[xyzdonna]

That is exactly why us right wingers here in the US don't have the enthusiam the left has now. It may just be someone elses turn to get fooled again! From the look of the choices, I'd wonder if I'd hire any of them to handle my taxes let alone security detail!! I'm sure we will get more of one than the other and nothing to show for it.........

This election farse has turned into a media darling popularity contest and nothing to do with being qualified for leadership. We have lost the means to identify one if they entered the race anyways.

DC

Hi One of Many,
I think the reason you right wingers don't have the enthusiasm the left does is because you're beginning to realize how badly you've mucked things up! Let's see, we're fighting a war we didn't need to fight, trillions in debt, the stock market is tubing it as we head toward a recession, massive deficits with more on the way, loss of basic freedoms, need I go on? The leading republican candidate, more of the same McCain, will likely continue with the madness if elected. Does he stand a chance? Could be, I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of the average American idiot.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

Hi All,
I found this little tidbit:
For example, if ice flow were to increase linearly, in step with global average temperature, the upper range of projected sea level rise by the year 2100 would be 19.2 to 31.6 inches (48-79 cm or 0.48-0.79 m). But current understanding of ice sheet dynamics is too limited to estimate such changes or to provide an upper limit to the amount by which sea level is likely to rise over this century.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureslc.html
Perhaps we could live with that. I don't know what it would do to countries like Holland or cities like New Orleans though.
I saw a thing on TV last night about the Yellowstone caldera. If that were to blow, all bets would be off.
A full-scale eruption of the Yellowstone caldera could result in millions of deaths locally and catastrophic climatic effects globally, but there is little indication that such an eruption is imminent[2]. However, the system is not yet completely understood, and the study of Yellowstone is ongoing. Geologists are closely monitoring the rise and fall of the Yellowstone Plateau, which averages +/- 1.5 cm yearly, as an indication of changes in magma chamber pressure.[3][4] Explosions of this magnitude "happen about every 600,000 years at Yellowstone," says Chuck Wicks of the U.S. Geological Survey, who has studied the possibilities in separate work. "And it's been about 620,000 years since the last super explosive eruption there."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
So it looks like it doesn't matter if it's man made or natural, we're doomed come what may.
Take care and rest well,
xyzdonna

[One of Many]

Hi One of Many,
I think the reason you right wingers don't have the enthusiasm the left does is because you're beginning to realize how badly you've mucked things up! Let's see, we're fighting a war we didn't need to fight, trillions in debt, the stock market is tubing it as we head toward a recession, massive deficits with more on the way, loss of basic freedoms, need I go on? The leading republican candidate, more of the same McCain, will likely continue with the madness if elected. Does he stand a chance? Could be, I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of the average American idiot.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Excuse me your denseness, but what in my post you quoted was used to attack you or wrap your side in a negative light? That applies only if you include yourself in that lump. You have proven that you isn't as smart as you thinks you are.

I only voted to put the best in office that fits my principles. If they muck things up, that is their responsibility alone.

Much of the world supported the war or the need for it. How it was handled is debatable. If and when the lesson of Nam returns, who will that result be blamed on. You and your ilk deny responsibility for the last lesson, what is going to change there?

Trillions of dollars in debt is a bi-partisan disaster which will only grow with the social programs some have made as campaign promises. I happen to agree with McCain on the tax cuts verses spending issue. That's about where it ends. The rest of his platform isn't conservative and thinly vailed as Republican. As Commander in Chief he is the only one qualified!

What freedoms have you lost? Private phone calls to terrorsits? LOL!

Massive debt as in the credit crunch is a result of liberal spending just like the government deficit. People that make bad investments then run to the nanny state for assistance to fix it do not get pitty from me.

DC

[xyzdonna]

The context of my position wasn't to argue the finer points of cannabinols in leaf form or how some choose to pick their poison. Any character that (fictional or otherwise) comes here espousing do or die government mandated pay to play toxic emissions as a means to correct GW while ignoring proof to the contrary is odd enough. Then with their hypocrisy in simulcast to purposeful intake of toxins for fun. Then become braggadocios with working the voting system to their advantage and complains of the current administrations elections. It just removes all credibility when it comes to posting derogatory labels against Conservative or Christian views in previous posts! In all honesty, this is way beyond selfish righteousness I could ever conjure an imagination for, let alone the type of personality to befriend without being constantly on guard.

Hi One of Many,
If I have correctly divined the meaning of what you just said you're referring to me and my view to anthropogenic global warming. I think you're trying to imply hypocrisy on the GW issue because I've smoked a joint, or had a couple of beers, or a cocktail? I'm afraid that juxtoposition eludes me. Your opinion of my credibility has never been high to start with, I doubt I could diminish it. As a group I find Christian conservatives to be suspicious of anyone who identifies themselves as being outside the group.

Quoting you:
Since you brought it up.....

Some women use the same freedom of choice argument for killing the unborn when there are other options that include personal responsibility of prevention. I only bring that into the picture for the consequences of unchecked freedom. Stupid is as stupid does. Wearing it as a badge of courage and pride is no excuse to set it free to flourish on its own questionable merits. Moderation is left on the doorstep to become a curse!

Suppose the teen that hypothetically helped meet someone's demise is stoned or influences the early death of a friend that uses it as a gateway drug. Will there be 70 years of evidence to back up your reasoning that it is perfectly safe? There are studies that show the reality, not just hype. Life is a gamble and that includes all links in that chain that that life touches. How it effect the person directly may or may not be that relevant.

Me:
Again, I'm not sure if I'm correctly interpreting what you're saying. Surly you're not suggesting that pot is a gateway drug?

Quoting you:
Self medicating for intentional inebriation/intoxication and having a beverage to enhance a meal or quench ones thirst do not even intersect. Personal responsibility and the average human mental condition is a bad combination IMHO. The psychological and extraneous effects often do not stop at one time or periodic use for all.

So let me consider some folks right to do what they please with their own body, money and life potential. Ignoring risks regardless if it is lawful or toxic poison. It is only a FUN and an enjoyable act of freedom if one can make it out the other end alive repeatedly? The side affects be damned, later on in life despite the other ailments that can befall you to exacerbate the quality of life from what we did while young and short sighted. Statistics can show the scenarios of either they become a ward of the state entitlements or dead at an early age when periodic just wouldn't do. The surviving preponderance may skate by to hype the tales of what they got away with in moderation........ throwing away precaution on those they influenced onto the same path. The dead can tell no tales of shoulda-coulda-woulda if only they'd seen the obvious a bit earlier in life.

Could it be that yee of little faith prefers "comfortably numb"?


Me:
Yes DC, too much alcohol can result in an early death or becoming a ward of the state. I haven't seen that happening with pot but I don't say it's impossible either. I have seen it happen with religious extremists though. Muslim fanatics or the people of Jonestown who drank the cool aid.

Take care,
xyzdonna

[jhowelb]

How so? Can you not read all the words? I gave you a choice, either you support prohibition or your condone the use of a mind-altering drug...ethanol.

Apparently you are incapable of perception, I support the rule of law. Alcohol is legal, the other stuff isn't.

BTW, I don't use alcohol either! I reject your choices!

[jhowelb]

Ok Riddle me this Batman. I take a seed I grow it and I harvest the plant. I dry the plant and I smoke it. I then empty the ashes back into the garden. All this happens at my house and never leaves the property. How is this a hazard to anyone? PLEASE TELL ME HOW?

You are taking the actions of some and lumping everyone into the pile. Once again ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC bars and alcohol should not exist. I don't want to be killed by a drunk driver but people DRINK at bars they DROVE too. If they want to stay home and get hammered more power to them. Your freedom requires bowing to the know nothings in government, mine is just plain freedom much less complicated as I don't try to change people into what I THINK they should be. Try it sometime you will find your life is really no different not worrying yourself with what everyone else is or isn't doing and your a lot more stress free. Why worry about that which will never change? You worry about you and I will worry about me how about that?

