Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Caught with a Bag of Weed? It Could Cost You More Than You Think

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted January 26, 2008.


U.S. arrests for pot possession were up to 739,000 in 2006. And the cost to tax payers? $1 billion a year.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

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

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

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

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

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

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

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

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

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:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Paul Armentano

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

What's the current price for a bag of weed? According to the latest figures from the FBI, the human cost is roughly 739,000 a year.

That's the number of American citizens arrested in 2006 for possessing small amounts of pot. (Another 91,000 were charged with marijuana-related felonies.) The figure is the highest annual total ever recorded, and is nearly double the number of citizens busted for pot fifteen years ago.

Those arrested face a multitude of consequences, primarily determined by where they live. For example, most Californians charged with violating the state's pot possession laws face little more than a small fine. By contrast, getting busted with a pinch of weed in Ohio will cost you your driver's license for at least six months. Move to Texas -- well, now you're looking at a criminal record and up to 180 days in jail. Or if you happen to be a first-time offender, possibly a stint in court-mandated 'drug rehab' (one recent study reported that nearly 70 percent of all adults referred to Texas drug treatment programs for weed were referred by the courts), probation, and a hefty legal bill. And don't even think about getting busted in Oklahoma, where a first time conviction for minor pot possession can net you up to one year in jail, or up to ten years if you're found guilty of a second offense. Thinking of growing your own? That'll cost you a $20,000 fine, and -- oh yeah -- anywhere from two years to life in prison.

Yes, you read that right -- life in prison.

Of course, not everyone busted for weed receives jail time. But that doesn't mean that they don't suffer significant hardships stemming from their arrest -- including (but not limited to): probation and mandatory drug testing, loss of employment, loss of child custody, removal from subsidized housing, asset forfeiture, loss of student aid, loss of voting privileges, and the loss of certain federal welfare benefits such as food stamps.

And yes, some offenders do serve prison time. In fact, according to a 2006 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, 12.7 percent of state inmates and 12.4 percent of federal inmates incarcerated for drug violations are incarcerated for marijuana offenses. In human terms, this means that there are now about 33,655 state inmates and 10,785 federal inmates behind bars for violating marijuana laws. (The report failed to include estimates on the percentage of inmates incarcerated in county jails for pot-related offenses.)

In fiscal terms, this means that taxpayers are spending more than $1 billion annually to imprison pot offenders.

Yet this billion dollar price tag only estimates the financial costs on the 'back end' of a marijuana arrest. The criminal justice costs to taxpayers -- such as the man-hours it takes a police officer to arrest and process the average pot offender -- on the 'front end' is far greater, with some economists estimating the financial burden to be in upwards of $7 billion a year. Naturally, as the annual number of pot arrests continues to increase (according to the latest FBI data, marijuana arrests now constitute 44 percent of all illicit drug arrests), these costs are only going to grow larger.

There are alternatives, of course -- options that won't leave this sort of human and fiscal carnage in its wake, and that won't leave entire generations believing that the police are an instrument of their oppression rather than their protection.

'Decriminalization,' as first recommended to Congress in 1972 by President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, called for the removal of all criminal and civil penalties for the possession, use, and non-profit distribution of cannabis. Such a policy, if adequately implemented, would eliminate the bulk of the human and fiscal costs currently associated with enforcing pot prohibition.

A second option, 'regulation,' would also significantly slash many of society's prohibition-associated fiscal and human costs. Legalizing the commercial sale and use of cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol, with state-mandated age controls and pot sales restricted to state-licensed stores, could also potentially raise billions of added dollars in tax revenue while simultaneously bringing an end to the more egregious and adverse black-market effects of the plant's criminalization -- such as the production of pot by criminal enterprises and its clandestine cultivation on public lands.

Would either option be perfect? No, probably not. ('Decriminalization,' for instance, might indirectly encourage pot use; 'regulation' might not entirely eliminate the black market sales of pot.) But how can continue with the status quo? Since, 1990, law enforcement have arrested over 10 million Americans -- more than the entire population of Los Angeles county -- on pot charges. Yet, according to federal figures, both marijuana production and use are rising. Isn't it time we began looking at ways to address the marijuana issue that move beyond simply arresting and prosecuting an inordinate amount of otherwise law-abiding Americans? Or must we wait until another 10 million citizens are arrested before our state and federal politicians find the courage to begin this discussion?

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

See more stories tagged with: marijuana, drug laws, pot sentencing

Paul Armentano is the deputy director for NORML and NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.

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:
Don't worry
Posted by: donl51 on Jan 26, 2008 12:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they can always print up more money,we passed the gold worth long ago!Their will always be money for corruption,Amazing whose in jail!!

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

White Perp White Collar vs Blue Perp Blue Collar
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 26, 2008 12:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Oklahoma you can get life for growing a little weed.

On Wall Street, you can bilk people out of hundreds of millions or billions, do a couple of years in Club Fed & pay a fine and keep the rest. Wiki Michael Milken & Ivan Boesky.

Milken paid a $200 million fine, returned $400 million(a fraction of what he stole) to investors he ripped off and kept the rest. His current worth- $2.1 Billion. He's even talked about nicely as a 'Philanthropist' these days. Isn't it nice that he gives away a sliver of the money he stole for a tax write-off against his investments. He's one of the 500 richest people in the world, stole most of it via insider trading and gets to walk the streets.

Hell of a country, isn't it?

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

» RE: don't even think about getting busted in oklahoma... Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
» RE: Hell of a country, isn't it? Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
the sensible thing to do...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 26, 2008 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is, of course, to manage cannabis like alcohol and tobacco...or maybe coffee!
but the complexities of marijuana law reach deeply into jim crow laws; pharmaceutical industry interests (going back to opiates); alcohol interests; cold war (and now war on terror) propaganda; religious interests; funding police departments (though federal monies as well as seizure); control of the population (through drug testing at school and work)...
if industrial uses get added in here then there are the fiber industry interests (why are we growing cotton in the desert when hemp would be cheaper and yield more?); water interests (moving all that water into the desert to grow the cotton); chemical industry interests, paper and logging industry interests...

