I agree with most of this except 'the success of the tea parties.' There are many examples that could apply, including the massive actions by the anti-war movement. The 'tea parties' were well-exposed for being led by far-right/ racist/ militias/ and other dangerous extremists.

Anyway, it is time to get more organized for legalizing marijuana and freeing the weed prisoners. The failure that costs billions of dollars and strengthens the cartels should be stopped immediately. Weed prisoners (and all other victimless 'crimes') should be immediately freed. This change has increasing public support and is long overdue. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

uhm...
*psst..* Hey Mikey, PLEASE, Please don't use the teabaggers as an example of success and/or in reference/comparison to marijuana reform movement!

Seriously, the "keep your government hands off of my medicare crowd" - is a horrible bunch of idiots to compare ourselves to... (many of them apparently forgot that it was the government that started, and has ALWAYS run the medicare program.)

I'm not too sure about their degree of "success" - Unless being an essentially fake "grassroots movement" started primarily by FoxNews (w/ support from various far-rightwing radio talkshows) counts as success.

And, before we all start celebrating, I really hope y'all would take a couple mins to read the full "memo" here:

http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192

Or the PDF version that is available for download on that page.

Its REALLY unclear to me what this is supposed to accomplish - to me it mostly reads as a 'Suggestion', and then clearly states that it can be completely ignored at discretion of the justice personnel and/or law enforcement involved.

Meaning the recent raids in San Diego can go on freely just as long as D.A. Bonnie Dumanis wants too - all they have to say is they believe the dispensaries aren't following the local guidelines/laws (as soon as the city council there finishes those guidelines - or rather - all the dispensaries that she hasn't managed to shutdown by then).

see: "SWAT-Style Raids on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in San Diego Come Day After City Council Acts to Regulate Dispensaries"

here: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr090909.cfm

TBH, IDK if the San Diego City Council has finished there work on this or not(?)

I agree that this is a step in the right direction on the part of the White House. And heck, it only took them - what 9 months to get this memo out? *sarcasm intended*

I'm concerned by the mention of "Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, ..."

And that the message of the memo seems to be - 'don't go after the little fish' - so to speak.

Maybe someone else here, possibly - David Bratzer - could go through this and breakdown the negative vs. positive parts contained within Memo line by line.

Or maybe I will (if need be), but it would be excellent to see someone more experienced with explaining "Legal-ese to English", maybe even one of the "Changemakers" (?) could or would do so.

I see very little positive in the actual language presented, it would seem to let Justice/Law Enforcement to either continue 'overlooking' marijuana violations in places where that has already been declared a "low-priority" & wherever marijuana use is unofficially tolerated.

And yet, it still gives any of those officials that CHOOSE to go on politically motivated "tough on drugs witch-hunts", (in efforts to bolster their various upcoming political campaigns) - Carte Blanche while doing so.

It seems all they have to do is suggest that - "there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law."

- That would appear to mean that, the raids can continue to go on at the discretion of the local United States Attorneys & does basically nothing to keep over-zealous local law enforcement from calling in for federal to help with those raids.

The most telling point (IMO) of the memo is near the end, "...this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion."

Or maybe "This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter."

Yeah, that's the most disappointing part - they don't mention considering removing marijuana from the CSA Schedule 1, or moving it lower down in the list (aka = out of the "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" zone.)

This just in...

Aaron Houston (of the MPP) - interviewed this morning (4:30 am CST) on the show "Way Too Early" by Willie Geist (who's also on "Morning Joe") - about this recent Justice Department policy change.

Here's the link below:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26852192/vp/33393519#33393519

He's a lot more positive about this than I would've guessed. 

And since this News came out yesterday, all the coverage I've seen of it by various cable news hosts throughout (yesterday, last night, and so far this morning) has been fairly positive as well.

I'm guessing that between - Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck and maybe Lou Dobbs...  2 of the 3 will try to push this as a sign of Armageddon being just around the corner. *smirk*

Although Beck has previously stated he's fine with drug legalization in general from a Libertarian standpoint.

And the "Fiscal Conservatives" - that are against "big government" should or could in theory, get behind this...

I kinda doubt they will though... Who knows?

I predict we'll see the 'slippery slope arguement' used repeatedly by the "Moral Conservatives" when addressing this issue in the near future.

So far though, it would appear that the idea of cutting off the primary source (roughly 70%) of the Mexican Drug Cartels' profits, is becoming a VERY persuasive argument.

That plus the appeal of Taxing the sales in our current economy (particularly in California), and the estimated savings from ceasing attempts to enforce the prohibition that has been failing for 30 yrs, AND the prospective that Regulating it will help to keep it out of the hand of minors...

And last but certainly not least, the consistent rise of support for legalization among Americans, the public opinion regarding this issue could be a very powerful thing...

All these things together, may just bring us some long desired (& increasing needed) Change!

mikey johnson

I have to agree with Rev Bookburn

and Bryan Snowden

Please don't involve the tea baggers. I have been to some and they in NO way represent or should be associated with legalization. I found them offensive, fascist, and take great pride at being thrown out of some due to fact they don't really believe in freedom of speech. Besides now that they have been caught doctoring photos, and the connections to big pharm lobbyist; it would only hurt our work.

It seems that those that have replied have missed the point, "THE SUCCESS OF the Tea Parties should show marijuana activists WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH A LITTLE PERSISTENCE AND ORGANIZATION OVER THE INTERNET." And those involved in the Tea Parties were not right-wing, racist, or militant groups as the main stream liberal press has been saying.

What really gets me is that people shout about the $700 billion spent on our never-ending-war, but don't say one word about the $2.5 trillion spent on our never-ending-war on drugs that has not and will not change anything. Honestly, there were less herion adicts on the streets when the Taliban ran Afganistan [ http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav120501.shtml, because they would burn the poppey fields where our troops let them continue to grow and in up on the streets of the U.S. as herion

[The Lies About Taliban Heroinhttp://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_10_01_heroin.html] Although, one must then look at the fact that all the recent articles of 2009 have been saying that the Taliban is trying to get our troops addicted to herion, if you believe them I would like to sale you the white house for a really good price! We have been deceived and we have our priorities all screwed up the only way to win is to decriminalize and legalize! Haven't we learned anything from Proabition!

All I'm saying is they generated a lot of buzz for real world protests through extensive Internet promotion. It has nothing to do with the actual politics behind the tea parties. Like it or not, it generates a lot of press. Whether you agree or disagree, they have succeeded where we have failed in gathering together large groups all across the country AND generated a lot of positive press for themselves (and yes... some negative as well). We should aim not only to parallel the numbers and media attention at pro-cannabis events, we should also aim to avoid the mistakes the tea parties have made. The tea parties shined a spotlight on an extreme element in our country. Don't think that if hoards of media descend on next years global marijuana march and is able to catch a glimpse of the extremist elements attached to our movement, they won't try to use that against us. So a "Fuck the police. Fuck Conservatives" attitude really doesn't help us. Where the tea parties indulged in ideology, the marijuana movement should stick to the merits of our issue.

