Sam Pfeifle

Anti-war Agitator

signsStories about the power of the Internet have long since become cliché. It’s impossible, however, to write of 21-year-old Eli Pariser’s accomplishments without using that tired phrase. He has, quite literally, harnessed the power of the Internet, to the tune of more than 700,000 online signatures on a petition he originally posted at and now can be seen at Written just after the September 11 attacks, the petition implores the US government and world leaders “to use moderation and restraint in responding to the [September 11] terrorist attacks against the United States,” and “to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence, or destruction.”

Rather than just a list of names, Pariser and the people with whom he joined forces at -- an online progressive campaign originally designed to move the country beyond the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- encouraged people to write notes of explanation. And these 700,000 testimonials made one seriously impressive stack of papers when delivered to world leaders like British Prime Minister Tony Blair, NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, and US President George W. Bush.

From there, as US sights shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, Pariser -- who became’s international campaigns coordinator -- and his colleagues targeted their efforts on the vote for the authorization of force against Iraq. After setting up meetings with every senator in the United States prior to the vote, and orchestrating thousands of emails and phone calls, MoveOn was widely credited with influencing enough representatives and senators to make the vote interesting.

They continued this effort right up through the election, actively campaigning and raising more than a million dollars in small contributions for candidates who stood up to say they would not support unilateral attack on Iraq. One of them was Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, who died in a tragic plane crash. The others were House Representatives Rush Holt, Jay Inslee, and Rick Larsen. They all won their races.

Pretty impressive stuff from a guy, in Eli Pariser, who’s 21 years old and grew up in Camden. When this interview took place he had just stepped out of an anti-war organizing meeting with representatives from the National Organization of Women, the NAACP, and the AFL-CIO.

Reporter:So I take it things haven’t slowed down since the election.

Eli Pariser: Well, we’re definitely in a period of reflection: What are the next steps? How do we move things forward from here? But, certainly, there are sort of big plans afoot and I think the early part of December is going to be very exciting across the country, there are going to be lots and lots of things going on, especially on a religious front, which is pretty cool as well.

Q:So, I know that you came into MoveOn through Is it still all about the anti-war movement for you or have you found yourself getting involved in more political issues?

A:Well I’ve always been involved in a whole bunch of things. I guess I got my start as an activist in Camden as an environmental movement guy, and in college I worked on some anti-corporate stuff, and I worked on socially responsible investing, and I’ve been doing all sorts of things for a while. You know, 911-peace was not by any means the product of a long history with the peace movement. It was more of an instinctual response based on where I thought things looked like they were going. You know, doing foreign policy peace work -- it came to me, I didn’t go to it exactly. But, over the last year I’ve certainly come to really be excited about it and, for me as an organizer, that’s certainly where my center is right now.

Q:I kept abreast of a lot of the fundraising campaigns you were behind in supporting anti-war candidates. I know you were heavily behind Chellie Pingree’s campaign. What sort of impact do you feel like you had on the most recent election, and is there anything now, looking back, where you might have liked to have targeted your efforts differently?

A:I don’t really have a whole lot of regrets [he kind of laughs]. Right after the Iraq [use of force] vote, we did an outreach that was sort of a “reward the heroes” campaign, and it was directed toward four people who had really taken a stand. They were in tight races, and they did the right thing: Paul Wellstone and three representatives. You know, the three representatives won and Paul would have. So, in that respect, I feel really good about that initiative.

I think one of the most significant things about the election is that no one lost on their vote against the Iraq resolution. Not a single person. In fact, the poster boy for being tarred as anti-patriotic was [Georgia Senate Democrat] Max Cleeland, who voted for the resolution. So, I think one of the messages that the elections definitely gave was that when the Democrats split and ran scared on that vote, they were only hurting themselves by doing that. They weren’t picking up an electoral advantage.

