impetus, and corruption has a lot less purchase power.But I surely don't see it happening while a large percentage of the population still believe in all their social/economic gods. We've come a long way recently, more than we've moved in thousands of years, but its only the starting gate. Without some kind of adversity, or threat of adversity, people are just naturally opting for comfort over progress, and as long as they are convinced by the status quo that their 'comfort and safety' is all-hinging on the stability and power of the elite, they won't move away from their couch and beer. And they will continue to attend false worship and hear the 'comforting words' that tell them to obey their 'betters.'The hundredth monkey theory, though supposedly 'debunked' by someone with a 'degree' in something or other still holds true as far as I can tell, and at some point the scales are going to tip. But not without effort. Too many sit back and let 'other people' have their piece of responsibility out of fear that is mislabeled as 'concern for health and safety.' Its ironic, that the system as it is, creates scenarios where everybody assumes that everybody else has some secret agenda or selfish motivation like greed or materialism, and the only 'acceptable' authorities are the ones sanctioned and created by the status quo.We won't trust our neighbors, or that some non-college-graduate might have something to offer in knowledge and or common sense, but we trust the people in the suits and limos- who have been proven, time and time again to be nothing but lowlifes dressed up like they were something special. Irony of ironies.There is a solution in the works. It could be good, it could be bad, totally depending on how many 'monkeys' get it between now and then. We have opportunity now, thanks to the wide pendulum swing from right to left, that is greater than ever before, and what we do manage to fix, and/or change in the next few years will mitigate whats coming. And if we could actually get a majority in consciousness, much disaster might be avoided. I am both hopeful and pessimistic. I know that some things are inevtiable (though many would waste their time and breath trying to argue against such hypothesis) and this give me hope, but the american consumer (and its global counterparts) continues to wallow in the various false values and belief systems that allowed the powers and principalities to assume control in the first place, this makes me pessimistic.LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by FoM on July 09, 2009 at 20:15:41 PT
runruff
I didn't answer your question in comment 23. Stick is doing better. The medicine has knocked him down a peg but he is doing ok. Thank you for asking.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by Hope on July 09, 2009 at 18:56:26 PT
Museman and Josephlacerenza
Very interesting idea. Like jury duty? Or getting drafted into serving by lottery?What length of service? Six weeks? Preferably, before they can start making "Deals" with other representatives and start taking bribes of one sort or another.I don't know. It sounds so different. But it's certainly something worth thinking about.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by FoM on July 09, 2009 at 12:18:12 PT
josephlacerenza
If we could get lobbyists out of D.C. and not allow swift boat type ads and give each person running the same amount of press, air time and money that would be much fairer. We would decide on the merits of the person that way.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by FoM on July 09, 2009 at 12:14:38 PT
josephlacerenza
I have followed Michael Jackson's drug use since his death and how he lived as long as he did is a miracle really. Collapsed veins and drugs that are for surgical procedures only really surprised me. Looking at his family they are healthy looking and then you looked at Michael. What a tragedy.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by josephlacerenza on July 09, 2009 at 12:14:35 PT
FoM
I am in total agreement that his base of support was more well rounded than Mc Brainless, but I had to point out the obvious. I appreciate his ability to not just unite people, but get them to actually contribute financially!!! BUT, we need to not make it harder for individuals to represent their fellow americans. We need to make it easier!! And, that is where I'm coming from!!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by museman on July 09, 2009 at 12:11:00 PT
joseph #32
Yup!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by museman on July 09, 2009 at 12:09:43 PT
Hope
In answer to your question. Every citizen of this country has a number. Every one over a certain age, with at least an average, or near average measurable intelligence would qualify.The idea that 'special' talents or 'education' is needed for 'representing' peoples interests is part of the problem. How can a rich man represent me? Impossible.Not that simply replacing the campaigns-of-the-wealthy with a simple lottery would be easy to implement as it stands, a whole lot of consciuousness change would have to happen first, but I think it would be a good step in establishing a fair system that applies to everyone.If my number were drawn, I would not enjoy having to do that, but I would, because I would consider it my civil duty. Just Like I have always grown pot as my patriotic duty.There is a lot that could be discussed on this subject, but like FoM said, we don't want to deviate too far from the path of defeating cannabis prohibition, though if such a thing were to happen, I believe it would almost by default, do away with many antiquated laws based on ignorance and fear, including cannabis prohibition.I re wrote a verse of the National anthem, which many might find offensive, so I never have posted it -the last line kinda says it all though.FREE CANNABIS FOREVER
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by josephlacerenza on July 09, 2009 at 12:08:54 PT
How many must DIE?
