Pete Guither: Guest Drug WarRant

End War on Drugs

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:40:37 GMT

Letters to the Editor
Quincy Herald Whig
Quincy, Ill. 62301

Dear Editor:

"Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success." says Bush. You’re on, George!

End the “War On Drugs”! Stabilize Afghanistan through legal opium, marijuana and hashish markets. They’ll produce these anyway - they’re the only things which make them real money - so let them do it above board for a change. After oil and armaments, “drugs” are the third largest cash market in the world. But it’s a black market! Strategically, don’t loud alarm bells go off? The UN estimates it’s worth at half a trillion dollars/year. This black market is the world’s greatest corruption engine. There will never be peace until it comes in out of the cold.

How did we get where we are? Follow the money. As the Iran-Contra and Bank of Credit & Commerce International (BCCI) scandals clearly showed, when the Reagan/ Bush I Administrations wanted to get around Congress - the Boland Amendment- to engage in extra-Congressional wars, all it took was a dip in the great ocean of black market drug money and bingo! - money for the Contras, money for the Mujahideen. Executive Branch proxy wars where the American people stay nicely in the dark as to what is really being done in their name. Or who pays for it or reaps the “benefits”.

The BCCI scandal showed the Reagan/ Bush I Administrations allowed the Mujahideen - i.e. Osama bin Laden - to launder drug money through the BCCI Bank in Pakistan to buy arms from US corporations and fight the Russians. Such a nice little trick! Only it brought the CIA, Islamic Jihadists, organized crime, various dictators, arms dealers and corporations together in a devil’s bargain which underlies the “blowback” of 9/11 and Bush’s folly in Iraq.

Congress has “the Power of the Purse” to serve as a check on Executive Branch warmongering. But if the Executive can just avail itself of a little laundered drug money to cancel that check then the “democracy” has lost control of the purse strings of war. “We the People” becomes “Me the Decider”.

The “War On Terror” and the “War On Drugs” are opposite sides of the same circular Equation of Corruption: “War On Terror “ / “Military Industrial Complex” = “War On Drugs” / “Prison Industrial Complex”. Strategically, to de-fund “terrorism” and cancel both sides of the above equation, the “drug trade” should be legalized.

Thank you,

Ned Behrensmeyer

My 'religion'

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:31:17 GMT

by tros This article was written under the influence of LSD Now I try not to complain about something that's obvious, or can't be helped, or has been beaten to death already. In this case, I think that most people aren't aware how much this affects the half of the country that doesn't vote. This is a problem that goes back to the founding of this country, and it's something that Americans brag about.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of religion is so fundamental to American ideology that it has been misused by the Christian Right to defend government favoritism toward Christians. But do we have freedom of religion? We definitely have the freedom to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. If Hindus had the Christian Right's "religious freedom" they could outlaw hamburgers. What about animal sacrifice? You can legally feed certain animals to other animals, but to ritualistically kill an animal you own is "animal cruelty". Rastafarians are not free to practice their religion. Natives can use peyote for religious purposes. Why not hippies? I found the sticking point in an older ruling that was actually a victory at the time. US vs. Boyll decided that adherents to Native religions need not be of Native descent to get the exemption.

[Erowid]
Individual freedom, whether it be freedom of religion, expression or association, has been particularly important to maintaining the culturally diverse character of New Mexico. Here, we celebrate the right of the individual to revel in the passions of the spirit. The survival of this right owes much to the protection afforded by the First Amendment, which has allowed New Mexico's distinct cultures to learn mutual respect for each other's jealously-guarded customs and traditions. Diversity is new Mexico's enchantment. For the reasons set out in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court holds that, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1307.31 (1990), the classification of peyote as a Schedule I controlled substance, see 21 U.S.C. 812(c), Schedule I (c)(12), does not apply to the importation, possession or use of peyote for bona fide ceremonial use by members of the Native American Church, regardless of race.