Bo

I'm not worried, not even mildly concerned. But clearly you are!
I will point you also to the rule of law. Without it we cannot exist as a society, everything would dissolve into chaos!

[jhowelb]

Hi jhowelb,
There was a time in this country when the rule of law required blacks to seat themselves at the back of buses and attend segregated schools. That law wasn't changed by people who obeyed it. Ditto with prohibition. There are some really bad drugs out there that do people a lot of damage and should be banned. Crack, methamphetemine and tobacco come to mind. People can misuse drugs that are relatively benign, like coffee. When used with restraint pot doesn't do much harm, a few beers are alright too you just have to monitor the quantity. Alcohol can get out of control for a lot of people.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Wxyz,
Wrong again! Changes to the law are always brought about by the law abiding, albeit sometimes wrong headedly.

The changes in civil rights you allude to were brought into being over a couple of centuries and while some protests coincided, they were not necessarily responsible for the change. Arizona made the change from segregated swimming at the municipal pool, schools, and theaters with no protests, no back lash and no violations of law BEFORE the Federal mandate. Hence civil society remained peaceful.

Among the scofflaws on the alcohol issue were such sterling examples of good citizenry as Alfonse Capone, which I'm beginning to get the impression that you have much more in common with than the rest of us.

Now when you bring crack, meth, horse and a host of other controlled substances into the argument you are speaking of truly evil and destructive behavior.

I do realize that all these words will be lost upon you as you, in all likelihood, will scarcely read them and if you do your sociopathic personality will reject them out of hand because "I want".

Again, we have places for folks like you.

[jhowelb]

Hi One of Many,
I think the reason you right wingers don't have the enthusiasm the left does is because you're beginning to realize how badly you've mucked things up! Let's see, we're fighting a war we didn't need to fight, trillions in debt, the stock market is tubing it as we head toward a recession, massive deficits with more on the way, loss of basic freedoms, need I go on? The leading republican candidate, more of the same McCain, will likely continue with the madness if elected. Does he stand a chance? Could be, I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of the average American idiot.
Take care,
xyzdonna

There you go, THINKING again! You know you are always wrong. That is one chore you should hire done for you.

[Geof]

Apparently you are incapable of perception, I support the rule of law. Alcohol is legal, the other stuff isn't.

BTW, I don't use alcohol either! I reject your choices!

Correct alcohol is legal, the other stuff isn't; I admire your perception. However, not too many decades ago alcohol was illegal, but eventually the law(s) prohibiting alcohol consumption were repealed. Obviously the Lawmakers back then decided Prohibition was not the way to go. Why now are Lawmakers so hung up on maintaining a set of laws against consumption of different substances when it is clear the so-called War on Drugs is not working. Why does Society waste so much money incarcerating people for doing no harm to others but only trangressing a law which supposedly is to protect them from themselves. And do not respond that they are breaking the law or stealing or other things like that; some people have been incarcerated because they were consuming cannabinols for medical purposes. Where is the benefit to Society as a whole from the War on Drugs, it certainly makes the criminal element richer, and leads to plenty of employment opportunities for enforcement personnel, but does it really solve the problem? Why should the government dictate life-style choices? You reject the concept that the government should dictate what type of vehicle you drive, you reject the concept that the government should infringe on your right to own firearms. What is so special about the area of what a person chooses to ingest?

[jhowelb]

Hi All,
I found this little tidbit:
............ the system is not yet completely understood,

The first really correct thing to come from your keyboard, carry that same precept forward into all these other subjects you espouse and we are getting somewhere!

[jhowelb]

Correct alcohol is legal, the other stuff isn't; I admire your perception. However, not too many decades ago alcohol was illegal, but eventually the law(s) prohibiting alcohol consumption were repealed. Obviously the Lawmakers back then decided Prohibition was not the way to go. Why now are Lawmakers so hung up on maintaining a set of laws against consumption of different substances when it is clear the so-called War on Drugs is not working. Why does Society waste so much money incarcerating people for doing no harm to others but only trangressing a law which supposedly is to protect them from themselves. And do not respond that they are breaking the law or stealing or other things like that; some people have been incarcerated because they were consuming cannabinols for medical purposes. Where is the benefit to Society as a whole from the War on Drugs, it certainly makes the criminal element richer, and leads to plenty of employment opportunities for enforcement personnel, but does it really solve the problem? Why should the government dictate life-style choices? You reject the concept that the government should dictate what type of vehicle you drive, you reject the concept that the government should infringe on your right to own firearms. What is so special about the area of what a person chooses to ingest?

Actually, Prohibition was over turned only because it was deemed at the time to be too expensive to enforce and because some greedy Democrat wanted to TAX it! But only after the main criminality surrounding it was crushed. No politician these days has the juevos to use those tools.

[DR-Motion]

Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

The above was written by a Great American law breaker who has a national holiday in his name:- Martin Luther King Jr.

Why is Marijuana Illegal?

http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com
A brief history of the criminalization of cannabis

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You'll also see that the history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with:

* Racism
* Fear
* Protection of Corporate Profits
* Yellow Journalism
* Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
* Personal Career Advancement and Greed

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.


For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It's not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it's been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600's, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900's.

America's first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law "ordering" all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other "must grow" laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp -- try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements - rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp "plantations" (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.

The Mexican Connection

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them.

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

Jazz and Assassins

In the eastern states, the "problem" was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong's "Muggles", Cab Calloway's "That Funny Reefer Man", Fats Waller's "Viper's Drag").

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."

Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the "assassins." Early stories of Marco Polo had told of "hasheesh-eaters" or hashashin, from which derived the term "assassin." In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler's garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler's wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.

By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: "Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp." Within a very short time, marijuana started being linked to violent behavior.

Alcohol Prohibition and Federal Approaches to Drug Prohibition

During this time, the United States was also dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws were passed without the general public's knowledge. National alcohol prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.

Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was passed, which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and cocaine.

The federal approach is important. It was considered at the time that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

At that time in our country's history, the judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of "local" affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then, both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).

Since drugs could not be outlawed at the federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the restriction. In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government, which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn't follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.

In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established -- the Federal Bureau of Narcotics -- and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.

Harry J. Anslinger

Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity -- a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn't be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.

Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. Some of his quotes regarding marijuana...

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

And he loved to pull out his own version of the "assassin" definition:

"In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"

Yellow Journalism

Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.

Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:

"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."

"By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."

And other nationwide columns...

"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."

"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."

Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.

This all set the stage for...

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress -- complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.

It was a remarkably short set of hearings.

The one fly in Anslinger's ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger's view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people's minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren't even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

"That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence."

Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:

The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.

Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.

After some further bantering...

The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:

The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.

That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.

And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.

The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

Member from upstate New York: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

Speaker Rayburn: "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

"Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

Member on the committee jumps up and says: "Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

The entire coverage in the New York Times: "President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions."

Anslinger as precursor to the Drug Czars

Anslinger was essentially the first Drug Czar. Even though the term didn't exist until William Bennett's position as director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go around demonizing drugs and drug users. Both had resources and a large public podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and others based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into squelching or downplaying any opposition views.

Anslinger even had the ability to circumvent the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie "Drug Addict," a 1946 documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping harsh marijuana laws.)

Anslinger had 37 years to solidify the propaganda and stifle opposition. The lies continued the entire time (although the stories would adjust -- the 21 year old Florida boy who killed his family of five got younger each time he told it). In 1961, he looked back at his efforts:

"Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or more marijuana "reefers." As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts.