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

» Thank you for being sensible! Posted by: garry minor
» RE: the sensible thing to do... Posted by: left_libertarian
» Thank you for understanding. Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: the sensible thing to do... Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
Reefer Madness
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 26, 2008 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the time you get to be my age (I'll be fifty in August) you can count, at the very least, fifty people you've known personally in your lifetime who have died as the result of too much nicotine or alcohol.

Ask yourself this question: How many people have you known in my life who have died as the result of too much marijuana?

Answer: ZERO

And here's the kicker: Not only have I never known someone to die as the result of an excess of grass, I'm not aware of it happening in all recorded human history!

The fact that we're still having this debate in the year 2008 is insane.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

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

» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: richholland
» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: Richard House
» You tell him I said... Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: You tell him I said... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» GREAT POINT! Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Reefer Madness Posted by: froghat
» RE: Reefer Madness Posted by: NickJones
Refugees
Posted by: BeyondBeliefs on Jan 26, 2008 4:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who are intelligent enough to become protestors will use many forms of escape, movies, tv, sports, pot and pills....

Taking away their property, money, and time with jail, is one way for the ''Kremlin'' to get rid of those pesky democrats, independants, and liberated Humans who refuse to be obedient, patriotic slaves to this deregulated military dictatorship currently occupying our America.

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

Well said.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jan 26, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There are alternatives, of course -- options that won't leave this sort of human and fiscal carnage in its wake, and that won't leave entire generations believing that the police are an instrument of their oppression rather than their protection."

Check out the movie Grass narrated by Woody Harrelson. It is posted in parts on YouTube. Or read Jack Herer's book The Emperor Wears No Clothes if you want more information.

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

Bush Smoked Pot & Never Got Busted
Posted by: colleenwhalen on Jan 26, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
O.K. let me get this straight....Bush can legalize sexual torture in Abu Ghirab and Guantanamo, lie to Congress about WMD, engage in felonious illegal wiretapping without warrants - but a little bit of pot in Oklahoma can get you life in prision?

I don't smoke pot and don't endorse any form of recreational drugs - but shouldn't it be legalized for people caught with less than a few ounces for their personal consumption?

The money spent on prosecuting and incarcerating the poor 700,000 people who get busted each year for marijuana - that money could be used for so many more important things.

Here in California, we passed a ballot proposition a couple of years ago legalizing Medical Marijuana - but all over the state the police are arresting and harrassing the Compassionate Care clinics which sell Medical Marijuana to disabled people who have valid prescriptions.

The cops in Placerville are so zealous they ruined the life of a person who owned a nursery who sold blacklight plants. He was arrested and put on trial, but aquitted and charges were drop but his business was ruined and legal fees bankrupted this man who was proved innocent of having anything to do with growing pot.

The police in my area take surveillance photos and write down license plates of people who shop at nursery stores who sell blacklight equipment. In a Sacramento suburb, Elk Grove the cops make huge busts of pot growers who bought homes and were commercially growing pot inside the entire house. The busts are extremely well publicized on the news. I think it strictly to frighten citizens and keep Average Joes from growing a pot plant in their back yard.

I think smoking pot is incredibly boring, but it should be legalized and law enforcement should be using their resources to arrest wife beaters, child molestors and heroin dealers, not some schmoe who smokes a little pot.

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

» RE: Posted by: chronic420
» RE: Bush Smoked Pot & Never Got Busted Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
the crack lobby
Posted by: dbaker on Jan 26, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The cocain and herion producers/ importers lobby is effective in redirecting attention from themselves to a non-issue POT!

Capitalism at its best.
The real question is when will Pot users be considered TERRORISTS, and POT be considered a WMD? When the prison poulation declines!

Dennis Baker

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

» RE: terrorists Posted by: VickyinSD
» RE: terrorists Posted by: Lauren
The Risk/Reward of Feeling Good ...
Posted by: gazooks on Jan 26, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is most tragically demonstrated in the loss of life and freedom resulting the insane persistence and futility of prohibition.

It's one more lost lesson of history, one more denial of choice, one more hysterically hyped fiction of the domination by ignorance through fear, and the corruption of law through greed.

The inherent need that humans have to just feel good, however prone to over indulgence we are to intoxicants by nature, and not in itself a criminal act, is made criminal by the same oppressive irrationality that users seek to escape. A self perpetuating horror of injustice and corrupting influence on law, law enforcement and foundation for violent criminal enterprise.

It's vexing indeed that our culture relies on it's own moral contradictions, hypocrisy, ignorance and denial to justify the destruction of lives ... by the destruction of lives.

..." an' for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail, an' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing"

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

Heres an idea....
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Jan 26, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dont leave home with a bag of pot... the way I get around it is .....I dont smoke that stuff...Not worth it at all. They dont call it dope for nothing.. I know all you pot heads are going to give me a buncha crap...but thats my opinion. you can have yours personally it should be legal.. and I still wound not smoke it... signing off high on life.....

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

» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Talon
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: chronic420
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Actually, I want to thank you, Fat Man... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
"And I'm sure it wouldn't interest..."
Posted by: marykmusic on Jan 26, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Anybody outside of a small circle of friends. Phil Ochs' last verse in this song was about getting busted for pot.

Don't forget who's running the majority of smuggling and manufacturing industry in the US: the CIA and other organizations. They have a huge stake in NOT legalizing.

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

Punishment Never Ends
Posted by: MizLee17 on Jan 26, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1978, my husband was busted with 4 lbs of weed and sentenced to 40 years plus a fine. He had an honorable discharge from the Army, was in medical school (paying his own way) but was kicked out before he went to trial. He served a year in the local jail rather than "real" prison, paid his fine, and obeyed the other court requirements. He just got his voting rights back 5 years ago, can't get a contractor's license above a certain dollar amount, and career advancement is severely limited since he can't pass a background check (although he has a Masters in Drug and Alcohol Rehab Counseling). Virginia would limit him more if it could figure out how.