My problem is with the term "bona fide". What's bona fide mean?

bona fide adj. - (legal)

Characterized by good faith and lack of fraud or deceit (a bona fide offer)

Valid under or in compliance with the law (retirement incentives made part of a bona fide employee benefit plan)

Made with or characterized by sincerity (a bona fide belief)

Being real or genuine (bona fide residents)

Basically it comes down to this. If Republicans don't want the government to exclude religion from "public life" (that's politicianspeak for laws, executive orders, and departments of the federal government) they have to define religion. What is a legitimate religion? Who get's to sign up for handouts under the Faith Based Initiatives program? Furthermore, what makes them legitimate? Until we either stop acknowledging religion in our laws or set some sort of standard, we are automatically playing favorites. Everything Christians want to do is already legal. My personal problem is this: How come some asshole who says that peyote is his God gets to trip, but I don't? Why? Because there are a bunch of other people who say the same thing? Because we (Republican-equivalents) historically screwed their race? I mean, I can do all the same shit they do. I'll get a tent, build a fire, do some chanting. I can even play hand drums! For me, LSD is not a pleasure drug. I can't say it's a religious thing either, because I've never been religious. The only thing I can say is that psychedelics are the closest thing I've ever had to religion, and it seems like they fill the same mental and emotional space. My demons are figurative, but if I believed that they were actually real demons the government should still respect my beliefs. Last time I tripped, when I quit smoking, I hallucinated my cigarette craving as an animal that chewed up my insides. How is this different from eating peyote and communing with the spirit world? The federal government has made an ongoing effort (the War on Drugs) to systematically incarcerate a specific type of person. This type is most notably distinguished by race, and it's pretty obvious that race was and remains a major factor in marijuana prohibition. In the case of psychedelics it essentially makes it illegal to be a hippie. People will say that it doesn't count as much as race or religion, that it's just fashionable hedonism. I just don't understand why we need to sacrifice a few individuals' religious freedom in order to crack down on people who want to get fucked up. How are hippies supposed to establish a church and hold "bona fide" religious ceremonies when their special plant is illegal? Drug prohibition has been maintained by fear since its inception. The problem is technically very easy to fix: just repeal the appropriate laws. When it comes to complicated problems like social justice, there is a question of whether or not people's best intentions will be twisted and used to justify something less noble. There is such a thing as an effective vs. an ineffective social program. In the case of drug prohibition there is actually a will to keep the pernicious laws. That such a fundamental injustice is an object of such enthusiasm from politicians is very depressing. What makes it worse is that the War on Drugs is a complete waste, even by their standards. What excuse do they always use? THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Our poor depressed Christian youths are being tempted from a virtuous life of faith by these evil pleasure drugs. So what do they do? They make pot the easiest drug for kids to get. Instead of telling people how to use drugs safely, they scare the shit out of everyone with stories of some guy who thought he saw God an jumped out a window. They should be afraid. Take a hint! How effective is your religion when your kids would rather rape their own minds than put up with it, and you need to force it on others to get off. I doesn't compare. Psychedelics alone do not constitute religion. You need a lot of bullshit and trappings and paperwork and slaves before you have one of those. Psychedelics do make individualistic spirituality possible, and it's a spirituality that is more real than the depressing filth peddled by America's churches. It's real because there is no faith involved. Faith is what makes you go through the motions when you know its not real. Faith is what makes you put up with it every time you get screwed. Faith is your excuse for not making your own decisions, your own judgments, or your own values. I'll believe in your god when I see it. Faith can be great, but you can't just pick something random like giant expensive spy satelite missile defense, or Star Wars style combat robots, or new kinds of nu*c*le*a*r weapons. No, he's not stupid. He can point to Iraq and yell Armageddon , then crank out the tactical warheads here, just as long as he drawls like an illiterate hick. Shit, can you imagine what would happen if this country were ruled by some acid gobbling mafia? They would probably outlaw Christianity.