I believe we did a thorough job, for the public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the roadsides."

After Anslinger

On a break from college in the 70s, I was visiting a church in rural Illinois. There in the literature racks in the back of the church was a lurid pamphlet about the evils of marijuana -- all the old reefer madness propaganda about how it caused insanity and murder. I approached the minister and said "You can't have this in your church. It's all lies, and the church shouldn't be about promoting lies." Fortunately, my dad believed me, and he had the material removed. He didn't even know how it got there. But without me speaking up, neither he nor the other members of the church had any reason NOT to believe what the pamphlet said. The propaganda machine had been that effective.

The narrative since then has been a continual litany of:

* Politicians wanting to appear tough on crime and passing tougher penalties
* Constant increases in spending on law enforcement and prisons
* Racist application of drug laws
* Taxpayer funded propaganda
* Stifling of opposition speech
* Political contributions from corporations that profit from marijuana being illegal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, etc.)

... but that's another whole story.

This account only scratches the surface of the story. If you want to know more about the history of marijuana, Harry Anslinger, and the saga of criminalization in the United States and elsewhere, visit some of the excellent links below. (All data and quotes for this piece came from these sources as well).

The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School. A Speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference.

THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION by Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW. VOLUME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6

The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine

The History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 By David F. Musto, M.D., New Haven, Conn. Originally published in Arch. Gen. Psychiat. Volume 26, February, 1972

The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco. History of Marihuana Legislation

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The history of how the Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the land.

Marijuana - The First Twelve Thousand Years by Ernest L. Abel, 1980

[jhowelb]

Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

The above was written by a Great American law breaker who has a national holiday in his name:- Martin Luther King Jr.

Why is Marijuana Illegal?

http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com
A brief history of the criminalization of cannabis

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You'll also see that the history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with:

* Racism
* Fear
* Protection of Corporate Profits
* Yellow Journalism
* Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
* Personal Career Advancement and Greed

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.


For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It's not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it's been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600's, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900's.

America's first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law "ordering" all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other "must grow" laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp -- try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements - rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp "plantations" (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.

The Mexican Connection

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them.

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

Jazz and Assassins

In the eastern states, the "problem" was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong's "Muggles", Cab Calloway's "That Funny Reefer Man", Fats Waller's "Viper's Drag").

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."

Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the "assassins." Early stories of Marco Polo had told of "hasheesh-eaters" or hashashin, from which derived the term "assassin." In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler's garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler's wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.

By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: "Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp." Within a very short time, marijuana started being linked to violent behavior.

Alcohol Prohibition and Federal Approaches to Drug Prohibition

During this time, the United States was also dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws were passed without the general public's knowledge. National alcohol prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.

Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was passed, which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and cocaine.

The federal approach is important. It was considered at the time that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

At that time in our country's history, the judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of "local" affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then, both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).

Since drugs could not be outlawed at the federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the restriction. In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government, which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn't follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.

In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established -- the Federal Bureau of Narcotics -- and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.

Harry J. Anslinger

Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity -- a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn't be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.

Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. Some of his quotes regarding marijuana...

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

And he loved to pull out his own version of the "assassin" definition:

"In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"

Yellow Journalism

Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.

Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:

"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."

"By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."

And other nationwide columns...

"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."

"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."

Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.

This all set the stage for...

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress -- complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.

It was a remarkably short set of hearings.

The one fly in Anslinger's ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger's view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people's minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren't even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

"That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence."

Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:

The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.

Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.

After some further bantering...

The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:

The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.

That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.

And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.

The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

Member from upstate New York: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

Speaker Rayburn: "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

"Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

Member on the committee jumps up and says: "Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

The entire coverage in the New York Times: "President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions."

Anslinger as precursor to the Drug Czars

Anslinger was essentially the first Drug Czar. Even though the term didn't exist until William Bennett's position as director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go around demonizing drugs and drug users. Both had resources and a large public podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and others based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into squelching or downplaying any opposition views.

Anslinger even had the ability to circumvent the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie "Drug Addict," a 1946 documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping harsh marijuana laws.)

Anslinger had 37 years to solidify the propaganda and stifle opposition. The lies continued the entire time (although the stories would adjust -- the 21 year old Florida boy who killed his family of five got younger each time he told it). In 1961, he looked back at his efforts:

"Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or more marijuana "reefers." As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts.

I believe we did a thorough job, for the public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the roadsides."

After Anslinger

On a break from college in the 70s, I was visiting a church in rural Illinois. There in the literature racks in the back of the church was a lurid pamphlet about the evils of marijuana -- all the old reefer madness propaganda about how it caused insanity and murder. I approached the minister and said "You can't have this in your church. It's all lies, and the church shouldn't be about promoting lies." Fortunately, my dad believed me, and he had the material removed. He didn't even know how it got there. But without me speaking up, neither he nor the other members of the church had any reason NOT to believe what the pamphlet said. The propaganda machine had been that effective.

The narrative since then has been a continual litany of:

* Politicians wanting to appear tough on crime and passing tougher penalties
* Constant increases in spending on law enforcement and prisons
* Racist application of drug laws
* Taxpayer funded propaganda
* Stifling of opposition speech
* Political contributions from corporations that profit from marijuana being illegal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, etc.)

... but that's another whole story.

This account only scratches the surface of the story. If you want to know more about the history of marijuana, Harry Anslinger, and the saga of criminalization in the United States and elsewhere, visit some of the excellent links below. (All data and quotes for this piece came from these sources as well).

The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School. A Speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference.

THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION by Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW. VOLUME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6

The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine

The History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 By David F. Musto, M.D., New Haven, Conn. Originally published in Arch. Gen. Psychiat. Volume 26, February, 1972

The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco. History of Marihuana Legislation

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The history of how the Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the land.

Marijuana - The First Twelve Thousand Years by Ernest L. Abel, 1980

absolute drivel.

[DR-Motion]

Legalize Marijuana Now Says Canadian Senate

Senators in Canada Want Pot Legalized Now

"Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and should be governed by the same sort of regulations", says the Canadian Senate Committee.

Senate Summary Report printable.pdf

Wednesday, September 4, 2002
By DARREN YOURK
Globe and Mail Update

Senate Committee Urges Legal Marijuana

The federal government should legalize the use of marijuana by adults, the Senate committee on Illegal Drugs recommended Wednesday in its final report.

The committee's more than 600 page report, tabled Wednesday, says that the current system of prohibition in Canada does not work and should be replaced by a regulated system that would focus on illegal trafficking, prevention programs and respecting individual and collective freedoms.

"In our opinion, Canadian society is ready for a responsible policy of cannabis regulation that complies with these basic principles," the report says.

The report, the result of a two-year study of public policy related to marijuana, also recommends that the federal government amend the controlled drugs and substances act so that it can declare an amnesty for any Canadians convicted of possession of the drug under current or past legislation.

"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," Progressive Conservative Senator Pierre Nolin, the committee chairman, said Wednesday at an Ottawa press conference.

The committee says that public opinion on marijuana is more liberal than it was a decade ago and that Canadians strongly support the use of the drug for medical purposes.

"This report is a unanimous one," Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said. "No one on the committee wants to see an increase in the use of cannabis. In fact, we believe that the recommendations you see in this report will ultimately result in a reduction of use of the drug.

"We think that the main accomplishment we'll see here is a reduction in the criminality associated with the drug, and we think that is a very valuable benefit."

The report also strongly urges the federal government to develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated national drug strategy. The committee is calling for a national adviser on psychoactive substances and dependencies to be created within the privy council.