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

» How sad! Posted by: garry minor
Don't forget pot tax stamps!
Posted by: amphead on Jan 26, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also in Oklahoma, you have to pay taxes on the pot you sell. You have to produce the weed to get the stamp. Guess what would happen if you actually tried to get a stamp! So, if you get busted with pot in OK, then you also get busted for not paying taxes on an illegal product. That adds a stiff fine and maybe some jail time, I think. My memory is not that good anymore ;)

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

» RE: Don't forget pot tax stamps! Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
Unfortunately, it's gonna get worse, before it gets better.
Posted by: jackl2400 on Jan 26, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything NORML's Paul Armentano says is spot on. Most Americans agree with this, especially younger voters who went through DARE propaganda in middle school, but the issue is still a political non-starter, not on the agenda. And, what's worse, arrests and imprisonment are mushrooming over time, even as people forget that when these bad laws were written in 1970-72, most people didn't think mj was "that" bad.

Why is this so? Well, it's obvious that since it's been a political "culture war" litmus test since Nixon and Reagan, it's a "third rail" for moderates and progressives. The "Willie Horton" factor. And while some minor presidential candidates have raised it (Kucinich, Paul), there's not a chance the other major candidates will breathe a word about it, except to fend off charges of "youthful indiscretion" as has been the pattern of boomer hypocrisy on the issue.

And while it's understandable why presidential candidates would try to shy away from the issue, it should be noted that GWB-43 promised to let the medical mj patients enjoy "state's rights" before he later sent the DEA to raid hospices, dispensaries and send Tommy Chong and others to prison.

We were told at a drug policy convention that Speaker Pelosi doesn't want drug issues on the agenda until maybe 2010, in order to prevent defeat in 2008 (understandable), but they don't want reformers to have even modest "moral victories" in the meantime, like increasing House support for the amendment to stop hassling medimar patients in the 12 states which allow it and completely overturning the ban on student loans for drug offenders. We were told the top house dems were initially angry when SSDP, the student lobby, publicly "spanked" the dem reps who voted against the removal amendment, and then called their lobbiests to try to mend fences and make promises that if reformers shut up till 2010, dems would come through for them.

Assuming, of course, that a dem wins the White House in 2008. Which IMHO, reading some of the other threads here today about the SC primary, leads me to believe that we're going to end up with President McCain (probably) or Clinton or Obama and none of those three (except perhaps Obama) is going to be particularly enthusiastic about making drug law reform any part of his/her admin's agenda or revoke its "political third rail" status.

But all I ask (plaintively) is that the upward ratcheting STOP. A good place would be to disband the infamous NYPD narc unit which is responsible for 10% of the 800,000+/- annual marijuana arrests, and makes illegal frisk searches and misdemeanor arrests (typically with overnight jail stay) in a state where marijuana was supposedly "decriminalized" in 1976.

But even that hope is faint right now. Ultra-liberal (supposedly) Governor Spitzer is pushing for one of those phony "drug tax stamp" laws, where those caught with drugs would need to show a revenue stamp on their baggie of face additional "civil taxes and penalties" for failure to have a stamp. (Does anyone recall "the Boston Tea Party" from grade school history?) And the state DA's association is pushing to amend Spitzer's bill to get DNA samples from all convicted felons to roll back the sampling to the time of ARREST. Think of how this would interface with the illegal shakedown now being run by the corrupt NYPD, who view this data collection as useful "broken windows"policing and would be thrilled to add this bad mj search/arrest + DNA data base expansion + tax stamp trifecta to their arsenal of dirty tricks.

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

Example of How F...ked Up This Nation Is
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 26, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This nation's obsession with pot is one of the best examples of how truley screwed up and backward this nation really is.

As Tom Degan above said how could we still be having this debate in 2008?

Of course in addition to the author of this article's fine work read the work of Ethan Nadelmann.

I believe we have hit bottum though :)

Dr Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

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

» Yes. I remember Nadelmann. Posted by: oldwoman
» RE: Yes. I remember Nadelmann. Posted by: drricklippin
No more disenfranchisement
Posted by: callejero on Jan 26, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the answer: www.ortholex.blogspot.com
Action. . .people . . .action.

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

Even being a legal patient
Posted by: VickyinSD on Jan 26, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the first state to pass medical marijuana laws doesn't provide you with any protection.

I was "busted" by a local cop on a bicycle who quietly snuck up on me while I sat in my truck, in an empty, secluded parking lot taking a hit before going into a local bar to hear a band.

Even though I showed him my Dr. recommendation, along with my driver's license, he still issued me a ticket, saying "This is our policy. We issue the tickets, and let the courts figure it all out."

So, off to the courthouse I went, all my paperwork in hand, only to get the case transferred over to superior court after pleading not guilty in traffic court.

That resulted in 2 more trips to the courthouse. The first DA wouldn't drop charges, but offered me "creating a public disturbance" (huh?) with a $160 fine. The original fine, had I decided to pay it, was only $100. I told the public "defender" who was pushing me to take the "deal", NO WAY, I'm not guilty, so another court date was set, in another courtroom a week later. Then the pub. def. told me it would probably be dropped, since the DA in the next courtroom was "more lenient".

She was right, and the DA dropped it entirely at the next hearing. But that was a lot of wasted time, not only for me, but for the system... starting when the officer wasted 1/2 hour or more issuing me the ticket, all the way through 3 different court appearances!

My next step is filing a complaint with the city that the issuing officer works for, citing the CA State Constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulation. (There has been no such appellate ruling)

The officer... in fact the department itself, made the choice not to enforce the state law that has been in place for over 10 yrs., instead choosing to "let the courts" handle it. Bullshit!!!

The head DA (bitch) in San Diego County has publicly stated that she wants to "overturn" voter approved Prop 215, passed by voters over 10 years ago.