- submitted by

The War on Drugs: Problems and Resolutions

Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:06:45 GMT

Guest Rant by Dexter Gilbert The Problem Without arguing the fact that drugs are an ongoing problem in our society, this is an attempt to expose the absolute futility of the current approach to resolving the problem of drug use and addiction in our society. This is not meant to be a tool for partisan politics, yet if ever published, I am sure there are many that will attempt to use it as such. My true intention is to expose the fact that the current approach to drug policies in the United States is creating more problems than they are solving. I will attempt to spark a conversation rather than a heated debate on the issues at hand. These issues can be outlined with one simple question. Which is worse, drugs or "The War on Drugs"? I have had many jobs in my life, none of them being extremely prosperous, yet some paying more than others. A few of these jobs actually had medical insurance. I am now self employed and uninsured. In my business, I attempted to provide medical insurance for myself and my small staff. This was soon halted when it became obvious that my small business could not afford this expenditure. Reluctantly, I dropped the medical insurance for myself and my employees and purchased a private health plan. As we all know, the cost of medical insurance is on the rise and I found my insurance premium started looking more like a property payment. As businesspeople we often have to make decisions that are risky, and with my good health at the time, I considered dropping the expense of my health insurance to be not such a big risk. I was wrong. Approximately six months after I dropped my medical insurance, I was at my cabin working on my floating boat dock. I had a new boat slip built and had tied my old 20' X 20' flat dock to the new slip. I put a canopy for shade and shelter on the flat dock and boat wakes were causing the pole on the canopy roof to clamor against the roof of my newly build boat slip. This was going to scratch the coating on my metal roof. I couldn't have that, yet I did not have a ladder to reach the canopy top. In a moment of what I thought was one of enlightened ingenuity, I figured that I could cut a foam beer can koozie and tie it around the pole to pad it so my new slip would be protected, but I had one problem. I did not have a proper ladder with me at the cabin to reach the roof of the boat dock. So I came up with another brilliant idea. What about the dock ladder? You know the ladder we use for swimming, to get in and out of the water. We only kept in the water when we used it. It is quite portable, yet not so functional for the task at hand, and my ever so precious dock roof was at risk. Just like dropping my medical insurance, I decided to take another risk. The ladder seemed to be fairly sturdy when I propped it up against the steal pole on the new boat slip, so I decided as long as my wife was holding the ladder, it would be fairly safe, after all, it wasn't that high. So I cut and prepared my beer koozie and had my wife hold the ladder, without giving her any instructions as to how to do so. Subsequently, she held it with her hand in about the middle of the ladder rather than putting her feet at the base where it was apt to slip outward. I climbed into position and found that to reach my target, I had to reach and lean somewhat to the left and up high, yet it seemed doable. So I reached, the bottom of the ladder slipped and I found myself lying on the wooden dock in extreme pain. I had fell head first and landed on my right shoulder. I have never been one to frequent doctors, and without medical insurance, you want to try to tough out minor injuries without the aid of a medical professional. The time of my accident was right at dusk on a Friday evening in June. I was in pretty bad pain so I made my way up the hill to the cabin from the lake and took some headache powders for the pain. I don't bruise easily so there was no external injury other than a minor scrape on my arm from the fall, but the pain made it all too obvious that I injured myself and had done quite a good job of it. By around 1:30 AM, it was apparent the pain was not going to subside, and if for no other reason, I had to go to the local hospital emergency room to get something to ease the pain at the very least. At this time I asked my wife to drive me to the hospital. We arrived at the hospital, probably after 2:00 AM. There was very little going on in the emergency room when we got there. I was the only person waiting. Meanwhile, I saw one patient come out of the treatment area, so I assumed that was the only other customer at that time of the morning. I believe that assumption to be correct. I initially reported in where they of course wanted insurance information. I stated that I was uninsured. Well now it was time to wait. It was after 3:00 AM when I was taken back for my initial interview. There they check your body temperature, blood pressure and ask questions off of a preprinted form concerning your medical condition. One of the questions was to rate the severity of your pain on a scale of one to ten. Difficult question when I knew that I was in more intense and constant pain than I had ever been in, but I am sure there are conditions much worse than mine that would constitute the worst pain being a ten on