So, coming out of the elections, one of the things that I’m excited about is the fact that the Democrats have had their wake-up call. They know that they can’t accommodate any more, and there are real signs that, as a party, they’re beginning to actually take a stand, get a backbone, you know, fight back. And I’m very excited about that.

Q:Do you think Nancy Pelosi’s becoming the House Minority Leader is part of that correct direction, that direction you’d like to see the Democratic Party going in?

A:Absolutely. She was one of the lead organizers of the vote in the House against the resolution, and she really did an incredible job of getting a majority of Democrats to vote against their congressional leader [Dick Gephardt]. The thing that’s exciting to me about Nancy is that it’s not just Iraq, she actually is a leader with a vision and with all sorts of principles and concerns that she’ll be working on. I think we’ve not seen enough of that in the Democratic Party recently.

Q:What about Tom Daschle’s announcement that he’s going to stay on as Senate Majority -- well, now, Minority Leader? Do you feel that’s a maintaining of the status quo or do you think he can work with people like Pelosi to keep going forward?

A:I believe that Tom Daschle can be a good leader for folks concerned about Iraq and a whole bunch of other issues. I think what happened that was really critically wounding in the run up to the Iraq vote was that, apparently without consultation with Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt went ahead and said, “Yeah we agree to this resolution.” That left Daschle as the only leader in Congress who was not giving the resolution the thumbs up, and, ultimately, that’s a very difficult position to be in. Do I wish that he had stuck it out anyway? Yes. But I believe that, working with Pelosi, he has the vision and he has the leadership to get some good stuff done.

Q:You guys have focused a lot of attention on trying to reform the Democratic party. What about the Green Party as an alternative to the Democratic party. Do you think it’s a viable option for people?

A:We certainly have a lot of members of the Green Party on our list, and we welcome that. I believe that on a national level, the way the system is currently structured, the Greens end up being the spoiler. I think, basically, the Greens and the Democrats need to work together. They need to figure out how they can pull together around what I think are primarily common values. I believe the base values of the core constituencies of both parties are more or less the same. And the question is, “How do we work together to forward our progressive agenda for our country?” Rather than squabbling over slight differences in platform.

Q:Coming back to Maine. We watched polling numbers for Collins and Pingree from the very outset of the race. People voting for Collins never really dipped below 60 percent at any time during the race. Why wasn’t Chellie Pingree able to chip away at Collins voters at all?

A:Susan Collins plays a very good game of triangulation, moving to the center when it’s convenient. It was a very difficult campaign in that respect. Also, Chellie didn’t have the name recognition, the credibility from the get-go, that Susan Collins did. I was talking to [Pingree] two years ago about this, and then, and ever since then, she said this would be a very difficult campaign. But what I think is very exciting is that a lot of people did get out there on the streets, they did work on that campaign, and they did engage in that campaign, and I do believe that momentum won’t be lost going forward and in other campaigns in Maine, hopefully, if she runs again.

Q:It’s been perplexing for me that we’ve had Allen and Baldacci, and now Allen and Michaud, Democrats, as our Congressmen, and Snowe and Collins, Republicans, as our senators. How do you explain to yourself that Maine can go the Democratic route with the congressmen every two years, but then stay Republican with the senators?

A:I don’t watch Maine politics close enough on that level to have a really great answer for you. But we all know that Maine voters are notoriously independent, and for a lot of people it really isn’t about the party, it’s about the candidate.

Snowe and Collins have both played their cards well and accommodating enough so that the argument about why they should go just isn’t very strong once they’re in there. And that’s really what the Democrats are going to have to work on in Maine: making the case that, ultimately, no matter how these folks vote, their first vote is going to be for Trent Lott. And that agenda runs entirely counter to what I feel a lot of Mainers think they’re voting for when they vote for these people. If that’s the case, what really needs to come across is that the party really does matter, and I don’t think Mainers want to mess with a party that’s all about corporate tax giveaways to the very rich, and global militancy.