I guess freedom has a long way to go, even in states where MMJ is legal.

Thank you Paul for the excellent article

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

» RE: ven being a legal patient Posted by: VickyinSD
My expeirence
Posted by: SBohn1980 on Jan 26, 2008 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While serving as an active duty Army drill sergeant I was diagnosed with cancer. After surgery and radiation treatment I was placed on seven different medications, then three more to treat the side effects of the previous seven. I was depressed, losing weight rapidly and constantly in pain. A freind gave me a joint and it changed my life. No nausea, no pain, hello appetite, I was happy again. I threw away all the other meds.

I spent my career as an infantryman with the 82nd Airborne division, checked myself out of Walter Reed and drove from DC to Bragg after back surgury... I am no wimp or cry baby. I hate drugs, especially the tax payer provided, un-necessary and dangerous ones prescribed by Army doctors.

THC is a drug. Like all drugs it has proper and improper uses. It is my right to put whatever I want into my body, drugs included. The problem is one segment of our country thinks it is their right or even their duty to tell others what to do.

To overeaters food is a drug. Do we outlaw food because it is harmful to them? Do we arrest, prosecute and imprison them for being caught with food? That would be silly. So are our pot laws.

You can spend your money imprisoning me but I will excercise my God given rights until my death. I spent my career defending your rights why do you deny me mine?

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

» RE: My expeirence Posted by: Lauren
» RE: My expeirence Posted by: MildGreens
» RE: My expeirence Posted by: Lauren
Keeping the "Underclass" in Line: You Won't See Cops Hassling a Pot Smoking Wall Street Banker!
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 26, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right wing has done the best it can to confuse the issues. They talk about "drug abuse" and "child molestation" in the same sentence when they talk about people smoking marijuana. It's just a ridiculous way for these people to keep power and keep "defining issues" alive for them. But, even beyond that, is how the illegal definition of marijuana for them is a way to hassle those in the lower socioeconomic segments of society. Now, do you see cops going after some Wall Street bankers for smoking pot? Do you see cops going after prominent lawyers, judges and doctors for smoking pot? No, all you see is that they hang around in the poorest areas of the cities, and when they cannot arrest somebody on a trumped up prostitution or like criminal charge, they turn instantly to busting them for pot. Pot then, is just a way for the police and society to keep this segment of the society in line. It keeps them out of the streets and out of the way as far as demanding any societal and political change. Such as higher minimum wage laws and universal health care. Now, you can bet your bottom dollar that the rate of pot use is hardly any different in the wealthier segments of society. But, money and power speak volumes when it comes to who gets hassled, arrested and charged with a crime, in America.

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

"Cost to taxpayers" not an economic statement
Posted by: billwald on Jan 26, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Essays that claim marijuana arrests (drunk drivers, smoking, whatevet) "costs taxpayers . . .) are only looking at one side of the balance sheet. It is equaly true that those activties create many jobs and generate much economic activity.

For example, do a thought experiment about the entire nation becomming Baptists (Mormons, SDA, whatever) and going on the wagon. How long would it take for a severe economic depression to set in? The layoffs would start in less than two months. Yes, eventually the lost jobs would be replaced with other jobs but in how many years? How many people would lose their homes in the meantime?

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

» RE: do a thought experiment Posted by: vasumurti
There is only one reason pot remains illegal
Posted by: Fishbone Soldier on Jan 26, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marijuana is extremely easy to grow. You could grow it in your closet. It is, literally, a weed. Tobacco, on the other hand, is a challenging crop that you could not grow, in your closet or anywhere else. The tobacco companies do not want pot legalized because they fear their customers will switch from difficult-to-grow tobacco to "freely available" marijuana. They pay our politicians to maintain the status quo on this issue.

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

marijuana
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 26, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A pamphlet entitled "10 Things Every Parent, Teenager and Teacher Should Know About Marijuana" produced by the Family Council on Drug Awareness tells us marijuana is not physically addictive. The 1980 Costa Rican study, the 1975 Jamaican study and the 1972 Nixon Blue Ribbon Report all concluded that marijuana use does not lead to physical dependency. The FBI reports that 65 to 75 percent of criminal violence is alcohol-related. On the other hand, Federal Bureau of Narcotics director Harry Anslinger testified before Congress in 1948 that marijuana leads to nonviolence and pacifism.

In a message to Congress on August 2, 1977, President Jimmy Carter insisted: "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself."

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Law Judge Francis L. Young wrote on September 8, 1988: "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

After years of suppression by the government, the truth about medical marijuana is finally coming out. Dr. Tod Mikuriya, former director of marijuana research for the entire federal government, wrote in 1996: "I was hired by the government to provide scientific evidence that marijuana was harmful. As I studied the subject, I began to realize that marijuana was once widely used as a safe and effective medicine. But the government had a different agenda, and I had to resign."

Tobacco kills about 430,700 each year. Alcohol and alcohol-related diseases and injuries kill about 110,000 per year. Secondhand tobacco smoke kills about 50,000 every year. Aspirin and other anti-inflammatory drugs kill 7,600 each year. Cocaine kills about 500 yearly alone, and another 2,500 in combination with another drug. Heroin kills about 400 yearly alone, and another 2,500 in combination with another drug. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs total 32,000 per year, while marijuana kills no one.

A November 4, 2002 Time/CNN Poll found that eighty percent of those polled felt marijuana should be legal only for therapeutic (i.e., medical) purposes. 72 percent felt recreational users should get fines rather than jail time, which is essentially decriminalization. The complete legalization of marijuana was favored only by 34 percent of respondents, but this figure is twice as large as it was in 1986. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco, and our drug laws should reflect this reality.

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

marijuana (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 26, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Throughout history, the legal and moral status of psychoactive drugs has kept changing. During the 17th century, the sale and consumption of tobacco were punished by death in much of Europe, Russia, China and Japan. For centuries, many of the Muslim domains that forbade alcohol sale and consumption simultaneously tolerated and even regulated the sale of opium and cannabis.

