Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

America's Schizoid Pot Culture -- 4 in 10 Have Smoked It, and Millions Are Still Getting Busted

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted April 28, 2009.


The Obama administration is giving mixed signals on its pot policies despite a tidal shift in social views on legalizing marijuana.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why the End May Be Coming for Coal
Christine MacDonald

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Study Claims Even the Most Sophisticated Readers Can Be Manipulated
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Joshua Holland

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Fully 80 percent of Americans approve of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and fewer than one in five favor locking up non-violent adults who use pot in general. But since the inception of the disastrous “War on Drugs,” politicians from across the political spectrum have found that being a dedicated drug warrior is an easy way to appear “tough on crime” without much political risk.  

The result of that divide is a truly schizoid patchwork of laws regulating the use of cannabis. Several states have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of weed -- most recently Massachusetts this year -- and 13 states have legalized medical marijuana. Yet each and every year we continue to lock up three-quarters of a million Americans for possession of marijuana and waste an estimated $14 billion on our misguided prohibition of a cash crop that’s worth more than wheat and corn combined. 

The Obama administration has sent markedly mixed signals about whether it would continue the most regressive element of the “Drug War” -- Bush’s policy of going after medical marijuana providers in the states that have legalized the industry.  

Bush turned federal law-enforcement into a de facto White House veto over state-level drug laws (and, often, over the will of the people -- 8 of the 13 states that permit the use of medical marijuana got there through a referendum process).  It’s clichéd to describe the more labyrinthine corridors of our legal system as “Kafkaesque,” but the way Bush did it would draw a knowing sigh from old Franz.  

Officially, in states where they’re legal, the federal government only goes after medical marijuana operations when they violate both federal and state law. Officially. But after the DEA raids these shops, their owners are prosecuted in federal courts, and they need only be charged under federal laws. And here’s where it goes from bad policy to simple insanity: thanks to a 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Raich, defendants are prohibited from entering evidence at trial that they were in compliance with local and state laws when they were busted.  

Then, if convicted, these operators of businesses that are legal in their respective states face harsh mandatory drug sentences in the federal justice system -- long minimums that Congress required in the 1980s ostensibly to deter “drug king-pins.” 

That’s the situation Charles Lynch is looking at. Lynch is facing up to 20 years in prison after being convicted under federal law for running a medical marijuana clinic in Morro Bay, California. Before DEA agents busted him, Lynch had been in business for 11 months.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the clinic had “the blessing of the city's mayor and other public officials” -- including the city’s Chamber of Commerce. Morro Bay City Attorney Rob Schultz said that he had received only one complaint about Lynch’s operation in that time -- and that was from someone griping about the quality of the pot Lynch sold. The town’s mayor, Janice Peters, described Lynch as “polite, compassionate,” and at an April 23 sentencing hearing Steven Beck, the father of a 17 year-old suffering from bone cancer who, following the advice of his oncologist, had bought marijuana from Lynch’s clinic to treat the side-effects of chemo-therapy, told the court that Lynch had often given the boy pot for free. After describing how the teen “could not eat. He could not sleep. His personality became dark and angry," Beck added, "I never felt as though Charlie was there for the money." 


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

See more stories tagged with: marijuana, drug reform, pot policies

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
I can't believe six in ten haven't smoked it.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 28, 2009 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There really is a giant cultural divide.

Whether they haven't smoked pot because they never had the opportunity (which often arises from peer groups), or because they declined an offer, this speaks to a totally different world than the one I've lived in the U.S.

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

» Concerning Statistics Posted by: ATH
» Maybe only four out of ten Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Freedom
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Apr 28, 2009 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what this is about. But not freedom as it relates to We the People, Freedom as it relates to 'them', 'the Man', 'the Powers That Be.'

They simply can't allow us that much freedom, and not this kind of freedom either - freedom to think, to love, to understand, to empathize and connect. It would be the end of them, and they know it.

So don't look for Obama to do much about this. He keeps his populist tone by these faux acknowledgements that perhaps something might need to change in regard to our drug laws and sentencing. But it's a sham, I say this because he's yet to show he's one of We the People, not in a meaningful way anyway. Token gestures to keep us at arm's length, but still within reach if he needs something.

Bush had the gay-marriage and the abortion issues for his religious 'base'...

