Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

If Obama Is Pro-Science and Honest, He'll Put the Kibosh on the Drug War

By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet. Posted December 23, 2008.


Obama was frank about his own drug use, so why isn't he more honest about what a disaster war on drugs has been?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

One of the many things that made Barack Obama such a refreshing candidate was his frank and unapologetic admission of drug use. True, Anderson Cooper extracted curt "yeses" from some 2004 Democratic candidates when he asked them point-blank if they had ever smoked pot. But Obama has written openly and without prompting about his experiences, not only with marijuana, but cocaine, a "hard" drug. On the campaign trail he even joked about inhaling deeply -- "that was the point," he said more than once. Unlike George W. Bush, Obama didn't hide behind evasive murmurs about "irresponsible behavior," or turn his drug experiences into a setup for some maudlin born-again conversion story.

As recounted in his memoir, Dreams From My Father, Obama was a normal American kid. Which is to say he used drugs, had fun and survived. The book doesn't romanticize the president-elect's days of smoking pot and snorting "a little blow when [he] could afford it," but it's easy to take what details he provides and imagine him with his basketball buddies on some Oahu beach blazing bowls of Maui Wowie, alternately laughing until his guts hurt and sitting in quiet wonder before a magnificent pink-and-yellow Pacific sunset. Obama has even written about his pursuit of heroin's moon-shot high. As a teenager, he went so far as to ask a junkie friend for an assisted first hit, but recoiled when presented in a deli freezer with the surgical tools of the mainliner's trade: rubber tubing and second-hand syringe.

Partly because Obama was so reasonable and matter-of-fact about his own All-American experiences getting high, drug-policy reformers were among those most excited by his candidacy. If any aspect of America needs change, it is the country's prohibitionist and punitive approach to drugs and drug use. Obama, it seemed, was the right politician to take an executive hammer to the cracked marble pillars of America's disastrous war on drugs. Throughout the primaries and general election, Obama gently encouraged these hopes by advocating commonsense drug-policy reforms. He criticized federal paramilitary raids on state-sanctioned greenhouses and called for ending racist discrepancies in cocaine sentencing laws. (As a little-mentioned footnote to the first of these positions, Obama's mother died from cancer five years before the Hawaii legislature legalized medical marijuana.)

Nobody expected Obama to tap Tommy Chong to run the Office of National Drug Control Policy. But maybe, just maybe, Obama would have the political courage to publicly acknowledge what an emerging majority of Americans now grasps: that the war on drugs is a failure, that it is unjust, and that it is an epic waste of law-enforcement time and resources.

Still a month before inauguration, the hopes of drug-policy-reform advocates have had their wings clipped several times, beginning with the announcement of the Democratic ticket.

"The pick of Joe Biden was my first sign of digestive tumult," says Keith Stroup, founder and legal advisor of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "Rather than oppose the Reagan-inspired War on Some Drugs, Biden became an enthusiastic supporter and legislative booster. He was at the center of creating the ONDCP [in 1988], mandatory minimum sentencing, civil forfeiture laws, the Rave Act, funding for DARE in public schools and the ad campaigns for the Partnership for a Drug Free America."

NORML board member Dominic Holden says: "Biden is the drug war embodied."

The selection of the emblematic Democratic drug warrior of the 1980s was followed by the selection of his 1990s counterpart, Rahm Emanuel. As President Bill Clinton's liaison with the ONDCP, the incoming chief of staff advised on and defended that administration's tough-on-crime punitive approach to drugs and its cowardly opposition to medical-marijuana initiatives and needle-exchange programs. While Clinton has since expressed regret over some of these positions, the tightly wound Emanuel has not.

Obama's pick for attorney general, meanwhile, has a mixed record on drug policy reform that will hopefully be clarified during the expected Senate dogfight over his nomination. But the record is not encouraging. As D.C. attorney general in the 1990s, Eric Holder supported mandatory sentences of 18 months to six years for selling a range of drugs that included marijuana. He is also on record supporting the "broken windows" theory of neighborhood policing most closely associated with Mayor Rudy Giuliani's NYPD and the conservative Manhattan Institute. Holder's iron-fist drug politics find a public health counterpart in the confused mind of Obama's Transition Team point man on the ONDCP, Don Vereen, who as recently as November explained his opposition to medical marijuana by saying, "[It] sends the wrong message to children."


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

See more stories tagged with: drug policy, barack obama

Alexander Zaitchik is a freelance journalist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! 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:
How sad!
Posted by: F-Abdolian on Dec 23, 2008 1:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am always astonished by the strange love for drugs among so called progressives in the US.

This is just sad and pathetic that so much time and energy is spend on supporting drug abuse.

It is really pathetic.