Q:Now, you’ve had a chance to witness the anti-war movement on a national scale. I’m seeing it mostly here on the Maine scale. How does the 2500 people who showed up in Augusta to protest the war, or the 300 people who have gathered twice in Portland to protest the war, go along with other states around the country? Is Maine a very anti-war state, or is it similar here to other places around the country?

I think that demonstration in Augusta, in particular, was outstanding because every time I looked at press coverage of that day they mentioned the demonstration in Maine. And I think, yeah, there’s a lot going on in Maine and there are a lot of people in Maine who are doing some serious organizing.

The other piece of this is that there’s a whole lot of this movement that you don’t see represented at those rallies. So, if there are 2500 people coming out into the streets, there are 25,000 who are staying home and making their phone calls and giving money to Chellie and doing all of these other things as part of that anti-war movement. And so, yes, it seems to be a hotbed almost.

Q:You’d label it a hotbed, huh?

Q:Well, it amuses me to say that, because it sounds almost like a contradiction in terms. But one of the things that I love about Maine is that people give these issues some actual thought. And anyone who gives the issue of invading Iraq some real thought will quickly realize that the numbers don’t add up and that there’s something wrong here. I think that’s probably what’s happened.

I’ve certainly run into all sorts of Mainers who are not the usual suspects, who have not been involved in political stuff before, and who are saying, “I was just thinking about this, and what the heck are we doing?”

Q:How much impact on the thought process of elected officials do you think a demonstration like the one on October 26 in Augusta has? Do Senators Collins and Snowe look at that and really pay attention in their voting, or do you think, in the end, it all comes down to what’s happening in Washington?

A:Susan Collins was a tragedy for us. MoveOn had a meeting with her office in late August, she invited a number of folks to meet with her personally in September, and, it appeared that she, well, I believe that she did give it some thought. And part of the reason that she gave it so much thought is because when we had this meeting with her in September we brought along two registered Republicans who had voted for her. And those people said, “Listen, on a lot of issues, I’m in agreement with the Republican party, but, on this one, you really got to think about this.” So, she was definitely listening.

The tragedy, of course, is that, in the end, she folded, and I think she folded against her better judgment, which is one of the reasons we supported Chellie. Collins needs to have more leadership, more of a spine, than that. I think her instincts on this might have been okay, but she didn’t listen to them, she listened to the president.

Q:That same day as the Augusta rally, there was a giant rally in Washington, DC. The press coverage, I thought, was pretty minimal for that event, considering it was, I have been told, the biggest anti-war rally since Vietnam. Have you talked with people who are in DC about that, and do you think the amount of people who showed up for the protest had an impact on the legislators who were in Washington?

A:It has to have some impact. But, personally, I think there’s a lot more to be done than rally, although I think the rallies play an important role in the movement. I do think that the level of grassroots agitation on this issue is absolutely percolating up, and it’s one of the reasons why you do see people like Nancy Pelosi coming to the fore of the Democratic Party and saying “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it any more.”

QObviously, it’s combined with lobbying, organizing, petitions, and the online petitions that you are putting together. It seems to me that the Internet allows you to get in touch with a lot more people a lot faster, but do you think that the online petitions are given the same legitimacy as standard petitions?

A:Well, when we presented the petition for Maine, which had about 2200 signatures on it, to Susan Collins, her eyebrows went way up, and she was really digging through it. I think part of what gives it legitimacy is that it’s not just a list of names, or, worse yet, just a list of email addresses. It’s people’s comments as well, and we really encourage representatives and their staff to look through those comments, many of which were very heartfelt and very articulate.

So, I think that’s part of how it’s effective. The other part is that when we do have these meetings with representatives, we can say “Here’s us, and here’s what we have to say,” but here’s also these 2000 people that we represent, and you need to be listening to them as well.

Q:I’ve made the comment that this most recent Senate campaign ignored everyone under the age of 60 almost entirely. Do you think, working online, it’s possible that you might be able to energize more of these younger voters because they tend to be more internet savvy?