'Is he? Will he? Prison for abortion doctors? Criminalize fags? Well, he might, let's keep on behind this cowboy.'

For Obama it might be pot legalization. So don't count on change, but rather count on this kind of article to be written for at least four years.

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

» RE: Freedom Posted by: mikeblack
» RE: Freedom Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Freedom Posted by: pothead
Tell Obama to stop jailing marijuana users
Posted by: greenferret on Apr 28, 2009 2:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every year, marijuana prohibition puts thousands of Americans in prison for a nonviolent, victimless crime that the last three US presidents have all committed.

Tell Obama and your elected representatives that it's time to legalize and regulate marijuana.

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

Having in mind...
Posted by: bonapartist on Apr 28, 2009 2:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the current worldwide political, economic, social and even health situation (swine flu anyone?) I think I could use a joint or two right now.

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

» RE: Having in mind... Posted by: aussidawg
Take the hype out of it
Posted by: Zxyler on Apr 28, 2009 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the marijuana has been too hyped up. If the world stops this and let it be, then everyone who wants some can grow them and there will not be any drug barons. In UK in 1990's the prices went down as the drug was downgraded and lots of people were growing as myself did. But then the police started busting small bedroom growers and the prices went up and the drug barons moved in.

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

Congress needs to bring up Ron Paul's Hemp Farming Act of 2009.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 28, 2009 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way I see it, putting pot to industrial use will most likely pave way for removing the taboo on pot. I may not ever smoke it but when we the people are given the legal rights to choose to or not too choke off "happy meals" and viagra despite their bigger health hazards, I see no reason to burden taxpayers with banning pot and keeping the drug war all oiled up.

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

» RE: Congress needs to... Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Congress needs to... Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Hemp is not pot! Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Hemp is not pot! Posted by: Tweck9
» RE: Hemp is not pot! Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Hemp is not pot! Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Hemp is....... Posted by: dasq
» no, you are confusing people... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
Marijuana and Obama’s First 100 days
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Apr 28, 2009 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Per Bruce Mirken, Marijuana and Obama’s First 100 days

...all we really know thus far is that President Obama is reluctant to spend political capital early in his term on marijuana issues.

There are enough good reasons to rethink our nation’s approach to marijuana that we remain hopeful...


I agree, but hopeful isn't good enough for me. My basic civil rights rights are being grossly violated.

I had an interesting conversation with school staff yesterday. Apparently there is a whole smorgas board of federal (unconstitutional) laws governing marijuana use on campus.

I assured him I was not interested in breaking laws, just in standing up for my rights. We were discussing "inciting to violence" as a potential complaint against me wearing a pot leaf t-shirt.

Pretty flimsy.

Honestly, I hadn't thought about federal pot laws on college campuses much. I told him the laws were unconstitutional. They were against my religion. He said my timing was good.

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

» "inciting to violence?!?!?" Posted by: NYmediator
they are afriad of hemps thousands of commercial use
Posted by: TrollTreason on Apr 28, 2009 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it would destroy their poisonous monopolies

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

Marijuana Legalization is "On the table"
Posted by: aahpat on Apr 28, 2009 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
U.S. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia says that his bill, S-714, for a National Criminal Justice Commission will include marijuana legalization in the discussion of reforming the U.s. criminal justice system.

I wrote about it here: Marijuana Legalization is "On the table"

S-714 S-714 tally sheet of senators thus far co-sponsoring the bill.

Congress needs to hear from us to move this bill forward. Contact your U.S. senators and demand that they support S-714.

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

» Thanks but Posted by: aahpat
» Thanks aahpat for the Senate bills info. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» If true, wow Posted by: aahpat
» RE: If true, wow Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Thanks aahpat for the Senate bills info. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Too true Posted by: aahpat
May 2, 2009 Global Cannabis March
Posted by: aahpat on Apr 28, 2009 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Philadelphia, PA
May 2, 2009
PhillyNORML - 2009 Global Cannabis March

The 2009 Global Cannabis March, or Philadelphia Cannabis Festival, will be taking place on Saturday May 2, 2009. The event is still being planned, so more information will be posted as it becomes available. The GCM is an annual event that brings out hundreds of supporters, patients, and onlookers. It's an excellent opportunity to show just how popular legalization is, and to have a lot of fun. In 2008 we had our biggest one yet with over 400 people. This year we hope to top 1,000. Check back often for updates!