Wise minds, I just mentioned CNN's Medical Marijuana hour from last weekend where they did just that. I kept thinking they sounded like "Reefer Madness."

Josh Levins who monitors the twitter and facebook said that 98% of the comments were in favor of medical marijuana.

The DEA and corporate guys eyes kind of fluttered like "does not compute". That's when I realized that the corporate fat cats hadn't factored in this social networking thing. Us having a voice really messes up their greedy corrupt agenda. LOL :)

We are also trying to get medicinal marijuana on the Florida ballot for 2010.  If any Florida Change.org members wish to join the cause, the organization is People United for Medical Marijuana - Florida and their site is http://www.pufmm.org/.  Please be sure to sign up if you are a registered Florida voter.  We need all the help that we can get due to our demographics.  Sincerely,  Kevin Silvey   

kevin, this is a big step for florida residents. i was wondering how we got things on the ballot. is that all it takes is enough people and money to petition for it to be on the ballot? i am a florida resident and would like to see this on the ballot. once its on the ballot though, whats the plan to get people aware of it to vote for it?

Yet another link in support of industrial hemp:

http://www.thehia.org/

The Hemp Industries Association

Stephen, people like you are the problem. Why? Because it shouldn't be President Obama's, or the government's, job to make the country clean and sober. It's the parents, the children, the individuals who should take this responsibility as their own. People like you look to the government to eradicate things you don't like, control things you feel should be controlled, etc. Whether they have no effect on your life doesn't seem to matter, you just want the government to take care of it. Well your DEA agents have done little to nothing, and the kids are still getting drugs, and the parents are still getting high. And the worst part is we've been paying a lot for this, and the results are dismal. I, for one, would rather have my tax dollars put to better use than fund a DEA sting of a growhouse somewhere in Northern California.

It's a lofty and impossible goal--getting EVERYONE CLEAN AND SOBER--and one that would be great for everyone. It's not realistic and never will be.

The government should NOT be responsible for overseeing individual actions if it's a victimless act.  PERIOD.

stephen you should visit http://www.safeaccessnow.org/

your goal is imposable its the same goal the Temperence movement had and that utterly failed and lead to organized crime that caused way more harm than alcohol did. its a fact you can not legislate a mans apatite if he wants something he will find a way to get it illegal or not the question is if we want him to go through the right channels to acquire it.

and by the way the pill your talking about is called Marinol and its not cheep at all because the pharma industry is a sham and guess what study s have found it is no where near effective as MJ because it doesn't contain the other ingredients that the buds have it is not just THC it is everything another failure where mother nature has done it 100X better than man could hope.

i don't support drug cartels but to think that if we actually had a legal supply and american citizens could choose who to go and spend their money on what they wanted it would do more than any drug war could have ever dreamed of doing to stopping the cartels its just a fact.

Stephen, your mind is damaged.

The government patented Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html

So, its not "mind damaging weed", it is neuroprotective weed!

Oy, Stephen, we've tried Prohibition before. It didn't work too terribly well back then, either.

I don’t smoke the stuff, but compared to some of the chemical cocktails out there, marijuana is virtually nothing.  Here in Hawai’i crystal meth is becoming a problem, so I wouldn’t mind if they just smoked a legal joint.  At least they wouldn’t be stealing from everybody to support their habit.  I’ve known those who worked very stressful jobs who smoked a joint when they got home to relieve the tensions of the day and they never turned into the mythical heroin abuser.  As for the DEA, they are what is preventing hemp from becoming legal and it is not marijuana.  Its THC content is so low that a Canadian grower said she stood in a field of burning hemp and only got a headache.  Hemp is good for food, fuel, building materials (hempcrete is 5 times stronger than concrete), fabric and paper, but is considered guilty because of its relationship to marijuana.  It’s like the difference between a tomato and a deadly nightshade.  One is edible and one will kill you.  Which one would you like on your sandwich?

I don’t smoke the stuff, but compared to some of the chemical cocktails out there, marijuana is virtually nothing.  Here in Hawai’i crystal meth is becoming a problem, so I wouldn’t mind if they just smoked a legal joint.  At least they wouldn’t be stealing from everybody to support their habit.  I’ve known those who worked very stressful jobs who smoked a joint when they got home to relieve the tensions of the day and they never turned into the mythical heroin abuser.  As for the DEA, they are what is preventing hemp from becoming legal and it is not marijuana.  Its THC content is so low that a Canadian grower said she stood in a field of burning hemp and only got a headache.  Hemp is good for food, fuel, building materials (hempcrete is 5 times stronger than concrete), fabric and paper, but is considered guilty because of its relationship to marijuana.  It’s like the difference between a tomato and a deadly nightshade.  One is edible and one will kill you.  Which one would you like on your sandwich?

Yeah, check out societies now and throughout history that have been forcibly "clean and sober" and tell me if those are societies you'd want to live in.

you are most definately a moron. must work for the DEA or something. You need to do your home work and check out the benefits of cannabis. 4000 years and no one died from it. your mind is cloudly without drug use. shit and fall back in it.

Congrats Stephen...with your comments...I have finally found the moron....who the government protects...by putting a warning tag on an electric hair dryer....and how not to use it while in the tub...do us all a favor...and ignore the warning

you must be a cop! or work for the dea.  cannabis has been around for 4000 years. get over it. alchohol is the killer and your doctor prescriptions are the murdering medicine.

"Having America CLEAN and SOBER"? When did that ever happen?

Drugs were used in the U.S. before Christopher Columbus arrived, and drugs have been used in the U.S. every single day since he got here.

This country became the single most powerful country on the face of the planet WHILE using drugs!

Your half-baked ideology of a "clean and sober" America ignores the reality of what's right in front of your face. "Just say no" doesn't work dude, "abstinence only" doesn't work. Accept the reality that Americans like to take drugs and make appropriate policies based on this that'll keep everybody safe.

You just lost my vote. Use of marijuana will increase, not decrease, with legalization because 1) the people who are already smoking weed are smoking it out of medical need or for recreation and are unlikely to stop once it is legalized and 2) all the people who wanted to smoke weed before but didn't want to get arrested will start to smoke pot. I can accept this change as long as the marijuana-using community accepts that some people choose not to smoke due to moral convictions. But your comments show that you are just as intolerant towards people with moral objections to smoking marijuana as Stephen is towards you. If marijuana users are going to accuse everyone who does not share their lifestyle of being a DEA agent, a puritan, or simply a weirdo, then why the hell should I vote for my own marginalization? Disagree with Stephen if you like but keep it civil if you want nonsmokers (who, by the way, constitute up to 50% of the population between 18 and 50) to support your cause.

You have also just contradicted your own argument that weed makes people calm, not angry. 

Everywhere that's decriminalized has seen a reduction in use Amanda. I think it's because when we allow legal stores to undercut drug dealer prices we eliminate so much of their income that they're forced to find other means of making a living.