Each year, the U.S. government spends more than $30 billion on the drug war and arrests over 1.5 million people on drug-related charges. Over 318,000 people are now behind bars in the U.S. for drug violations, greater than the total number of people incarcerated for all crimes in England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.

Our government is calling for billions of dollars to fight a drug war it can't win. Roughly 75 percent of this money goes to enforcing laws and regulations, but only 15 percent goes to drug education and prevention, and a only a meager 10 percent goes to treatment for addicts.

During the 1950s, long-term prison sentences against drug users choked the courts, strained and disrupted prisons and drove black-market prices even higher. The latest casualty in the drug war has been our civil liberties: mandatory drug testing so we can all be “drug free”. Some of these tests have been struck down by the courts, where the government is the employer. But others have been upheld. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denounced these drug tests as “an immolation of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use.”

Even putting America under martial law will not solve the nation's drug problem. Iran executes hundreds of drug offenders. Malaysia has hanged dozens of drug users in the past few years. In neither country has the drug problem receded. In fact, in Malaysia, the addiction rate continues to rise. On the other hand, the Dutch government, with its liberal social and political philosophy, tolerates drug use, and the addiction rate is declining.

According to a 2003 Zogby poll, two of every five Americans say “the government should treat marijuana the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children.” Close to 100 million Americans, including over half of those between the ages of 18 and 50, have tried marijuana at least once. Military and police recruiters often have no alternative but to ignore past marijuana use by job seekers.

In 1996, California voters passed a law to regulate medical marijuana within the state. In 2000, voters in California approved an initiative allowing people who are arrested for simple possession of drugs to go through a rehabilitation program rather than through the court process that would result in prison. Since the program began, most agree it has been very successful. It results in less recidivism and is considered cheaper than imprisonment.

Richard Posner, Chicago's chief judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and one of the nation's leading legal scholars, says marijuana use should be legalized as a way of reducing crime. Posner, a Reagan administration appointee once described by American Lawyer magazine as “the most brilliant judge in the country,” explained his views on marijuana in The Times Literary Supplement, a British publication, and in later interview:

“It is nonsense that we should be devoting so many law enforcement resources to marijuana," says Posner. "I am skeptical that a society that is so tolerant of alcohol and cigarettes should come down so hard on marijuana use and send people to prison for life without parole.”

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

marijuana (part 3)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 26, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posner is the highest-ranking judge to publicly favor the repeal of marijuana laws. Several judges of the federal district court, a level lower than the appeals court, have made similar calls, including Robert Sweet of New York and James Paine of Florida, both Carter Administration appointees.

New York University law professor Burt Neuborne said it's significant that “one of the leading intellectuals in the judicial system recognizes that the laws don't seem to be working well.”

Posner and other federal judges have complained that sentencing guidelines force them to give unjustly severe prison sentences to relatively minor drug offenders. Says Posner: “Prison terms in America have become appallingly long, especially for conduct that, arguably, should not be criminal at all. Only decriminalization is a sure route to a lower crime rate. It is sad that it appears so far below the horizon of political feasibility.”

Rufus King, a Washington, DC lawyer who has served on the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, calls the drug war, “A worthless crusade.” According to King, drug use is a social problem, not a law enforcement problem. He observes: “Cigarette use is declining through changes in cultural values in the population. Like most smokers and alcoholics, most users of illegal drugs poison themselves because they want to be intoxicated. No human force can do them much good until they want help.” King is optimistic that the current anti-drug hysteria will subside, and responsible and reasonable drug law policies will be adopted.

Dissenting from the recent Supreme Court ruling on the suspension of an Alaskan student for waving a banner -- "BONG HITS 4 Jesus" -- at a high school event, Justice John Paul Stevens takes the long view:

"...the current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs...

"...just as Prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several states that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs."

The Washington Post, July 26, 2007, reported: "Stevens compared the current marijuana ban to the abandoned alcohol ban and urged a respectful hearing for those who suggest 'however inarticulately' that the ban is 'futile' and that marijuana should be legalized, taxed and regulated instead of prohibited."

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

» RE: marijuana (part 3) Posted by: VickyinSD
» RE: marijuana (part 3) Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: marijuana (part 3) Posted by: Lauren
Follow the money.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 26, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our current spate of pot laws are, in actuality, a hidden "pot tax" on both taxpayers and "offenders," and a government-sponsered source of (relatively docile) raw materials for the U.S. prison system – one of the largest and fastest-growing corporate cabals in America.

This is why we have the most people behind bars of any industrialized country; it's good for business (and, incidentally, also feeds right into the current stick-up-the-butt Zeitgeist left over from the Puritan hangover we continue to suffer.)

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

» RE: Follow the money. Posted by: SteveO
» RE: Follow the money. Posted by: Lauren
walkingwindows
Posted by: abraxas on Jan 26, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a little over $1000 per arrest. I don't
think attorneys clear their throats for that.
Multiply that BILLION by about 10, I would
guess, to sum up this taxpayer "war" against
ourselves...

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

Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Booze, and their allies in the FDA and the DEA
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 26, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We could also add in Big Private Prison Contractors, who like charging the federal government billions in order to keep non-violent cannabis users imprisoned.

The DEA and the FDA are among the most corrupt federal agencies in the United States - they turn a blind eye to the abuse and misuse of pharmaceutical narcotics, as well as to U.S. linked international drug smuggling and money laundering.

Take the case of Purdue (makers of hillbilly heroin, aka Oxycontin), the DEA and Rudy Giiuliani (NYT) - this is one of the most overprescribed and abused opiate derivatives in the U.S., and yet the DEA refused to go after them, thanks to Giuliani's efforts on Purdue's behalf.