Saturday, May 2, 2009
Meet at Broad St. and South St. at 3:30 - 4:00pm
March towards Headhouse Square at 4:20pm
Arrive at Headhouse Square by 5:20pm
Speeches - done by 6:30pm

It is more than a mile trek end to end for the march. Parking in between the locations will reduce walking requirements.

The more people our politicians see are willing to get out in the streets and demand drug policy reform the more willing the politicians are to consider reform. If you support drug policy reform please consider adding your body to the numbers of Americans participating in this march and rally. More participants means more message.

IF THEY DON'T HEAR IT FROM US THEY WON'T HEAR IT!

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

Question about drug testing for employment
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Apr 28, 2009 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wondered if either Joshua or any of the commenters here know off hand: How does the fact that each state handles criminalization of pot differently interact with drug testing for new hires?

As far as I know virtually all white collar and many blue collar employers requires a standard drug screen for new hires (random drug tests are a different story). It seems to me that even under currently law someone could be using legal medical marijuana in their state, but be denied employment due to failed drug screening.

Can they disclose their use and does the employer have to then hire them anyway?(since the drug test is usually the last step in the hiring process) Wouldn't that violate the right to keep medical information private from employers?

This doesn't even get to the question of states where possession/personal use is legal. Could an employer similarly screen for tobacco and deny employment on that basis? I had assumed that employment drug screens were based on criminality of the substance, but perhaps that is incorrect.

Sorry - lots of questions and I am being lazy by asking on here instead of doing my own research, but thought folks might have the info off the top of their heads.

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

» Maybe so Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Maybe so Posted by: ronaldravin
» And you are a cliche Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Maybe so Posted by: greenmulberry
» Tobacco Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Isn't it amazing?
Posted by: Tom Degan on Apr 28, 2009 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seventy-two years after it was made illegal and we're still having this mind-fuckingly stupid conversation.

It would be one thing if it were killing people on a regular basis - like nicotine and alcohol - but I'm not aware of it being the cause of one death in all recorded human history!

I haven't smoked grass in over thirty years. Quite frankly it gives me severe anxiety attacks. But for most people it has a calming, even medicinal effect. It's high time (pun intended) it were made commercially available.

To quote the great David Peel:

"Have a marijuana".

"The Rant"

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

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

» RE: Isn't it amazing? Posted by: robert.noll
I'll Be An Old Man Able To Get It Medically Before America Legalizes It
Posted by: mikeblack on Apr 28, 2009 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It all comes down to who votes. More voters are anti-marijuana than pro-marijuana. I know when you rationally look at things it becomes insane that pot is criminal and substances that kill scores of people each year like alcohol and tobacco aren't, but the scare tactics runs deep. The stereotypical voter (35-80, middle to upper class) even if they smoked weed as a teenager probably have a much more negative perception of it as an adult, especially if they have children now. Even if they know smoking weed didn't hurt them and didn't lead to a life of shooting heroin in sleazy alleys, the thought of "what if everybody was able to get stoned?" scares them. Sure, it's stupid to think that since everybody can get drunk but yet the world continues to rotate, but humans are hypocrite beasts.

It's a sad fact, but that's the mindset in America. It does not matter how many studies you trot out showing pot is pretty much harmless in comparison to cigarettes & alcohol, or how many polls you can show people showing a lot of police officers think busting pot smokers is a total waste of everybody's time. The public at large, just as they have a knee-jerk negative reaction to gay marriage, have a automatic knee-jerk reaction of "OMG MY 3 YEAR OLD WILL HAVE A ONE HITTER AT THE DAY CARE AND THIS MEANS CRACK IS GOING TO BE LEGALIZED SOON!" Let's face it, most people aren't very smart. I gave up faith in the American public at large a long time ago.

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

The phony, endless war on drugs has ruined many people's lives...
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Apr 28, 2009 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
while providing police departments, lawyers, judges, the prison industry, DEA, etc., all sorts of job security, bonuses, overtime pay, ever increasing revenue & powers, their own smuggling/dealing/money-laundering opportunities, etc.!!! (And this is just the tip of the rotten, corrupt iceberg!)