This is exactly what happened when alcohol was legalized - bootleggers could no longer sell enough booze to stay in the market which quickly resulted in all alcohol sales being carded by the legal stores and sales refused to minors.

So you may be right that adults won't consume any less than what they are right now but minors will have a much harder time obtaining the stuff and will therefore consume a lot less than what they currently are.

I am a nonsmoker and my reason for demanding legalization is because it is the ONLY way to end the more than 6,000 cartel murders that are committed every year - many of these victims are children, police officers and politicians.

According to the ONDCP two-thirds of the cartels incomes come from selling marijuana in the U.S. - this amounts to $8 - 10 BILLION a year and until we eliminate this income we can't beat the cartels and we can't end the brutal murders they're committing to protect this cash flow.

Legalizing marijuana won't mean that it'll be compulsory - you and I will still be able to say no just as we do today. But it will mean that thousands of children will be given an opportunity to grow up and become adults rather than being shot and burnt to death by the cartels seeking to get rich from our prohibition.

Amanda, the anger that you're seeing directed toward Stephen Johnson is in response to several posts of his that were vile and hateful enough to be deleted. He suggested that our government should put all users to death, and some other pretty unsavory ideas as well. You're not seeing everything that he's written, so the responses that you say contradict the peaceful aspect of MJ are NOT replies to the nostly tame post that remains...

If marijuana is legalized, it does not necessarily follow that minors could not get hold of it. Many minors today use fake IDs to buy alcohol. And if the government taxes marijuana, that gives it a financial incentive to increase the sales of marijuana by whatever means possible and marketing it to all age groups, including children. Government will only prohibit sales to minors if there is an equally strong demand by the people to regulate marijuana as to legalize it and I do not see that happening. It is understandable that marijuana users feel passionately about legalizing marijuana. But it is human nature to care more about something that directly affects you than something that doesn't, and marijuana users have no particular self-interest in seeing marijuana prohibited to children. 

You have a point that legalizing marijuana will reduce profits for drug cartels. However, violent people are violent people, and if gang members can't make money selling drugs they will turn to another illegal means of making money, such as selling firearms in areas with gun control, while continuing to shoot children, police officers, and each other. I wish to God that eliminating gang violence were as simple as passing a single law legalizing marijuana but the truth is drugs aren't the root of the problem. Poverty, lack of education and job opportunities, and a fatalistic gang culture of violence are. Until these problems are fixed, there will be blood spilled in Mexico and Los Angeles in the name of protecting gang profits.

Of course legalizing marijuana won't mean the government forcing us to smoke it. That would be silly and that's not what I said. What I objected to was the tone of the comments preceding yours which seemed to imply that nonusers were just a bunch of freaks, or at the very least, showed insufficient respect for the choice of others to not smoke marijuana. That attitude won't change with legalization and could get worse once nonusers can no longer hide behind the law. I don't believe drug offenders should be incarcerated or that suffering patients should be denied drugs to ease their pain. But I do believe that in a world where moral objections to pot are increasingly ignored or mocked nonsmokers will be stigmatized and reduced to an insignificant minority once the last "legitimate" excuse is removed. It is up to legalization supporters to address that concern, not confirm it. I did not intend to single out your entry for criticism and I apologize for any confusion my criticism of the thread may have generated. 

Again, I think the posts that you refer to were directed at Stephen Johnson's deleted posts, not all non-users.

Amanda

I'm not going to take the time to do the research for you, but my wife and I both remember reading a study about 5 years ago stating that the more often a man got off the less chance he has of getting prostate cancer.

Stephen got treated like that because he is a troll! His different user names have been deleted off of Current.com several times over the past two years. It is always the same rhetoric, marijuana users are weak-minded, losers smoke weed, and finally he calls for anyone who uses any drug to be shot in the head. Seeing him harass users around the clock on marijuana forums I can see how some users might come to the conclusion that he is either jobless or that IS his job.

I understand your legitimate objections to the comments and your fear of being marginalized and ridiculed as a nonuser. My wife of almost 10 years is a nonuser. I talk to her about the science of it, but I do not push it on her. She knows she can have some if she ever wants it, but the only time she has asked for it was during a horrible case of food poisoning. It stopped her vomiting instantly and she was able to drink some fluids and get some well needed rest.

There are a few things you need to remember about the Cannabis Community. First off, we are like abused children who have now grown up, and our abuser is almost too weak to abuse us anymore. Part of us wants to say, "it's OK, we forgive you, now we can move past this", but then you have the other part that wants to abuse the abuser. You're right, we must not indulge in that side with those who choose not to use, but you must also remember that we are still at war. A war that we have been rather peaceful in and we are still very much a target of those who want to do us harm. So, you can expect for some to abuse and ridicule those who would take up arms against us like Stephen, but I feel as we move farther away from prohibition and more towards regulation, the wounds will heal and we will see less of this abuse, kind of like how race relations now are somewhat better than they were 30 years ago.

A final thought I will leave you with, in hopes of winning you over to our side is that in the animal kingdom, in almost all mammals, the content of cannabinoid 2-AG in breast milk increases 1000% after child birth. It is made from omega-6 fatty acid and glycerin, and because it is a cannabinoid it is present in the fat of breast milk and is one of the chemicals responsible for the bonding between mother and child. It also helps the infant learn to eat. Mice engineered without the cb1 and cb2 receptor starved to death after birth.  In the plant kingdom, the cannabis plant developed at high altitudes with less UV protection. It formed cannabinoid producing cells along its surface to protect it from UV light. THC and CBD absorbed UVA and UVB light, in fact the more UV light it is abused with, the more cannabinoids it produces. The plants only needs as much as the male plant produces to protect it from the UV rays, but the female contains extra to protect the offspring.  The calyx, which is comprised of sepals, is covered with resin exuding glandular trichomes (hairs) to protect the ovary from damage until it hardens.  So, in a sense cannabinoids are as wholesome as mother's milk.

I hope you will see reason and side with us on legalization but judging from your comments over the past months I have my doubts. So, I'm am going to tell you like many of us were told over the last few decades, if your side is not already a minority it soon will be, and when that happens, at least in America, your opinion will no longer matter. Sorry, but it is just the way it is.

Will, considering that the myth that men "need" sex has been used to justify rape, a double standard regarding sexual promiscuity, and other violations of women's rights, I hope you will understand why I am skeptical that men really need sex as much as they say they do. And unless men have much less libido than I think they do, porn is unnecessary for ejaculation.

Okay I understand how Stephen's calling for the extermination of all pot users angered many people. But not all the comments are directed specifically against Stephen. Take, for example, the comment "Your mind is cloudly without drug use. shit and fall back in it." The first statement appears to be based on the premise that lack of drug use somehow impairs mental function and therefore all nonusers, not just Stephen, have something wrong with them. It's also unclear whom the second statement is directed against, Stephen, nonusers in general, the world, life, etc.

You may not push your lifestyle on others but some users do and label as losers those who choose not to smoke. It is true that the nonuser community has verbally attacked the cannabis community, but the abuse you mentioned goes both ways. 