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

» RE: You're Pathetically Uninformed Posted by: LeaveMeAlone
» RE: How sad! - It IS sad! Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Ditto! Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: How sad! Posted by: pure_genius
» RE: How sad! Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: How sad! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: How sad! Posted by: F-Abdolian
» RE: How sad! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: How sad! Posted by: prfctsolar
» RE: How sad! Posted by: keymanwst
» RE: How sad! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: How sad! Posted by: F-Abdolian
» RE: How sad! Posted by: Lauren
» I don't support drug abuse. Posted by: tjg1984
» RE: How sad! Posted by: john mont
» RE: How sad! Posted by: F-Abdolian
» yep!..It is sad!..... Posted by: donl51
» RE: How sad! F-Abdolian Hates Liberty Posted by: left_libertarian
Mary Jane is a blessing
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Dec 23, 2008 1:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Medical benefits are too well established for me to argue them here. To deny that they exist is to put oneself in the same boat with the anti-evolutionists, global warming deniers and holocaust deniers - to brand oneself as an idiot, an ignoramus, a brainwashed ideologue, a fascist, or any combination of the above. There are no other options.

There is nothing wrong with getting high, either. Virtually everybody but ex substance abusers, Mormons and similarly repressed religious fanatics does.

My concern about the "do not enforce" policy is that - while preferable to busting almost a million innocent people every year and confiscating their property at will - is that another "Born again" a-hole like Bush can reverse it instantly. Letting people go when the economy is bad leaves greater room for locking them up again next time the times are fat.

It's my damned "unalienable" right to get high if I want to - and if the fascist Supremes (supreme court) would read the GD constitution as far as the ninth amendment, they would see that it is also my constitutional right!

Ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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

» RE: Mary Jane is a blessing Posted by: thekid
» RE: Mary Jane is a blessing Posted by: Lauren
» re: you will be arrested Posted by: wolfgangmo
» RE: Mary Jane is a blessing Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: Mary Jane is a blessing Posted by: Lauren
» even I agree Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» I LOVE your name! Posted by: bizeeb
H. CON. RES. 415
Posted by: pure_genius on Dec 23, 2008 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This congressional resolution celebrating the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition shows the hypocrisy of the legislature continuing to support the drug war. There are many interesting statements made, but this one stands out in my mind:

Whereas passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited `the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws

Undoubtedly, the following edit to the statement is just as true:

Whereas passage of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, which prohibited `the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating drugs' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market drug production, organized crime, and noncompliance with drug laws

It is striking that our leaders can officially recognize the ills of one form of prohibition on one hand, and praise another form with the other.

Virtually every line in the resolution applies equally to Prohibition as the drug war.

I would like to believe that Obama will become a friend to reform. Beyond a willingness to end raids on medicinal cannabis dispensaries, he has not given us much to be confident about.

His one sentence answer to the question about cannabis legalization on change.gov spoke volumes. If he is not willing to give a thoughtful answer to the question when thousands of people believe he should have, what can we really expect. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.

H. CON. RES. 415 (PDF)

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

» RE: H. CON. RES. 415 Posted by: Lauren
Obama Won't--and Shouldn't--Waste Political Capital on This Now
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 23, 2008 1:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not that we support drug abuse. Many of us who don't use illegal drugs, or even alcohol and tobacco, still see the futility in aggressive law enforcement and stiff penalties for drug use, and observe that countries without such policies actually have lower rates of drug use than we do.

Obama was forthright, because he knew that getting caught in lies is fatal to Democrats (but not to Republicans). But he's not one to take very unpopular stands, and the right wing politicians, almost all of the media, and law enforcement community have used the same strategy Bush used to invade Iraq: stoke fears with false information, portray those with other viewpoints as evil, and insist that a hard-hitting, take-no-prisoners approach will solve the problem.

Frankly Obama would be dumb to expend his political capital right now on this issue when the economy is collapsing and we are bogged down in two losing wars.

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

» When will be the right time? Posted by: UnEasyOne
It's a little like Alice in Wonderland
Posted by: richard0a37 on Dec 23, 2008 2:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the CIA Fact File

https://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/ geos/af.html

Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium; poppy cultivation increased 17% to a near-record 202,000 hectares in 2007; good growing conditions pushed potential opium production to a record 8,000 metric tons, up 42% from last year; if the entire opium crop were processed, 947 metric tons of heroin potentially could be produced.

Prior to 2001, drug cultivation in Afghanistan was in dire straits, mainly due to the Taliban's efforts to rid the country of opium, assuming that reports on the subject at the time were to be believed.

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/ CEF/Quarterly/February_2006/ Pierre-Arnaud_Chouvy.pdf tells us

Afghanistan has been the world’s primary opium producing country since 1991, when it surpassed Burma (Myanmar) in total annual production. Both the Taliban regime and the Karzai government inherited an illicit drug economy that has been stimulated by two decades of war and also fuelled the country’s war economy. However, just as the Taliban government successfully, but counterproductively, prohibited opium production in 2001,......