the scale. I answered eight. In retrospect, I should have answered fifteen. Now that this part of my visit to the emergency room was completed, it was time to wait again. Not so bad, about twenty more minutes of waiting and I was called back to the examining room. Not long after I entered the emergency room the doctor came in to examine me and I began to answer his questions concerning my injury. Just as his questioning started, a female medical professional entered. What her title was I am not sure, but she seemed to be wearing a nurses whites. She had some questions for me. Her questions were not related to my injury though. In an interrogational manner, she asked me if I knew a certain doctor in my hometown. She stated that they were suspicious of me because I was from a town more than an hour away and at their emergency room in the middle of the night. Well I explained that the injury occurred at my cabin on the local lake. At that time it was apparent to me that I had been a subject of conversation during my substantial waiting period to receive emergency medical treatment. Knowing the current problems with prescription painkillers in our society, it was all too obvious the reason why, so I did not take too much offense to this at the time. They were just trying to make sure that I was not an uninsured patient whom they would never receive compensation from. Was I a patient scrupulously trying to obtain painkillers in order to support a drug habit? Surely such precautions are necessary. So I said nothing. I was sent across the hall for an x-ray. The technician was real nice and I was sure there would be an obvious problem that would show up in the x-rays. She took two x-rays, one front view and one right side view, and I returned to the examining room. Shortly, the doctor came back into the room with the two views of my shoulder. Apparently he assumed that the technician had said something to me concerning my x-rays, because he said something to the effect that sometimes his technicians saw things that are not there. I was prescribed ten mild painkillers and a larger prescription of Naproxen, and sent home with no pain medication administered at the hospital. It was 4:00 AM and no pharmacies were open. I had to wait another five hours until 9:00 AM for the local pharmacy to open before I could get anything for pain. When I did get the painkillers, it took two of them to have any affect on my discomfort. These were soon gone and the Naproxen was ineffective. It was apparent that I was going to need follow-up medical treatment for my injury, so I decided to see a local doctor in my hometown. The pain in my shoulder was too extreme and arm was extremely bad and now. My shoulder and upper arm had turned purple and black and it was apparent to me that I had a fracture. Remembering the words of the doctor when he referred to his x-ray technician, I thought at this time there was something in my x-rays to show what the problem was. In order to save money on new x-rays, I decided to pick them up from the hospital and take them to the local physician. Upon arriving at the local physician's office on a weekday afternoon, approximately ten days later, with the original x-rays, I was informed that the doctor required a fee from uninsured patients before they could be treated. So I filled out the forms and paid the fee and waited. Well, there were several people in the waiting room and I was a walk-in patient, so it took quite a while to be seen by the doctor. While waiting I noticed that many of the people in the waiting room were known in the local community for their usage of prescription painkillers. I know this because I run a restaurant that serves beer and wine in the local area and many of these people would have been considered undesirable customers for my business which is not frequented by this portion of the community. My waiting room observations made it quite apparent that many of these customers were there to try to obtain narcotics. There was even a confrontation with a man who had brought a mother and her children into the office and obtained prescriptions of Ritalin for her children. The relationship of the gentleman to the lady was not apparent, but he did let the staff in the office know that the Ritalin was being used by the mother and not the children. He was obviously tired of the ladies drug usage. Yet, it was nothing but a short scene with the man leaving the office after voicing his complaint without any apparent result. Finally, it was my turn to see the doctor. He seemed quite amiable and saw the bruises on my arm, which had now faded to about three ugly yellow splotches. He did know I was injured and examined the x-rays that I had brought with me. To him the x-rays showed nothing either. With the extent and area of the pain he assumed that I had a torn rotator cuff which would require surgery. He seemed to know that I was in quite a bit of pain, and I was. My pain was hardly less than it was at the time of my original visit to the emergency room. I was prescribed sufficient painkillers and referred to a specialist. An appointment was not immediately available with the specialist so I was scheduled an appointment about a month later, but before I was to visit the specialist I was scheduled an appointment to revisit this doctor to follow up. I didn't see a reason to revisit this doctor before my appointment but I showed up