Finally I would like to point out that infants who are fed with synthetic baby formula learn how to eat and develop close relationships with their mothers without the exposure to cannabinoids. So while I'm not disputing the results of your research I don't believe it has the same implications for human beings that you drew from it. 

That was so weak!

It's no suprise your scared of being classified as a loser. ROTF

Oh, sorry your "High-ness", I meant surprise.  LMAO.

Even my wife is ROTF after reading your post. Maybe you should smoke some pot. Studies have proven that it increases the alpha waves in the brain. Increased alpha waves have been showed to lowered levels of stress & anxiety which you seem to have a problem with. The alpha brainwave spectrum has also been associated with "super learning" and being able to remember and retain information with less overall effort. That could help you remember the countless studies that say breast milk is more beneficial for a child and the mother-child bond than any synthetic formula ever could be!

Just, incase that's too complicated for you; here is an article that seems to be up to your speed.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/comparing-formula-and-breast-milk.html

By the way, the very important hindmilk is where the cannabinoids hide. 

Don't tell the pigs, they might ban it too.

LMAO!

Will, throughout my posts to this blog I have attempted to maintain a calm and civil tone. You are the one suffering from stress and anxiety, judging from your ad hominem attacks and aggressive tone. Your first response to my post was perfectly reasonable but your subsequent responses are precisely the type of comment that alienates nonusers. 

I did not say synthetic formula was superior to breast milk, merely that bottle-fed babies will not starve to death, like the mice in your study, or become incapable of forming a close relationship with their mother. 

First off, your assumption that "an infant who is fed with synthetic baby formula learns how to eat and develops a close relationship with it mother without the exposure to cannabinoids ", is dead wrong! It is a proven scientific fact that, almost every animal that evolved after the sea cucumber has an endocannabinoid system.  Endocannabinoids, at least in humans, are synthesized on demand from Omaga-6 fatty acid. Whenever the body needs fuel, it makes endocannabinoids to stimulate appetite. Whenever the body feels pain, endocannabinoids are released to help dull it. This is one reason why endocannabinoids concentrations are so high in the mother after birth. What the mother gives the infant is just a booster shot on top of the infant's own endocannabinoids. Every human is high at some point on endocannabinoids, even you! Just as with the mice, if we engineer infants without the cb1 and cb2 receptor they will starve to death, no matter how much milk is in front of them, breast or otherwise.  I have a lot more to say about the science of it, but I don't have time. So, please do your research and get up to speed before you start posting your misguided opinions, because your ignorance on subjects that the scientific community has agreed upon, serves no other purpose than to cause aggravating traffic jams in our discussion.  All the information is out there if you take the time to look, but when you come to a forum expecting us to hand feed it to you, don't be surprised when you get treated like the village idiot. Your argument that you will not vote for it because you don't like the way it makes you feel when people call you dumb for saying dumb things, is emotional objection, not moral, and frankly no one gives a damn about your feelings.  I was not talking about nonusers verbally attacking users. I was referring to them beating, shooting, imprisoning, threatening our families, taking away our land, standing between our sick and their relief, and making us into second class citizens. These actions cause far more damage to this country's users and nonusers alike than a few words could. This is a war and as nonusers go there are two types, those with us and those against us. You have made it clear which side you are on.  If you don't want to be a target then don't stick your head out of the fox hole! By standing up and saying "I'm fighting against you, but don't shoot me", you're asking to get shot.  Just like the prohibitionists that tried to eradicate the apple tree from America because it could make hard cider, those nonusers who stand against us must be ridiculed, minimized, isolated, made fun of and otherwise ostracized from our society. I know it is a fallacy to appeal to ridicule, but it is also a great tool for social change, just like the ridicule of those who clung to the belief that the world was flat.  If one person sees another person being ridiculed by a mob they are less likely to speak up for that person, even if they think that person was right. This does not help win the argument unless the ridiculers also provide proof to the rest of the mob that their side is right, otherwise the one being ridiculed will provide their own evidence to the mob and make the ridiculer look dumb. At which time it is no longer "fashionable" to be on that side.   This is what has happened to the prohibitionists. After 70 years of destroying lives, they still have not been able to prove one ounce of harm from the plant itself and the cannabis community has proven the medical benefits in study after study, to the point that the vile people who banned it had to patent its medical properties to ensure control.  As far as the porn issue goes, start a blog or otherwise kill that red herring.

Right on, Steven!!!  My sentiments exactly.  I posed the challenge on abcnews.com some weeks ago (and again this weekend) for someone to produce statistics or actual events where someone killed someone while under the influence of ONLY pot (or committed any violent crime at all, for that matter).  No one was able to produce.  Especially in California, where they are so broke, think of all the revenue they could generate by legalizing and taxing pot.  Geez, I'm willing to bet our entire nation's deficit would be cut in pretty short order.

Anything that can be taxed is legal.  Whenever someone finds a natural remedy, the pharmaceutical industry wants to have it banned because they do not control it, so they lobby congress and even implant someone into the FDA via the revolving door (don’t believe that “best and brightest” hype) and sooner or later the natural remedy is discredited, the chemical components are isolated and big pharma scored yet another kill against an unsuspecting public.  Welcome to “Side Effect World,” where curing one symptom at a time is the order of the day.

The goal of legalization is to change what makes a person a criminal. Conviction of a crime and being a criminal are 2 very different things. If someone gets a driving infraction, are they a criminal? They are convicted of a crime, so by that logic they would then be a criminal just like burglar or rapist. Marijuana and REAL crime or 2 separate things entirely.

Steve I agree with you. An early edition Reader Digest, the main artical read "Marijuana makes children leave the farm, commit suicide by jumping out of windows. The main story line however was aimed at Native Americans and was extremely prejudice. How the heathens grew and sold it to the young people. We are a soceity ripe with prejudice and intolerent of individuals right to live as they see fit. I am not Native American and back then I was appalled with the blantant racial remarks.

yeah, those good old white boys tried to kill Rock and Roll too. That's all I need to know.

If they can't control it and make money off it, and if others are enjoying something they can't make money off of, they whine and obstruct.

I can't wait till the last good old white boy croaks.

I'll dance on his grave. :)

Um, I'M a good ol' white boy... just one with a different attitude.

Instead of waiting to dance on my grave, come puff a bowl with me and let's dance together...

well, I was raised by good old white folks, and I'm a good old white girl, so I guess I'll just have to join ya and bring some of my own to share. Tee Hee. :)

Thanks for speaking up on behalf of the cause, Michael. I truly enjoyed your post, because you are a republican and yet you embrace justice and fairness.

The downside of legalization would be we'd get the same flurry of BS rules and regulations we get with alcohol and tobacco--it would still be quasi-criminal. as those substances are, but now the government gets a cut for...more "enforcement"?

Decriminalization would take out much of the profit motive for organized crime while keeping the OTHER organized crime (that praticed by politicians) out of the culture.

