Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

DrugReporter

Smoked Out

By Silja J.A. Talvi, AlterNet. Posted September 12, 2005.


The 'war on drugs' has evolved into a war on weed. Billions of dollars spent, tens of thousands incarcerated, and marijuana is still as popular as ever.
Advertisement

In a November 2002 letter to the nation's prosecutors, the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) didn't bother beating around the proverbial bush. "No drug matches the threat posed by marijuana," began the letter from Scott Burns, deputy director for state and local affairs.

The truth of the matter, as reiterated throughout that letter in terse language, was that marijuana was an addictive and dangerous drug linked to violent behavior on the part of users. To make matters worse, a subtle but powerful threat was identified as exacerbating the problem: well-financed and deceptive campaigns to normalize and ultimately legalize the use of marijuana.

Prosecutors were instructed to keep in mind the crucial importance of their role in fighting this threat of normalization in going after traffickers and dealers, and to tell the truth about marijuana to their communities: "The truth is that marijuana legalization would be a nightmare in America."

Yet these truths about marijuana hearken back to the absurdity of the Reefer Madness era of the 1930s, when marijuana use was linked to sexual promiscuity and violence, to say nothing of the imagined hordes of Mexicans and Blacks waiting to lure white women into pot-induced sinful acts.

Marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I drug since 1970, which means that for 35 long years, pot has been viewed by the federal government as a substance with no medicinal value and a high potential for abuse, more so than cocaine, for instance, which is a Schedule II drug. In many ways, modern-day government hysteria about the dangers of marijuana is far more distorted and far-fetched than the scare tactics that were employed under Harry J. Anslinger's reign at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

That's because we know a great deal more about marijuana today than we did in the '30s, particularly in the form of medical studies about the very real existence of a>cannabinoid receptors in human brains and the benefits of THC to chronic pain sufferers, as well as the fact that urban decriminalization results in neither more common nor more chronic use of marijuana.*

As far as we've been able to trace it back, cannabis has been used by humans for at least 4,500 years. There has never been a single documented overdose from any form of consumption of the plant. (It's actually not technically possible for a human being to die from smoking marijuana, as Eric Schlosser points out in his book, Reefer Madness: a user would have to smoke 100 pounds a minute for 15 minutes to take a fatal dose.) On the other hand, people can and do die from drinking too much, smoking too much crack, shooting up unexpectedly pure heroin, and snorting or popping too much OxyContin.

With all of this knowledge available to the federal government, the extremist position of the ONDCP isn't just nonsensical, it actually sounds more and more like the product of truly paranoid, delusional thinking.

Whatever the reasons behind this kind of thinking, we do know that the ONDCP and successive presidential administrations since Nixon's reign have been deadly serious about supporting this agenda, leaving no room for debate, much less any form of dissent. The extreme extent to which pot (and pot smokers) have been criminalized over the last few decades has had the effect of skewing what marijuana really is and isn't capable of doing to a person.

That's something that any of the roughly 30,000 prisoners doing time for marijuana-related charges can surely attest to, as documented by the report, Efficacy and Impact: The Criminal Justice Response to Marijuana Policy in the U.S., released last month from the Justice Policy Institute. Thirty thousand may not seem like a hell of a lot when we've got 2.1 million folks behind bars from coast to coast, but that's 10,000 more people than the far more pot-friendly Netherlands has in its entire prison system.


Digg!

Silja J.A. Talvi is a senior editor at In These Times. Her work appears in the anthology, "Prison Nation" (Routledge, 2003).



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
UK cannabis reclassification
Posted by: philstovell on Sep 12, 2005 2:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's worth noting that since cannabis was reclassified in the UK from a class B drug to class C - the lowest category of illegal drug - that usage amongst teens has fallen, from 13% to 11%.

Youth justice: Cannabis use drops after reclassification

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good start Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Oh Yea? Check out a joint! Posted by: bornxeyed
» A challenge Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: A challenge Posted by: AP
» RE: Oh Yea? Check out a joint! Posted by: kaw valley kid
» Give it all up baby Posted by: Olympiada
» Whoa fella Posted by: popsicle67
Legalization
Posted by: churchofone on Sep 12, 2005 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The truth is that marijuana legalization would be a nightmare in America."

It could become a nightmare in America, but not because of increased usage. Rather, the nightmare would be on those authorities who try to regulate and tax it. Since it is very easy to grow, anyone with a patch of dirt in the yard and a handful of seeds could grow their own. Trying to tax that would be like trying to tax me for the tomatoes I grow every summer!