anyway because I knew I needed treatment. The cost of my treatment was becoming less of a concern after a long period of living in pain. I returned to the doctor for my appointment, with a shorter wait in the waiting room I paid my fee and went in to see the doctor. He asked if I needed more painkillers, which I did, yet I declined for the fear of being judged as a drug abuser. He then asked me why I had come back for another visit before going to the specialist. I politely told him that he had scheduled the appointment. The appointment was unnecessary, I should have asked for my fee back but I didn't, I thought it best to just follow the system and get the necessary treatment. After all, it appeared I was going to need surgery for a torn rotator cuff. Now, its time to take the forty five minute trip to the specialist, still carrying the original x-rays to save a buck or two, I go through the process of signing in and filling out the necessary forms. By this time there is no outward sign of injury. The specialist examined me and the original x-rays and his initial diagnosis was a possible torn rotator cuff. To be sure he sent me for an MRI and an EMG. These two tests cost me over $3000.00 altogether. Two months after falling off a ladder and injuring myself, I show back up at the specialist with the pictures from the MRI. The EMG results had not been forwarded back to the doctor but the person that administered the test had stated to me that there were no negative results, which I believe to be true. After one very quick look at the MRI the specialist stated that I had a fracture. He sent me immediately for a new x-ray, which he subsequently did not bill me for. He knew I did not have insurance and was quite upset to find out my problem was a fracture after all that time and money. The break was easy to see on the x-ray because of the angle they took the picture. Standing face forward with my palm facing outward gave a clean picture of the fracture. The first x-ray was not taken in a manner to see my injury. Thousands of dollars later I found that no surgery or treatment was necessary for my fracture. Painkillers and a sling were sufficient for such an injury. My shoulder is fine now, yet definitely not one hundred percent. This could have been resolved with one or two trips to the doctor and proper medicine prescribed. If the doctors did not have the responsibility of determining who is or is not a drug user, they would not have to make these decisions and this type of prejudging can be avoided. Paying customers should not be scrutinized in this manner when medical care is purchased. We do not pay to be scrutinized. In order to insure proper treatment of patients, who are paying customers whether they have insurance or not, it cannot be the doctors' responsibility to make the final treatment decisions for their customers. It should be the medical provider's job to advise and administer treatment and follow the instructions of the patient who has considered the advice of the medical professional. As is, drug abusers flood our medical offices trying successfully sometimes and some places, and unsuccessfully at others, to obtain their narcotics. This is enriching the physicians with an astounding amount of office visits where there would only be a fraction of the traffic if this problem did not exist. Genuinely ill patients are getting caught up in the middle of this situation and being denied treatment by physicians who should not be put in the position to make such judgments. By forcing the public to obtain prescriptions for specific drugs is causing many people to go completely without treatment for some conditions. Antibiotics are not obtainable without a visit and a fee to a physician. When the doctor makes a decision on what antibiotic to prescribe to his patient, he does not necessarily prescribe the least expensive applicable medication for the ailment of the patient. He is now able to make a decision based on the amount of rebate he receives from the pharmaceutical manufacturer. In other words, a shot of penicillin may suffice for your ailment, yet this other shot will cost you ten times more and the doc gets a rebate. What shot do you think you will get? As a restaurant owner, I see the pharmaceutical representatives court the physicians' offices. I send many large food orders to the local medical offices which are frequently supplied by the pharmaceutical companies, while trying to push their product through the local doctors. Should the medical provider be making decisions on your health based on rebates and sales pitches by drug companies? This should not be how a doctor makes a decision on a patient's treatment. It is leading to the improper and overmedication of a large number of genuinely ill patients in our nation. Well, this practice is not just prevalent in the non-narcotic variety of pharmaceuticals; it is present with some of the most addictive drugs in our society. This may mean that when you go to the doctor and you do need just a mild pain killer, you may get prescribed the more expensive, stronger, time-released form of the narcotic which is designed to stay in your system longer. Taken as prescribed, these narcotics never leave your system until the prescription is gone. You don't know you're addicted until the prescription runs out and physical withdrawal symptoms occur. The doc just got his rebate and the patient just got