Decriminalization does not take out the profit motive for cartels.  With decriminalization, it is still illegal to sell and grow, which keeps us in the black market.  And with a black market comes the drug cartels.  Decriminalization is good because it barely ends up treating the end-user as a criminal.  But it does not do a damn thing to address the cartels.

Decriminalization is a step in the right direction, but it's just that and does not address the greater problems associated with prohibition.

I would also rather have "BS rules and regulations" for pot as opposed to having jail time for pot.

Not to mention regulation can be a good thing.  You know what you're getting, which you don't in a black market.  I certainly get a sketchy bag every now and again that isn't nearly worth  what I paid for.  Regulation would help that.

Rules can also be a good thing, such as age restrictions (which we can argue, at least in the case of alcohol, that age restrictions teach irresponsible use of alcohol as opposed to kids who grow up learning how to use it responsibly as in EU countries...however binge smoking never killed anyone)

Still not much of a downside as far as the greater picture of our society is concerned.

Thanks Scott

So the distinction between illegal and criminalized is the difference between having your hand lopped off and being kneed in the groin.  So decriminalizing something makes it less illegal.  What a bizarre concept.  Does this happen in any other country, or is it strictly an American phenomenon?  Is being kind of legal like being a tiny bit pregnant?

Decrim is the policy politicians choose when they know prohibition won't get them elected anymore yet they're still under the impression that people are scared of legalization.

It's probably an even more ridiculous policy than prohibition as reducing marijuana punishments will increase use but since production and supply are still illegal this will divert even MORE money to the cartels which will kill even MORE people to protect this cash flow.

Since we can't prevent people from smoking marijuana the ONLY logical and humane policy of controlling it is by legalizing its commercial production and sale to adults, undercutting cartel prices and allowing adults to grow for personal use at home.

You should already ready be well aware that there are different levels of criminal activity, such as felonies and misdemeanors (not to mention the variety of sentences that people receive based on the severity of their crime).  An activity categorized as either a felony or misdemeanor is considered a criminal offense.  A level below that is civil infraction, which is what traffic tickets are classified as (therefore speeders are not techinically criminals).

Other countries do have different legal disctinctions between levels of criminal activity, and more specifically different classifications for drugs (similar to our scheduling system).  And yes, drugs do occasionally move up and down on the legal severity scale in other countries.  This is not an American phenomenom.

Another major distinction is the level of court that the person gets sent to.  Obviously felonies tend to be tried at the federal level and, i'm pretty sure, also the state level.  Misdemeanors are tried at the state level and also, i believe, the municipal level.  Civil infractions tend to always be at the municipal level.

There are differences between which court one is sent to.  For instance, if a person is sent to state court for smoking a joint, they will lose financial aid eligibility.  However, if they go to court at the local level, they will remain eligible for financial aid.

Most importantly, decriminalizing an activity to make it less illegal is only as bizarre as criminalizing an activity to make it more illegal.  Fortunately, the human race is able to learn and correct past mistakes.  Those who study the war on drugs learn that many mistakes need to be corrected.

Jillian,

In nearly every poll and study done examining cannabis usage rates in cities and states where cannabis is decriminalized or medical marijuana is allowed, there is almost never a significant increase in use.  If anything, it will spike slightly right after the change, but then level off to where it was (if not go down a little).

The reason?  People who want to smoke cannabis already smoke cannabis.

Decriminalization does not lead to increased usage.

Before anyone disputes me, please make sure you include a link to an article or poll that backs up your claim.

Actually Scott you're right. I guess I got caught up in DEA rhetoric when I wrote that post.

Logically you'd think it'd go up. LEO is untiring in telling us that it will. But *everywhere* that's decriminalized has failed to see the predicted increase.

I guess the DEA's claim that the prohibition constrains marijuana use is just wishful thinking. Actually the DEA claim (on their own website) that because 93% of the people in this country don't use drugs that the prohibition has a "95 percent success rate" and therefore that "we shouldn't give up now". http://tr.im/BylA (bottom of page).

This is their reason for perpetuating the prohibition and it is 100% bs. It also implies that every person who doesn't use drugs is refraining solely because of the prohibition, which leads me to ask if users (obviously) don't support the prohibition and nonusers are really just wannabe users (as the DEA claims) then who in this country, apart from the DEA itself, supports the prohibition. Anyone?

The Netherlands has a much lower rate of "underage" use than the US, just the way countires whose sex ed programs go beyond "abstinence only" have lower rates of teen pregnancy.

Everything "the man" says nowadays is suspect. Can I get one Can of b.s. spray to make it easier? Sheesh

This has been an excellent discussion. We must remain on guard against the lies.

Thanks :)

Scott,

Yes, you're right that there is a difference between legalization and decriminalization (also, as far as "drugs" go, there should always be a distinction made between "use" and "abuse".)

The poll at the top is talking about legalizing. The story may have been more accurately entitled "Are we moving toward marijuana legalization?"

Decriminalizing, as you are correct to point out, has already been happening for quite a while now. It has also stayed decriminalized in virtually all of those states and localities, despite attacks. More decriminalization will still continue to happen on the way to legalization.

In regards to the "WE KNOW WE ARE RIGHT (and we were right all along)!" attitude that we all see these days among our peers, here is a new Change.org article called  'The Wind is at Our Back': http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/the_wind_is_at_our_back

There is also a post: "Pot and the Safe Driving Myth" that I recommend reading the comments on.

http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/pot_and_the_safe_driving_myth

Thanks!

Please keep up the good work everyone!

The thing is, at the end of the day, lots of people don't want to retreat to the privacy of their own homes.  One of the things these various "wars" on various substances has done is to put a major crimp in social life of all kinds.

They need to go after the meth, crack, coke and heroin and leave the herb market alone.

They have just been being lazy, going for the easy kill on the gentle people.

Does anybody take pride in their work anymore?

CherokeeGirl,

You're sort of right.  But instead of going after the supply of meth, crack, coke and heroin, they need to go after the demand for those drugs.  And "they" should not be cops, but rather health professionals.

Where there is a demand, there is a supply.  When the demand is for prohibited items, there is an illegal supply thanks to violent cartels.  What happened when we prevented people from purchasing mass quantities of pseudoephedrine?  Our meth supply started coming from mexico.  Then people learned how to "shake and bake" their meth using only a few pills (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32542373)

So now people can't get decent cold medicine in the middle of the night but methheads still get their meth.

I feel safer.

Prohibition doesn't work for any substance.  Never has, never will.

That's an interesting thought. I was going on the assumption that if they cracked down on the meth labs then everything would be hunky dory. They have to deal with getting kids off meth and crack.

A friend of mine has been getting her heart broken off and on by her 22 year old son. He's on it, he's off it, he's on it, he's off it. There are no decent and affordable rehab programs for poor folks, and I don't know if it would help him or not.

All I know is, we can't keep feeding a meth addiction, or crack or any of those extreme drugs that steal people's souls away. Making it available to them doesn't help anyone.