"We really need to get our act together on a multilateral basis on our drug policy in general," Mr. Nolin said. "In many ways, prohibition is a copout."

It is not clear if the committee's recommendations will ever be adopted. There is broad support in Parliament for decriminalization of marijuana, but the Liberal government has not signalled whether it would introduce a bill calling for legalization.

"There is no need for great delays if the government agrees with us," Mr. Nolin said. "We hope that the government will immediately address many of our suggestions, particularly those related to medicinal marijuana."

With reports from Canadian Press

Canada Should Legalize Marijuana, Senate Committee Recommends

Canadian Press
Wednesday, September 04, 2002

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada should legalize the use of marijuana by adults, a Senate committee recommended Wednesday.

The special committee said the current system of prohibition doesn't work and should be replaced by a regulated system, perhaps like that used for alcohol. "Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, the committee chair.

The committee also recommended amnesty for anyone with a criminal record for possessing pot.

An estimated 600,000 Canadians have been convicted of simple cannabis possession.

The report follows a two year study of public policy related to marijuana.

It's not clear if the committee's recommendations will ever be adopted. There is broad support in Parliament for decriminalization of marijuana, but the Liberal government has not signalled whether it will introduce a bill to do that.

Highlights of a Senate committee report Wednesday recommending that Canada legalize the use of marijuana and hashish:

* Marijuana and hashish should come under a regulatory system for production and sale under licence for legal use by any Canadian resident over 16.
* Looser rules for the use of medical marijuana should provide easier access.
* The law should be changed for those who drive after using both alcohol and marijuana, with blood-alcohol limits lowered to .04 per cent in such cases.
* The government should erase the criminal records of 300,000 to 600,000 Canadians convicted of simple possession of marijuana.
* The government should appoint a national adviser on psychoactive substances.
* The government should call a conference of the provinces, municipalities and other interested parties to set the ground rules for legal marijuana.
* The government should finance research on drugs and on prevention and treatment programs, financed by taxes on the sale of legal marijuana.

Facts about marijuana:

What is it? Dried leaves, flowers and stems of the hemp plant from the genus cannabis. It contains tetrahydrocannibol (THC) which can produce an intoxicating sensation when ingested.

How is it used? Leaves and the concentrated resin known as hashish are usually smoked.

How many people use it? A new Senate committee report estimates as many as two million Canadians have used cannabis in the last year and as many as 100,000 use it daily. Police say as much as 800 tonnes of cannabis circulates in Canada each year.

Justice issues:

* Cannabis was outlawed in 1923, amid what the Senate report called a "panic" over drugs.
* About half of the 90,000 drug incidents reported each year involve cannabis and up to 600,000 people have criminal records for simple possession.

Cost of drug enforcement runs at $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year, with a third of that related to cannabis.

Effects:

* The Senate report said cannabis use can cause short-term memory loss, loss of co-ordination and concentration, but the effects wear off.
* High-doses or first-time use can also cause anxiety, disorientation, vomiting, even convulsions.

Other names:

* Pot, dope, Mary Jane, ganja, hemp, reefer, smoke, leaf, herb.

Pot Less Harmful Than Alcohol: Senate Report

Wednesday, September 4, 2002
Written by CBC News Online staff

OTTAWA - Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and should be governed by the same sort of regulations, says a Senate committee.

In its final report, released on Wednesday, the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs says the government should make smoking pot legal, and should wipe clean the records of anyone convicted of possession.

"In many ways prohibition is a cop-out," said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, chair of the committee. He said drug policy should focus on harm reduction, prevention and treatment.

Marijuana has been illegal in Canada since 1923. About 20,000 people are arrested annually on marijuana-related charges.

That approach, the report says, has been ineffective in reducing use.

Canadians should be allowed to "choose whether to consume or not in security," Nolin told a news conference Wednesday morning.

"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," he said.

The Canadian Police Association (CPA) rejected that argument.

In a news conference Wednesday afternoon, CPA executive officer David Griffin said marijuana combines the mind-altering effects of alcohol with the risk of cancer from smoking.

Under the report's guidelines, marijuana use would be restricted to adults, and criminal law would still apply to producing and selling it.

Griffin said the CPA would fight any efforts to legalize or decriminalize marijuana or other drugs.

Senator Colin Kenny noted the committee unanimously supports the report and all its recommendations.

The committee doesn't condone the use of marijuana or other drugs, Kenny said. "We believe the recommendations you see in this report will ultimately result in a reduction of use."

Since it was struck in March 2001, the committee held 39 meetings, including town hall meetings in communities across the country, and heard from more than 100 witnesses from Canada and abroad.

The committee received 23 reports and looked at summaries of work done in other countries. It took into account Canada's international obligations and the approaches other countries take to drug policy.

The conclusions drawn are stark. "We really need to get our act together on a multi-lateral basis on our drug policy in general," Nolin said. "Canada is not even close to doing well enough."

In particular, the committee wants the government to deal quickly with issues surrounding medical use of marijuana.

Advocates of legalizing marijuana say the report goes much farther than they expected, and would address some of the real problems associated with drug trade.

"Our current drug laws fund organized crime, they fund terrorist groups around the world," Eugene Oscapella, executive director of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, told CBC Newsworld.

"Our policies that we build around this drug are far more harmful than the drug itself."

Here is the official committee press release:

NEWS RELEASE

The Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs

Senate Committee Recommends Legalization of Cannabis

OTTAWA
September 4, 2002

The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs today released its final report on cannabis.

In an exhaustive and comprehensive two-year study of public policy related to marijuana, the Special Committee found that the drug should be legalized.

The 600 plus page Senate report is a result of rigorous research, analysis and extensive public hearings in Ottawa and communities throughout Canada with experts and citizens.

"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue", said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, Chair of the Special Committee, in a news conference today in Ottawa.

"Indeed, domestic and international experts and Canadians from every walk of life told us loud and clear that we should not be imposing criminal records on users or unduly prohibiting personal use of cannabis."

"At the same time, make no mistake, we are not endorsing cannabis use for recreational consumption. Whether or not an individual uses marijuana should be a personal choice that is not subject to criminal penalties."

"But we have come to the conclusion that, as a drug, it should be regulated by the State much as we do for wine and beer, hence our preference for legalization over decriminalization."

Wednesday, September 4, 2002

Legalize Marijuana, Senate Committee Says

By DARREN YOURK
Globe and Mail Update

The federal government should legalize the use of marijuana by adults, the Senate committee on Illegal Drugs recommended Wednesday in its final report.

The committee's report, tabled Wednesday, says that the current system of prohibition in Canada does not work and should be replaced by a regulated system that would focus on illegal trafficking, prevention programs and respecting individual and collective freedoms.

"In our opinion, Canadian society is ready for a responsible policy of cannabis regulation that complies with these basic principles," the report says.

The report recommends that the federal government amend the controlled drugs and substances act so that it can declare an amnesty for any Canadians convicted of possession of the drug under current or past legislation.

"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," Progressive Conservative Senator Pierre Nolin, the committee chairman, said Wednesday at an Ottawa press conference.

The Canadian Police Association (CPA) responded angrily to the committee's recommendations, calling them a "back to school present for drug pushers."

CPA Executive Officer David Griffin said his association will actively oppose efforts to decriminalize or legalize illicit drugs except in situations where the drugs have been medically prescribed.

"There are too many politicians playing scientist in this case," Mr. Griffin said at a press conference in Ottawa. "...Today's report ignores countless studies about the harmful effects of marijuana, particularly with respects to Canada's children and young people."

The committee's report says that public opinion on marijuana is more liberal than it was a decade ago and that Canadians strongly support the use of the drug for medical purposes.