The DEA is also covering up the massive influx of Afghanistan heroin into the United States - which is largely due to the U.S. turning a blind eye to their so-called "allies" in Afghanistan - i.e. drug traffikers who claim to be "anti-Taliban". With the recent calls for more extensive CIA-backed "counterinsurgency" efforts along the Pakistan-Afghan border, you can bet that this trend will accelerate.

Then there's Guantanamo CIA-linked jet crashed in Mexico with 4 tons of cocaine onboard - see the initial report in USA Today here: Plane crash in Mexico involved Colombian cocaine, Sept 2007.

What the USA Today story leaves out is that the plane, a Gulfstream II, had a prior history that included flights to Guantanamo Bay - see the McClatchey report: Who owned drug plane that crashed in Mexico?, Sept 2007

"Some news reports have linked the plane to the transport of terrorist suspects to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but those reports cite logs that indicate only that the plane flew twice between Washington, D.C., and Guantanamo and once between Oxford, Conn., and Guantanamo. No terrorist suspects are known to have been transferred to Guantanamo directly from the United States.

The jet, carrying the tail number N987SA, changed hands twice in recent weeks. But how it ended up in the hands of suspected drug traffickers remains a mystery."


Since then, dead silence from the corporate press. "CIA and DEA implicated in drug traffiking"... not a headline you are likely to see. The press has learned to keep their mouths shut about that, ever since the crucifixion of Gary Webb for spilling the beans on the Iran-Contra-Cocaine deals engineered by Ollie North and the CIA.

Note also that tobacco and alcohol are marketed heavily in poor communities (the ghetto liquor store comes to mind), yet innocuous drugs like cannabis are demonized - and the DEA puts all their efforts into going after the legitimate medical cannabis dispensaries, strictly for political purposes.

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

John Gotti.........Questioned at trial
Posted by: picket on Jan 26, 2008 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
whether Mafia family dealt in drugs ..."No, we can't compete with the Government."

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

Pot Bust=ineligable for FOOD STAMPS
Posted by: chronic420 on Jan 26, 2008 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You may not be aware that if you get a felony drug posession/conviction you are no longer eligable to receive federal food stamps.If this doesn't smack poor people hardest,what does?

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

LENNY BRUCE
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 26, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1966, Lenny Bruce said:

"Marijuana will be legal in five years. Why? Because every one of you knows a law student who smokes pot who will become a Senator or Congressman who will legalize it to protect themselves."

I guess Lenny was off the mark on that prediction. How could anyone have guessed that we'd still be having this nutty debate all these decades later?

Tom Degan

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

» RE: LENNY BRUCE Posted by: meliaarhrt
» RE: LENNY BRUCE Posted by: Lauren
Drug hysteria drowns out careful thinking
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 26, 2008 4:18 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I disagree that there are zero marijuana deaths. Pot in the pipe has tar and can cause lung cancer. It's just not a two pack a day habit. Pot also causes car crashes.

Can society survive these problems? Sure. Can we minimize these problems by thinking? Maybe.

Some of the medical marijuana push is absolutely humanitarian. Some is simply to promote decriminalizing the weed for everyone.

On the flip side, it's amazing that no politician will be pro-pot. They wouldn't be caught dead with NORML. Hmm, that is such an appropriately misspelled name!

I'm writing because almost all people are either wildly for pot or else they're too anti-drug to think anything non-doctrinal, much less write anything on Alternet. Right here, I want the freedom to say that decriminalization brings some risks, but the benefits are worth it. I despise censorship of thought in the name of the flag. I despise censorship of thought in Jesus's name. People on Alternet have already mentioned the theory that Jesus was anointed with hemp oil.

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

Yo! its about power & control & ....
Posted by: jambro on Jan 27, 2008 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... threatening, frightening & disabling social change & americans who probably don't vote republican or subscribe to bible belt protestant fundamentalism ... does that include you & me, probably, whether on not we smoke pot, if we are pro decriminalizing pot, we may have other non-conventional ideas, that is conventional by the strictest interpretation of neo-conservative/neo-liberal ideologies that currently dominate a nation cowed by fear & propaganda ... hence, we & our friends who do smoke pot are targets ... don't forget that a criminal conviction may take you off the voters registry for a lifetime, one less potential vote against the fascist takeover of america... now do you get the picture, all part of the bushite strategy for corrupting electoral politics to favour reactionary candidates & maintaining power by any means necessary ...

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

The really odd thing...
Posted by: meliaarhrt on Jan 27, 2008 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The really odd thing is how readily available pot is inside any jail... and it's not coming in with the inmates. The hypocracy is widely known and causing a lack of trust in the American people. The laws as they exist now might as well be called the modern Inquisition. Smoking leads to (gasp) thought crimes!

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

» RE: The really odd thing... Posted by: Lauren
Don't bogart
Posted by: shawneewulf on Jan 27, 2008 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before prohibition marijuanna was legal everywhere. Some would say that one of the reasons "pot" was criminalized was because black men were going crazy from smoking it and then raping white women. Another smear campaign was that movie - Marijuanna Madness( or something )in which people smoking pot would lose thier minds. Yet another piece of the puzzle is that pharmacutical companies banded together to have marijuanna criminalized.
But, regardless of how it became illegal, the fact that it's still illegal is totally ridiculous!! It's got to be a "money" thing.
The facts are: marijuanna has been growing on this planet for millions of years, marijuanna is 'all-natural', marijuanna is extremely 'green' - grow it yourself, hemp produces one of, if not the, strongest fiber(s) of any plant, medicinal uses, while being known for thousands of years, are only just being 'rediscovered': from cancer to eyesight, there's a use.
The list could go on and on, but, what's the point? Our gov is going to keep marijuanna illegal so they can profit themselves - afterall, our gov doesn't like competition, nor independance.