Think of the benefits being robbed of the world because someone isn't focusing on their path, but instead focusing on meth or crack or oxycodone.

I agree though, if there's a market, it will be fed.

I'm just glad I don't have to go through skateboarding punks for my weed anymore, they never call you back, are so irresponsible. LOL :)

SO Stephen,

 I posted the hemp article. I don't use marijuana. I'm 53 and know there's a difference in the issues. I did grow up using weed and it took me away from alcohol use when I was young and  today I'm thankful for not being addicted to alcohol or tabacco. The true scourage is drugs, wake up and your children can get them direct from your medicine stash. Maybe not yesterday or today, but someday you'll find the marijuana issue is just smoke and mirrors for the real problem. TV, fast food, candy and chemicals that leach into the soil and water every day.

Stephen, Thank GOD! that yours is an attitude that is outdated and fading into obscurity.

Prohibitionists like you are the ones "pushing it on American children"!

When marijuana's controlled like alcohol illegal sellers will be forced out of the market through being undercut by legal stores. As the legal stores will card their customers and refuse to sell to minors that'll leave almost NOWHERE for kids to buy pot.

People like you who oppose legalization are keeping marijuana easily accessible to children. Shame on you - you ought to be arrested!

To Dave Garton:  Yeah, just like "minors" can't get alcohol....

Well they can get alcohol but they need an adult to help them get it. It's very unlikely that we'll ever be able to totally stamp that out.

It's no reason to make alcohol illegal though as that'd just encourage criminals to fill the unrelenting demand for alcohol and they'd have no problems with selling to children!

The exact same thing applies to marijuana. The prohibition makes marijuana a lot more accessible to minors than legally selling it to adults would.

Did you hear about this guy who makes hemp soap? He planted hemp on the DEA front lawn and got arrested for it. I just love this guy. I even sent him a note thanking him for taking one "for the team."

http://www.drbronner.com/activism_overview.html

I'm curious:  I first got high when I was 15 (ditto for drinking) and I think that's a pretty typical age to start experiencing these things.  I'm willing to bet most of the repsondents here have similar histories.  So why--other than political expediency--would we be wringing our hands over today's youth doing what we did--and enjoyed.  I don't regret doing those things at that age and I've yet to meet anyone in my hypocritical generation who says "Gee, I wish they'd have come in and stopped us."  Most of them look back rather forndly...

Adolescents are not children and certainly anyone old enough to be sent to Iraq should not be treated like a second-class citizen.

I totally agree with you Chris. We read in the news that "people are just going to use MMJ to get high". Well so what?

So what if people are getting high if they're also doing well at school/work, paying their bills and looking after their families?

Where's the big deal? Why are taxpayers paying $40 billion a year to try to stop people getting high? Why are we arresting 800,000 people every year to try to stop people getting high? And why are we ok with 6,000 brutal cartel murders every year when  instead we could legalize marijuana for adults, undercut the cartel prices and ELIMINATE the cartel murders?

The reasons prohibitionists give for perpetuating the prohibition are simply not good enough!

So True, Chris. I don't regret any of the crazy fun things I did as a youth, even though society tells me I should feel guilty, how can I when it was just so much darn fun? It was harmless back then though.

We didn't have meth and crack. We had Angel Dust and crank, which I quickly learned to stay away from. It's always just been the herb for me, in the end, and fun with shrooms. :)

Chris,

Political expediency is certainly a factor in age restrictions (most negotiations end with both sides giving up something).

Another large factor is not wanting to impair the development of the body/brain.  (though pot and its effects on human development is one area of cannabis that I have not read any research)

The specific age is rather arbitrary as people develop at different rates.  The idea of high schoolers smoking pot doesn't really bother me.  But middle school and especially elementary kids smoking pot does bother me.

But for me it comes down one thing:  either people can handle it responsibly, or they can't.  They just need to figure out which end of the spectrum they're on.

I had a pot experience when I was a teenager that I deeply regret.

I had to flush a bag once...

Wish I could go back and undo that experience~

Steve, that is indeed traumatic.

Fortunately, PTSD is treatable...;-)

Definitely a troll. But instead of Billy Goats, he likes female sheep. Ewwwwwe...

The benefits of marijuana will be important one day but to end the prohibition we have to focus on an issue that's important to NON-smokers.

Ending the brutal murder of children and innocent people is an issue that's important to everybody so we have to tell non-smokers about the 6,000 people murdered by the cartels last year and how many of their victims were *children*, police officers, reporters, lawyers and politicians.

We have to tell them how two-thirds of the cartel's cash flows come from selling marijuana in the U.S. and how this year they're on track to kill at least 7,000 people.

With the cartels having an annual marijuana income of $8 - 10 BILLION and more than half a million men it should be apparent to everybody that we will NEVER end these murders  just by arresting the few criminals that we can catch.

The ONLY way to end these brutal murders is by ELIMINATING the cartel's marijuana incomes - that will eliminate two-thirds of their incomes and as we all know, no business can withstand the loss of two-thirds of its income!

We MUST legalize the commercial production and sale of marijuana to adults and UNDERCUT the cartel's marijuana prices in order to strip their customers from them and end their ability and incentive to continue committing these horrific murders.

This is the message we have to spread. We need NON-smokers to petition Congress for a cause that's important to them! We can't do it alone and we can't expect non-smokers to do anything based on our assertions that marijuana is good (which it is).

I' kind of hoped I could get through one of these comment lists without reading a "my-drug-good-your-drug-bad" tantrum, but I guess it's not to be.  I got prety far,though, so I guess the movement is evolving.

I agree with you Jeff, but we *also* need people who don't use marijuana to demand legalization - there's not enough of us and we don't get enough respect to be able to achieve this on our own.

And as was said above, they need to do if for a reason that's important to *them*. We need to see the birth of a new national group - Nonsmokers Against Prohibition.

Shining a spotlight on the amount of tax dollars used to house non-violent offenders is a step in that direction, add in the amount of violent crime that goes under the radar of law enforcement, while they are wasting their time (our time) investigating and apprehending marijuana users. Theives, Thugs, and  Pedophiles LOVE prohibition, as it gives them space and free time in which to work...

Jill:  I have a better idea.  How about we get together everyone who enjoys things others want to prohibit:  marijuana, alcohol, tobacco porn, gambling, fast food, etc.  All these pursuits are under the gun in the Puritan State that is currently the USA.  And we'd have an overwhelming majority of the country to join the Freedom to make Your Own Decisions Party.

I agree Chris. I believe we should be free to decide what laws we want to be governed by. If we want to legalize murder then that should be OUR decision, if we want to legalize marijuana then that should also be OUR decision.

Congress is made up of people just like us - who are they to claim that they can make better decisions for us than we can?

I agree Chris.  I personally believe we have more than 70% of the United States that are pro medical marijuana.  This is just another ignorant game that must be played, which is get people on the streets or inundate the reps and senators via phone and e-mail.  It's the people that have to get out there we need more setup dates to get out on the streets. Peacefully of course!