A:I think there’s definitely a possibility. You know, you’re right that people who are running these campaigns need to wake up and realize that this is a very potent resource they have in younger voters. And it’s not just a source of votes, it’s a source of energy, it’s a source of where the future of the party and where the future voters are going to be. There’s only so much that we can do on that online, but it certainly makes me happy when I get an email from a 15-year-old who says “This is the first thing that I’ve ever done, coming to this meeting, and it was really exciting and I felt like my senator, my representative, really listened, and I’ll be there the next time you do it.” That’s what we hope to build again and again and again with folks who are tentatively entering the movement.

Q:What do you think is the most important entry point into the political process for young people, both pre-voters and people in their twenties and thirties?

A:At some point, we have to take over the party, the parties, and I’d rather see that happen sooner than later. In some ways it’s indicative of the party culture that in the race in New Jersey and in the race in Minnesota the people they could find to take the place of Toricelli and Wellstone were septuagenarians. There weren’t any young rising stars that they could tap and say, “Here’s your chance, go for it.” They’re going to need to take over the party. That’s a daunting task. I hope that we can make this movement against Iraq something that feels welcoming and feels energizing and effective for young people.

I hate saying that because it sounds so condescending.

I know, it sounds like an insult.

And given that I am, uh, them. I am one. A young person.

So am I.

Actually, the young people that I run into apply more discretion to what they get involved in than any other group. Not because they’re lazy, but because they don’t want to be involved if it’s not going to be effective.

They still remember that it’s supposed to be about being effective.

If you make that case, they will be there and they will do very hard work and they will make things happen, but you have to say, “We’re not just going to sit around and have meetings, and twiddle our thumbs, and elect subcommittees. We’re going to go out and do stuff.” It’s my hope that we can provide that within the context of this movement against war in Iraq and have it both be an end toward stopping the war but also have it be about engaging a whole new generation of activists.

Q:Do you find yourself constantly combating a cynicism in our generation, the feeling that no matter what we do we’re not going to be able to make a difference?

A:Yeah [he laughs], and it’s not just in our generation. It’s across the board. There are real problems. People are talking and people are not listening on the national level. It is not a misperception to think that’s a problem.

The real problem, though, comes when people say, “My representatives aren’t listening to me, I better just give up.” When you do that, you cede the debate to the people who have an agenda that they want to push through, and maybe it’s about oil, and maybe it’s about US domination of the world. You’ve basically lost at that point.

So, it’s about reminding people that cynical road doesn’t go anywhere, it doesn’t lead anywhere. It isn’t helping in any way. If we can all engage and get involved, things will happen. We do see that. We do know of representatives who voted another way because they got 2000 emails and 300 calls and all their best friends were calling them on the phone and telling them they had to do this. Every now and then it still works and you have to mobilize around those opportunities.

Q:We recently did a story on the National Initiative for Democracy, a program started by former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel, which would bring the citizen initiative process, like the one we have here in Maine, to the national level, so that citizens can initiate federal law. Do you think that’s something the US should have and do you think that it’s viable in making government more responsive?

A:I don’t know enough about it to offer an informed opinion. There are certainly some legitimate reasons behind having a system of representatives instead of direct democracy. I shudder to think of what could happen in cases like right after September 11, because people would be acting on their emotions rather than having a layer of discretion. It’s not that I think the representatives are doing a terrific job, but I think there is some structural value to that. That’s about as much as I could say.

Q:What about being a representative yourself? Are there any political aspirations in MoveOn, whether it’s Wes Boyd or yourself or someone else in the organization? Are you going to try to start running candidates, and start to try and win some elections, or are you going to stay more on the PAC level?