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

» RE: Don't bogart Posted by: Lauren
Political Leaders Not Held Accountable
Posted by: gabbyone on Jan 27, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the late 60's, our country was torn about by the protests against the Vietnam war. Across the country demonstrators were arrested for marijuana use and many were given felony convictions. These convictions kept many a young man or woman from entering law school or medical school. Today we have a candidate for the Presidency, Senator Barack Obama who has admitted that not only did he smoke a fair amount of marijuana but used cocaine. Despite all of the people who suffered and are suffering prison time and loss of dreams for their future,
from using small amounts of just marijuana, this Presidential candidate says it should not be a issue. Four weeks ago, a home in our communtiy was stormed by the police and torn apart because a jealous boyfriend told the police that someone in that house was growing marijuana and selling it. The cops found only a small plastic sandwish bag with what they
admitted was very old stale pot, but the two
young people were arrested (19 and 20 years old ) and charged and now await their court date. I would imagine all these people in jail for marijuana crimes must find it hard to hear Obama say it was a youthful mistake and have others say we shouldn't hold him accountable for this action. He was about the same age as the two people above and went
much farther than just marijuana use.

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

if you dont know what the kingdom of god means you shouldnt be in businesss
Posted by: Vic Fedorov on Jan 27, 2008 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you don't know what the kingdom of god means you shouldn't be in business. Its that simple. You print humans are born from the womb without sentient then you dont get jacked up by this, you know there is a big lie, pot is a big lie, and you know what the kingdom of god is. As for the kingdom of heaven, take them kingdom of law enforcement down, as you know how to do.

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

» what??????? Posted by: yale
» RE: what??????? Posted by: Lauren
Hipocracy?
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 27, 2008 2:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush and Cheney are mass murdering people in the third world with immunity, but little guys get thrown in jail and loose wealthfare for possessing pot.

The citizens have lost perspective. The government is corrupt. I say this is pretty good evidence that this nation is undone.

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

commercial and industrial applications of hemp
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 27, 2008 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under our drug laws, even the growing of cannabis hemp -- the nonspyschoctive variety of the plant--is outlawed in order to enforce the marijuana laws.

Hemp has many economic uses. It contains the longest fiber in the plant kingdom and is one of the strongest and most durable. It can be used for commercial and industrial applications, including insulation, textiles, clothing, and rope. The fiber and pulp can be used to manufacture nondeteriorating paper using a relatively pollution-free process. The plant can also be used for biomass applications. Its seeds yield oil similar to linseed, which can be used in many commercial and industrial applications. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the seeds have even been used for human consumption.

"Hemp. It's marijuana's nonspyschoctive sister," writes Ed Rosenthal. "You couldn't get a buzz if you smoked a bale of hemp, but it's still illegal to grow it in the United States." Industrial hemp is legally grown in over thirty countries. For thousands of years, people grew hemp and prospered. It flourishes without pesticides. Thomas Jefferson considered hemp so vital to America that he risked his life to smuggle hemp seeds out of France. George Washington grew hemp and instructed his caretaker at Mount Vernon: "Make the most of the hemp seed. Sow it everywhere."

Industrial hemp was first grown in Kentucky 250 years ago. It is currently grown in other countries across the globe, including France, England, Canada, Australia, China, Hungary and the Ukraine. Industrial hemp has virtually no THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It cannot be used as a drug. None of the countries that allow industrial hemp production have experienced any drug problems relating to the crop. Using modern processing techniques, hemp can be used in place of petrochemicals. Instead of synthetic plastics made from oil, we can use natural fiber and processed bioplastic derivatives. Plastics and polyester rely on foreign oil, while cotton consumes enormous amounts of water, fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides.

Industrial hemp is very clean, easy to grow and is one of the most environmentally sound sources of industrial fiber in the world. Environmentally friendly detergents, plastics, paints, varnishes, cosmetics, and textiles are already being made from it in Europe. Industrial hemp can meet our fiber needs while also revitalizing our struggling rural economies.

Hemp is already being used in place of trees for pressboard, particleboard, and core concrete construction molds. Paper made from hemp is acid-free, stronger and lasts far longer than paper made from trees. Hemp fabrics are far stronger and more resistant to mold than any other natural fiber. Builders in France and Germany use hemp for construction material, replacing drywall and plywood. Hemp can be used to manufacture plastic plumbing pipe, replacing such toxic materials as polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Hemp fiber is already being used in place of glass fiber in surfboards and snowboards. Hemp could also provide the resin itself.

For ideological reasons, the federal government refuses to allow farmers to grow hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp is currently grown legally worldwide. The current Bush administration took anti-hemp policy to a new extreme, attempting unsuccessfully to ban the import of hemp foods and cosmetics. Erwin "Bud" Sholts, director of the Wisconsin Agriculture Department's marketing division, said hemp "is the most value-added, prolific fiber crop man can grow." Sholts acknowledged that hemp is an emotional issue, but points out that "other nations with drug laws as tough or tougher than ours have overcome this hurdle." The U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that prohibits the growing of industrial hemp; anti-drug hysteria should not blind the public to the commercial and industrial applications of hemp.

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

Binnsb4tyrs
Posted by: Binnsb4tyrs on Jan 27, 2008 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all about money. Our government makes beaucoup dollars in revenue from alcohol and tobacco. One blogger wrote that it is a well know fact that 1,000's of individuals either ruin their life or the life's of others by the use of both those "legal" drugs. Just tax marijuana and the government would have more money for more bombs.

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

Any drug that is not controllable is illegal
Posted by: Andrew_S on Jan 27, 2008 9:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This authority that contols drug production and dispertion is all about revenue streams. You cannot control drugs that can be grown in your backyard. While soft drugs are mercilessly villified with junk statistics and governement funded facts. Hard drugs are allowed to be peddled with authority, and even with coercion, historically at specific target audiences. Dealers are known, as are distribution methods, but it is often interesting to see how fiscal policies dicitate arrests, generating more bureaucratic laws and powers In essence one ounce of crack or other hard drug, generates a hundredfold the state revenue through arrests of users and additional legal and related business, but only if it is distibuted, why arrest the source. This leads to the argument of why not make other soft type non harmful drugs encompass an extra bonus. This discussion is not about morality or rights, they are not even on the playing field.