I was reminded by the Micheal Jackson thing, how many of the great musicians have left us due to prescription narcotics? I'm thinking of Elvis also!!!Drugs that kill are just that!!! I have an older daughter, and would rather her "experiment" with cannabis than prescriptions, and thank GOD I or my wife do not take prescriptions!!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by FoM on July 09, 2009 at 12:03:19 PT
josephlacerenza
I think there needs to be a change in how money is raised in elections. They must also stop swift boat type ads if those running aren't to be destroyed by those groups. At least Obama raised lots of money from average people who appreciate what he was going to try to do if he was elected. He's trying but I see how hard it is. At least he is backing off medical marijuana in states that already have those laws.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by FoM on July 09, 2009 at 11:58:44 PT
josephlacerenza
That video was very good. Now we have a prescription drug epidemic because of how they cracked down on marijuana around the year 2000. They could get pills easier then marijuana.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by josephlacerenza on July 09, 2009 at 11:57:45 PT
Hope
I can not speak for Museman, but what about our social security number? Or, how do they pick individuals for jury duty? I am aware of giving "THEM" too much control and one way to take it back is to some how randomize the process. When money plays such a large part of politics, it must be weeded out. FoM, I too voted for Obama, but he has set one hell of an example of how to spend record amounts of cash to get elected.Not to mention, he is not the only one to take notice. I am thinking of Ralph Nader. He has been shut down plenty of times due to the amount of money he can not raise.So, to conclude, we need to drastically rethink how we delegate power. All this talk about for the people, by the people means absolutely nothing if the average citizen can not run for an elected office due to the lack of the size of their wallet!!!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by josephlacerenza on July 09, 2009 at 11:41:57 PT
News From the Huff Po
Good Stuff!!!
Ryan Grim Discusses His New Book "This Is Your Country on Drugs" On CNN (VIDEO)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by FoM on July 09, 2009 at 11:41:32 PT
museman
I never cared for politics. Hoping Obama would win was the only time in my life I can say that I was political. I believe the people are the ones that will change our direction if we want to. When I think about the future I see problems but change is coming. Good or bad it's coming.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by Hope on July 09, 2009 at 11:41:06 PT
Museman and Josephlacerenza
Where, in your idea, would you draw the lottery from?By the way, Museman, I've been meaning to say that you certainly hit the nail on the head with something you said recently, to the effect of, "America. Land of the fee. Home of the slave".
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by josephlacerenza on July 09, 2009 at 11:33:16 PT
Museman
I completely agree. You eliminate the entrenched interests!!! Not to mention that the general public will have to better educate themselves with regard to REAL issues that face our society.Why is it so important to bail out the top earners, banks etc., and not to really address the fact we still have people without homes in New Orleans? I think a lot of "common sense" issues could be taken care of through a lottery method of representation.I assume we are also talking of term limits, no life timers, such as, senator bird etc.!!!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by museman on July 09, 2009 at 11:10:59 PT
runruff, FoM
I say, choose our 'representatives' by lottery, that would eliminate so much crap it ain't funny!I have a 'political forum;' its called liberty and justice for all -and as I do see the corruption and gross error in our current political system, and it is my belief that the core political error in this country is a root cause of prohibition. To me, treating symptoms works well for doctors and pharms to perpetuate their wealth and standing, but nothing for the patient. The 'cure' is truth, right and correct knowlege (not wikipedian 'authority made easy') applied to the roots of this system -without compromise and capitulation. Compromise is just treating the symptom, whereas intestinal fortitude in standing up against BS (non-existent in compromise and capitulation with the status quo) is the only way to establish the fact that we are free people, before, after, and during the legislative process, and in fact the legislative process is such a gross error of misplaced service to the wealthy few -like every government ever was- that it is little more than a play act by well-dressed members of the elite.Freedom and liberty is endowed at birth, it is not 'given' by the state, nor does the state have the ethical or moral right to impose their standards on the individual, or groups, except in the commonsense realm of good behavior -which most people understand, no matter their 'lot' in life. A truly free society would 'police' itself through community consciousness, but one controlled by special interests would need cops, armies, judges, and lawyers to keep the would-be-free in line-which is what we have now. Any statements about 'free america' are either made by the emperors many naked pretenders, or ignorance and stupidity -highly prized by the status quo as a resource of workers.The arguments about 'society running amok' have been made potentially real by creating social, economic, and spiritual seperations that seeth with anger at their lives having been