Then the US invaded, and since then, the industry has gone from strength to strength. Conspiracy theory would have it that the CIA's raisin d'etre is the control and profiting of illicit drugs, and that they benefit to the tune of $500 billion a year from it.

Of course, we would never know this if it wasn't for the CIA themselves who allow us to know. I guess they practice a peculiar kind of reverse psychology. Give people the facts and they will dismiss them, on account of the fact that people will refuse to believe what they read.

But in any case, there is nothing that anyone can do about it. As far as I am concerned, the politics of the world are set in stone. The rich and the powerful stay in power, and they do whatever is required to remain there. There is one set of laws for them, and another set for the rest of us.

They educate their children in private fee paying schools where the kids are trained to be the officers in the armed services, to become dealers in money i.e. the stock exchange and other financial organisations, and to run big organisations, and to know how to negotiate big salaries and other fringe benefits.

The rest of us are all taught crap subjects at school - subjects that have everything to do with serving the ruling class, and nothing about what we need to know about once we become adults.

Let's face it. How many people know how to, or have the courage to, actually negotiate their salary and other fringe benefits when they apply for a job? Most people are so thankful when they do get offered a job that they're willing to accept whatever remuneration is offered them.

But in the upper echelons of senior management and CEOs and chairmen and directors, it's the other way round. These people, they need to know how to speak in public, and if there is something they don't know, they'll hire someone who does.

CIA has been around since the mid 40s. As far as I am concerned, the prima facia reason for its existence is control of the drug trade. There are some good reasons for this - it is highly illegal, it is free of any tax, and it generates obscene profits. After all, Government's prime task is the maintenance of a first class army, navy and air force, a thriving armaments industry, well stocked laboratories for chemical and biological weapons research, design and manufacture of the best in nuclear weapons, plus a media which ensures that no one asks too many embarrassing questions.

There will be no change in anything throughout the period of Obama's term of office. If he treads on any big toes, like Kennedy, he will be assassinated.

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

... continuing
Posted by: richard0a37 on Dec 23, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, I am more than a little intrigued by the CIA’s claims. Let’s take a minute to analyse what they are saying:

Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium; poppy cultivation increased 17% to a near-record 202,000 hectares in 2007; good growing conditions pushed potential opium production to a record 8,000 metric tons, up 42% from last year; if the entire opium crop were processed, 947 metric tons of heroin potentially could be produced.

It reads like an annual company report that proudly proclaims a growth industry, but which has the potential to do even better, so long as everyone is prepared to pull their socks up, roll up their shirt sleeves, noses to the grind stone etc.

I remember when George W Bush stood up in front of Congress just after 911 - ‘we’re gonna get that sob Bin Laden.’ They’d even put up a huge reward for his capture, $25 million wasn’t it?

If the drug industry is so clandestine, so illegal, how do the CIA manage to present figures that are so precise? For example, I could imagine them saying – ‘on the basis of the number of druggies treated in hospital, we estimate that poppy cultivation has almost certainly increased by a very large amount, in spite of our best efforts to curb it.

But no! Theirs is a statement that literally brims with pride, for here we have an industry that is rigidly and tightly controlled.

Since drugs are illegal, it might be assumed that the only official statistics available would be the ones the police and hospitals have, and then they will only know a fraction of the real drug usage. All illegal drugs are sold on street corners and in places far removed from the gaze of official eyes.

Therefore, the figures must be based on source; in other words, they must come from the very people who are driving it. Since it’s the CIA who are giving us the information, then it stands to reason that they are the people who are driving it, and who are in full control.

We have no reason to doubt their figures. Taken alongside the millions of facts and figures the CIA provides us with on every single nation on this planet, I am sure they are as accurate as any of the others.

Thus, the question to be asked is – what have the US military been doing in Afghanistan for the past 7 years if it isn’t to give the CIA a free hand to do what they are best at – which is the growth, distribution and profiteering of opium and other related drugs.

Again, because it is a highly illegal industry, only an organization with the resources of the CIA could be capable of doing a job that year in, year out, continues to give returns that grow and grow.

And it is only an organisation like the CIA that must have incredibly huge resources to be able to churn out a website like the CIA Fact File in the first place.

Every now and again, we read reports that suggest the above is true, but then we have the whole weight of the media telling us something quite different. Every now and again, we are told that a soldier has died in the course of doing his duty, and I honestly believe that the soldiers out there are doing what they believe is an essential and necessary job.

A few years back, I worked at an RAF base, and sometimes, some of the pilots didn’t come back from Iraq. Those who did related their experiences exactly as the media would portray them, and I have no doubt that they were serving their country faithfully and honourably.

So we live in this ‘Alice in Wonderland’ kind of world where nothing is quite what it seems to be.

