War on pot rejected by voters

[Keith Millea]

I am from california originally,but have lived in Oregon for many years.We have a different medical marijuana law than California.We do not use a dispensary system.Here you have to grow your own,or have a designated grower.I like our system better.

I had not really been too aware of what is happening in California concerning Medical herb,until I picked up a publication called "West Coast Leaf",a couple weeks ago.It seems the Feds are still cracking down hard on the dispensaries.People are still going to jail.Another interesting piece was about a collective in Santa Cruz,called Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana.This group has been providing pot to patients at no cost.It will be interesting to see if Obama will call off the hounds.Does he dare?????

Peter's quote:
In fact, the human brain produces opiates when one is pleased [they are called endorphins] - so anyone could be arrested when happy.

A line from the Grateful Deads "The other One".

"And the heat came round and busted me for smilin' on a cloudy day"

Keith

[Mark Stapleton]

Nicely put, Keith.

Here's an interesting piece from a few months ago about a former director of the UK's anti-drugs co-ordination unit admitting the whole war on drugs is a fraud.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...rtindex=30

Julian Critchley: All the experts admit that we should legalise drugs

Thursday, 14 August 2008

Eight years ago, I left my civil service job as director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit. I went partly because I was sick of having to implement policies that I knew, and my political masters knew, were unsupported by evidence. Yesterday, after a surreal flurry of media requests referring to a blog I wrote that questioned the wisdom of the UK's drug policies, I found myself in the thick of the debate again, and I was sorry to discover that the terms hadn't changed a bit.


I was being interviewed on the BBC World Service, and after I tried to explain why I believe that drugs should be decriminalised, the person representing the other side of the argument pointed out that drugs are terrible, that they destroy lives. Now, I am a deeply boring, undruggy person myself, and I think the world would be a better place without drugs. But I think that we must live in the world as it is, and not as we want it to be. And so my answer was, yes, I know that drugs are terrible. I'm not saying that drugs should be decriminalised because it would be fun if we could all get stoned with impunity. I'm saying that we've tried minimising harm through a draconian legal policy. It is now clear that enforcement and supply-side interventions are largely pointless. They haven't worked. There is evidence that this works.

Unfortunately, evidence is still not a major component in our policy. Take cannabis. When I was in the Anti-Drug Unit, the moves towards making it a class C drug began, and I hoped that our position on drugs was finally moving in a rational direction. But then Gordon Brown ignored his scientific advisers to make it a class B again. It was a decision that pandered to the instincts of the tabloids, and it made no sense whatsoever.

There is no doubt at all that the benefits to society of the fall in crime as a result of legalisation would be dramatic. The argument always put forward against this is that there would be a commensurate increase in drug use as a result of legalisation. This, it seems to me, is a bogus point: tobacco is a legal drug, whose use is declining, and precisely because it is legal, its users are far more amenable to Government control, education programmes and taxation than they would be otherwise. Studies suggest that the market is already almost saturated, and anyone who wishes to purchase the drug of their choice anywhere in the UK can already do so. The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is ridiculous.

Ultimately, people will make choices which harm themselves, whether they involve diet, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, sexual activity or pursuit of extreme sports. In all these instances, the Government rightly takes the line that if these activities are to be pursued, society will ensure that those who pursue them have access to accurate information about the risks; can access assistance to change their harmful habits should they so wish; are protected by a legal standards regime; are taxed accordingly; and – crucially – do not harm other people. Only in the field of drugs does the Government take a different line.

The case is overwhelming. But I fear that policy will not catch up with the facts any time soon. It would take a mature society to accept that some individuals may hurt, or even kill themselves, as a result of a policy change, even if the evidence suggested that fewer people died or were harmed as a result. It would take a brave government to face down the tabloid fury in the face of anecdotes about middle-class children who bought drugs legally and came to grief, and this is not a brave government.

I think what was truly depressing about my time in the civil service was that the professionals I met from every sector held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those people were forced to repeat the mantra that the Government would be "tough on drugs", even though they all knew that the policy was causing harm.

I recall a conversation I had with a Number 10 policy advisor about a series of announcements in which we were to emphasise the shift of resources to treatment and highlight successes in prevention and education. She asked me whether we couldn't arrange for "a drugs bust in Brighton" at the same time, or "a boat speeding down the Thames to catch smugglers". For that advisor, what worked mattered considerably less than what would play well in the right-wing press. The tragedy of our drugs policy is that it is dictated by tabloid irrationality, and not by evidence.


The clock is ticking for modern civilisation's longest and most pernicious war.

[Dawn Meredith]

It's like all illegal drugs. The governments make way too much $ by keeping all drugs illegal. I was so glad to hear about MA, finally, but did not know about the Michigan.
A few years back I had a he/she who was busted for a small quanity of pot. "She" wished a jury trial. During voir dire close to 100% of the prospective jurors said they would not convict for possession of marijuana. The DA tried to have the entire room struck for cause. I managed to rehabilate the 6 necessary to serve, but one, the former mayor- a woman- said "NO she would not follow the judge's instruction and convict if the state proved its case".