"This report is a unanimous one," Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said. "No one on the committee wants to see an increase in the use of cannabis. In fact, we believe that the recommendations you see in this report will ultimately result in a reduction of use of the drug.

"We think that the main accomplishment we'll see here is a reduction in the criminality associated with the drug, and we think that is a very valuable benefit."

Mr. Griffin said a perceived tolerance for marijuana by community leaders is sending confusing and conflicting messages to Canada's youth.

"Canada's struggle against drugs is not being lost on our streets," he said. "It is being lost in the boardrooms of our nation."

"Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal — drugs are illegal because they're dangerous."

The report also strongly urges the federal government to develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated national drug strategy. The committee is calling for a national adviser on psychoactive substances and dependencies to be created within the Privy Council.

"We really need to get our act together on a multilateral basis on our drug policy in general," Mr. Nolin said. "In many ways, prohibition is a cop-out."

It is not clear if the committee's recommendations will ever be adopted. There is broad support in Parliament for decriminalization of marijuana, but the Liberal government has not signaled whether it would introduce a bill calling for legalization.

"There is no need for great delays if the government agrees with us," Mr. Nolin said. "We hope that the government will immediately address many of our suggestions, particularly those related to medicinal marijuana."

Health Minister Anne McLellan, who spoke with CBC Newsworld on Wednesday afternoon, said that she had not seen the Senate report yet.

"I told him [Mr. Nolin] very clearly that I will take seriously those recommendations that deal directly with my department. It's up to my colleagues, the Auditor-General and the Minister of Justice, to make any policy recommendations to cabinet and to the government around legalization."

She said she still would like to see the benefits and the adverse effects of the drug outlined.

Taking the High Road

Thursday, September 5, 2002
from the Globe and Mail
By WILLIAM JOHNSON

Canada is on the map. Yesterday's luminous but explosive report of the Senate committee on illegal drugs will be heard like a cannon shot across the world.

In a unanimous judgment, nine experienced senators told Canadians that cannabis (a.k.a. hemp, pot, hashish, marijuana) should be made legal in this country and that it should be readily purchasable by all Canadian residents over 16, who would also be authorized to cultivate it for their personal use. Commercial cultivation and distribution to the public would be authorized under licence, according to conditions set by federal, provincial and municipal governments.

Moreover, an amnesty should be declared for all who've been convicted of simple possession. Pending charges for possession would be dropped. Those in prison would be freed. The estimated 600,000 Canadians who now carry a criminal record for possession would have their slates wiped clean.

These recommendations, if enacted, would make Canada the only civilized country on Earth to rescind entirely the legal prohibition against marijuana. Other countries, including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Spain, Switzerland and Australia, have instituted regimes of tolerating what is still illegal, or reducing penalties to the level of minor infractions. But none has placed cannabis in a category similar to that of alcohol.

The senators concluded that a regime of "tolerance" would merely institutionalize hypocrisy. It wouldn't end control of production and distribution by criminal gangs; it wouldn't enforce standards of safety or limit the strength of the psychotropic ingredient. The senators recommend a maximum THC content of 13 per cent for recreational use, but no limit for therapeutic use.

Their report, in five volumes, is almost certainly the most comprehensive survey of available knowledge on cannabis, including history, law, epidemiology, pharmacology and international comparisons.

Two sets of statistics were particularly interesting. Research in Canada indicates that, in the previous year, 10 per cent of Canadians over 18 have tried cannabis. But, among those 12 to 17, the proportion was 40 per cent -- four times as high, for an estimated one million youngsters. Marijuana is the drug primarily of teenies.

Second interesting figure: More than 25,000 charges for possession of cannabis are laid each year. Enforcing the prohibition costs Canada -- in policing, courts and prisons -- an estimated $1-billion. Couldn't that money be better spent, say, in complying with the Kyoto Protocol?

The report will challenge governments, enlighten open-minded politicians and the public, send some pious souls scuttling for holy water to sprinkle on Satan's own weed, and surely unhinge police crusaders for prohibition. What cautionary ghost stories will they now tell the youngsters when they go into the schools to scare them (ineffectually) from trying pot?

It was 32 years ago that another body, the Le Dain commission, did a thorough investigation and recommended: "No one should be liable to imprisonment for simple possession of a psychotropic drug for non-medical purposes." That wise counsel remained a dead letter because timorous politicians feared that their superstitious constituents would turn against them if they decriminalized pot.

Will we have the wisdom, at last, to exorcise our Canadian version of the Inquisition? The Senate, when it votes on this report, must put its full moral authority behind its recommendations. And let the House of Commons, in a free vote, lead the world toward a new age of enlightenment on drugs.

SENATORS WOULD LEGALIZE POT

Thursday, September 5, 2002
from Hamilton Spectator (CN ON)
by Peter Van Harten

Government Will Take Its Time In Deciding On Committee's Controversial Recommendation

A Senate committee says anyone over the age of 16 should be allowed to use marijuana without fear of criminal prosecution.

The committee's recommendation to legalize pot smoking immediately ignited a controversy when it was released yesterday.

Marijuana advocates are lighting up to celebrate the senators urging the government to lighten up on illegal drug use.

"I'm surprised and delighted they listened to us," says Hamilton artist Wayne Phillips. "They are usually thought of as a bunch of stodgy, elite politicians."

That observation might explain Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's reserved reaction. While admitting the government must evolve with society, he would not endorse the senators' report. He will wait for suggestions, expected this fall, from a Commons committee looking into drug uses.

The country's police chiefs, also were guarded in their response to the senators' report.

Hamilton Police Chief Ken Robertson wants time to read the Senate committee report before he comments on its recommendations, which go further than even drug-tolerant countries such as the Netherlands.

Robertson and other police chiefs favour the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana. But the Senate committee's release yesterday goes beyond decriminalization and surprised police authorities by calling for the actual legalization of cannabis.

The committee recommended the drug be regulated, controlled and taxed for use by adults, not unlike beer and wine. Tobacco companies should not be eligible to be suppliers, it said.

David Griffin of the Canadian Police Association says the committee's findings are "nothing more than a back-to-school gift for drug pushers."

Griffin says the committee has spent millions of dollars travelling the globe in search of witnesses willing to support its theory that smoking pot is safer than drinking alcohol.

The Senate committee reports that needed funds and resources are wasted in policing and prosecuting drug possession and that prohibition has drawn organized criminal elements.

It rejected the "gateway" view that cannabis use leads to the use of harder drugs.

Committee chairman Senator Pierre Claude Nolin says scientific evidence indicates marijuana is less harmful than alcohol.

He says using pot should be "a personal choice" that does not result in criminal convictions.

The Senate committee also calls for an amnesty for anyone convicted in the past of possession of marijuana.

Hamilton's most vocal and flamboyant exponents of marijuana use, Michael Baldasaro and Walter Tucker, want more than an amnesty.

"There should be compensation for all the lives they have destroyed with the prosecution of cannabis use," Tucker says.

The two men are ministers with the Church of the Universe which administers marijuana as a sacrament and the drug is described by Baldasaro as harmless "as the potato."

Hamilton artist Phillips, who uses the actual leaves of cannabis plants in his artwork, says the recommendations exceeded his expectations of the senators.

But he's a downer on whether their recommendations will ever be implemented by politicians.

"This is going to fall on the deafest of ears," he says. "It will collect dust on the shelves just like the Le Dain report ( which recommended decriminalization 30 years ago )."

He feels that Canadian politicians will be intimidated by the United States which uses its hardline war on drugs approach as part of an agenda to dominate other countries.

"The recommendations come as manna from heaven but ultimately they don't mean anything," he says.

He's impressed, however, that the senators took an honest look at the issue and responded to the wishes of Canadians for a more understanding approach to drug use.