a monkey on their back. Now the doctor has become the worst form of drug dealer there is. The doctor has become the pusher. The doctor created the addict and the demand. If the supply runs out from the doctors, the addict is forced to find the supply elsewhere. Where there is demand, there will always be supply. There is nothing a free nation can do about that without severely infringing on everyone's freedom of movement. So, now the new addict must obtain his/her medicine off the black market. We are all aware of the rising cost of medical insurance in this country. Insurance coverage paid for by the employers of this country is decreasing due to the rising cost of medical treatment. It is also due to the rising number of patient visits to providers to obtain prescription medicines. Whether the patient is or is not insured, a fee is charged for each visit to the physician. This is driving the cost of everyone's insurance to the moon. Chapter II Illegal Drugs and the Damage to our Society There is a large demand for narcotics in our society. At one point in time aspirin, cocaine and heroin were about the same price in our country. Crime related to what seemed to be moderate drug use in this nation was low. Any person could obtain any medication without a physician. There were no illegal drugs in our country. Slowly over time, political activists have enacted laws requiring a doctor's approval so that free people may obtain necessary medications for their illnesses. If the patient does not have access to a doctor, or cannot afford one, he/she can no longer ask the advice of a pharmacist in order to make an informed decision as to what medication he/she may need. So, this patient is denied medical treatment and medication for his/her ailment. The pharmacist is trained in this country to give such advice, yet their training is no longer used or needed in their profession. They simply dispense the product. You could have a high school graduate perform this function. If the law forces a trip to a physician to obtain medication, should they not fund the physician's fee. If not, the government is denying medical treatment to those who cannot afford to visit a doctor's office. This situation has created a thriving black market for narcotics in our society. Massive amounts of money are allocated throughout the nation's law enforcement community to battle this market and its customers. These customers being the addicts, of which many were created by the system of rebates that are received by doctors for prescribing specific narcotics. This market has caused the price of the illegal drugs on the street to rise phenomenally. The addicts are caught between a rock and a hard place now. They cannot obtain decent employment due to the vast amount of drug testing in order to obtain many of the jobs in our nation. Therefore, they cannot afford to support their habit. When this occurs, crime becomes rampant, and the innocent citizens become the victims of the war on drugs in our society. We are subject to crimes committed by addicts that will do anything possible to obtain their illegal narcotics. We the people are now caught in the middle of the battle, subjected to theft and violent crime due to idealistic laws which limit the freedom of the American citizen. As a nation, we were founded on the idealism of freedom and progressed in this philosophy for many years. In a society such as this, if these liberties are taken away, there will be constant strife causing many undesirable results. For many years, amphetamines were prescribed liberally by physicians throughout the nation. In the mid 1990s, the manufacture of these amphetamines was banned. As a result, methamphetamines are now dangerously created in homes throughout the nation. This has become a dangerous and growing epidemic in itself. Not to mention the pharmaceutical company that used to manufacture the amphetamines had to find a new product. This new product being the time released pain killer that has also become a dangerous and highly physically addictive. This has created an unprecedented epidemic in the United States. This product, in this writer's opinion, was created to replace the widely used amphetamines. It was marketed as a less addictive drug due to the time-release form in which it was manufactured. It seems to have been created due to the fact it was so addictive and repeat customers were pretty much guaranteed. In the beginning, this drug was praised and widely prescribed by doctors who received rebates on top of rebates as they rampantly distributed this drug. They collected their rebates and patient fees as visits to their offices to obtain the drug increased significantly. In the long run, it looks to me as if this drug was created to directly compete with the heroin market in this country. It has succeeded in creating an unprecedented amount of opiate addiction in the United States. We have built a severely unethical narcotic industry within our system at the expense of the American public. Marijuana has been used by the human race for many years. It has no physical addictive qualities. If a patient or recreational user discontinues use of this mild yet effective and natural medicine, there are no physical withdrawal symptoms. It is commonly used for anxiety, sleeplessness, stomach disorders, glaucoma, pain, muscle spasms, etc.... The worst known side effect of this substance is the