A:We’re definitely trying to win elections. There’s no question. And the PAC is definitely more than just money. It’s volunteers. It’s time. It’s energy. I think we demonstrated that in this go around. We did the first-that-we-know-of national phone bank for a Senate candidate and we did that for [Oregon Democratic candidate] Bill Bradbury, and we made about 65,000 phone calls in about five days. Getting people around the country pitching in on campaigns where we have a great candidate, and they stand for the things that we believe in, we’ll be doing that more and more and more. Ultimately, we hope that the Democratic party will, and all of the parties in power, will take what our members are saying very seriously. Because, as it grows and as it grows, this is the group of people that vote and this is the group of people that gives money, and they damn well should be listened to. We see ourselves as trying to facilitate that kind of communication between our members and representatives, and, ultimately, we’re at their service, we don’t have an agenda beyond serving them.

Sam Pfeifle can be reached at

The Right to Feel Better

The medical marijuana debate is one I?ve always had a difficult time wrapping my head around. It seems, a priori , to be a non-issue. How is it possible that the government has no problem with doctors prescribing powerful drugs like percocet, vicodan, oxycontin, and morphine for folks to take home, but objects to doctors granting permission for very sick patients to grow and smoke a little dope -- even after states vote to allow it?

So, when I heard Valerie Corral was coming to town, I couldn?t wait to speak with her. She is a hero to many people who feel that smoking marijuana can cure their symptoms in ways that pharmaceuticals cannot. As a sufferer of epilepsy -- and someone who self-prescribed her homegrown marijuana when she found that it kept her seizures in check -- Corral was the first person to be recognized under California?s Prop 215 Compassionate Use Act as an official medical marijuana patient.

But that was just her first step. Corral, with husband Mike, went on to found the Wo/Men?s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a collective that -- unlike buyers? clubs that sell marijuana at market prices -- supplies medical marijuana to patients who need it, in return for their help in producing it and participation in the alliance.

Lately, however, things have gotten tough for the successful program. Though only about 100 sick people participate, and though all of them have debilitating conditions like cancer, AIDS, paralysis, and arthritis, the Justice Department, under orders from John Ashcroft, swept in and destroyed WAMM?s garden. Think about that. They ignored the intent of a California state law, approved by an overwhelming majority of voters, so that they could destroy a quantity of medicine that could have helped hundreds of people at virtually no cost.

In exchange, Ashcroft offers expensive drugs supplied by the pharmaceutical industry, a profit-driven enterprise.

Corral?s community, including the mayor, chief of police, sheriff, and district attorney for Santa Cruz, California, have rallied around her (even

hosting what amounted to a city-sponsored medical marijuana event). But that won?t bring her crop back.

Speaking with her on the eve of her appearance at the Maine Women?s Studies Consortium Conference, it was good to hear her in high spirits and passionate about making further progress.

Phoenix: You?re coming to Maine to speak at the Women?s Studies Conference, but you?ve made your notoriety from running the Wo/Men?s Alliance for Medical Marijuana. I want to explore the medical marijuana issues and the connection to women?s issues, but let?s start with medical marijuana. We have here in Maine, as you know well, a medical marijuana law, but we don?t yet have a distribution system set up, and that?s what we?ve been struggling with. How have you been successful in distributing medical marijuana and what do you think works in the system that you?ve set up that other states, like ours, might be able to emulate?

Valerie Corral: What I did, essentially, is just bring patients together in a collective, and approached city and county officials, including law enforcement, and worked pretty steadily with them.

This also included, for some six years, being a member of the alcohol and drug abuse commission, so that, in the early days, I?d be able to better understand what fears would be raised by those who had issues with the larger issue of abuse. I was able to answer some of those questions, and also to make peace between us, to denote the difference between medicine and drug abuse.

But, in the development of this collective, I came to realize, of course, the bigger you are, the bigger the target to the federal government. But, also, the bigger you are the more cumulative power you have to address accountability, which I feel, for this issue, is extremely important.

The accountability is based primarily on not seeking to profit from the work, or from people?s illnesses. That?s an unusual approach in a nation that spends a lot of money trying to be well when we?re sick.