coopted by mere humans pretending to be god. Its easy to provoke people who don't really know who they are. Its easy to manipulate a society that is built on the foundation of fear and ignorance.As long as we continue to allow the falsehoods to continue to thrive and exist in 'high places' no amount of crumbs from the table of liberty will be satisfactory for the true and free spirit of man, and that spirit will always be in conflict with those who set themselves above the rest of us. There will never be peace or liberty until mankind takes responsibility for its own actions without abnegating and 'delegating' that responsibility and authority to those who force their way upon us by virtue of their power, money, or social status.Lottery. Random choices drawn out of a hat would totally do away with agendas. LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by FoM on July 09, 2009 at 07:45:45 PT
runruff
We can talk about views about our topic and how we could help bring change to our current cannabis laws. We have come far in just a few months. The ball is rolling.I will try to explain about the rules of being tax exempt to the best of my ability since we are supported and maintained by DrugSense.Politics are part of how we will reform marijuana laws. They are interconnected. When we read an article about a politician doing something good for us we can comment and we should. If they are against us we can complain. We are a unique group of people that has formed it's own personality over all these years and that is why we are special. What we shouldn't do is bring in personal political ideologies that have nothing to do with our topic or drug policy reform in general.I hope this helps.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by rchandar on July 09, 2009 at 07:06:46 PT:
Hello, All...
I'd like to say first that I'm very happy with the response from you bloggers and activists in the past few months. It's encouraging, and there are many posts that show fortitude and "common sense." That's always good.To return. I only want to impress upon you the unparalleled, unprecedented chance we have in these few months. By fall, there will be talk of congressional runs; by spring, CNN will do their headcount and the agonizing process of retaining a Democratic-controlled Congress will begin. Should we survive November 2010, it will give us steam that we may never have had before.But today, in the middle of summer, I admit we have a remarkable chance to re-write drug policy, one that does not even seem to exist overseas. Having returned from Europe, I can say that both the recession and American-styled Drug War politics have sedimented; a few places have liberalized their laws, while the rest of the continent remains mired in a moral falsehood that grows the ignorance of people every day.But, we have this chance. There is the possibility in many states, and MMJ has taken off, too. The sense that even MMJ is not manageable is starting to fade: the outrage over the prison-and-parole system grows every day. Make use of this chance. I want to express support for the ballot-makers for Florida's bill, but would also like to see more efforts made in California toward that seemingly unreachable goal: legalization. We can make it work!--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by runruff on July 09, 2009 at 07:06:35 PT
#21
FoM,My comments here are political but they are in response to the Barny Frank, Ron Paul bills being introduced and the apparent lack of interest by many!I have responded with a "what if" scenario based on a better solution to our current policies!How is Stick these days, haven't heard anything in a while?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by runruff on July 09, 2009 at 06:59:31 PT
Autobaun
I drove on the autobaun in germany for four years. There are no speed limits on this freeway, [at least not when I was there]. There, traffic accidents on the Autobaun were very rare and only a small percent compared to
American freeways with strict speed laws.Forgive my cynical attitude but most of these revenue generating laws are just that "money makers."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by runruff on July 09, 2009 at 06:53:17 PT
Just an average good guy will do!
Anyone who wants to run for public office or be a judge, has an imbalanced ego. These jobs come with so much responsibility and power that every candidate should be recruited. Anyone who volunteers is automatically disqualified because they either crave recognition and or power. These types conceal their classic sociopath personality until it all comes out only too late.Average people should serve in these jobs but for one or two terms. Tell me how we could do worse? My father-in-law would make a great congressman or president. I know others that will never be known. I will bet you all know someone with work ethic and integrity who would be a great public servant [in the highest respect].Yes things change slowly in national policy. The crooks have got to pave another road to inequity while demolishing the old one.I am one of the hard headed ones who would stand up and say,"so, shoot me!" I will not live by faux laws and tailored legislation designed to fit only the rich, so shoot me!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by FoM on July 09, 2009 at 06:40:45 PT
anunlikelyally
You are new on CNews but we are not a political web site but we are working to reform the laws on Cannabis. I don't want this to become a political web site. Actually I am not allowed to do that. Please leave the politics to political forums. Thanks in advance.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by anunlikelyally on July 09, 2009 at 06:29:56 PT:
Oh, and about legalization...