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

We need to follow George Lakoff's powerful idea of REFRAMING the debate on HEMP to win against the
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 27, 2008 11:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NAZIS who outlawed Cannabis 70 years ago. It is time to STOP badmouthing pot smokers. Smoking pot doesn't kill you or even damage you in any way. In fact, fast food, tobacco, alcohol, junk food, petroleum manufactured drugs "approved" by the FDA and DEA will kill or at least seriously impair you but not Cannabis. It is possible to fight the HOSTILE TAKEOVER.

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

decriminalization
Posted by: mr.E on Jan 28, 2008 6:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the reason marijuana is still illegal is the same reason we're still in iraq. not enough people are willing to stand up to the regime and demand change. people are against the war yet they won't march or organize boycotts etc and people want pot to be legal but they won't initiate any kind of activisim to help the situation.

why not smoke pot in public, since its your right as a human being to use this plant for whatever spiritual, religious, recreational or other reason you may have. how is it any different from tobacco, other than being safer?

there's way too many pot smokers for them to put all of us in jail.

yet i still think that people are influenced by the cultural propaganda that has infiltrated our psyche. many people will flat out lie about smoking pot to people because they don't want to be labeled a criminal, low-life, etc. yet they feel fine about being dishonest about it. i guess they'd rather be a liar than a pot smoker....hmmmm

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

Smoking is Smoking
Posted by: BCcovers on Jan 30, 2008 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The laws should be changed to mirror those of California. However, for those of you who see weed as supreme or morally better than booze or cigarettes consider this: Smoking is smoking, with marijuana you are still inhaling chemicals and tons of tar (that's what that sticky-icky really is) into your lungs. Bad for you, just like cigarettes. Driving baked is no good either just as driving drunk is. I'm not saying not to relax the laws, but we should consider the hipocracy next time we criticize that guy who just wants to light up. No matter what chemical he chooses to light up, marijuana or tobacco we should realize that they are one in the same, with much the same health hazards, etc.

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

» RE: Smoking is Smoking Posted by: mlang52
pot is bad, just ask the cops
Posted by: orphan on Jan 31, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hello americans, this from new orleans. in my city you can buy a bag of heroin in front of edwards hotel room for 5 bucks, chances are the man who sells it to you is a career assassin, childrapist, pimp,sociopath, and i think this is wonderfull that these people can make money here because we no longer have the money to feed them in our jail. we do however have room for those leaning with the intent to fall, reckless eyeball, assault and battery on helen keller, assualting a cheeseburger and buying a towell on monday, so i thank the liberals for giving us a venue to sell heroin as everthing else here is illegal.
me,i think pot is a waste of time, not only can we not committe genocide on such little proffit but we can't find young people to go over there and kill babies while they are stoned.
keeping pot criminalized fattens the oil industry and big pharma so MY COUNTRY can whip these extemist family types into shape and get them back to the rug factory, i don't like family orientd peoples because i'm an orphan born in 68 so chances are the people who left me here are hippies, like hillary and barak, and seeing as barrak is from kenya, i'm with brittany spears when she said "i don't like japan because it's part of africa and they like fish and i don't like fish" just think if pot were legal i'd never have a chance of having drunken vikadin sex with young hollywood (spokes people of the free world).
anyway,i think we should all spend more time making sure alchohol and world domination continue to thrive unchallenged and well funded. george w was a drunk and his daddy made hime president, my daddy was a hippie and now i have to live on the streets of new orleans, so who´s better off, the drunk children of facists or the socially conscious children of hippies.
this is america, love it or leave it, but don´t go laying off the police and the prison guards because they have noone to arrest, crack dealers are dangerous to arrest and they perform a valueble part in our war economy, we need cocain to sustain our black ops don´t you know. i´m sure this is all hard for you hippies to understand but this is america, i´m your orphan, now buy me a drink, i´m going to prison tommorow

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

» RE: pot is bad, just ask the cops Posted by: wittler youth
» RE: pot is bad, just ask the cops Posted by: wittler youth
LETS SAVE ALL OF THAT MONEY WE ARE SPENDING ON PUBLIC
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Feb 1, 2008 10:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
schools and just send the children directly to jail. Just think what we could save cutting out the middle man.

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

xtiml
Posted by: xtiml on Feb 11, 2008 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
clinton imported coke right into hot springs, where ya been the govt is the dealer? it funds off budget activities i.e. black ops i.e. against us .there is no right of govt to restrict such things in the first place, everything was legal before the hansen act and you didnt hear them screaming about drug problems, they made it illegal to monopolize and raise the prices, aspirin and heroin cost the same at the turn of the century.

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

» RE: xtiml Posted by: wittler youth
point well taken
Posted by: wittler youth on Feb 11, 2008 8:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
corn and soy beans? for eththanol?..why dosnt any on bring up hemp..it dont need petro dollars to grow..its seeds have more oil than exxion..and its renewable..no..i guess thats a stup[d idea..

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

POT LAWS STEAL VOTES & VOICES
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Feb 25, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...teaches Free Thinkers to fear suppression.
...teaches Cops that Peace Activists are criminally minded.
...teaches Society that an entire constellation of beliefs & Activists are inherently dangerous.
...teaches our 'Authorities' that we're easily turned against one another.

How many times have you heard that if you distrust Free Trade, or Big Corporations...
...that you're a dirty hippie?

The last time I heard that, I was wearing a Tibetan silk dress at a wedding & had the temerity to mention David Suzuki.

*mention him in passing*

The entire room turned on me.
...apparently, being "FOR THE PEOPLE" & "FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT" has been inherently tied to philosophical & political beliefs that justify social abuse & the suppression of dissent.

& we think this is by accident?

We lose our Voices.
We lose our Votes.
We lose our Credibility.

...because the legislation criminalizing morality is used to prune us away from supporting one another.

Humanism is greater than Nationalism.


~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« 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