The nightmare could further extend to the loss of profits (gasp!) from Big Pharma, since legalized pot could very well replace a lot of the meds that doctors love to prescribe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Legalization Posted by: owlbear1
» RE: Legalization Posted by: cobrajet
» RE: Legalization Posted by: Don
» RE: Legalization Posted by: mf-roe
» RE: Legalization Posted by: churchofone
» RE: Legalization Posted by: LPB
» RE: Legalization Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Legalization Posted by: kaw valley kid
» RE: Legalization Posted by: BAKslider
» RE: Legalization Posted by: churchofone
» RE: Legalization Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Legalization Posted by: Lizka
» RE: Legalization Posted by: nakis
» RE: Legalization Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Legalization Posted by: stoney13
» Agree on this one churchofone Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Legalization Posted by: jakstrate
» RE: Legalization Posted by: Lizka
» RE: Legalization and the Meds Rx Posted by: roberteggleton
Ignorance is Bliss
Posted by: navistic50 on Sep 12, 2005 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a country that claims to be as educated as the U.S. - well, let's face it, ther are a whole lot of dumb and paranoid people who live here.

I'm trying to remember when it was ever reported that a bunch of pot smokers got into a barroom brawl... nope, can't recall.

Yet, alcohol, a drug/beverage worshipped here in the U.S. is o.k. Regardless of the fact that alcohol makes people aggressive and violent. I guess though it is better to have a populace that is geared in that direction, that way we are always ready to kick somebodies ass and take there "stuff". You know what I mean by stuff.. their country, politics, oil...

This has become the land of the greed and the home of the stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ignorance is Bliss Posted by: dvann66
» RE: Ignorance is Bliss Posted by: mungojelly
» RE: Ignorance is Bliss Posted by: kittybud420
» Bravo Kitty Posted by: dvann66
» RE: Ignorance is Bliss Posted by: poonoggin
» RE: Ignorance is Bliss Posted by: bornxeyed
» Good point navistic50! Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Ignorance is Bliss Posted by: stoney13
Clash of Worldviews
Posted by: Ptah on Sep 12, 2005 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we are seeing in play is a clash of worldviews. Supporters of marijuana legalization generally recognize the importance in life of creative thinking, empathy, relaxation and whole bodymind healing, all of which are within the domain of marijuana usage and availability. In addition, there is the culture of pot. In it (although severely damaged by years of official repression) good vibes, sharing, aesthetic sensitivity all prevail.

Now look at the corollary: marijuana as the weed of evil, promolgated by a puritanical, literal, narrow-visioned and fiscally-self serving cabal of American power brokers. For them control and profit (their own) are the markers of reality. To attain their goals requires enforced linear thought and lack of empathy. Both are entirely absent in the marijuana culture.

In the end, I think that this is the main reason (consciously or unconsciously realized) which motivates the repression of pot and its users. For they represent a threat to the monolithic and naive concept of stability and "rightness" which fuels the madness of our government and society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clash of Worldviews Posted by: mungojelly
» you're smart too mungojelly Posted by: Olympiada
» Excellent point of view ptah! Posted by: Olympiada
» Creativity Posted by: Olympiada
jobs for cops, jobs for cops, jobs for cops
Posted by: schnoggi on Sep 12, 2005 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
check out the movie GRASS, narrated by Woody Harrelson. every powermonger president that's come along has sought to expand his power by expanding the enemy, ie drugs. If you just keep pushing the boundaries, you can include more and more people, and demonize them, and provide fuel for screaming demagogues, angry cops, vicious judges, and privatized jails.
studies have shown that stoned people are statistically SAFER drivers than even straight people: you slow down and take it easy. In very few instances does marijuana use accompany violence, generally in people who were extremely violent to begin with. It doesn't CAUSE it; it's far more likely to turn you into an unresponsive lump. It's also way more likely to jumpstart your bullshit detectors, which is why powermongers are so damned afraid of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where is the link......... Posted by: Diecash1
» RE: Where is the link......... Posted by: schnoggi
» RE: Where is the link......... Posted by: mungojelly
» RE: Where is the link......... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Where is the link......... Posted by: philstovell
» Driving while stoned Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Driving while stoned Posted by: AlterNug
» I do not drive. Period. Posted by: Olympiada
» What's up kid? Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Driving while stoned Posted by: drmeow
» Make a choice Posted by: Olympiada
» Life Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Life Posted by: bornxeyed
» Miles and Years Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Miles and Years Posted by: bornxeyed
» That is blasphemy Posted by: Olympiada
» Tnerg I gave my truck to my ex Posted by: Olympiada
» Stoner dude! Posted by: Olympiada
The 'War on Drugs' is counterproductive and unwarranted
Posted by: Nescio on Sep 12, 2005 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One would think that looking at the figures it is easy to conclude the current strategy of the US government is not working. But then again the same people claim Iraq to be a huge success (yet another 'War') and intelligent design is science. As long as ideology is more important than fact this kind of insanity will continue. Much of it the result of voting habits. Please consider voting for another party (the general public) if you really believe fairy tales should no longer be the policy of your administration.

So much for politics. I have a link to an interesting documentary (50 min) by Dutch television in English, with a short introduction in Dutch, regarding the 'war on drugs.' However, a broadband internet connection is needed.


War on drugs: Part I: Winners,
and War on drugs: Part II: Losers.


[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Careful on the cancer assumption
Posted by: Guither on Sep 12, 2005 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article. The one small criticism I'd note, however, is the throwaway assumption about cancer:
"Moderate to heavy smokers do, in fact, run the risk of lung cancer..."

While this has often been assumed due to the simple fact of taking in smoke, there is no evidence of a lung cancer risk. What there is evidence of is that the smoke contains known carcinogens (as does air and much of what we consume to an extent), but not that they actually cause lung cancer (other lung disorders have been shown, but not cancer).

With all the millions of marijuana smokers, the thing that has baffled many cancer researchers is: Where are the bodies? There should be plenty of cases of lung cancer tied to marijuana, but there aren't -- only the assumption.

A recent study at UCLA tried to find the link between marijuana and lung cancer, but instead discovered:
"Marijuana smoking -'even heavy longterm use'- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society."

In fact, the study showed that the odds of getting cancer were slightly less in all categories of marijuana smokers, than in the control group.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Most potheads smoke cigarettes too Posted by: Turdworldcountry
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Sep 12, 2005 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Up until the 1930's, the weed grew wild throughout our home land.

Propoganda like Reefer Madness and a need to 'blame' someone for USA citizens hard times during the Great Depression led to a demonizing of Mexican immigrants-
[ I suppose they always had the best pot?] and the beginning of the 'war on weed.'

When God created everything He pronounced everything GOOD. And that includes ALL seed bearing plants.

As long as there is a market, there will be suppliers.

Imagine if cannibas was cultivated, packaged and sold under state control and profits went directly to the public school system?

www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pot raises Consciousness. Nothing to Fear but the TRUTH!
Posted by: lc on Sep 12, 2005 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a ‘hemp’ activist in my 60’and have smoked pot my entire adult life. Pot’s greatest danger is to the power’s that be. Pot expands consciousness, opens parts of the brain not normally used, makes people think deeper about any subject and, horror of horrors, pot inspires people to question authority.
No one ever comes out and says I use cocaine or heroine and it should be legal. No one advocates for any drug except the herb, cannabis. It takes real balls to use a drug and then to tell the government they are wrong about anything. Only pot inspires such reactions. Truth is the government’s greatest fear and pot is the only drug that inspires rebellion in the name of truth. That is why the government directs over 90% of its anti-drug message against the least harmful drug of all, least harmful to the user but most harmful to the deceiver’s ulterior motives, the true agenda the government hides from its citizens.
Sincerely, Ron Linker
www.HydroGen1000.com fuel cell technology to increase mpg, hp and reduce pollution. Available now to convert your vehicle to a hybrid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stoners Rebel???? Posted by: Diecash1
» RE: Stoners Rebel???? Posted by: syn7hor
» RE: Stoners Rebel???? Posted by: nakis
» RE: Stoners Rebel???? Posted by: Diecash1
» I agree but Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: I agree but Posted by: churchofone
» churchofone Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: churchofone Posted by: churchofone
» RE: I agree but Posted by: bornxeyed
» Go toke up Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: I agree but Posted by: kaw valley kid
» The ritual herb Posted by: Olympiada
question it
Posted by: karyse on Sep 12, 2005 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've said it before and I'll say it again: They are trying to eliminate pot as the drug of choice because they NEED a violent underclass to justify turning the police into a paramilitary organization and effecting a declaration of martial law.

Since no one gets violent on reefer, those who have it share it whenever it is widely and cheaply available, and a ghetto full of potheads wouldn't frighten anyone, it must be eliminated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hearst didn't want it....... Posted by: Diecash1
» RE: question it Posted by: cobrajet
Effects of Drugs
Posted by: BAKslider on Sep 12, 2005 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just another quick note. The drugs classified as the most dangerous are the drugs that cause you to "ponder things." That is the last thing the government wants you to do. On the other hand the legal drugs numb the brain to a point where "pondering" is not possible. The government HATES drugs that cause thinking outside the box.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pot on the brain
Posted by: sharp on Sep 12, 2005 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When they come to teach you about drugs in school here in Canada, they don't try to bullshit you. Pot isn't physically addictive. They know it. We know it. The best you could come up with is that it could be 'habit forming', ie. A psychological dependence. By that line of reasoning, you could develop the same dependence to food, or gambling.

Here in Canada we are making moves to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana (up 28 grams, that's an oz. for you yanks). In the Province of British Columbia, police typically are not targeting users of marijuana. The problem arising here is large scale growing operations in urban areas, usually put in place by Asian gangs. In rural areas there are plenty of small-tme "mom and pop" growers who are normal, non-violent Canadians. The Asian gangs in urban areas, (who do operate in rural areas as well) are simply in it for profit. These people would not think twice about shooting you. By decriminalizing amounts of up to 1 oz. we are taking a step in the right direction. The more people are allowed to grow themselves, without fear of arrest, the less incentive there will be for criminal gangs to be involved in the supply chain.

Here we are easing away from pot busts and focusing more on 'real drugs' that actually hurt people. We don't waste time and money putting people in jail for years for growing pot. The U.S. spends all this money battling the 'evils' of pot and you've got a scourge of crystal meth eating it's way through your heartland. Time to get priorities straignt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Canada is a NAZI STATE Posted by: Turdworldcountry
» RE: Canada is a NAZI STATE Posted by: kaw valley kid
Read: The American Disease by David Musto (Yale University Press 1973)
Posted by: AdamSelene11726 on Sep 12, 2005 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I so tired of 'our side' offering its own fantasy about the Drug War as an alternative to 'their side's' fantasy.

At least read:

The American Disease by David Musto (Yale University Press 1973)

And consider this:

As of 1973, there was a general feeling among disorderly young people, that secretly smoking marijhuana in dorm rooms and their parents' basements was a meaningful form of political protest and Civil Disobedience -- like having sex and listening to rock and roll.

The bizarre thing was ... President Nixon AGREED with them -- eventually deciding that every joint consumed by them was a personal attack against him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's funny Adam Posted by: Olympiada
Who profits?
Posted by: Ahimsa on Sep 12, 2005 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call me conspiracy theory paranoid, call me whatever: I can't get out of my head the idea that (our) government and others profit from the war on drugs. In other words, that there is a connection between the cartels and authorities in high political levels that get their share from the traffic, which in turn depends on ilegality.
If I grew it in a pot in my balcony, who would profit?
Am I crazy for thinking like this? Has THC fried too many of my neurons ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who profits? Posted by: mungojelly
» RE: Who profits? Posted by: nakis
» RE: Who profits? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Who profits? Posted by: jeanie
Recent Propaganda
Posted by: cstriker on Sep 12, 2005 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw an ad in the last year saying you should talk to your kids about drugs. This ad went on to say that pot smoking reduced your motivation and created an apathetic state of mind. Isn't this in direct contradiction to the statement "marijuana was an addictive and dangerous drug linked to violent behavior on the part of users."?

Last time I checked, pot smokers are a little too listless to get violent. I would have to say pot would do more to promote peace then being a republican does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ecent Propaganda Posted by: mungojelly
» RE: Recent Propaganda Posted by: dsm45dsmi
» RE: ecent Propaganda Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: ecent Propaganda Posted by: nakis
» Yeah and promote apathy Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Yeah and promote apathy Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» Here is how I know all this Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Here is how I know all this Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» Are you playing me Adam? Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Are you playing me Adam? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Here is how I know all this Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Yeah and promote apathy Posted by: bornxeyed
» I am strange baby boy Posted by: Olympiada
» Huh? Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Yeah and promote apathy Posted by: churchofone
» Yeah you're right, it is Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Yeah you're right, it is Posted by: churchofone
» More recent Propaganda Posted by: bornxeyed
» I do not mean who you think Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: I do not mean who you think Posted by: bornxeyed
» Poverty Posted by: Olympiada
» Correction Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Correction Posted by: bornxeyed
» Alcohol and violence Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Alcohol and violence Posted by: bornxeyed
» God bless you Posted by: Olympiada
this is naive
Posted by: mwildfire on Sep 12, 2005 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The War on Drugs is really a war on marijuana, and it has not failed at all--it has been quite successful in achieving its true aims, although not its announced ones.
I have an ex-brother-in-law who's a crack freak. He says that at no time through that so-called War on Drugs did the price rise, nor did it become hard to find. Why? Because crack was not targeted, because it was already pulling all it could bring. This guy stole cars from his best friends--once he'd done that a time or two there was no way he could get more money for this truly dangerous and addictive drug.
Marijuana is different. The problem is that it's easy to grow in any state in the country. If it were legalized, its value per pound would be about that of celery. But with the War on Pot, its price went up at least twenty-fold as domestic growers, who had developed strains that were better than the imported stuff, were busted. Most potsmokers have jobs--they were capable of paying a good deal more for their supply, but for that it had to be kept illegal and a lot of little guys had to be run out of business--so the top dealers, who are connected with the DEA, could make a lot more money from their networks in Colombia.
Sure, there are plenty of dupes in this who think the idea is to stop drug abuse. But not at the top. The War on Drugs has been a shining success in its real aims, of raising the profits on pot, eliminating competition from domestic upstarts, and providing an excuse to jail young black males and dissidents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you're naive Posted by: bornxeyed
» you're jaded Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: you're jaded Posted by: mwildfire
» Are you kidding? Posted by: Olympiada
99 Days in County Jail
Posted by: bambic on Sep 12, 2005 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...for first probation revocation on possession of a marijuana pipe. To those of you who may not be up on this sort of thing, that means that back in 2001 when my house was raided by over-zealous cops looking for a meth lab, all they found was the weed pipe.
Because of extenuating circumstances, like my PTSD from being told to "get down on the floor!" at the point of a gun, my frequent hospitalizations for depression and related anxiety and chronic back pain, which led me to use marijuana in the first place, I was not able to make it to one of my visits to my probation officer, so a warrant was issued. On March 22, two County Sheriffs came to my door and I spent the next 99 days in jail, receiving only Tylenol for my myriad of physical/psychological problems. I was given a $50,000 bond---the same amount given to a major cocaine trafficker and a woman with several meth labs.
So there I sat while waiting for plea and arraignment, the hearing and the sentencing amid other inmates, most with drug charges, some with "hot" check charges, a few with murder charges: mostly battered women who could stand no more.
So now that I am "free", I am randomly piss-tested when I visit my P.O. who will accept the positive results when they find benzodiazapine residue (Xanax, for anxiety)and opioids (Hydrocodone, for back pain)
and in three years, they told me I can vote again and get my passport back because I am lucky enough to have gotten "Act 531" which means that when I am through with my probation, I can file reams of paperwork and become, once again, a citizen with voting rights.
My roots go back to the Mayflower: my eleventh great-grandfather was an "indentured servant" (white slave) who got to signthe Mayflower Compact, and I was ass't. Press Secretary to Gov. Jerry Brown during his Presidential campaign in '92. I am a fifty year old white woman who has the "honor" of being the first in her immediate family to go to jail because I chose to self-medicate with marijuana instead of highly addictive pharmaceutical drugs approved by our government.
What can I do to help the women who are still in jail, receiving very little medical attention---even those with diabetes, hypertension, seizures, etc.?
I have contacted the ACLU numerous times and they will not respond.
I am in Pulaski County (Little Rock).
Thanks for letting me post/vent.
Otherbam@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 99 Days in County Jail Posted by: mungojelly
» RE: 99 Days in County Jail Posted by: bambic
DEA out of Canada!
Posted by: Japhy on Sep 12, 2005 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out what your lovely DEA has been doing in Canada lately:

http://www.smokeoutamerica.ca/
http://www.cannabisculture.com/

This is scary stuff for us up here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New York, New York
Posted by: dsm45dsmi on Sep 12, 2005 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few years back, when Ontario proposed decriminalizing possession up to 21 grams (I believe up to an ounce was tossed out, but the compromise with legs was .75 oz), the former coke-head in the White House urged them to stop the discussion because it would cripple the drug war.

Interesting note though, Marijuana is decriminalized up to 25 grams in New York state, which borders Ontario. That does not mean it's legal to carry it in the Empire State, just that it's not a crime. It's a violation. A ticket and a fine. That's it. It's been this way for close to 30 years.

After passing the mandatory-minimum sentence Rockefeller Drug Laws in the early 1970s, one of the state Senate proponents of those laws, Republican Doug Barclay from Northern New York spoke out on the mistake it was to classify pot with harsher drugs. He pushed for a decriminalization of up to 21 grams, the state Assembly pushed for an ounce. The compromise, which he helped convince the Senate to accept, is the law we have today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New York, New York Posted by: bornxeyed
The 'War on Drugs' is a farce.
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 12, 2005 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To Quote 'Liberty Bill' Masters
This man is the Sheriff of San Miguel County, Colorado.
He was a Republican and left the party over the insanity and effects of policies coming straight from D.C. He is a member of the Libertarian Party.

"Policing and blaming Peru, Colombia or Mexico for our nation's drug problems is a little like blaming Saudi Arabia for traffic jams. This is a demand problem, not a supply problem.

We shut off the cocaine supply, then some people start cooking meth in their homes. We stop the meth and many will get high on Ecstasy, booze, the doctor's pills or whatever. Controlling the drug supply is like holding water in a fist, it just leaks out and goes on to something else.

Eventually we will realize a fist won't work against what is fundamentally a spiritual problem.

Before we suffer more innocent deaths at the hands of those sworn to protect us, before we lose touch with our local peace officers, and before more children overdose because we haven't identified or addressed the demand problem, we must rethink the drug war. We must change strategies."

http://www.libertybill.net/np.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pot Just One Among Many
Posted by: BMaxwell on Sep 12, 2005 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think we can all agree that the "War on Drugs" is misguided at best, evil at worst. I think that pot is a good drug to start with becase it has the greatest general acceptance. However, let us not forget that possession of even half a gram of a mushroom of the genus psilocybe is a felony and can be tried in federal court. Hallucinogens such as mushrooms, peyote, and DMT are in a similar category as weed. The prohibition of these types of drugs is morally wrong. People should be as free to experiment with these non-addictive substances as they are to drive cars on public roads or drink alcohol. Using weed and hallucinogens harms nobody. THere are risks involved as there are in anything and one is free to choose whether to accept those risks or not. Locking somebody up for something they choose to do to themselves is absolutely ridiculous. I will not stand for it. This modern prohibition is simply wrong.

On the subject of "harder" drugs such as heroin and crack I have not yet made up my mind. I am pretty sure that in the interest of harm prevention these too should be decriminalized at the least. Information about drugs of this sort is hard to come by for a variety of reasons, chief among them however is the government's outright hostility to rationality in this "war." We need more information and studies and a government that is willing to listen.

I always see government spokesmen going on about the dangers of drugs. Just about all of them are white men who have probably never been exposed to drugs of any sort and cannot understand anything beyond the propaganda. It is so very hard to take these people seriously until they knock down your backdoor at 1 AM so they can execute a warrant to search for your private stash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all of the above
Posted by: chrstof on Sep 12, 2005 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i believe very strongly there are a coupleof reasons that it it is still so illlegal.
1) someone is obviously making tons of money on the illegal trade of it. a few suspects would be the privatized prison companies, drug enforcement departments, criminal lawyers, all the companies that do business with the above, to name the most obvious.
2) it is still illegal b/c of the major players that would lose market share if it were widely available:pharmaceutical cos., chemical producing cos., paper and wood pulp industries, textile industry, liquor cos., outfits that treat alcohol abuse, tobacco producers, and many more. ( so much for the "free market" dogma they keep shoving down our throats. you know- healthy competition and all that.)
3) the gov't would lose some of the stranglehold we (the u.s.)have on other gov'ts worldwide through extorting policy and economic demands by threatening to withhold aid and deals if they stray from our demands.
4) the profits made in illegal drug trade by american citizens helps mask the poor state of our economy by allowing some economic growth among the lower economic levels where there are fewer jobs to go around each day. they don't pay taxes on it, but they pay for goods and services. want a job? if you're not seeking a career in the fast food industry,go to india! isn't the gang problem fueled by illegal drug trade?

i'd be happy to grow my own. the utility companies would be happy for all of us to do that too.
i also believe hemp won't be made legal as the huge amount of crops of weed grown here would be at risk of cross-pollination, ruining the more lucrative crop of recreational cannabis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: all of the above Posted by: bornxeyed
"Smoke doubt!"
Posted by: neilemac on Sep 12, 2005 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The smoke doubt I had has now been cleared by a comment I read by 'cuurchofone' above. This certainly looks like the main reason, it's always about scorporate gain. (my {}'s below)

"The nightmare {legalization of 'pot'} could further extend to the loss of profits (gasp!) from Big Pharma, since legalized pot could very well replace a lot of th