I forgot to add this to my first paragraph, but complete legalization of speed limits would mean a complete removal of them. This would jeopardize public safety, and is also neither practical nor politically palatable.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by anunlikelyally on July 09, 2009 at 06:21:09 PT:
Barney Frank needs a civics lesson
It surprises me that he would make a statement about not knowing the difference between criminalization and decriminalization. Take for instance speed limits. If you are just over the speed limit, you are written a ticket. This degree of speeding is decriminalized. If you are ridiculously over the speed limit, you go to jail. This degree of speeding is criminalized. Obviously the government knows that it is impractical to arrest every speeder regardless of the degree of violation. Not only is there not enough traffic cops to do it, but it would make the government seem, uh, fascistic. I thank Barney Frank and Ron Paul for introducing this legislation for the second year in a row. It may not be legalization, but this issue won't be solved all at once overnight no matter how much we reformers want it. I agree with our allies in DC when they say they have to play the political game. It's just how the town works. And he is right when he says Congress would not support outright legalization. They simply won't. It is not politically palatable. I know ya'll sorta blasted me for advocating hemp in California over their legalization thing, but I am just trying to be pragmatic. Every victory in any front of our struggle is a victory for all. Right now, hemp is an easier sell than legalization. That is fact. I am waiting to see how Congress will react to Ron Paul's HR 1009: the legalization of hemp bill. Despite my support of Frank on this issue, I am disappointed to see that he won't support Ron Paul's HR 1207: the Audit the Fed bill. Despite its 250 co-sponsors, he has refused to sign onto it and has only offered to bring it to committee at some undesignated time in the future. It's unfortunate he won't follow through on Obama's promise of transparency, especially at a time when he will be granting the Fed additional powers over our businesses and our economy.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by afterburner on July 08, 2009 at 22:14:17 PT
Decriminalize Is Not the Same as Legalize
CN BC: PUB LTE: Response To MP Martin, Sooke News Mirror, (07 Jul 2009)
http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v09/n685/a04.html?176
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by greenmed on July 08, 2009 at 21:39:03 PT
juztbudz
I should of course say that your brothers- and sisters- in-arms are setting an excellent precedent. I was probably thinking of the Dire Straights tune. :)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by greenmed on July 08, 2009 at 21:14:11 PT
juztbudz
That's excellent, congratulations and best wishes for your new venture. What a great way to represent the cause -- you and your fellow-thinking brothers-in-arms are setting a precedent I hope will spread from coast to coast. Keep up the good work!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by juztbudz on July 08, 2009 at 20:45:04 PT:
greenmed
I am a host of a compassion club in Michigan. The Med/Mar laws were recently voted in here and watching the family atmosphere grow has been a wonderful experience. Folks were a bit scared to come out in the open, at first, but with some good old social functions like picnics and such we are finding ourselves as a group. Pretty damned neat!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 19:46:44 PT
greenmed
I really liked the video. I think that is a good idea. WAMM has always been my model. Cannabis is kind. If we are representing this plant we should be kind.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by greenmed on July 08, 2009 at 19:35:48 PT
re: Medical Marijiuana Home Delivery
What a wonderful video. Thank you for posting it, FoM. I especially liked the patients' comments about how the collective has become like an extended family for them. The delivery man asks how they're doing, how's their family and generally relate on a human to human level that is absent at the pharmacies that sell corporate pharmaceuticals. A different 'business model' if you like where the 'farmacists' make suggestions about different cannabis varieties for whichever disorder is being treated and generally show more concern about the day-to-day challenges their clients face than are regular pharmacists and, usually, personal physicians.In a recent thread,http://cannabisnews.com/news/24/thread24908.shtmlthere's a discussion of a Los Angeles dispensary where the proprietor describes his business model:"We don't want them (the patients) to just come here and get their medicine," he said. "We want them to come here and maybe make some friends, have some fellowship."Then of course there's the Corral model -- the original model (so far as I know) involving patients in the growing of their own medicine.There seems to be a common theme here. When the government gets around to restructuring availability of medical services, there are some important lessons to learn from medical cannabis providers, I believe."An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" - Benjamin Franklinhttp://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 17:39:34 PT
Video: Medical Marijiuana Home Delivery
Members have the benefit of home delivery from some California medical marijuana collectives, though drivers risk arrest for distribution.URL: http://www.time.com/time/video/?bcpid=1485842900&bctid=28761858001
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 17:28:08 PT
Storm Crow
I never saw it but thank you for posting it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by Storm Crow on July 08, 2009 at 17:12:15 PT
The LOCKED Gateway Effect!