Phillips says he suffers from medical conditions that are alleviated with cannabis use. But he doesn't qualify for a medical exemption from the drug laws because of the stringent conditions imposed by Health Canada.

Burlington medical marijuana user Alison Myrden -- a former corrections officer who suffers from multiple sclerosis -- does have an exemption for daily legal use of cannabis to relieve constant facial pain from the disease.

She welcomes the Senate recommendation for speedier and more compassionate approvals for medicinal use and for a controlled supply.

Currently, there is no legal controlled source for cannabis. Family members have to get marijuana for her from pushers at exorbitant prices.

Myrden worries the ongoing battle being fought by users who take marijuana for medicinal reasons will be sidetracked now as the country debates legalization for all.

"This is long overdue but all those people who are sick and suffering and dying can't afford to be lost in the shuffle. They have fought too hard."

Medical marijuana users need a supply of the drug now and not a national debate, she says.

She is involved in a court challenge against the laws because there is no available legal supply.

A regulated approach with licenced suppliers, as advocated by the Senate committee, would eliminate the fear and risk of arrest for medical users, she says. "Whether it is legalized for everyone in the country is up to the politicians but we can't forget the sick people who need it now."

All eyes will be on Canada to see whether it provides new direction in its approach to drug use.

"The world is watching and waiting to see if Canada breaks new ground," she says.

Other highlights of the report recommending legalizing marijuana and hashish:

* Marijuana and hashish should come under a regulatory system for production and sale under licence for legal use by any Canadian resident over 16.
* Looser rules for the use of medical marijuana access.
* The law should be changed for those who drive after using both alcohol and marijuana, with blood-alcohol limits lowered to .04 per cent in such cases.
* The government should erase the criminal records of 300,000 to 600,000 Canadians convicted of simple possession of marijuana.
* The government should appoint a national adviser on psychoactive substances.
* The government should call a conference of the provinces, municipalities and other interested parties to set the ground rules for legal marijuana.
* The government should finance research on drugs and on prevention and treatment programs, financed by taxes on the sale of legal marijuana.

[DR-Motion]

Global Warming is propaganda, Reefer Madness is propaganda.

Global Warming is a natural cycle, Cannabis is a natural herb

[Bowman]

Face it you can not debate with someone so thick headed they can't see the simple differences. they have to make wide sweeping generalizations and bring in all sorts of things that have no place in the debate at hand.

Bottom line. I don't give a crap what you or any politicians think and I will do as I please so long as I damn well please. You know just like the cops and politicians do every day.

I am not scared of anything you are. You come up with one wrong justification after another for why they should remain illegal. If your debating Ferrari's don't start talking about Toyota's. But there lies the problem there si no debating those that would force their will on you since they know they are right and your wrong.

BTW I am neither Rep or Dem, they both suck. I am for freedom plain and simple and no cop or politicians are needed for me to have that, what I need to have that is for them to go away. I will take care of myself just like I do now.

You might have more ground to back you up if your profession wasn't so corrupt in and of itself. It doesn't lend much to your side of the debate when you want to lock up pot smokers but refuse to lock up cops and turn an eye to their illegal activities in the name of the Thin Blue Line.

I am done with this since as usual arguing with a stump will get you nowhere fast. Even showing the decade after decade of failure and they refuse to open their eyes. Drink some more koolaid it will help aid your delusions of granduer.

Bo

[jhowelb]

............Bottom line. I don't give a crap what you or any politicians think and I will do as I please so long as I damn well please. You know just like the cops and politicians do every day.
Bo

A REAL ANARCHIST! OR JUST ANOTHER DEMOCRAT?

[jhowelb]

Legalize Marijuana Now Says Canadian Senate

Senators in Canada Want Pot Legalized Now

"Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and should be governed by the same sort of regulations", says the Canadian Senate Committee.

Senate Summary Report printable.pdf

Wednesday, September 4, 2002
By DARREN YOURK
Globe and Mail Update

Senate Committee Urges Legal Marijuana

The federal government should legalize the use of marijuana by adults, the Senate committee on Illegal Drugs recommended Wednesday in its final report.

The committee's more than 600 page report, tabled Wednesday, says that the current system of prohibition in Canada does not work and should be replaced by a regulated system that would focus on illegal trafficking, prevention programs and respecting individual and collective freedoms.

"In our opinion, Canadian society is ready for a responsible policy of cannabis regulation that complies with these basic principles," the report says.

The report, the result of a two-year study of public policy related to marijuana, also recommends that the federal government amend the controlled drugs and substances act so that it can declare an amnesty for any Canadians convicted of possession of the drug under current or past legislation.

"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," Progressive Conservative Senator Pierre Nolin, the committee chairman, said Wednesday at an Ottawa press conference.

The committee says that public opinion on marijuana is more liberal than it was a decade ago and that Canadians strongly support the use of the drug for medical purposes.

"This report is a unanimous one," Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said. "No one on the committee wants to see an increase in the use of cannabis. In fact, we believe that the recommendations you see in this report will ultimately result in a reduction of use of the drug.

"We think that the main accomplishment we'll see here is a reduction in the criminality associated with the drug, and we think that is a very valuable benefit."

The report also strongly urges the federal government to develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated national drug strategy. The committee is calling for a national adviser on psychoactive substances and dependencies to be created within the privy council.

"We really need to get our act together on a multilateral basis on our drug policy in general," Mr. Nolin said. "In many ways, prohibition is a copout."

It is not clear if the committee's recommendations will ever be adopted. There is broad support in Parliament for decriminalization of marijuana, but the Liberal government has not signalled whether it would introduce a bill calling for legalization.

"There is no need for great delays if the government agrees with us," Mr. Nolin said. "We hope that the government will immediately address many of our suggestions, particularly those related to medicinal marijuana."

With reports from Canadian Press

Canada Should Legalize Marijuana, Senate Committee Recommends

Canadian Press
Wednesday, September 04, 2002

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada should legalize the use of marijuana by adults, a Senate committee recommended Wednesday.

The special committee said the current system of prohibition doesn't work and should be replaced by a regulated system, perhaps like that used for alcohol. "Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, the committee chair.

The committee also recommended amnesty for anyone with a criminal record for possessing pot.

An estimated 600,000 Canadians have been convicted of simple cannabis possession.

The report follows a two year study of public policy related to marijuana.

It's not clear if the committee's recommendations will ever be adopted. There is broad support in Parliament for decriminalization of marijuana, but the Liberal government has not signalled whether it will introduce a bill to do that.

Highlights of a Senate committee report Wednesday recommending that Canada legalize the use of marijuana and hashish:

* Marijuana and hashish should come under a regulatory system for production and sale under licence for legal use by any Canadian resident over 16.
* Looser rules for the use of medical marijuana should provide easier access.
* The law should be changed for those who drive after using both alcohol and marijuana, with blood-alcohol limits lowered to .04 per cent in such cases.
* The government should erase the criminal records of 300,000 to 600,000 Canadians convicted of simple possession of marijuana.
* The government should appoint a national adviser on psychoactive substances.
* The government should call a conference of the provinces, municipalities and other interested parties to set the ground rules for legal marijuana.
* The government should finance research on drugs and on prevention and treatment programs, financed by taxes on the sale of legal marijuana.

Facts about marijuana:

What is it? Dried leaves, flowers and stems of the hemp plant from the genus cannabis. It contains tetrahydrocannibol (THC) which can produce an intoxicating sensation when ingested.

How is it used? Leaves and the concentrated resin known as hashish are usually smoked.

How many people use it? A new Senate committee report estimates as many as two million Canadians have used cannabis in the last year and as many as 100,000 use it daily. Police say as much as 800 tonnes of cannabis circulates in Canada each year.