Obama "poo pooed" the question at that online townhall. Everybody thinks it's funny ha ha.

Chris there is one point that I must disagree with you on. Even excluding porn involving those who didn't or can't give consent (children, animals, slaves trafficked from other countries, etc.) porn is demeaning to women. It contributes to the objectification of women in our society, reducing women to sex objects and men to mere consumers of sex, thus dehumanizing both genders. It sets an impossibly high standard against which ordinary women cannot compete. This in turn increases the profit of the multibillion dollar diet, exercise, and cosmetic industries that make their money by telling women they are too fat and/or too ugly to deserve the "privilege" of being a man's sex object. Am I the only one who thinks there is something seriously wrong with this picture? How can anyone, man or woman, watch porn and reasonably claim to support women's rights? Which is more important, getting an erection from that special swirl of pixels or respecting the real women in your life who can love you back?

I don't mean to disagree with you about everything Amanda but in order to avoid prostate cancer men should ejaculate at least once a day. What woman could keep up with that?

Should a man make impossible demands on his wife in order to avoid cancer or do you think maybe there might be some flexibility to the dehumanizing theory of pornography that might allow a man to stay safe while respecting the emotions and desires of his wife?

There are other ways besides porn, such as masturbation, that do not denigrate women. I'd also like it if you provided the link that shows that men "have to" ejaculate at least once a day in order to avoid prostate cancer. Sounds like it was written by a man looking for an excuse to fuck everythimng in sight. 

Sorry I took so long getting back to you Amanda. I'm surprised that someone with such strong views about masturbation knows so little about its health benefits.

Surely the purpose of your original post was to improve the lives of the millions of women currently in marriages across America - how are their lives improved when their loved ones are lying on a slab? What will you say to them when you convince their husbands to give up porn only to have them succumb to prostrate cancer. Oops?

Here are few of the numerous articles available on the subject.

http://tr.im/DTC0
http://tr.im/DTAt
http://tr.im/DTAM
http://tr.im/DTBP
http://tr.im/DTCr
http://tr.im/DTCx
http://tr.im/DTDc

And I have to mention that your first sentence is confusing for surely the sole purpose of porn is masturbation?

It's also questionable that your claim of "throughout my posts to this blog I have attempted to maintain a calm and civil tone" is accurate when you just finished your previous post with "sounds like it was written by a man looking for an excuse to fuck everything in sight". Maybe your idea of a "calm and civil tone" is different from everybody else's?

Jillian, thank you for the links. I'm sorry if I was unclear about the masturbation point. My point was that men can masturbate (and ejaculate) without using porn and contributing to an industry that exploits women and their images. No, I don't want men to die of prostrate cancer because I am not a stereotypical feminist who wants to see men suffer at all costs. All I want is for men to stop treating us like possessions to be used and discarded. 

You're absolutely right. That particular comment was out of line. I didn't like the fact that women's rights don't really seem to be a priority on the progressive agenda. However, that is no excuse for offending people and I apologize for the harsh tone of that comment. Correct if I am wrong,but I believe the overall tone of my posts has been calmer than the specific example you selected. 

Jillian, on behalf of men everywhere, and our continuing to stay healthy prostates, thank you, thank you, thank you.

And to Amanda, you seem to have some serious problems that are begging for psychoanalysis.

I won't be as kind as Jillian and do your research for you, but I'll give you a hint....do a Google search for 'men as visual creatures'. and then go find another thread to 'troll' in.

OMG! thank you MJ Mathisen for your post. you are absolutely correct about men being VISUAL CREATURES, (which some women will never understand because women think with something other than their brains too) jillian is correct, its not a matter of fucking women, its a matter of ejaculating, there are many studies done on this. so yes amanda quit wasting your time in this post if you cant talk about the decriminalization of marijuana, cause i am tired of hearing your idiotic raves. next time do your f***ing homework before you start ranting your dumb rhetoric in the wrong thread to begin with.

Honestly, without visual stimulus I don't think that men can masturbate frequently enough to provide adequate protection against prostrate cancer.

I really don't know why men are so visually orientated. Maybe in our pre-historic past the more visually-stimulated males had increased offspring so their genes were passed on, while the genes of less visually-stimulated males were not? I don't know.

But whatever the reason, men didn't ask to be made this way so holding this attribute against them must be considered to be a form of discrimination.

And in the end what does it matter what they require? Even if they required "romance-based" stimulus like women do, if they seek it out on the internet and in magazines then couldn't it also be regarded as "contributing to an industry that exploits women" by any person who wishes to see it that way?

If a man is loving to his wife and does everything he can to meet her needs and desires then how is she being exploited when he looks at porn? Maybe I misunderstood who's being exploited, is it the "porn star" who willingly and for profit undresses before a camera who's being exploited? If she's an adult then shouldn't we respect her decisions?

I'll leave you to your discussion but before I go, a few things:

First, I have known men who masturbate without porn. They are no less sexually satisfied than those who do use porn. Also, some websites you might want to check out:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080518143648AAujgKN

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080518143648AAujgKN

Second, I am not a troll. In the little over a year that I have been with Change.org I have signed over 100 Change.org actions and all my comments on every other Change.org topic have been well within the mainstream Change.org majority. You could easily have verified these facts by checking my profile or by going through previous Change.org posts.

Also, Jillian critiqued my tone in this post at one point. This was a fair and valid criticism. But I do not see any similar constructive criticism directed towards Will, Jeff, or MJ for their hurtful comments towards me. Is an offensive tone somehow more acceptable when it is directed towards people with nonconformist beliefs? Verbal attacks such as these do not help to promote your movement but rather undermine its reputation as a peaceful and humane cause. Although I may disagree with some of the beliefs on this website, I believe that is a reputation worth protecting.

Good bye all and God bless,

Amanda

Sorry forgot a link

http://sexuality.about.com/od/anatomyresponse/ht/masturbatemen.htm

Goodbye Amanda. I'm still confused as to who is exploited when men look at porn. If it's not their wives who are exploited and it's not the porn stars who willingly and for profit undress before cameras then who is it?

Let's say a porn star in Finland creates porn viewed by a gentleman in Liechtenstein, are you or I personally exploited by this? Are all the women of Finland and Liechtenstein somehow denigrated by his actions even though they have no knowledge whatsoever that the gentleman in question is actually viewing any porn at all? And if he stopped viewing porn would their lives improve even though they never had any knowledge that he did view porn and  of course will never have any way of knowing that he has stopped?

Or here's another scenario. Let's say a gentleman here in the U.S. views porn which due to his sexual orientation doesn't contain any women at all. Has any woman been exploited by this, has any man? I've never actually heard any man say that men are being denigrated and exploited when other men view porn that contains only men, nor for that matter do they tend to complain when women view porn that contains only men. But surely by your logic shouldn't they be suffering from the same dehumanizing objectification as the (imaginary) women that you speak of?

I really think the jury is out on the tangible harm porn does to women.  After all, where do women have more power and freedom:  countries with liberal attitudes toward porn (and sexuality in general) like Denmark, or countries where porn is severely prohibited, like Saudi Arabia?