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

Legalize Pot in California
Posted by: ab390 on Apr 28, 2009 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you live in California and favor legalizing marijuana for adults, YOU can make it happen. Tell your representatives to support California Assembly Bill 390. It's easy. Visit yes390.org

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

Even I had some hope...
Posted by: oregoncharles on Apr 28, 2009 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but he's just corrupt, isn't he?

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

JT Barrie
Posted by: rimchamp77 on Apr 28, 2009 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is "tough on drugs"= pro crime advocate. We need to get that message out there. Why are people like George W. Bush, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama strong advocates for much higher crime, violence, drug abuse, toxic drugs, public corruption and societal disintegration - the historically known outcomes of drug prohibition? We are paying through the nose for mass incarceration and the number of "drug possession only" inmates is irrelevant. The fact is that most severe addicts of legally available drugs - while being total losers - don't go after other peoples' money and identity. Those who sell legal drugs only bribe politicians and they don't shoot at each other on the streets where most folks live and work. And police go on far fewer fishing expeditions and break into a lot fewer homes with guns at the ready for users/sellers of legal drugs. We didn't have these problems before the War on Drugs. All other efforts to punish drug users and sellers have produced identical outcomes. Why would any thinking person doubt that the drug war is the cause of nearly all our "drug related crime"? The fact that so many people do is testament to Goebbels "big lie" strategy employed by today's pro crime advocates.

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

Three kinds of people...
Posted by: NotJesus on Apr 28, 2009 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are four kinds of people who support the war on (some) drugs:
1. The uninformed,
2. The just plain stupid,
3. Those profiting from drugs illegal status, and
4. Politicians (the all of the above answer).

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

On legalizing,
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Apr 28, 2009 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you'd be surprised that the people most hurt by marijuana law are the people least interested in making pot legal.

Like Obama, I did my time as a community organizer. People in low to moderate income neighborhoods, at least in the eighties, felt they were besieged by drug sellers and drug users. They felt that their children were highly at risk of falling to drug addiction.

The people didn't distinguish between marijuana, crack or any other drugs. They tended to want more community policing against drug activity.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's how it was. Honestly, it's been quite a while since I've been in the field, knocking on doors, listening to peoples concerns. Then as now, I'd prefer to suggest that drug laws discriminate against people of color, and it is latino and african american communities that provide the most prison "customers".

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

» A refinement... Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» no confusion Posted by: aahpat
Ex Drug CZAR speaks... Still paid to Lie????
Posted by: picket on Apr 28, 2009 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Supervised, court -sanctioned treatment works best. Legalization robs us of this tool."

John P Walters..The Wall Street Journal 4/25/09 "To Legalize or Not"

What is the treatment for MJ addiction $5,000 to take the 12 step program?

Hello.. MJ is not physically addictive!!!

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices". Voltaire

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

Juries
Posted by: robert.noll on Apr 28, 2009 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One solution would be to educate prospective jurors that they have the final say. Many times judges falsely instruct jurors that if the evidence supports the charges they have to come back with a guilty verdict. This is simply not true. That is why we have juries. If the juror does not agree with the law they can vote not guilty. I was on a jury once and the judge asked if we would have a problem convicting anyone based on the facts and not on our beliefs regarding the law. I had to tell him that I would have a problem convicting someone of hiding Jews in the attic even though that was illegal at a point in recent history.

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

» RE: Juries Posted by: NotJesus
» RE: Thanks Posted by: robert.noll
» RE: Juries Posted by: hedgewytch
» RE: Juries Posted by: robert.noll
Never Even Tried It. Had Opportunities. Favor Legalization.
Posted by: Xynyx on Apr 28, 2009 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had plenty (not really an overabundance, mind you...) of opportunities when I was in 8th grade and in college (for some reason, I did not encounter opportunities in high school). I was never really interested, and I remain uninterested. I have no desire to inhale smoke from burning leaves of most any sort.

I do, however, favor legalization. Strongly.

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

holders' bullshit can be read two ways ..
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Apr 28, 2009 12:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a) that the federal govt will no longer make medical pot vendors a top priority..but will not ignore them either.. or more likely ..

b) this is a sting operation...the big catch is that it is up to the DEA to determine whether or not a given vendor is in compliance with state laws...the sting is aimed at those vendors who are naive enough not to see through the catch...

nor do i believe that there has been a "tidal shift" on public opinions towards marijuana either ..other polls which do not broach the subject of marijuana nevertheless show persistent strong majority support for core fascist positions such as torture (gallup.. CAP(PDF))...in this broader context..it is difficult to imagine that very many ppl have changed their minds wrt marijuana...

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

More cluelessness
Posted by: leafsong1 on Apr 28, 2009 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only the statements are conflicting; the actions are clear, consistent, and intelligible. They prove that Obama will continue the Bush MJ policy. STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENTS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AS IF THEY HAVE ANY RELATION TO REALITY. The one thing Obama and the Obamanations do consistently is lie. Once upon a time, actions spoke louder than words. When did that stop?

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

» RE: More cluelessness Posted by: pothead
Grow Here-Grow Now..!
Posted by: TJColatrella on Apr 28, 2009 1:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's really sad besides all the lives ruined due to this draconian illogical enforcement against Marijuana, is that we new need to start growing Industrial Hemp more than ever and this President will not lift the ban on Industrial Hemp cultivation even for the sake of energy independence and enhanced national security...

Go to Hemp4Fuel.com and read see the Why Hemp section too...

We could reduce food prices by replacing King Corn with Industrial Hemp and it renews every 4 months, it would give us cellulose ethanol and bio diesel from the seeds not to mention a lot of other products...including killer guitar speakers...

Also it would create a lot of good jobs both growing and refining or distilling it..

Real Green Jobs..!

Grow Here-Grow Now...!

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

Mass Protests May 2, 2009 Philadelphia, PA
Posted by: aahpat on Apr 28, 2009 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in our nation's capital and in state capitals would demonstrate, to congress the scale and intensity of will for drug policy reform in America. this is the quickest way to educate politicians as to the gravity with which people feel this issue.

Most of the drug reform organizations don't want to engage in public demonstrations against the drug war. Students for a Sensible Drug Policy and NORML are doing some at least.

May 2, 2009
PhillyNORML - 2009 Global Cannabis March

The 2009 Global Cannabis March, or Philadelphia Cannabis Festival, will be taking place on Saturday May 2, 2009. The event is still being planned, so more information will be posted as it becomes available. The GCM is an annual event that brings out hundreds of supporters, patients, and onlookers. It's an excellent opportunity to show just how popular legalization is, and to have a lot of fun. In 2008 we had our biggest one yet with over 400 people. This year we hope to top 1,000. Check back often for updates!

Saturday, May 2, 2009
Meet at Broad St. and South St. at 3:30 - 4:00pm
March towards Headhouse Square at 4:20pm
Arrive at Headhouse Square by 5:20pm
Speeches - done by 6:30pm

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

decriminalize it
Posted by: bluebama II on Apr 28, 2009 5:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Decriminalize it for an ounce or less and sell it for people 21 and older, getting if off the streets and tax the heck out of it and give the money to education. Most police organizations promote decriminalizing it.

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

New Liberal Congress Will Give Us A Choice.
Posted by: melpol on Apr 28, 2009 5:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The religious right stands strongly against getting high on drugs, prostitution,gay marriage, late term abortion, Atheism, separation between church and state, masturbation and pornography. The new Liberal congress will give us a chance to do them all.

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

ALL USE IS MEDICINAL ALL USE IS SPIRITUAL
Posted by: caru on Apr 28, 2009 7:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE ONLY THING THAT EVER LACKS IS THE HUMAN GUIDANCE. THE EARTH IS PERFECT IN ITS GIFTS.

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

i agree
Posted by: anavar on Apr 29, 2009 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think one of the biggest things is that it helps to destigmatize and makes people comfortable buy steroids

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

U.S. Patriot Act Might Be Used To Prosecute Pot-Growers As Terrorists
Posted by: Ross Wolf on Apr 29, 2009 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the drug-war heats up on the U.S./Mexico Border expect this illogical premise of the Patriot Act might be pushed by U.S. Government as a flagship to prosecute Americans that support “markets” terrorists may depend on for support.

The Patriot Act's mention of incidental criminal networks-opened the door for police under the Act’s anti-terrorism provisions to broadly use wiretaps, spy on and arrest U.S. Citizens for alleged ordinary crimes.