Justice issues:

* Cannabis was outlawed in 1923, amid what the Senate report called a "panic" over drugs.
* About half of the 90,000 drug incidents reported each year involve cannabis and up to 600,000 people have criminal records for simple possession.

Cost of drug enforcement runs at $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year, with a third of that related to cannabis.

Effects:

* The Senate report said cannabis use can cause short-term memory loss, loss of co-ordination and concentration, but the effects wear off.
* High-doses or first-time use can also cause anxiety, disorientation, vomiting, even convulsions.

Other names:

* Pot, dope, Mary Jane, ganja, hemp, reefer, smoke, leaf, herb.

Pot Less Harmful Than Alcohol: Senate Report

Wednesday, September 4, 2002
Written by CBC News Online staff

OTTAWA - Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and should be governed by the same sort of regulations, says a Senate committee.

In its final report, released on Wednesday, the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs says the government should make smoking pot legal, and should wipe clean the records of anyone convicted of possession.

"In many ways prohibition is a cop-out," said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, chair of the committee. He said drug policy should focus on harm reduction, prevention and treatment.

Marijuana has been illegal in Canada since 1923. About 20,000 people are arrested annually on marijuana-related charges.

That approach, the report says, has been ineffective in reducing use.

Canadians should be allowed to "choose whether to consume or not in security," Nolin told a news conference Wednesday morning.

"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," he said.

The Canadian Police Association (CPA) rejected that argument.

In a news conference Wednesday afternoon, CPA executive officer David Griffin said marijuana combines the mind-altering effects of alcohol with the risk of cancer from smoking.

Under the report's guidelines, marijuana use would be restricted to adults, and criminal law would still apply to producing and selling it.

Griffin said the CPA would fight any efforts to legalize or decriminalize marijuana or other drugs.

Senator Colin Kenny noted the committee unanimously supports the report and all its recommendations.

The committee doesn't condone the use of marijuana or other drugs, Kenny said. "We believe the recommendations you see in this report will ultimately result in a reduction of use."

Since it was struck in March 2001, the committee held 39 meetings, including town hall meetings in communities across the country, and heard from more than 100 witnesses from Canada and abroad.

The committee received 23 reports and looked at summaries of work done in other countries. It took into account Canada's international obligations and the approaches other countries take to drug policy.

The conclusions drawn are stark. "We really need to get our act together on a multi-lateral basis on our drug policy in general," Nolin said. "Canada is not even close to doing well enough."

In particular, the committee wants the government to deal quickly with issues surrounding medical use of marijuana.

Advocates of legalizing marijuana say the report goes much farther than they expected, and would address some of the real problems associated with drug trade.

"Our current drug laws fund organized crime, they fund terrorist groups around the world," Eugene Oscapella, executive director of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, told CBC Newsworld.

"Our policies that we build around this drug are far more harmful than the drug itself."

Here is the official committee press release:

NEWS RELEASE

The Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs

Senate Committee Recommends Legalization of Cannabis

OTTAWA
September 4, 2002

The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs today released its final report on cannabis.

In an exhaustive and comprehensive two-year study of public policy related to marijuana, the Special Committee found that the drug should be legalized.

The 600 plus page Senate report is a result of rigorous research, analysis and extensive public hearings in Ottawa and communities throughout Canada with experts and citizens.

"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue", said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, Chair of the Special Committee, in a news conference today in Ottawa.

"Indeed, domestic and international experts and Canadians from every walk of life told us loud and clear that we should not be imposing criminal records on users or unduly prohibiting personal use of cannabis."

"At the same time, make no mistake, we are not endorsing cannabis use for recreational consumption. Whether or not an individual uses marijuana should be a personal choice that is not subject to criminal penalties."

"But we have come to the conclusion that, as a drug, it should be regulated by the State much as we do for wine and beer, hence our preference for legalization over decriminalization."

Wednesday, September 4, 2002

Legalize Marijuana, Senate Committee Says

By DARREN YOURK
Globe and Mail Update

The federal government should legalize the use of marijuana by adults, the Senate committee on Illegal Drugs recommended Wednesday in its final report.

The committee's report, tabled Wednesday, says that the current system of prohibition in Canada does not work and should be replaced by a regulated system that would focus on illegal trafficking, prevention programs and respecting individual and collective freedoms.

"In our opinion, Canadian society is ready for a responsible policy of cannabis regulation that complies with these basic principles," the report says.

The report recommends that the federal government amend the controlled drugs and substances act so that it can declare an amnesty for any Canadians convicted of possession of the drug under current or past legislation.

"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," Progressive Conservative Senator Pierre Nolin, the committee chairman, said Wednesday at an Ottawa press conference.

The Canadian Police Association (CPA) responded angrily to the committee's recommendations, calling them a "back to school present for drug pushers."

CPA Executive Officer David Griffin said his association will actively oppose efforts to decriminalize or legalize illicit drugs except in situations where the drugs have been medically prescribed.

"There are too many politicians playing scientist in this case," Mr. Griffin said at a press conference in Ottawa. "...Today's report ignores countless studies about the harmful effects of marijuana, particularly with respects to Canada's children and young people."

The committee's report says that public opinion on marijuana is more liberal than it was a decade ago and that Canadians strongly support the use of the drug for medical purposes.

"This report is a unanimous one," Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said. "No one on the committee wants to see an increase in the use of cannabis. In fact, we believe that the recommendations you see in this report will ultimately result in a reduction of use of the drug.

"We think that the main accomplishment we'll see here is a reduction in the criminality associated with the drug, and we think that is a very valuable benefit."

Mr. Griffin said a perceived tolerance for marijuana by community leaders is sending confusing and conflicting messages to Canada's youth.

"Canada's struggle against drugs is not being lost on our streets," he said. "It is being lost in the boardrooms of our nation."

"Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal — drugs are illegal because they're dangerous."

The report also strongly urges the federal government to develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated national drug strategy. The committee is calling for a national adviser on psychoactive substances and dependencies to be created within the Privy Council.

"We really need to get our act together on a multilateral basis on our drug policy in general," Mr. Nolin said. "In many ways, prohibition is a cop-out."

It is not clear if the committee's recommendations will ever be adopted. There is broad support in Parliament for decriminalization of marijuana, but the Liberal government has not signaled whether it would introduce a bill calling for legalization.

"There is no need for great delays if the government agrees with us," Mr. Nolin said. "We hope that the government will immediately address many of our suggestions, particularly those related to medicinal marijuana."

Health Minister Anne McLellan, who spoke with CBC Newsworld on Wednesday afternoon, said that she had not seen the Senate report yet.

"I told him [Mr. Nolin] very clearly that I will take seriously those recommendations that deal directly with my department. It's up to my colleagues, the Auditor-General and the Minister of Justice, to make any policy recommendations to cabinet and to the government around legalization."

She said she still would like to see the benefits and the adverse effects of the drug outlined.

Taking the High Road

Thursday, September 5, 2002
from the Globe and Mail
By WILLIAM JOHNSON

Canada is on the map. Yesterday's luminous but explosive report of the Senate committee on illegal drugs will be heard like a cannon shot across the world.

In a unanimous judgment, nine experienced senators told Canadians that cannabis (a.k.a. hemp, pot, hashish, marijuana) should be made legal in this country and that it should be readily purchasable by all Canadian residents over 16, who would also be authorized to cultivate it for their personal use. Commercial cultivation and distribution to the public would be authorized under licence, according to conditions set by federal, provincial and municipal governments.

Moreover, an amnesty should be declared for all who've been convicted of simple possession. Pending charges for possession would be dropped. Those in prison would be freed. The estimated 600,000 Canadians who now carry a criminal record for possession would have their slates wiped clean.

These recommendations, if enacted, would make Canada the only civilized country on Earth to rescind entirely the legal prohibition against marijuana. Other countries, including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Spain, Switzerland and Australia, have instituted regimes of tolerating what is still illegal, or reducing penalties to the level of minor infractions. But none has placed cannabis in a category similar to that of alcohol.

The senators concluded that a regime of "tolerance" would merely institutionalize hypocrisy. It wouldn't end control of production and distribution by criminal gangs; it wouldn't enforce standards of safety or limit the strength of the psychotropic ingredient. The senators recommend a maximum THC content of 13 per cent for recreational use, but no limit for therapeutic use.

Their report, in five volumes, is almost certainly the most comprehensive survey of available knowledge on cannabis, including history, law, epidemiology, pharmacology and international comparisons.

Two sets of statistics were particularly interesting. Research in Canada indicates that, in the previous year, 10 per cent of Canadians over 18 have tried cannabis. But, among those 12 to 17, the proportion was 40 per cent -- four times as high, for an estimated one million youngsters. Marijuana is the drug primarily of teenies.

Second interesting figure: More than 25,000 charges for possession of cannabis are laid each year. Enforcing the prohibition costs Canada -- in policing, courts and prisons -- an estimated $1-billion. Couldn't that money be better spent, say, in complying with the Kyoto Protocol?

The report will challenge governments, enlighten open-minded politicians and the public, send some pious souls scuttling for holy water to sprinkle on Satan's own weed, and surely unhinge police crusaders for prohibition. What cautionary ghost stories will they now tell the youngsters when they go into the schools to scare them (ineffectually) from trying pot?

It was 32 years ago that another body, the Le Dain commission, did a thorough investigation and recommended: "No one should be liable to imprisonment for simple possession of a psychotropic drug for non-medical purposes." That wise counsel remained a dead letter because timorous politicians feared that their superstitious constituents would turn against them if they decriminalized pot.

Will we have the wisdom, at last, to exorcise our Canadian version of the Inquisition? The Senate, when it votes on this report, must put its full moral authority behind its recommendations. And let the House of Commons, in a free vote, lead the world toward a new age of enlightenment on drugs.

SENATORS WOULD LEGALIZE POT

Thursday, September 5, 2002
from Hamilton Spectator (CN ON)
by Peter Van Harten

Government Will Take Its Time In Deciding On Committee's Controversial Recommendation

A Senate committee says anyone over the age of 16 should be allowed to use marijuana without fear of criminal prosecution.

The committee's recommendation to legalize pot smoking immediately ignited a controversy when it was released yesterday.

Marijuana advocates are lighting up to celebrate the senators urging the government to lighten up on illegal drug use.

"I'm surprised and delighted they listened to us," says Hamilton artist Wayne Phillips. "They are usually thought of as a bunch of stodgy, elite politicians."

That observation might explain Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's reserved reaction. While admitting the government must evolve with society, he would not endorse the senators' report. He will wait for suggestions, expected this fall, from a Commons committee looking into drug uses.

The country's police chiefs, also were guarded in their response to the senators' report.

Hamilton Police Chief Ken Robertson wants time to read the Senate committee report before he comments on its recommendations, which go further than even drug-tolerant countries such as the Netherlands.

Robertson and other police chiefs favour the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana. But the Senate committee's release yesterday goes beyond decriminalization and surprised police authorities by calling for the actual legalization of cannabis.

The committee recommended the drug be regulated, controlled and taxed for use by adults, not unlike beer and wine. Tobacco companies should not be eligible to be suppliers, it said.

David Griffin of the Canadian Police Association says the committee's findings are "nothing more than a back-to-school gift for drug pushers."

Griffin says the committee has spent millions of dollars travelling the globe in search of witnesses willing to support its theory that smoking pot is safer than drinking alcohol.

The Senate committee reports that needed funds and resources are wasted in policing and prosecuting drug possession and that prohibition has drawn organized criminal elements.

It rejected the "gateway" view that cannabis use leads to the use of harder drugs.

Committee chairman Senator Pierre Claude Nolin says scientific evidence indicates marijuana is less harmful than alcohol.

He says using pot should be "a personal choice" that does not result in criminal convictions.

The Senate committee also calls for an amnesty for anyone convicted in the past of possession of marijuana.

Hamilton's most vocal and flamboyant exponents of marijuana use, Michael Baldasaro and Walter Tucker, want more than an amnesty.

"There should be compensation for all the lives they have destroyed with the prosecution of cannabis use," Tucker says.

The two men are ministers with the Church of the Universe which administers marijuana as a sacrament and the drug is described by Baldasaro as harmless "as the potato."

Hamilton artist Phillips, who uses the actual leaves of cannabis plants in his artwork, says the recommendations exceeded his expectations of the senators.

But he's a downer on whether their recommendations will ever be implemented by politicians.

"This is going to fall on the deafest of ears," he says. "It will collect dust on the shelves just like the Le Dain report ( which recommended decriminalization 30 years ago )."

He feels that Canadian politicians will be intimidated by the United States which uses its hardline war on drugs approach as part of an agenda to dominate other countries.

"The recommendations come as manna from heaven but ultimately they don't mean anything," he says.

He's impressed, however, that the senators took an honest look at the issue and responded to the wishes of Canadians for a more understanding approach to drug use.

Phillips says he suffers from medical conditions that are alleviated with cannabis use. But he doesn't qualify for a medical exemption from the drug laws because of the stringent conditions imposed by Health Canada.

Burlington medical marijuana user Alison Myrden -- a former corrections officer who suffers from multiple sclerosis -- does have an exemption for daily legal use of cannabis to relieve constant facial pain from the disease.

She welcomes the Senate recommendation for speedier and more compassionate approvals for medicinal use and for a controlled supply.

Currently, there is no legal controlled source for cannabis. Family members have to get marijuana for her from pushers at exorbitant prices.

Myrden worries the ongoing battle being fought by users who take marijuana for medicinal reasons will be sidetracked now as the country debates legalization for all.

"This is long overdue but all those people who are sick and suffering and dying can't afford to be lost in the shuffle. They have fought too hard."

Medical marijuana users need a supply of the drug now and not a national debate, she says.

She is involved in a court challenge against the laws because there is no available legal supply.

A regulated approach with licenced suppliers, as advocated by the Senate committee, would eliminate the fear and risk of arrest for medical users, she says. "Whether it is legalized for everyone in the country is up to the politicians but we can't forget the sick people who need it now."

All eyes will be on Canada to see whether it provides new direction in its approach to drug use.

"The world is watching and waiting to see if Canada breaks new ground," she says.

Other highlights of the report recommending legalizing marijuana and hashish:

* Marijuana and hashish should come under a regulatory system for production and sale under licence for legal use by any Canadian resident over 16.
* Looser rules for the use of medical marijuana access.
* The law should be changed for those who drive after using both alcohol and marijuana, with blood-alcohol limits lowered to .04 per cent in such cases.
* The government should erase the criminal records of 300,000 to 600,000 Canadians convicted of simple possession of marijuana.
* The government should appoint a national adviser on psychoactive substances.
* The government should call a conference of the provinces, municipalities and other interested parties to set the ground rules for legal marijuana.
* The government should finance research on drugs and on prevention and treatment programs, financed by taxes on the sale of legal marijuana.

more drivel!

[jhowelb]

Wxyz,

After witnessing the past few pages, do you think these folks are apt to personally sacrifice any creature comforts of privileges for the cause of GW?

Laughable to say the least.

[Geof]

Wxyz,

After witnessing the past few pages, do you think these folks are apt to personally sacrifice any creature comforts of privileges for the cause of GW?

Laughable to say the least.

Of course not, are you going to?