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

» RE: ... continuing Posted by: prfctsolar
» RE: ... continuing Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
"Drug " Abuse" by Don Quixote
Posted by: Don Quixote on Dec 23, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone said "I am always astonished by the strange love for drugs among so called progressives in the US".

And the love for drugs of the succesive US governments that does not care if 4 million people per year are killed by tobacco + 3 million through alcohol + 50.000 trough "legal" drugs do not astonish you? Plus the many more millions sick or with their lives ruined by the pharma-alcohol-tobacco maffia + their puppets in the White House (a true axis of evil)? Addicts and victims of alcohol, tobacco and “legal drugs” + their families may suffer and die in peace: they are not taking drugs.

Who do you think should decide what is a drug and what is not and on what should the decission be based? You do not need to answer if you are a shareholder of any of the “triangle of evil”. The ignorance and brainwashing of most people in the US is what is should be astonishing to you.

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

» RE: "Drug " Abuse" by Don Quixote Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: "Drug " Abuse" by Don Quixote Posted by: F-Abdolian
» Oh, a freeper. Posted by: wolfgangmo
» Small correction. Posted by: wolfgangmo
» RE: Small correction. Posted by: Jesus<3syou
» RE: Small correction. Posted by: NotJesus
Obama is a religious fanatic just like Bush
Posted by: sonofloud on Dec 23, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." (From the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire) - Barack Hussein Obama

Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who put civil law about religious law?

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

» religious fanatic? Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: religious fanatic? Posted by: maxpayne
If the people lead, the leaders will follow
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 23, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Election Day was a success for marijuana initiatives across the country, thanks to the work of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and numerous state and local groups.

In Massachusetts, voters decriminalized the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. A campaign led by the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy and organized by MPP resulted in a 65 percent to 35 percent victory for the initiative.

In another state-level win, Michigan voters approved a medical marijuana initiative by a similarly lopsided margin. The campaign to pass that initiative was led by the MPP-backed Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care.

At the local level, two initiatives to make make adult marijuana possession the lowest law enforcement priority won big. One, in Hawaii County, Hawaii, was led by Project Peaceful Sky. The other, in Fayetteville, Arkansas, was led by a coalition called Sensible Fayetteville.

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

"No Lie Can Live Forever".....MLK
Posted by: picket on Dec 23, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The day will come when Americans will look back at our current policy of arresting patients for using medical MJ and see it as every bit as bizarre and incomprehensible as the land that used to call for burning of witches."
R. Kampia...Exec Director of MPP 6/05

Also..Isn't all MJ use medical in some way? Some of the the so-called witches were burned due to masking the pain of childbirth with "God given "herbs". Compare to Hospice Caregivers today, heartbroken because of the brutal Drug Policy of the USA.

An elderly woman, I knew who was in relentless pain held on to the hope that yet another "new" Big Pharma drug Vioxx would help her. Another lie, just like that wonder drug Darvocet that ruined her life with unbearable side effects.

The Puritanical torture mentality is still alive and well in America, same faces different clothing!!!

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

Obama Won't--and Shouldn't--Waste Political Capital on This Now
Posted by: efficacy on Dec 23, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The War on Drugs has absolutely nothing to do with drugs - it's about power, it's about control, it's about coercion, it's about money."

We are talking at the state, federal and local level of 44billion in savings if we legalize, medicalize and decriminalize these handful of drugs and maybe another 33billion in inforcement costs. These numbers will vary depending on what is brought into the mix.

A politician's stance on the drug war is a true
test of character or lack thereof.

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

RE: Fun Stoppers
Posted by: Lauren on Dec 23, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious organizations are listening to me.

Powerful law enforcement lobbies are discriminating against us based on our religion. We must sue them.

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

RE: Fun Stoppers
Posted by: Jesus<3syou on Dec 28, 2008 9:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I personally do not agree with personal drug use, the drug war is not worth the effort and money.

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

I don't find it likely....
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Dec 23, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why? Two things,the stereotype of 'Da Brother Somkes a Joint' and VP Joe Biden 'created' the Drug Czar job and pushed for more cops on the streets.Just what we need..advancing the fear and not the Peace. This myopic asshole would rather use fear and tyranny to get folks to do their and his will. Discraceful considering we're supposed to be 'The Land of the Free'. Oh yeah,I'm sorry I forgot, if you make the right amount of money it's the land of the free.

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

Addictive personality
Posted by: willymack on Dec 23, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the stories are true, Obama is smoking cigarettes again. This is one measure of how one who is biologically predisposed towards physical addiction has a tough time staying "clean". There are two components to drug addiction, the first being physical dependence. That's comparitively easy to overcome. Obama did stop for a while. The second component is habituation, or psychological dependence, which is much more difficult, and sadly, far too often, impossible to overcome. I needn't comment on the horrid results of long-term tobacco use: about 400,000 Americans die each year of tobacco related illnesses, a disproportinate amount of those (about 238,000) being women. Unless a person has a superior intellect, he or she can be influenced by others as the addictive nature of that person often spills over into other areas. Gambling is one example. There are others. If I were bama's wife, I'd be striving mightily to get him off tobacco, and into counseling. There's absolutely NO SHAME attached to this, and counseling works more often than not.