Q: The way I understand it is that?s it?s kind of a time-share arrangement, where people contribute a certain amount of time and energy and, in return, they receive medical marijuana.

A: Well, it?s a little bit more broad than that because people have differing degrees of disability. Someone who might come into our office paralyzed from the neck down ? quadriplegic ? from a surfing accident, he?s not going to be able to do a lot of physical labor, perhaps.

So what we do, what we ask ? it?s a very basic principle ? is to give what you can and take only what you need. So it isn?t exactly a time-share agreement, where they have to give a certain amount to get what they need, only that their intention is to be part of the alliance, in giving what they can, in reviewing what the possibilities are for what they have to offer, be it money, time, energy, or a caregiver.

So, it?s a broad design to meet the needs of as many people in our area who find themselves facing imminent death or very serious, debilitating illness.

THE PHARMACIST: Valerie Corral shuns the money-making role of a dealer. Q: Is the size of your collective limited by how much marijuana you can produce?

A: Yes. My suggestion to most communities is smaller collectives. The reason that I suggest that is because I think people working together is extremely important for people who are seriously ill because your community changes when you find yourself ill.

You know, the surfing community changes when you?re no longer able to go surfing. You lose your friends. Not because they don?t love you, but because they?re busy carrying on their normal lives.

So, I think what?s important to note that?s so valuable in our community is the interdependence. We notice if people are hungry, if people are losing their homes. Seven of our members have become homeless, simply because they didn?t have enough money to fight their illness, pay their rent, and stay in their home. So, we?ve hooked people up with other places.

We do a lot of in-home care when people are facing death and they don?t want to be in a nursing home. We try to keep people in their homes, we try to keep one another fed, we have weekly support groups in our office in town. It?s quite important to recognize that one of the elemental pieces of our organization is a commitment to being a part of something bigger than ourselves.

Q: Did you start out simply growing medicine for people and then realize that just growing marijuana doesn?t really solve the problem?

A: Yes I did, actually. The experience has certainly been enlightening, or an awakening, I should say. There are situations that I might never have guessed would arise. But, before I ever really got into this work, and I just grew marijuana for myself, 18 of my friends and family members had died. Which is kind of unusual. I mean, I was 40 years old at that time.

I found that the need was always there for people to be in camaraderie with each other. And to simply notice what?s going on in one another?s lives, and to have that social connection.

You might feel very isolated being the only man in the room that?s bald from chemotherapy if you have prostate cancer, but you come in to WAMM and you look around and there are so many people in there that know exactly what you?ve been through. They recognize the pain and just the dreariness of a day, how hard it can be to get through it. That kind of experience aligns people, but it also gives folks an opportunity to step outside of their own experience and share somebody else?s.

When I first started, I didn?t know how huge it could be.

Q: Speaking of huge . . . you were talking about some of the problems that arose as you got bigger and bigger.

A: Well, that did, and does, happen. The federal government found out about us, but they had known about us for a long time. So, I don?t think that it?s something that we didn?t expect.

I just felt that, since we?re so clean and above reproach because we don?t sell marijuana, that they would stay away from us because we would be a nightmare. But for this federal government, nothing is a nightmare, except, perhaps, themselves. And they did come after us, but it hasn?t stopped us.

We still meet on a weekly basis, and we still have our medicine, and we don?t have our garden ? so things will be different next year ? but we imagine that we?ll be able to somehow make it through it. We don?t see any reason why not.

So, consequently, one of our most effective avenues will be to divest toward smaller gardens grown to serve the whole, but with fewer attendants.

Q: You?ll decentralize?

A: Mmm, hmm. You do what you can. If they make you back down from one approach, then you find another. That?s something we?ve always done. For instance, I?ve always changed the language. Distribution?s against the law, so we don?t distribute, we supply. Whatever they need, it?s all semantics.

Q: But the local community and even the local government and law enforcement officials have been very supportive haven?t they?

A: Yes, extremely.

Q: They helped you pass out medical marijuana on the steps of City Hall, right?

A: Well, they didn?t pass it out, we did. But they stood by as we carried out one of our weekly meetings.

Q: How does that feel, to be getting such mixed messages from two different arms of the government?

A: I?ve always felt that I was light years away from the federal government, that they were just some shadow government where I don?t really know who they are, and they don?t really know who we are, and that, in fact, we probably never would get direct support from them. You know how the federal government is, they?re the last to respond, and only when they feel totally and completely safe.

Take Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who are senators from California. Now, the medical marijuana issue got more votes than either of them did, by far. Now, do you think they have the wisdom to recognize that medical marijuana is sensible? No, they don?t, because they?re fearful, they?re afraid. I guess they?re afraid that someone will use that against them, but, what happens is that it pushes people toward voting Green. You know, it just really does. And we have to show them that, we?ve really got to shake up DC.

Q: y'bviously, it?s going to be hard to make any headway while there is a Bush/Ashcroft administration in power, but, if there were to be a Democratic switchover in 2004, do you think there?s any sentiment on the national level for medical marijuana, or, at least, to not pull doctors? licenses for going along with state laws?

A: Yes, I do. Which is not to say that the Democrats have been great friends. But, importantly, we have to recognize that this current administration has been the enemy of sick and dying people. I think that?s hugely important to recognize. Whereas the former administration didn?t choose to be so ? how can I say this ? vile.

You know, it?s tyranny. It?s simple. When a government does not respect the will of the people, and the democratic process, in a supposedly democratic society, then that?s tyranny. They?ve certainly not been paying attention. And if they have been paying attention, it?s only to the locations of the gardens of sick and dying people.

And they tell us they?re worried about our health, that they?re concerned about our health, but they don?t offer us health care. It?s just more rhetoric.

They think we just want to feel better and, guess what, we do.

Q: Heaven forbid, right?

A: Yeah, I mean, it?s not a big shock. People who are sick just want to feel better. And, they sell us a myriad of pills just to achieve that end. But, I think because marijuana?s free, they insist that it?s not a good medicine.

Q: Okay, but you?re coming to town to speak at a women?s studies conference. When does medical marijuana go from being a people?s issue to being more of a women?s issue?

A: It?s interesting. When I began this outreach organization, I was working with mostly men, and women were more cloistered or hidden about their marijuana use, less willing to be noticed for it. But that?s really changed in the last 10 years.

One of the things that makes it a women?s issue is that women are often the ones by the bedside of those that are dying. They?re preparing the food, doing a lot of the work. So, as a women?s issue, it probably relates first from a care-giver point of view. They don?t like to see the people they?re caring for suffer, and marijuana can make it stop.

But in a lot of cases, especially here in Santa Cruz, where there?s an exceptionally high rate of breast cancer, there are more and more women who are willing either to begin using marijuana or who have actually come out about their use, where they had not done so before.

And, often, women are the caretakers of their children, so they?re concerned about crossing that boundary where using marijuana might get them into hot water and they might lose their children.

Q: Do you think they also have fears about sending a bad message about drug use to their young children?

A: I think that happens in families a lot. I know that many of the women with whom I work have either kept it a secret or have begun this really extensive educational outreach in their own homes whereby they enforce the understanding that the marijuana that they smoke is really a medicine. It?s important that it be separated from the recreational aspect ? that, as an adult, they?re really making this distinction. It?s in the medicine cabinet and, ?no, you can?t take it.?

I think it?s a human issue, and I?m not saying that it appeals more to women to be humanitarian, but often times that appears to be so. And, it turns out that I?m a woman, and I started this. I guess most dealers are men, and WAMM is really contrary to the concept of dealing and opening up buyers? clubs. This is a vastly alternative approach.

A lot of people must think that I?m crazy. I must be the only one in the world who can?t make money off marijuana.

Sam Pfeifle can be reached at


Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Alternet All Access and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.