FoM- how did you ever miss this one?http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1716066/the_surprising_effect_of_marijuana_on_morphine_dependence/The Surprising Effect Of Marijuana On Morphine DependencePosted on: Monday, 6 July 2009, 11:33 CDTInjections of THC, the active principle of cannabis, eliminate dependence on opiates (morphine, heroin) in rats deprived of their mothers at birth. This has been shown by a study carried out by Valérie Daugé and her team at the Laboratory for Physiopathology of Diseases of the Central Nervous System (UPMC / CNRS / INSERM) in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology. The findings could lead to therapeutic alternatives to existing substitution treatments. (snipped)Apparently rats deprived of maternal care are VERY prone to drug addiction as adults. Giving them THC in their "teens" blocks the effect- the deprived rats who got THC are no more likely to become addicted than "normal" rats. So THC during adolescence apparently LOCKS the "gateway" to addiction. (Think of the children!) This study sure blows a big old hole in the "Gateway Effect" that the prohibitionists are so fond of!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by josephlacerenza on July 08, 2009 at 17:03:59 PT
O.T. But I found this at the Huff po
I hear it talked about a lot here at C-News, so had to post!!!
Read the Letter From LSD-Inventor Albert Hofmann to Apple CEO Steve Jobs
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on July 08, 2009 at 15:45:45 PT
feds
remember, Barney Frank and Ron Paul are just figureheads for this issue at the federal level - very few come out and support legalization because they know it won't happen in Congress.It's going to happen in the states. The first step was getting the feds to agree not to butt in and interfere with state laws. These Congressmen know it will take several states and regions of the country legalizing MJ before Congress does anything. We can see this from gay marriage and medical MJ. On both those fronts the feds have agreed not to butt in, while simultaneously backing federal prohibitions on those two things.I think also these legislators from CA, MA, NY, etc. are helping out reform in those states too. If you're trying to increase MJ penalties in the state legislature it doesn't look good when Congressmen from your district are running around advocating legalization like Barney Frank.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by Sam Adams on July 08, 2009 at 15:41:17 PT
common sense
Frank and Ron Paul are two of the very few congressman who DO have common sense! btw, if you're in town, don't blaze up in Fanueil Hall, go down to the end, there's a park by the water, you'll do a lot better there, no $100 fine (speaking from experience)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by EAH on July 08, 2009 at 12:06:46 PT:
someday maybe
Most politicians are cowardly and dumb. Ironically despite being commonly referred to as "our political leaders" they are anything but. For anything to change, either they will have to paid in the form of enormous contributions
or they will have to be convinced their careers will benefit by supporting
rescheduling, regulated distribution and taxation.Legalization will not happen with 51% support, even though technically that should be enough. To overcome the entrenched institutional resistance it will require much more. Also it probably won't happen during an election year.
The obstacles are huge, paradoxically for something that makes total sense.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 10:53:40 PT
museman
We're sure working on it!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by museman on July 08, 2009 at 10:51:25 PT
FoM
Now, if we can only get the other 90 something percent (of politicians) to step down from their illusory lofty thrones to the common levels of sensibility and 21st century consciousness.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 10:41:35 PT
museman
I also understand what Barney Frank is saying. If it is decriminalized it isn't illegal.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by museman on July 08, 2009 at 10:38:59 PT
common sense from a politician? I'm suspended
in almost disbelief"I don't know what the difference is between legalization and decriminalization," argued Frank with characteristic bluntness when we spoke for our May 29 story. "Something is either legal or it's criminal. You may only legalize some aspects of it, but what is a 'decriminalized activity'? Does that mean you can do it? Then it's legal. If it's against the law, then it's criminal."Isn't that kind of like saying;"The emperor, is either naked, or he isn't."? or"You're either on the bus, or off the bus."? or"You are either free, or you're not....There's no 'middle ground' in liberty."? or"You can be either hot, or cold, but if you are lukewarm, I shall spit you out of my mouth!"?LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment