Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

DrugReporter

Making Pot Legal: We Can Do It -- Here's How

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted February 12, 2008.


Changing public opinion about pot isn't easy. Changing America's anti-pot laws is even harder -- here's a blueprint to get it done.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This month marks my 13th year working for marijuana law reform. During this time I've witnessed many successes and many more signs of progress. Nevertheless, it remains frustratingly clear that despite sincere efforts and millions poured into campaigns, very little headway has been made toward attaining the larger, essential goals of the movement -- specifically, abolishing the criminal laws that result in the arrest and prosecution of more than half a million Americans every year for possessing even small amounts of herb and establishing a framework for regulating legal access to marijuana to adults.

Is either one of these goals achievable? Certainly. Is either goal realistic? Not until we as a movement instigate significant shifts in both public attitude and political opinion.

Identifying the problems

For several decades, various organizations have pushed for the establishment of a legal and regulated market for adult cannabis use in the United States. Yet, despite extensive educational efforts and millions poured into various legislative campaigns, it's consistently been shown in opinion polls and at the voting booth that only between a third to 46 percent of Americans endorse legalizing the personal use of cannabis for adults.

As a result, the marijuana law reforms that have been enacted over the past several decades have been limited in scope. Specifically, these legal reforms fall into two distinct categories: "decriminalization" (exempting adult cannabis users from incarceration, but not necessarily arrest, under specified circumstances) and "medicalization" (exempting certain state-authorized medical marijuana patients from state-specific criminal sanctions). To date, 12 states -- almost one-third of the U.S. population -- have enacted limited versions of "decriminalization." Twelve states have also adopted various versions of "medicalization."

Both of these concepts -- unlike legalization -- enjoy majority support from the public, with national polls consistently finding that roughly 60 percent of Americans back "decriminalization" and nearly eight out of ten support the medical use of pot under a physician's supervision. But political support for these reforms has been historically weak, limiting the extent of their implementation.

In order to effectively move the debate forward, there has to be a clear sense of why -- despite years of public outreach -- we have failed to persuade a majority of the public that broader pot law reforms are needed. In addition, we must also identify why -- despite years of lobbying -- we have failed to persuade a majority of politicians that even incremental reforms are needed.

Changing the political landscape

All hot-button political issues -- most notably the struggle for "gay rights," immigration reform, and reproductive autonomy -- have faced significant political opposition, particularly from "conservative" or "right-wing" legislators. Similar political antipathy (e.g., opposition from religious or so-called "pro-family" organizations) has obstructed sensible federal marijuana law reforms. Why are political leaders typically unwilling to embrace marijuana law reform as a core, civil rights issue, and what must be done to change this? Below are four suggestions.

Media complacency

Mainstream media coverage of the cannabis issue is often inaccurate and rarely criticizes government policy. Alarmist stories about the alleged dangers of pot often get widespread coverage while evidence that refutes these claims is minimized or ignored. Finally, news reporters typically give greater credence and coverage to government officials espousing the need to maintain the "status quo" while granting far less weight to experts who disagree.

To combat this media bias, pot reformers must do a better job providing consistent and resonant messages to reporters, as well as establishing long-lasting, personal relationships with key journalists and opinion makers. Advocates could consider dedicating resources for print and media advertising campaigns to offset the federal government's anti-drug advertising budget, which annually spends some hundred million dollars in taxpayers' dollars and matching funds to buy television and radio commercials warning about the alleged dangers of pot.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: pot legalization, decriminalization

Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, D.C. Armentano is an expert in the field of marijuana policy, health and pharmacokinetics. He has spoken at numerous national conferences and legal seminars, testified before several state legislatures and federal bodies, and assisted dozens of criminal defense attorneys in cases pertaining to the use of medicinal cannabis and drugged driving.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from DrugReporter! Sign up now »

Advertisement
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:
Prohibition didn't work back then.
Posted by: Mahjee on Feb 12, 2008 12:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A strong black market for any commodity is an investors dream. Perhaps the main reason why prohibition continues is that so many politicians and police officers are funding their retirement by ensuring the price stays high and is controlled by a few cartels. That's what happened when alcohol was prohibited in the 1920's, wasn't it?

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

Your Name Here
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 12, 2008 2:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, we can

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

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

According to
Posted by: bitsfick on Feb 12, 2008 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yesterdays paper one billion people will die this century from tobacco, one billion is 1000 million I will let you do the math as to deaths per day. Of course then there is the pain and suffering, medical cost, lost labor, etc. But nobody gives a rat's ass because in their narrow petty little minds and despite the fact that tobacco is more additive than heron, it is not a moral issue. Then of course there is alcohol. The two most abused and dangerous drugs on the plant, are both legal and acceptable. add to that, the carbon foot print for alcohol, and tobacco is astronomical, and realistically you are getting nothing in return. I am 66 years old, and over ten percent of the kids I graduated with from high school are dead as a direct result of alcohol, and or tobacco, I would like to know what the statistics are for pot.

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

» RE: According to Posted by: grammasanity
MMMMM good
Posted by: Abe on Feb 12, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CANNABIS

Each foreign land, has it’s own brand’
There is of course, home-grown.
Most of it’s grand, easy to stand,
With some, your mind is blown.

It’s found it’s way, smoked every day,
In every walk of life.
From working men, to congressmen,
Even the preacher’s wife.

It can cause good highs, strange looking eyes,
It will make your mouth feel dry.
Makes food taste good, music understood,
Make you laugh until you cry.

You can talk to others, it calms the nerves,
Helps you be as you are.
But like a drink, so don’t you think
That you can drive a car.

You’ll feel each bump, rattle and thump,
Slow down a block away
For a yellow light, want left, turn right,
You might even lose your way.

You’ll tend to forget, the end of it,
Whatever, you were saying.
You can look down, towards the ground
And see that you are swaying.

A lover’s touch, can mean so much,
Send shivers down your spine,
And when in bed, what can be said,
Except, that it is so fine.

To help eyesight, ease cancer’s plight,
And who knows, maybe more.
Good things to come, from that plant some
Of those, ignorant, ignore.

It’s made illegal, the paper eagle
Is spent to promote crime.
It could be sold and be controlled
Don’t you think it’s about time.

So, maybe some day, under table pay
Won’t stop legalization.
But, until then, with a silly grin
We will just bear our frustration.

Del “Abe” Jones

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

» RE: MMMMM good Posted by: travman67
» RE: Middle against the ends Posted by: That_SOB
Victim baloney
Posted by: PJT on Feb 12, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me? The talk about "victims of marijuana prohibition" is baloney. The last I heard, dope smoking was illegal in the US. That means that people who choose to smoke dope, violating the law in the process, are criminals. Where does the victim stuff come from? If you want to smoke dope-- go ahead and smoke it. But please-- take responsibility for your actions. If you drive 90 miles an hour on the freeway and get a ticket, are you a victim of speed limits? Knock it off. I smoked plenty of dope forty years ago I stopped because it is a waste of time. Never would I have claimed to be a victim: I was a shit-for-brains dope head. If I had gotten caught I would have deserved whatever the system dished out. I wish you losers would grow up. And if all you can find to do with your time is fight for people's freedom to screw up their brains with dope, you have too much time on your hands.

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

» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: surfreality
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: losingmyliberties
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: supercrisp
» Turn yourself in Posted by: Deepo
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: LeaveMeAlone
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: flapdoodle
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: dbkchi
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: fringedweller
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: handygeek
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: Victim baloney Posted by: Cooltruth
» Some other "victims" for you Posted by: RadicalRuss
» RE: mental baloney Posted by: tornadorider2002
Actually, it's easy. First of, stop saying "pot". Let's get back to CANNABIS !!
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 12, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You see, like all other issues, you're allowing the nazi rightwing to MISframe this debate to their advantage. Mentioning "pot" is what they want you to do because it only focuses on one aspect. Discussing about CANNABIS in a rather interesting way by bringing forth its 26000 industrial uses would put an end to this phoney "war on drugs" and it would expose the corporate evildoers of Big Oil, Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Cotton, Paper, Pharma, Tobacco. When FDR signed that obscene tax increase in 1932, he opened the door to allowing the worst of Corporate America to regroup just like both parties allowing Al Queda to regroup and become even stronger in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc ... thanks to the illegal war and now occupation in Iraq.

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

from a farmer in Nebraska
Posted by: zooeyhall on Feb 12, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I farm 640 acres in Nebraska, where I grow corn and soybeans. I have often thought that industrial hemp would be an excellent crop for my area. The climate, soil, and growing season in Nebraska is perfect for it. Wild hemp does very well here. Growing industrial hemp would be a new crop that would give farmers like me another choice in our crop rotation schedule, and would provide farmers with another economic option. It doesn't require even near the chemicals and fertilizer that corn does.

And from what I know about hemp, existing farm equipment could be used for planting and harvesting.

I was surprised to learn from my 88 year old dad that hemp was actually grown extensively during World War II in my area, as a substitute for Manila Hemp.

Other countries are developing hemp as a crop. Why aren't we also? I read that the U.S. is one of the few industrialized countries to not be promoting hemp production.

There is something mysterious about the official attitude towards hemp in this country. At a recent farm meeting, the county extension agent was asked some questions about hemp production. He refused to comment, saying that there is an official policy in place that prohibits him from even discussing hemp production!

I also would like readers to know that when a farmer signs up for the Federal farm program, the farmer has to sign a statement that they have never grown hemp and will not grow it.

There is something more going on here then just "the war on drugs"!

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

» Someone educate me here Posted by: Axiom69
» You can't get high off hemp. Posted by: amphead
» Unlikely. Posted by: Coleman
» hundreds of tons imported Posted by: Carter
» RE: Someone educate me here Posted by: redbridge
» great post Posted by: dover23
» Zoo Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: Zoo Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: Zoo (snowfall) Posted by: skibum
» North Dakota hemp Posted by: Carter
» RE: from a farmer in Nebraska Posted by: Ozlanthos
» RE: from a farmer in Nebraska Posted by: Ozlanthos
Some good ideas...some not so good.
Posted by: jackl2400 on Feb 12, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm with you on the diagnosis, but have some concerns with the cure.

Most of these ideas are great if you can find some way to implement them. I think getting active law enforcement to advocate against their perceived economic interests (a la LEAP) is unrealistic. However, if anyone can figure out how that could happen, it is LEAP and not other reform orgs such as NORML. I'm happy that judging from last fall's DPA conference, black folks are finally "getting" that they are the target of the war on some users of some drugs and are acting accordingly, rather than being handmaidens of the drug warriors (i.e., the ministers and community leaders that try to demonize drugs and users).

One thing that reformers on lists I'm on are not happy with is NORML's notion that a compromise can be reached on DWIs, with development of roadside testing for cannabis "intoxication". Many people, like me, reject the alcohol analogy entirely and think that NORML will regret it under a decrim regime where anyone who tests positive for pot will be treated like a drunk driver and arrested. Anyone who has ever smoked pot and drives will know this is an incorrect analogy...the well-known detrimental effects on driving ability of alcohol (reduced reaction time, motor control, blurred vision, drowsiness, etc.) have not been established with cannabis, either scientifically or even anecdotally.

Lastly, one thing NORML might ask is whether its constituency actually benefits from the status quo. I speak in particular of criminal defense attorneys. NORML runs conferences and retreats for defense attorneys. Most of these attorneys are not trying to change the system, but rather to profit off the legal needs of drug war victims.

I'd respect NORML and its affiliated attorneys a lot more if, for instance, they participated in a class action to stop New York City's illegal ~80,000 arrests/yr (drugs discovered during illegal street frisk and defendant overcharged with "use in plain view", a misdemeanor in a supposedly "decriminalized" state where penalty is $100 non-arrestable violation "ticket"). Or if NORML was in the forefront of the issues raised by MAPS and others (reclassifiction of cannabis, research quality drug access, etc.)

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

» Like cellphones Posted by: Axiom69
» NOT Like cellphones Posted by: bornxeyed
Nebraska farmer ... nail on the head
Posted by: redbridge on Feb 12, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Might be preachin to the choir here, but Ron Mann's documentary 'Grass: The History of Marijuana' is worth the hour spent at YouTube. And the continued prohibition of hemp -as a completely different plant species - is ridiculous. But lumber/paper/plastics/oil industries are formidable opponents...

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

ClassAct
Posted by: ClassAct on Feb 12, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leftists all too often dismiss cannabis as a significant political issue, considering it to be overshadowed by matters of healthcare, war, and so forth; yet zero tolerance drug policies are one of the issues that keep the right opposition nailed together. Conservatism exists for the purpose of being a mouthpiece for the business class, but they comprise only a tiny percentage of the electorate. They require others to vote with them and typically they can rely upon the support of the religious, since they typically do very little in the way of reality check. Keeping religious indignation focused on the area in which the 60s has continued to have impact, sex, keeps conservative morale high; they can focus on the single topic through women’s reproductive rights, homosexualism, etc. If there were to be a victory in the area of drug treatment and legalization, they would have to divide their efforts into another front and they might even have the sense that their momentum was being lost.
The “War on Drugs” is really nothing other than a war on the public, and the American left should embrace this idea as a necessity for overall political strategy.

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

» RE: War on Drugs is Posted by: bitsfick
» Common Goals Posted by: Xynyx
Alcohol, Tobacco and PX Drugs own US
Posted by: lc on Feb 12, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pot will never be legalized until the big three drug industries the US is addicted to are thrown into rehab and made to admit their guilt in addicting the US while at the same time imprisoning all competition.
The CEO's of Legal Drugs in America should be cell mates with ex-President Noriaga of Panama.
IM
Belteshazzar

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

United Nation's Control over the Internal Laws of Nations
Posted by: picket on Feb 12, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is a MAJOR problem for Cannabis. It is important to read the UN POWER STRUCTURE....The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961...this is an international treaty to prohibit production and supply of narcotic drugs adopted in 1961.

Cannabis is considered a hallucinogen while amphetamines were considered to be insufficiently morphine like or cocaine like to fall within the scope of the Single Convention.

The UN's CND annual meeting serves as a forum for nations to debate drug policy. In 2005 France, Germany, Netherlands, Canada, Australia and Iran rallied in opposition to the UN's zero tolerance in international drug policy. The USA VETOED the Appeal and the UK remained reticent.

Maybe we should be debating if Cannabis is a hallucinogen it certainly should not be classified as a narcotic.

It is going to take a LEADER to rein in the current USA Office of National Drug Control's influence on other nations. A TASK we may never see in our lifetime due to a very uneducated Public.

....And Big Brother Likes It THAT WAY.

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

A Minor Historical Aberration
Posted by: cyberfactotum on Feb 12, 2008 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is an interesting article that says (among other things) that: "Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it's been in use."

Whether that is strictly true or not, it appears that several plants and drugs have been--at least briefly--illegal at times throughout the world: tobacco, coffee, tea, alcohol, coca, cocoa, etc.

The Boston Tea Party was pivotal to birth of our own nation. The Opium wars had much to do with this histories of Britain, India and China. Alcohol has been made illegal before in several countries, and it may be made illegal some time in the future, just like any substance could be.

There are several different reasons and aspects to the history of the legality of drugs and plants. One of the prime ones has of course to do with economics.

Marijuana will not remain illegal forever. Its current legal state is just a statistical blip on the radar screen of history. an anomaly that will be studied in the future just like the prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. from 1920 to 1933.

It's just that it's a little harder to grow tobacco and make alcohol to produce good drugs than it is to grow marijuana. Therefore industry enters the picture and can make an easy profit.

It a little harder to arrange for the situation where companies to gain profitable control of the marijuana industry, since it's so easy to grow. To get to a scenario where name-brand packs of marijuana are sold (like in John Brunner's novel "To Stand on Zanzibar), a country would have to be convinced that marijuana should ONLY be grown under government or corporate supervision.

Seems like we now have a populace sufficiently cowed by the "war on drugs" approach the administration has pursued for decades. So I predict in the not-so-distant future marijuana will be grown and packed and sold mostly by corporations.

Sure, anyone could grow marijuana (if viable seeds are available). Just like nowadaze anyone could make their own beer or perhaps even grow and roll their own tobacco. But why would they bother with the hassle and the uncertainty of regulations, if they could just go to a local 7/11 and get a legal pack of Panama Red or Columbian Golds for $99.95?

Then the illegality of marijuana will be forgotten, just a quaint blip in history.

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

» RE: A Minor Historical Aberration Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: A Minor Historical Aberration Posted by: cyberfactotum
They let us make alchohol,why not Grow Yer Own!
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Feb 12, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public opinion has been made faulty by the 'Yellow Journalism' of the last 70 years,that will be one tough nut to crack.
Just like sealing the Kennedy Assasination records for 50 years,bad mouthing Hemp until everyone that could show proof that the feds are full of shit is dead. That's how well the media works with the feds.
There are plenty of examples of how the garbage given us by booze,tobacco and PharmCo is life threatening and killing. The same can't be sais for Hemp. There has never been one reported death from overdose on hemp talked about in the last 5000 years.
If you really want Peace in the Streets...legalize Hemp for home grown personal use.
Jeffrey7 for Prez '08
www.youtube.com/RevJeffrey7

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

Pot war has nothing to do with pot.
Posted by: billwald on Feb 12, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The purpose of the pot war is to legalize military operations inside our borders and to build a federal police army which will emasculate the local police departments. Pot use is detrimental to national security, right?

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

Traffic safety
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 12, 2008 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen no credible evidence that cannibus adversely effects driving. In fact, I recall an Ohio government study that attempted to determine the level of impairment for various doses. They came to the conclusion that it generally improved driving safety (slightly), along the lines of caffeine and nicotine. My anecdotal evidence concurs with their conclusion, in that when a person's perceptions are impaired that person will generally over-compensate through reducing speed and being extra-cautious. The net result might be observing the posted speed limits when most want to break them, but not safety. Traffic safety is yet another red herring.

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

» RE: Good posts Lauren Posted by: channing
addressing the press, useless crying to the hard hearted, or a legal demand letter?
Posted by: Lauren on Feb 12, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You decide. I am going for option # 3.

Subject: Please cover plight of marijuana law victums
Date: March 17, 2006 11:42:41 AM PST
To: amcgall@cctimes.com
Cc: kindGSL

Dear Andrew McGall,

I came into your reception area this morning to complain about the CCT's grossly unfair front page coverage of marijuana and alcohol. I was very upset. The very nice receptionist directed me to you as the right person who assigns reporters to stories. I would like to be assigned to a reporter as a background source for marijuana stories. I am a small leader in the marijuana freedom movement, and I am big leader in the marijuana religious freedom movement.

I want your paper to see marijuana's relationship to religion, and to see mj's place in competition with alcohol. This is a very important topic to me because the way the paper is currently covering them so differently is actually helping in the religious persecution of my people. Is that really what you want to be doing? I hope not.

Our government does persecute groups, especially mine. I don't like that so I decided to take my Girl Scout leadership skills and do something positive about it. I think your paper could be be a LOT more sensitive to my sides' issues with a little more back ground information. I hope so. There are so many issues involved in marijuana prohibition, it is hard to know where to start. I really think it should be assigned to someone who can investigate the tangled legal, moral, social and political web. All I can offer is to be an educated guide.

There are some really sick people out there who were really depending on being able to get their medicine in their food, they are too sick to smoke pot. The DEA closing of this factory is going to really hurt them, not pretend hurt them, really hurt them. Why wasn't their voice in this mornings' story? Also the illegality of processing creates an unregulated food market, very bad policy. No one mentioned that.

I have seen these people. I have had a medical doctor explain to me how with marijuana he was able to reduce their other drugs. Drugs with negative side effects. With marijuana he was improving their health overall by using less drugs.

And now here is a link to a story about alcohol, a little gem I found today: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6538 Pot compound protects against alcohol induced brain damage. To anyone who has seen the ravages of fetal alcohol poisoning, you really have to wonder about an administration that claims pot is 'the most dangerous drug'. It has already been well shown pot consumption reduces alcohol use and exhibits a strong alcohol anti-poisoning effect.

So, I ask you, Why is pot illegal? I expect to eventually hear a good answer to that question or see it legalized. I believe it is ALL about religion, religious discrimination and religious persecution. This isn't crazy talk, there is loads of documentation.

The story about the drug war is a huge, huge story. It is a dirty story too and it is based on religious persecution, especially Native American religious persecution. I have been researching (and acting on) this idea for a couple of years now. I have written to your editors asking to be assigned to a reporter as at least a back ground source person on the topic (since I know so much). I guess I asked the wrong persons.

I will be very happy to be meeting up with the right person soon. I hope I am now at least asking the right person for direction. Thank you for your assistance, I have quite a story to tell. I hope someone friendly will start asking me some good questions so I can tell it.

Sincerely,

Lauren Unruh

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

Cui Bono?
Posted by: galactica on Feb 12, 2008 11:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’m ambivalent about legalizing marijuana. I know its properties and understand the pros and cons vis-à-vis alcohol and tobacco consumption. In most respects the short- and long-term effects marijuana induces are relatively trivial, in particular when compared to the debilitating states that alcohol and tobacco create. If we had the foresight to know that legalizing marijuana would reduce the use and abuse of alcohol and tobacco, then the anodyne argument based on the lesser of three evils could be made. Otherwise, adding a new psychoactive drug to the already formidable array of legal drugs –– including many prescription medications –– makes no sense, except to those directly involved in the production, distribution and consumption of cannabis. So the real question is, “Who will benefit?” At best, society as a whole can expect only a marginal advantage. The ultimate victor would be corporate America.

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

» RE: corporate america Posted by: Dboy
» RE: corporate america Posted by: 3rdI
» RE: corporate america Posted by: Dboy
» RE: corporate america Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Cui Bono? Posted by: channing
» RE: Cui Bono? Posted by: galactica
» RE: "speculations sui generis" Posted by: channing
» RE: Cui Bono? Posted by: 3rdI
Addressing our leaders
Posted by: Lauren on Feb 12, 2008 11:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Subject: politics
Date: August 21, 2006 11:14:47 AM PDT

Dear Honorable Dianne Feinstein,

I write today to ask you personally, on your honor as my Senator and as one of the few who might actually know, are any of my emails private? If not, how can grass roots political groups like the marijuana (and other drug) law reform groups, in our post 9/11 world, how can we promote our political ideas without our political enemies being all knowing about all our strategies?

Do we ordinary activist citizens have that privacy from our own government? How about from big business? National Security? If I write email letters to persons who may be under some sort of investigation, drug or otherwise, or I use a phone to communicate with such people, could that communication be at all private? How about me, am I presently under investigation? Have I ever been? Ooo, tell the truth now, I'm a religious leader, trying to do drug policy politics. I am being discriminated against I have been harassed.

I am talking about political organizing, the art of inspiring people and promoting plans and ideas. What are our political privacy parameters? Isn't the party in power still tapping any phone, reading any email that catches their fancy? How does that lever of power play out in the hallowed halls of congress? It seems to me it could be quite a corrupting influence. Do Senators perhaps rush to vote for big business profits, war and sweetheart deals, in mass, because they are afraid of the Bush White House? Do they harbor secret and very real fears of exposure? We both know, no one is so perfect they can handle full exposure.

There are no moral shades of gray on the drug war. Only the gray depressions my people feel held unjustly in jail and the darkness that grows in all their hearts towards their many oppressors. The drug war is certainly not the black and white issue you would like it to be. So please, let's talk about the huge element missing in the present day political conversation: what is criminal only depends on who is in control. That can change. Slavery is a good historical example, federal drug law is the same thing today. The drug war can be compared to any ethnic cleansing, any holocaust. More black men are now in jail then were ever held in American slavery. This is a very deep sort of national sickness.

Full inspections at the borders, cargo and port security would do much to control the illegal inflow of drugs. It is very telling the Bush administration talks that way, but walks quite the other. It is obvious to me the present administration likes drugs, likes drug wars, likes prisons, likes anarchy, and likes certain parties making a big hidden profit on the whole mess. But hey, we are talking about Bushtalk so, no surprise. What I can't figure out is why you are walking the Bushwalk. I thought you were smarter then that. Well, the drug war is old hat between I and I.

When McCain controls the levers, will my people be any safer? Or what about you? Would my people be safe with you in the White House? These are important questions to me (and my people). I have a message that rings true with a lot of people, my people. I'm building a political party with those people so we can find human justice. Does the Democratic Party want to open it's doors to my people, or send them all straight to hell? I think you already know the answer to that. I seem to have interested certain members, various factions, of the Democratic party. I hear them using my words, ideas.

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

» RE: Addressing our leaders Posted by: Floresta
» RE: Addressing our leaders Posted by: Lauren
Addressing other bloggers
Posted by: Lauren on Feb 12, 2008 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Subject: Pope
Date: September 26, 2006 8:47:36 AM PDT
To: andrewmsullivan@aol.com
Cc: kindGSL

Dear Andrew,

Hey thank you for the link for the very interesting Daniel Madigan interview. I am always interested in what the Pope of the Holy See is doing. I thought he was stirring it up deliberately to get the conversation going. His conversation, whatever that is, is a part of my service project. Do you know about my religious freedom service project to bring Hippie religions out of the closet? It started out a a project to end the drug war but morphed into saving my people.

I have been posting for some time on AlterNet (Lauren) and more recently a couple of times on Daou as Sister Lauren. I love politics, the game, I am a rabid fan. A great critic. I also am really into religion and rooting out its' nefarious uses, my Sister Lauren title was granted to me by the THC Ministry, Amsterdam. Believe me, I have earned it, I am a practicing Native American, a very difficult thing to be, the Red Road is highly suspect in our dominating christian culture. Our religion books are NOT given shelf space in the religion section at Borders. I was also a Girl Scout leader for about ten years, very active in the Adult Coordinating Team (ACT), a teriffic experience.

I decided to end the drug war as my own personal service project, but it has been very personally difficult. Harder than I thought it would be. I know we are both interested in this stuff, so please, ask me some questions. Reply to the kindGSL email if you are interested in pen pal-dom. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Lauren

*****

Andrew never answers me directly, but I do see him respond to my ideas from time to time in his blog or on TV. I don't think he wants to acknowledge me, or the validity of my issues. He is all about religion, promoting his, denying mine. There are others like that, they are getting lots of play on the telly. The secret reasons for prohibition are all about religion.

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

LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) asks John McCain a question
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Feb 12, 2008 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Young folks driving stoned
Posted by: gadfly07 on Feb 12, 2008 3:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just wanted to add a note to this discussion about young people and driving under the influence of marijuana. I can tell you first-hand, as can many others, that a large part of the blame for this phenomenon is due to prohibition itself. I can't tell you the number of times I've driven high, or even while passing a joint or bowl around (now THAT's dangerous!). But why? Thanks to prohibition and social stigma, we often had no other place to get high but in the privacy of our own cars. I've always hated this for the additional dangers it creates for myself, passengers, and other drivers, but short of not getting high (sorry, not a viable option here), it's unavoidable. In this respect, then, ending prohibition could have a positive effect on traffic safety, as teens are able to stay put and get stoned instead of driving around.

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

» excellent point. Posted by: Coleman
Pot and Cancer
Posted by: jmmartin on Feb 12, 2008 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I smoked pot during the weeks when I underwent chemo for leukemia. My oncologist insisted I fill a prescription for a strong anti-nausea drug. I did so, but I kept it in the fridge and never took a single pill. He thought it strange than I did not experience any nausea. He asked me from time to time if I was smoking grass. I lied. I realize I probably shouldn't have, since the medical profession needs to be on our side in the legalization movement. I am convinced that I had a relatively pleasant chemo experience due to daily use of marijuana.

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

» RE: Pot and Cancer Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Pot and Cancer Posted by: jmmartin
Go Cal!
Posted by: Gaubladt on Feb 12, 2008 4:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because of the untestricted state borders in the U.S. , all it takes is for one state to legalize pot. When it does, that state will instantly become the richest state in the union. Then, most of the others will follow suit.

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

Read Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser
Posted by: Fishbone Soldier on Feb 12, 2008 10:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, have your friends read it, too. It makes a cogent argument for the legalization of marijuana by rationally comparing other "underground" industries - pornography and immigrant labor. The more people read this book, the better the understanding of what's really at stake. Schlosser is the same man who wrote the excellent Fast Food Nation.

Also, it seems to me that the biggest obstacle in legalization of marijuana is the tobacco companies. Marijuana's easy for anyone to grow. Tobacco is not. If you're going to smoke something, they want it to be a Camel or a Marlboro that you can't grow without them.

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

js5
Posted by: js5 on Feb 13, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 2004, before the presidential election, gays pushed for gay marriage, went to steps of city halls to try to marry their partners. The press covered it, Karl Rove loved it. Conservative Christians came out in droves to vote agains gay marriage. Timing?
TERRIBLE!!!

I agree with making marijuana legal. LET'S DO IT IN 2009!!! NOT 2008.
Has the left learned nothing? In 2008, let's get the Fascists out of government, not embrace another hot button issue that will bring out the conservatives in droves.

In 2008, DON'T EVEN SAY THE WORD MARIJUANA! Come on, liberals. LET'S BE SMART FOR ONCE.

js5

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

» RE: I agree with you js5 Posted by: channing
Stupid is what stupid does
Posted by: Eezee on Feb 14, 2008 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Yale University study has determined that smoking marijuana produces the same respiratory problems as tobacco, and even additional ones. That includes chronic bronchitis, coughing, excess phlegm, shortness of breath, emphysema and possibly lung cancer.

As soon as marijuana usage is stripped of its appeal as being cool, educated, liberal and open-minded, it will be found to be just another stupid habit.

I say legalize pot and each and every self-opinionated American will be fighting against its usage.

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

Ganja Rules!
Posted by: macdon1 on Feb 14, 2008 9:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If more people worshipped JA and smoked ganja as a sacrament we would have little or no war and a lot more fun.

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

why is marijuana illegal
Posted by: heide on Feb 15, 2008 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PREDJUDICE

1937
we must keep our white women away from black men
marijuana makes white women seek relations with black men
didnt do the paleface much good did it!!!!!!
wanna know what i think the whole thing is all about
PENIS size envy
YEP I SAID IT

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

Heavy pot smoking boosts lung cancer risk six-fold
Posted by: Eezee on Feb 15, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From: European Respiratory Journal, February 2008.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Smoking a joint a day is just as bad for you as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, a study from New Zealand indicates.

Smoking a joint a day for one year boosted the likelihood of developing lung cancer by 8 percent, Dr. Richard Beasley of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand in Wellington and colleagues found, while cigarette smokers' risk increased by 7 percent for every year that they smoked a pack a day.

The heaviest pot smokers were at nearly six-fold greater risk of lung cancer compared to people who didn't smoke marijuana.

"The balance of evidence would suggest a positive association between cannabis and lung cancer," Beasley and his team conclude in the February issue of the European Respiratory Journal.

Evidence on the lung cancer-pot smoking link has been mixed, while legal issues as well as difficulty in quantifying marijuana use make studying pot's health effects difficult, the researchers note.

Since New Zealand has high rates of both pot smoking and lung cancer, and the nation's marijuana users rarely mix weed with tobacco, it "represents an ideal country in which to study the association between cannabis and respiratory tract cancer," the researchers say.

To that end, the researchers matched 79 lung cancer patients with 324 healthy controls, all of whom were younger than 55 years. Study participants' smoking habits were quantified using joint years (one for every year during which a person smoked a joint every day) or pack years (one per year during which a person smoked a pack daily).

Overall marijuana smoking, which the researchers defined as having smoked at least 20 joints in one's lifetime, didn't increase lung cancer risk. However, people who had more than 10.5 joint years under their belts were 5.7 times more likely to be lung cancer patients.

Based on the findings, the researchers say, about 5 percent of lung cancer cases among people 55 and younger in New Zealand could be due to pot smoking.

The researchers think worldwide efforts to reduce tobacco smoking "may need to include greater initiatives to reduce cannabis smoking and should be directed particularly at young people."

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

» Legalize pot Posted by: Eezee
A self-interest solution
Posted by: aahpat on Feb 15, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first problem in drug policy reform is the lack of brevity among pot legalization advocates. My god what a tome this article is. Who in the world is expected to read it all? Even interested reformers cannot be expected to invest the amount of time needed to finish Armentano's magnum opus.

The real problem with drug policy reform, in my opinion, is that reformers depend on 1. educating the masses and 2. gaining the sympathies of an unsympathetic self interested society.

Educating the masses is a hopeless effort since the masses are a constantly changing melting pot. It is also politically backward, in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, to set a goal of educating the public before gaining the interests of representatives. In our representative democracy it is politicians who adopt a policy and take that policy to the masses in the form of policy initiatives and platform. The education of the masses part happens as a result of politicians raising the debate.

Gaining the sympathies of self-interested Americans is a hopeless effort. They support the drug laws out of self interest. Misguided self interest to be sure. But that is their motivation and it will not change as long as it is not trumped by a superior self interest. We will achieve more by telling non-users and disinterested Americans how drug policy reform will help them. Make their lives better and safer.

We get politicians interested in a policy two ways. One, education of the willing. Two, coercion of the unwilling. Coercion is just another way of confronting the politician's self interests in persuading them to adopt a reform position.

Number two is simpler than it may seem and effective in American politics. Threaten the political viability of politicians. Make it clear that you will withhold your vote from politicians who do not support reform. Write negatively critical letters to the editor about intransigent politicians. Not just about pot but about all issues that can effect public opinion on that politician. The Granite State medical pot folks have done a tremendous job of confronting politicians in this election cycle. They single-handedly dragged the entire Democratic field to take moderated positions of medical pot enforcement using publicly confrontational tactics that threaten politicians by simply forcing them to make public statements.

Rather than try to get non-using/non-reform minded Americans to be sympathetic to the interests of people who they have happily oppressed for three dozen years, what is needed is to show them how it is in their best interest to end the prohibition.

-Local government budgets are a total disaster and drug enforcement is a big part of this problem.

-There are more criminals on our streets BECAUSE the drug laws are defining more and more people as criminals thus consigning them to the criminal economy for sustenance.

-The drug war black market economy funds terrorism as it supports more criminals in America.

-The over-crowded prisons foster higher rates of deadly diseases like AIDs and TB among people who can't afford medical help and so become burdens on ALL America.

-The millions of Americans criminally disenfranchised amounts to greater numbers than decided the previous two presidential elections.

These are the superior self interests that will make Americans reconsider their petty self interested but misguided desire to oppress drug users. For whatever reasons they have for doing it.

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

madashell
Posted by: abby on Feb 15, 2008 11:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is marijuana illegal? Because it's stupid, and that seems to be the way our government goes. Booze and tobacco are legal and lethal, unlike pot which can actually be a benefit to be used medically. Go figure. There has to be some villain for the nitwits to propound on....so go pick on an herb.

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

Think about prohibition in terms of money
Posted by: metamind on Feb 16, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know it sounds trite but "it's all about money." Money is about control. The idea behind money is that the people who have the money have the control. Of course, most of us have some money but our lives are contained by the quest to make more.

This is at the heart of the marijuana issue. Yes, there are money issues like all the people in the criminal justice system who make money but that's missing the main point. The main point is that marijuana frees us from the "spell" that life is an exercise in control ... that our PURPOSE here is to "make money."

Money is a means of control and marijuana is a liberator from the "money spell."

I find it interesting that in Oregon, where they have medical marijuana, you have to pay $100 for a permit to grow marijuana but you aren't allow to sell it to the "patients" who need it. How exactly are you supposed to cover your expenses for growing the marijuana? Please.
It's all about money.

Marijuana is supporting our economy in a number of ways. If we weren't "making money" with marijuana we would have to fix the broken money system and possibly replace it with something better. ( gasp! communism? )

Remember, one of the reasons people use for marijuana prohibition is that it makes people lazy. We all know in the back of our minds that we must OPPRESS OTHERS in order to succed in this economic system. Marijuana makes it harder to do this so we must remove marijuana from society.

It's about money, but in ways that are far more sinister than the obvious ones.

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

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

Qustion.
Posted by: That_SOB on Feb 16, 2008 5:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You wrote: I was a shit-for-brains dope head.

Does that mean you are now a shit-for-brains straight guy ? Leaving an opening like that could be indicitive of such a "condition."

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