Dawn

[Mark Stapleton]

That's interesting, Dawn. It's not surprising though, considering over 50% of the 18-50 age group in the US have used cannabis, leaving one to doubt the practicality of a law which criminalises over half the population:

http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/ma...e-usa.html


And for those who still think that decriminalisation would lead to an explosion of cannabis use, the evidence points in the other direction. In Holland, where cannabis has been legally available since 1976, the per capita usage is one third that of New Zealand, where prohibition is still in place:

http://www.nzdf.org.nz/lets-talk-about-pot-ChrisFowlie

[David Guyatt]

Take cannabis. When I was in the Anti-Drug Unit, the moves towards making it a class C drug began, and I hoped that our position on drugs was finally moving in a rational direction. But then Gordon Brown ignored his scientific advisers to make it a class B again. It was a decision that pandered to the instincts of the tabloids, and it made no sense whatsoever.

And it made no sense whatsoever... (my bolding and underlining).

It makes perfect sense if the focus of the decision was to continue to generate massive untaxed profits for the privatized global drug lords --- and all those who sail in her...

[Mark Stapleton]

And it made no sense whatsoever... (my bolding and underlining).

It makes perfect sense if the focus of the decision was to continue to generate massive untaxed profits for the privatized global drug lords --- and all those who sail in her...

Indeed. As a famous drug baron once said, "surely your Governments realise that the current drug laws are our greatest asset".

As for that nasty piece of work Gordon Brown, currently trying to remould his image as that of brave global statesman in these turbulent times, I think this quote from Thomas Jefferson best describes him:

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty".

[Dawn Meredith]

That's interesting, Dawn. It's not surprising though, considering over 50% of the 18-50 age group in the US have used cannabis, leaving one to doubt the practicality of a law which criminalises over half the population:

http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/ma...e-usa.html


And for those who still think that decriminalisation would lead to an explosion of cannabis use, the evidence points in the other direction. In Holland, where cannabis has been legally available since 1976, the per capita usage is one third that of New Zealand, where prohibition is still in place:

http://www.nzdf.org.nz/lets-talk-about-pot-ChrisFowlie

A study done in NH decades ago showed that when pot was decrim. there the amount of teen usage went way down. Teens do things sometimes BECAUSE they are illegal. So the government's argument- that more kids will use, or leads to harder drugs - is just another false one. But it works with the lying media and uneducated "folks" (to use a "Billo" term)
Dawn

[Peter Lemkin]

A study done in NH decades ago showed that when pot was decrim. there the amount of teen usage went way down. Teens do things sometimes BECAUSE they are illegal. So the government's argument- that more kids will use, or leads to harder drugs - is just another false one. But it works with the lying media and uneducated "folks" (to use a "Billo" term)
Dawn

I used to live in Amsterdam, with its legal 'smoking bars' and only the visitors from 'deprived' nations used grass in excess - the Dutch really were rather blase about it - like the French about a glass of wine. Making something illegal makes it of interest to the young and more expensive for all; not to mention a boon for those who sell it and get the proceeds of the prison population..... My long life in the USA and in Europe confirms that marijhana does not lead to anything, except slighly enhanced sensory perception, laughter, better sex, and anti-extablishment thinking.....all for the better IMO. Alcohol and many doctor-perscribed drugs are MUCH more dangerous.

[Keith Millea]

There was a documentary on Free Speech TV the other night titled "AWAKE ZION".I only got to watch the last half hour.It basically focused on the popularity of Reggae music amongst the newer generation of Jews.I'm not real Biblical,but I think the Rastafarians trace their lineage to one of the twelve lost tribes of Israel.

The show interviewed some old time Rastafarians as they smoked from "DEH CHALISE".Rastas, as well as Coptics claim marijuana to be sacred,and intregal to their religous beliefs.What is interesting from their standpoint on the healing power of the herb,is that most references to any kind of healing that I have heard is in the context of "Healing of the Nation(s)".A somewhat wider view than is usually expressed.I really love Reggae music.

Wake up and live, y'all,
Wake up and live!
Wake up and live now!
Wake up and live!

Life is one big road with lots of signs,
So when you riding through the ruts, don't you complicate your mind:
Flee from hate, mischief and jealousy!
Don't bury your thoughts; put your vision to reality, yeah!

Bob Marley-"Wake Up And Live"

[Magda Hassan]

Hi Keith, I have a couple of Marley songs on our channel. Get Up Stand Up and Buffalo Soldier. I think he was probably assassinated too. I haven't looked into it too much but it would seem he was something of a threat to the PTB.