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

» RE: Addictive personality Posted by: Lauren
If Obama has any balls he'd make H.R.5843 law, day one!!
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Dec 23, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish it were true but it's not,America is all out of Liberty. Why? Because that means YOU are in control of your life and not some jackass who just takes your money and vote so they can pass issues you never get to hear about or want done,like the Bailout.

Remember 'Adult's Only' things. You know, stuff you have to be the legal age to do like smoke cigarettes and drink alchohol. Those two Adult things kill over a half a million people every year,but if you're old enough,it's OK to slam that last shot and smoke that last cig and then die,and why are thery legal???

Hemp,marijuana's real name, in all of recorded history, has not one single death due to overdose. Smoked in a waterpipe 97% of carcer causing agents are removed. Eaten,there's no lung ailments at all. Hemp smokers are 98% less likely to get into fist fights over misunderstood jokes. You could never say that about booze.Ever!!!

Barney Frank has the only intelligent Bill put forth in almost a century. It deals with Adults being able to use,possess and share with other Adults Hemp and Hemp products. As Adults we should enjoy the widest possible pleasures of Liberty,as long as no one is at risk of 'harm' except yourself. It's that way with booze and cigarettes and they really do kill people,in great numbers. Is it really that hard to give us the same luxury with the less harmful Hemp? Or is it that the powers that be don't want a more Peaceful populace?

OK so Biden gave us 100,000 more cops on the street and the Nation's first Drug Czar. I guarntee you if he had a relative that was ill and could be helped by Hemp, he would push for total legalization tomorrow.Barack just wants to sidestep the 'Black guys smoke lots of dope' sterotype. Grow a set dude, this is no time to suffer from testicular shrinkage.

The real truth is, Hemp,marijuana,Bang,Weed,
Acapulco Gold whatever you want to call it was
put here by a Power much greater than any human. By the same Power that created the entire Universe as well as the Quantum Realities. HUMANS made tobacco so poisoned it's no longer 'Sacred' in it's RJ reynolds form. It kills. HUMANS made booze and it's a lot stronger now than it was in Christ's time when he made water into wine,but,it Kills too.

I don't know about you,but I have much more Faith in the Power that Created the Universe,
you, me and Hemp then I do the greedy assholes that made products that bring disease and death to not only Cultures and Nations,like it did to the Indians,but also Kills quite nicely.

As Adults we should have a choice,check that, THE LIBERTY, to choose and use whatever we wish to get through the ever tougher living in America.
Either the 500,000 a year Killers Booze and Cigsarettes
The 10,000 a year Killers,perscription drugs
Or the ZERO DEATHS EVER, marijuana.

Whomever gets in office should sign into law Barney Frank's Bill. It's about damn time we gave 'Privilage" back to being an Adult. It's time we restored Liberty to Adults and put Peace back into our lives as Adults.
If not push for these rights than at least take a look at H.R. 5843, the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008. H.R. 5843 would make it legal under federal law for adults to possess up to 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of marijuana for personal use. It would also allow not-for-profit transfers of up to one ounce of marijuana between consenting adults.

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

As I recall...
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Dec 23, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and I know this dates me almost back to Adam & Eve--the 'drug war' as we know it today, was started with a generous impulse by LBJ.

Yes, LBJ. What happened was, he was going to legalize heroin use which, in the 60s (before 1965) wasn't perceived to be that much of an issue, and mainly was used mostly by musicians (of all races).

HOWEVER. The legislature at the time frowned deeply upon legalizing heroin. So the NIH invented METHADONE--a chemical analogue to heroin, which DIDN'T HAVE TO BE LEGALIZED.

LBJ then ordained that the heroin analogue be distributed to clinics set up throughout the nation's big cities. This he did. The methadone was distributed, if I remember correctly, on a Friday.

By the end of that weekend, there was a 5-YEAR WAITING LIST IN EACH METHADONE CLINIC ACROSS THE LAND. And voila, the methadone trade was born.

And the 'drug wars' have been proliferating ever since. Prohibition, American style.

Made me laugh, the Sarah Palin thing. Next to oil,--(and "roads to nowhere", LOL!) can anyone tell me the OTHER main industry in Alaska? Hint: it's a "cottage" industry--

That's right. Methadone is Alaska's OTHER product. Not that well publicized, but oh hell, why not? The Repukes ought to be glad that Sarah Darling's "candidacy" went down the tubes like it did--except that they're the biggest junkies on earth, themselves! Just ask the well-protected Mexican cartels, using THEIR armies and paid for with OUR TAX DOLLARS, to shovel Mexican s**t ('scuse me, I meant to say 'escort') across our borders and into our kids' pockets.

Next to the illegals, the illegal drugs are Mexico's main exports northward. And of course who encourages that? The Repukes! Of course...

To the point where, when two Border Guards arrested (and then shot) a fleeing drug smuggler, Texas' Attorney General (and close BushBud) Johnny Sutton, had them tried by a Grand Jury which was carefully NOT told about this drug smuggler's priors--and then the cops, Compean and Ramos, are still doing the hard time decreed by Sutton's boss--Bush.
Coming full circle--the good guys (cops) are in jail, the smuggler (Osvaldo Reyes) is at this writing, presumably still smuggling coke & heroin ('scuse me, methadone) across our borders.

Anyway. If America ever lets go of its Puritanical, antiquated, anti-pleasure initiatives, I bet this one still remains. It's too profitable for the (privatized) prison industry, if nothing else!

Most European countries legalize their recreational drugs. I give you the Netherlands, as an example of a long and felicitous acceptance of the human need for recreation--across the board. Not only legalizing most all their drugs, but also prostitution.

Whoops! That's a whole 'nother post...Happy Holidays, all!

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

» RE: As I recall... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: I Wiki-ed this one... Posted by: jvaljon1
» RE: I Wiki-ed this one... Posted by: Lauren
» Nixon finished the job Posted by: DCostello2
» RE: Nixon finished the job Posted by: Lauren
» Alaskan cottage industry Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Alaskan cottage industry Posted by: jvaljon1
Methadone Maintenance
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Dec 23, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(I just remembered the official name of LBJ's innovative drug program to get the nation's junkies off of heroin--it was called the "methadone maintenance program".)

I don't recall hearing any screaming from Repukes, either, at the time--as most of them were too busy in DC, running like rabbits from the Draft Boards--

--See "Bush & Cheney", (under the sub-heading "Cowards") --pushing their folks' lucrative Vietnam War, with all their might, whilst their highly-placed (in DC) folks, diddled with their Draft Numbers--

Oh! 'Scuse me. At the time, they weren't Repukes. They were simply, REPUBLICANS...

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

defeatist attitude and keep supporting our ineffective efforts
Posted by: mutualaid on Dec 23, 2008 9:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm disappointed in the defeatist attitude of this article. Who concedes defeat better than people who would make their livelihood from fighting injustice? The author writes: Reform advocates are realistic about the possibilities for progress in the coming years. Everyone agrees that a radical overhaul of U.S. drug laws, including ending the prohibition of marijuana, remains years if not decades away. But the major groups have clear goals for the first administration and are guardedly optimistic about meeting them.
What a signal to send to Obama that our expectations are very low. Really dumb. Why not aim for what we want: decriminalization.

This would take the $ out of organized crime, imprisonment, law enforcement that violates civil rights and drains budgets. . . .and fighting for decriminalization.


The following quote is quite apt: "Any serious commission today would come to same conclusion [in favor of decriminalization]. We're willing to sit tight for a couple of years as Congress studies it," says NORML's Keith Stroup. "But we want high-profile hearings in the judiciary committees. We want to get our experts up there."

We want our experts up there. . .

I don't want another commission to find what the last two did. Give me a break. Fight for decriminalization. Period. Then they may throw you crumbs like clean needles and more treatment. And then, soon, i hope, decrim.

Also, why is there no mention of the drug war disaster abroad targeting Latin America and Afghanistan?

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

If he intended on ending the war on drugs, he wouldn't have made America's drug nazi his VP
Posted by: 6399 on Dec 23, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that's just me, but it seems that if you make the man responsible for archaic drug legislation your VP, you're not very serious about ending the war on drugs. Gotta love Biden's bankruptcy legislation as well. What a guy!!

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

A vision for our country
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Dec 23, 2008 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re: A vision for our country

Dear President Obama,

An honest, science-based assessment of the "drug war" has revealed, for decades, that prohibition is counter-productive to its own stated objectives. The Conference of Mayor's resolution of June 2007 stops short of endorsing Cannabis agriculture, but the reason is there to follow the example being set in France, Germany, Canada and most other developed countries who have embraced the wisdom of ancient, beneficial Cannabis agriculture.

To continue prohibition of the world's most useful agricultural resource in the face of the challenges and threats that are before us, is absolute madness. To pretend otherwise is worse than mere foolishness. It is criminally negligent to under-value Cannabis, a Federally recognized "strategic food resource," during the present era of epidemic malnutrition and global food insecurity.

Cannabis is the ONLY crop that produces a seed containing three essential fatty acids, all of the essential amino acids, and is the world's best available source of organic vegetable protein. In addition, Cannabis is the ONLY crop that can sustainably produce bio-fuels and food from the same harvest. Rotational planting of hemp improves the soil, detoxifies contaminated soils and discourages pest infestation. Many safe and uniquely therapeutic agents are produced by the Cannabis plant, making it an effective home remedy with preventative as well as curative properties. Atmospheric aerosols called "monoterpenes," produced in abundance by Cannabis, may be critical to protecting the Earth from increasing UV-B radiation. Carbon sequestration and carbon storage potential of hemp exceeds that of any other crop.

My vision for the United States is for our god-given, self-evident freedom to farm to be recognized as an integral component of our "First Freedom," the freedom of religion.

ON TWENTY-FIVE ACRES OF DECENT FARMLAND, I CAN GROW ENOUGH CANNABIS HEMP IN ROTATION WITH OTHER ORGANIC CROPS TO PROVIDE ALL THE FOOD, FUEL, AND FIBER THAT MY FAMILY NEEDS TO THRIVE. AT THE SAME TIME, A POSITIVE SPIRITUAL ORIENTATION TO CANNABIS WILL RESULT IN RESPECT FOR THE PLANT, A RENEWED FAITH IN AMERICAN JUSTICE AND REGARD FOR THE LAW.

I CHALLENGE THE RIGHTFUL JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT OVER NATURAL RESOURCES THAT ARE BOTH UNIQUE AND ESSENTIAL. I FURTHER INSIST THAT THE SO-CALLED "DRUG WAR" BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY, BECAUSE IT IS KNOWN TO ENRICH A VICIOUS AND VIOLENT BLACK MARKET, WHILE EXPOSING AMERICA TO TERRORIST ATTACK THROUGH AN UNACCOUNTABLE, UNTRACEABLE DRUG MARKET.

I call upon the United States government and the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization to transcend the tragic misvaluation of Cannabis seed nutrition, recognize the exceptionally beneficial properties of Cannabis agriculture, manufacture and trade, and end prohibition of both industrial hemp and marijuana effective immediately.

How bad do things have to get before all solutions are considered?

I envision the country I was taught to love, by my Russian-born parents; for which I accepted responsibility as a child, pledging allegiance everyday at school; taught to preserve the freedoms we inherited; led by a President with the courage and personal integrity to save this planet.

Please contact me soon, for more information.

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

» RE: A vision for our country Posted by: kungfuma
» RE: A vision for Obama Posted by: Sushi
Alcohol is much, much worse than Marijuana
Posted by: pwrblnc on Dec 23, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I lived with an alcoholic step father who was abusive when drinking. I know of two people who died from alcohol poisoning because they were unable to quit. One of them used to smoke marijuana and did not drink. When he got caught and did jail time, he switched to drinking alcohol. Seven years later he died from alcohol poisoning. This after abusing his wife, children and pets while drinking. My partners mother took up drinking after the loss of her husband. She died three years later from alcohol poisoning. During this time she was very abusive to everyone around her when she drank. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who has died from a marijuana overdose. Marijuana smokers do not become abusive to those around them when they smoke. They may be swinging off the refrigerator door because of the munchies but they don't beat their partner, children or kick the dog. I would prefer they heavily tax alcohol, as they do cigarettes, and legalize marijuana. They can tax it like cigarettes too. It would be much better than letting all the drug lords and gangs have all this money. People need to get a clue and look at the science. Prohibition does not work. All is does is put more funds into the hands of very nasty actors in this world theater.

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

in the houses of shadow, everybody lies
Posted by: remo on Dec 23, 2008 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if Obama is pro science AND honest he will also, immediate upon inauguration, commit a brand new upfront open to ALL the science without bias honest to god public record investigation by REAL investigators of 9/11 that will lift the lid on what has become a world view.
Until that moment, nothing is going to change except the style of delivery.

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

Obama was for legalizing Cannabis before he was against it !
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 23, 2008 4:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author should have done a simple lookup of Obama's voting stands before writing this begger's article.

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

Calm down, kids, and grow up into adults
Posted by: paulmagillsmith on Dec 23, 2008 9:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RE: How sad!
Posted by: john mont on Dec 23, 2008 4:11 PM
TYPICAL NEO CON!! ILL ASK YOU A QUESTION.WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM PROHIBITION?

I believe you missed his point, john mont (and there's no need to SHOUT). What he said was he was opposed to prohibition because it equaled drug abuse. I think one of the main sticking points here is the definitions of 'abuse' and 'use'.

There is too much spin calling ANY use of a mind altering drug 'abuse', with the implication ANY use of a mind altering drug is abusive. Where does this argument stand in relation to drugs like Prozac, Valium, or Zoloft, which intentionally alter the mind? They are legal since prescribed by a doctor.

Now apply this to medical marijuana. Mind altering...yes. Legal...yes. Benefitial to the patient...medical authorities unequivocally say yes. Considered dangerous to puritanical types who don't understand the benefits...yes. Prescribed by a doctor...yes.

This whole double standard isn't based on true morality, legality, or criminality, but strictly about financial loss to certain entities, namely establishment drug companies & those in the prison industrial complex. Both are heavily subsidized with taxpayer dollars against the will, liberty, & freedom of choice by the majority of these same taxpayers.

I would suggest, to the ignorant, a viewing of a movie simply called "Grass" (narrated by Woody Harrelson), which gives a good synopsis of the history which leads us to this stupid controversy in the first place.

Additionally, and more importantly, I would suggest reading the well researched book by Jack Herer called "The Emperor Wears No Clothes", which describes (among many other things) how we can get shed of fossil fuels completely through the use of industrial hemp (which won't get you 'high', but is in the same category as marijuana that will).

When we are all informed grown-ups we will no longer find this subject controversial.

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

"Not interested?"
Posted by: sherlockclark on Dec 24, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So President-Elect Obama is "not interested in the legalization of marijuana"?

And yet he's an avowed Christian?

Is he interested in the re-legalization of the Biblical Tree of Life, described therein as a "Healer of Nations"?

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

» RE: "Not interested?" Posted by: Lauren
As always, its' "Cui bono?"
Posted by: nemo on Dec 24, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As in, who benefits from maintaining drug prohibition?

Generally, it's everyone who gets a paycheck out of it. Who are a decided minority in this country, as few industries actually cater to supporting drug prohibition as much as they do the defense industries.

So, how is it that this minority controls the majority, when the vast majority of Americans would just as soon relegalize cannabis (a.k.a. 'marijuana')?

One means is propaganda...paid for by the US taxpayer...and disseminated by agencies who directly benefit from that practice. In effect, the agencies that benefit so handsomely from drug prohibition do so at the expense of all other taxpayers.

That propagandizing also takes the form of lobbying by those same organizations and agencies against any effective drug law reform efforts. Indeed, the ONDCP is authorized to lie to the American people about illicit drugs.

So, why do we let self-serving pols and bureaucrats, judges, prosecutors, cops, turnkeys, etc. who've gotten fat off the DrugWar continue to bleed us dry during an economic downturn?

And finally, why do drug addicts rate so highly that we've spent upwards of a trillion dollars on 'anti-drug' policies bent on preventing drug use/abuse (prohibitionists state publicly there is no difference) when alcoholics are allowed to drink themselves into a grave and nobody spends enormous sums trying to prevent that? Are the lives of illicit drug users more valuable than John Juicer's?

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

» RE: As always, its' "Cui bono?" Posted by: Red Green
Prohibiting a plant for whatever reason is like...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Dec 25, 2008 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...spitting in the face of God!

God created, and in accordance with Genesis given to us all to use, keep and protect!

Prohibition is G.R.I.E.F.

Prohibition is a law against ......GoD!
Prohibition is a law against ......RightS!
Prohibition is a law against ......IndividualS!
Prohibition is a law against the EnvironmenT!
Prohibition is a law promoting ..FeaR!

End the grief, end prohibition now... Simply

All we need to do is defund it ...NOW... and it will show us its worthlessness and waste of tax $$$$

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

STOP the War on Drugs- START A WAR ON STUPID
Posted by: texasrodeoqueen on Dec 26, 2008 8:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stupid is destroying America! War on Drugs is really a "war on civil rights"

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

WE CAN WIN ... CHINA DID!!!
Posted by: ds1st on Dec 28, 2008 5:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can win the “War on Drugs”.

China had a terrible problem with drugs at one time. China doesn’t have a DRUG PROBLEM any more. This proved the WAR can be WON.

I don’t know what China did, but we should do the same think.

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

What about Jerrold Nadler for that New York Senate seat?
Posted by: Lauren on Dec 28, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do we really want another super rich person appointed to the senate?

I was watching Tuesday's DemocracyNow! with Rep Jerrold Nadler. He would like to be named senator so I looked up his record on the drug war. He was mentioned in this very good story about drug war lobbyists.

The War On Drugs: Just say "No More!"
By Arianna Huffington, syndicated columnist in over 180 newspapers around the country


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

CNBC Marijuana Inc. Inside America’s Pot Industry
Posted by: kev501 on Jan 15, 2009 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNBC will be premiering Marijuana Inc. Inside America’s Pot Industry on Thursday, January 22nd at 9p ET / 10p PT. The marijuana trade has long been one of the country’s leading black market industries. What factors continue to help this taboo business thrive and how is the government profiting as a result? Join Trish Regan as she explores this growing industry and how it has expanded into a major business with its own sophisticated network of growers, workers, and quasi-legal retail outlets, in the form of medical marijuana dispensaries.

Web extras are coming soon to http://originals.cnbc.com.

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

  • 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