The “Act” defines supporting "terrorist activity” as any criminal activity that "participates" in "World Markets" that terrorist may use or depend on for their support. Anyone distributing illegal-drugs could be charged with supporting a “Criminal Market” that terrorists use—based on the premise both criminals and terrorists use the same world networks and organizations to "Market" illegal-drugs; and have interests in criminal activity." That criminal/terrorist-activity link by the Patriot Act is—logically flawed when you consider a common car thief could be charged with supporting terrorism by selling a stolen car on a "criminal market" a terrorist used—among many non-terrorists. Such flawed logic could as easily be used by government to charge a “common criminal’s illegal activity” supported a lawful “Market” terrorists are dependent on for support.

Brilliantly the “Patriot Act” spins full circle to include all commerce as being “One Market” to charge “common criminals” with supporting terrorists: brilliant because all legal and illegal “markets” are linked at some point by commerce. While there are “narrow illegal-markets” where prosecutions may be justified, for example Americans fronting for NARCO-drug-gangs to buy or supply guns, Americans should be careful U.S. Government does not expand this “Market” concept similar to (RICO) to be all inclusive of commerce.

U.S. Government before tried to merge lawful and unlawful commerce to forfeit innocent owners’ property. You may read that “Government Concept” in United States v. 92 Buena Vista Ave. (91-781), 507 U.S. 111 (1993) at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-781.ZS.html

U.S. Police using the Patriot Act’s low probable cause requirement can too easily wiretap and spy on innocent U.S. Citizens they believe might be involved in ordinary crime. Congress should let provisions of the Patriot Act due to Sunset in December 2009, EXPIRE.

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

coward
Posted by: paganpat on Apr 30, 2009 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our president is a coward when it comes to drug reform,We must keep this in mind when he goes up for another 4 yrs and let him know we are mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore!

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

» nice try troll Posted by: hardwroc
Bah! (maybe)
Posted by: jpeck.1 on May 2, 2009 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love your relentless enthusiasm. I used to share it. Unfortunately I have seen little of significant change from this administration. I think we might be looking at Ronald Reagan's eighth term here.

Gabe Ronimo

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

Obivious Corp/Power concerns: Oligarchy whatever
Posted by: pkay on May 3, 2009 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, it's probably been mentioned but, the powers that be have there minds made up I'm sure. Consider long ago when Randolph Hearst - through pervasive and repetitive use, pounded the obscure Mexican slang word 'marijuana' into the English-speaking American consciousness - basically to stigmitiz & set up "Prohibition". Why? His newspaper concerns & the recent lumber mills he purchased - to make newspapers from paper rather than hemp. Likewise Dupont just invented a nylon fiber which they wanted to sell to the Navy (to replace rope on ships made of hemp). Many farmers grew hemp prior to Prohibition.

- Isn't it odd that there is a prohibition on almost EVERYTHING except ALCOHOL? And there's EVEN a MINI-Prohibition on IT! ie. 18 yrs to 21 yrs (drinking age). I've often said that could change if enough young people petitioned & got it on the ballot.

In modern times both Budwieser & ALL the pharmacutical companies don't want Cannabis legal. So, until you all (in article above) can afford bigger & better LOBBYISTs you're probably out of luck. - Though there is a groundswell & many states are passing de-criminalization.

Finally, I recently heard how each year Southern California farmers are really struggling to keep their fields irrigated - due to drought & it gets worse with each year. WOULDN'T Cannabis be a GREAT crop for these farmers? Don't need a lot of water!

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

funding for the drug cartels
Posted by: urtheiz on May 5, 2009 4:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe the reason marijuana is illegal is the US goverment wants to fund the drug cartels overthrough (or instability) of latin american goverments. Marijuana (a peaceful substance)is the biggest money maker, easy funding to buy weapons with(NRA pay attention to this). In the 80's the US goverment (Reagon) set up a deal with president noreaga (?) to sell cocaine to fund an illegal arms sale to isreal (really!). Could be sorta the same thing.
I mean legalizing reefer would be a double money maker for OUR country. the $ saved from it's prohibition (but cops would really have to work for they paycheck then) and the $ from taxing it. So why don't they (the elected officals) listen to the people and do it? Because the people who vote don't make a difference to the goverment.

[« 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