In reference to a post farther down the page, you should read "The Complex," by Nick Turse.  He goes into detail about how all of the complexes are interconnected and entrenched.  It was probably too late when Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex.

Thank you for that David. I will check that out because I'm beginning it's the biggest conspiracy being perpetrated on the American people and the world. It's time for everything to come out into the light of day. We need to have a say as to how they run things, it's what they do in our name.

OK, some of his comments are still here, but there were a whole lot of others, where he spews forth with some vile, and idiotic suggestions that we put marijuana users to death, that inspired some of the replies that are still up...

That's probably what got them deleted, but they still have value, in that they show the 'pro'-prohibition attitudes for what they are.

I wish they were still visible.

it's different than other sites that just let them spew vile lies all day long. I think it's refreshing here that one has to stay on topic and not be a troll in order to disrupt and derail valid dialog.

I agree, though, actually, I'd like to thank the trolls for giving us an easy sounding board for our valid and factual arguments. :)

"easy sounding board for our valid and factual arguments. :)"

I couldn't have put it better~

Mean?  You must be kidding!  Often time I write daze instead of days just for effect.  I wouldn't lose any sleep over his writing ewe instead of you.  Just pare a pair of pears and be done with it.

you just gave me a thought.

what if the money they make is far larger by keeping it illegal, you know payoffs to DEA officials, etc.

(Why else do you think they've been going after the pot instead of the meth labs and crack?)

You are right, it would solve alot of money problems. People are gonna buy it either way, but it struck me, why don't they want that revenue?

Because the under the table revenue is better for those in power? I've become so jaded and suspicious.

Not just 'under the table' money. The prison industry lobbies BIG TIME to keep it illegal.

The DEA gets their flying and spying toys, that's some big $$ there.

There are profiteers involved on every level of the table. Not just the illicit bribes and kickbacks that we imagine, but all manner of 'legal' and highly publicized profits are also keeping the prohibitionists motivated.

Down with the military industrial complex!

Down with the terrorism industrial complex!

Down with the Law Enforcement Industrial complex!

I'm starting to think outlandish thoughts like what if McChrystal and the Taliban work together to keep the war going and just blame Al Queda? That way they keep getting money to their region.

Paranoid? Or crazy like a FOX? (not fox news, yuck)

But yeah, there is mountains more $$ that would better the serve the public (many billions of potential tax dollars), instead of those who seek to further the cause of prohibition, so that they can personally make a few million $$...

The anti-marijuana people are not moved by this: they're against the idea of getting high, period. To them, any sort of artificial mood-alteration is by definition wrong and dangerous.  And Official America is in the grip of such hysterical puritanism, most people are afraid to openly disagree.

chris, the fact of the matter is that alcohol and tobacco both give a mood-alteration, and honestly, alcohol is the evil of the 3 (alcohol, tobacco and cannabis). so when they criticize us pot smokers for doing just that, they will be hypocritical about the situation and try to claim its not the same thing, when clearly it is.

In "Animals and Psychedelics", Giorgio Samorini details numerous incidents where *wild animals* are observed going out of their way to experience alternative states of consciousness.

This is observed as a *natural drive* in animals as diverse as caribou, cats, insects, and birds, and is seen as being as natural and as essential to the survival of the species as its drives for food, shelter and sex.

Since wild animals go out of their way to experience intoxication you can be well assured that our prehistoric ancestors were doing the same thing long before they came down from the trees and became human.

We were seeking out altered states of consciousness before we became human and we've done the same thing for the entire time that we've been human. It's a natural part of us and pretending that it's something new or something deviant is naivety at its worst.

Jeff:  I don't think alcohol is evil.  I like it.  I also think the pro-marijuana movement shoots itself in the foot when it demonizes other substances.  True, those who demonize weed while drinking are huge hypocrites.

I would say that the "legal" drug that's garnering the greatest hysteria today is tobacco.  Can you believe these fanatics who want to ban smoking even outside or in people's homes?  But as I say in discussions on that topic, whatever they can do with one group, they can easily do with another.

Jillian:  not to mention the fact that almost every human culture practices some form of "drug use".  I can only think of the Mormons as an example of a culture that doesn't allow any form of mind alteration.

Oh no, Nixon was worried the cats would all join the Anti-War Movement and speak out against the war in Vietnam or burn their draft cards and refuse to go fight against forces backed by 'the commies', half way around the world.

The cats might even grow their hair out really long & stop bathing themselves, and they might be easily amused - and consequently not be as much of 'good consumer' as they should be. Cats that wouldn't be out spending money on things they didn't really need - Heck, they might've been satisfied & generally content with what they had.

And it might have constituted a potential loss in "productivity"...

Granted - Nixon may not have known that the country would soon automate huge portions of our factories and 'downsize' their workforces. And eventually go even further with 'outsourcing' = meaning we wouldn't really need very many cats to work in the remaining factories and manufacturing jobs.

Leaving mostly "service industry" = Cabbie/Vallet/Chauffeur, Busboy/Dishwasher/Prep-Cook/Waiter/Waitress/Hostess, Porter/Bouncer/Barback/Bartender, And all the jobs at Fast Food places - In my experience, 'Delivery Driver' isn't too bad = IF you have a new-ish high mpg car, aren't worried about the possibly getting mugged/shot for the 20$ or so in change (+ the $ from your last delivery) you have to carry, and you can stay ahead of the cost of maintaining your car & living on (typically) minimum wage,+(.50c to 1$) a delivery, plus 'tips' ... If you're lucky you make most of your money from tips!
 
 ...and the jobs as "health workers" = half of this is arguably "feel-good work" taking care of people, and that's great.  BUT, the other half isn't doable for those cats with an even remotely 'weak stomach' - so I won't go into it any further here.

How many cats can we have "fighting tooth and claw" for the handful of poorly paid jobs in the "service industry" = being paid an hourly wage that's below the poverty level (and in some jobs - working for _roughly_ 3$ to 7$ an hour plus 'tips' or 'tipshare') to do all the menial tasks & other unpleasant stuff that the more affluent cats are 'above' doing for themselves.

Like the food service industry, I'm sure flipping burgers for a living with no benefits (or insurance) living paycheck to paycheck is EVERY cats dream!   "icanhascheeseburger?", my ass!

Heaven forbid, they get there paws on some catnip when they get home & try to relax & unwind.

Oh, who are we kidding, it was a "good issue" for Nixon meant to rally the 'anti-left' in support for his presdential campaign... and most politicians have kept on using it to portray themselves as "tough on crime" - especially Reagan!  And after what he did in the early 80's, its nearly always been considered political suicide to NOT continue supporting this 40 year old 'campaign' issue.

There are some here in California who feel that 'We The People' should be putting pressure on our Local Police, to arrest Federal Agents who come here for the sole purpose of violating the rights of our citizens. They are travelling 3,000 miles, and crossing our State Line, for no other purpose than to violate the State Law.