effect on the lungs. Before marijuana was criminalized, many users put the plant in confections and the product was eaten rather than smoked. Due to the criminalization of marijuana, more smokers were created in order to get the most out of an illegal and more expensive supply of the plant. The price and availability of supply has also created more IV drug users of opiates, in an attempt to get the most of narcotic painkillers. Activist politicians continue to inaccurately describe marijuana as a gateway drug. A drug that only leads to the use of much more dangerous drugs, when in fact, regular marijuana smokers are apt not to turn to harder more addictive drugs such as alcohol, opiates and amphetamines. Marijuana used on a regular basis does not produce the same problems in our society that alcohol and narcotics do. The illegal trade of marijuana does cause these problems. Resolutions So the next question is how do we resolve this problem? It is obvious that the current methods of battling drug addiction in this nation are only multiplying the problem. Yet, politicians on most sides of the political spectrum want to continue to pump money into increased law enforcement which continues to infringe on the rights of the citizens, in what is becoming a less free nation. How can we call prescription medications controlled substances where proper controls do not exist? How do we keep these uncontrolled substances away from our children? The black market services all customers, regardless of age. How do we decrease the cost of medical insurance as long as drug abusers continue to use medical providers to obtain prescriptions, resulting in doctors' fees paid for by the insurance companies? How do we insure that people with genuine health problems do not get caught up in the middle of a medical industry that is bogged down by addicts? How do we insure that genuinely ill patients are not incorrectly stereotyped as drug abusers? How do we significantly decrease violence and crime in this country that result from the current laws and policies? How do we put the drug dealers in our nation out of business? How do we dissolve the street gangs of the inner cities of our nation? How do we dramatically decrease the murder rate in the United States? How do we halt the flow of illegal drugs that flood across our nation's borders? How do we decrease the use of physically addictive narcotics in our society? How do we decrease the ever increasing population of our prison systems? I know that the war on drugs has been going on for many years. What I am about to suggest is not a cancellation of the war on drugs. It is merely a different approach. The current methods have been in place for many years and have proven to be unsuccessful. It should be apparent to most that as long as the demand is out there, society will find a way to fulfill the supply. When trying to cut off the supply, the product only becomes more expensive, creating rebellion, crime and violence. This theory was proven to be true during the years of alcohol prohibition in this country. Prohibition was lifted simply because it created more problems than it solved. Upon the lifting of prohibition, activists found another target, and organized crime was able to recover and recreate the prosperous years of prohibition. Every time a new law was passed prohibiting the trade in narcotics, organized crime gained a new product. Now we are in the midst of the violence and chaos created by our nations own policies. The laws that were passed with good intentions, to create law and order in our society have had the opposite result. Anarchy is taking over in our inner cities and rural communities. Is it not time to learn from our mistakes and change our tactics? Education, not prohibition will solve this problem. Get the product out of the doctors' and drug dealers' hands and put it back into the reputable business environment of our economy. Let the doctors worry about their patients' health and they will no longer have to evaluate whether or not their patient has a legitimate illness or injury. Pass laws against rebates to medical and pharmaceutical professionals so they may make unbiased recommendations concerning a patient's medication. Insurance companies should only be liable for physician prescribed medications. Potentially dangerous or narcotic medications not prescribed by a physician should be dispensed by the pharmacist and signed for by the buyer. This includes cold medicines used in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamines. Restrictions on minors purchasing controlled substances should be put into place. We should allow the diet pill (amphetamine) manufacturers to restart production. This would dramatically decrease the amount of methamphetamine that is currently produced, resolving this rapidly increasing problem in the United States. Time released narcotics should not be produced due to the increased physically addictive attributes of that form of the medication. I have personally seen the effect of time released painkillers in my own community. Recreational use of painkillers has been going on for some time. The recent overwhelming increase in addicts has been due to the time released form of these medications. If these resolutions were enacted, what we now call controlled substances will actually have some controls. Organized crime and inner-city gang activity would be reduced dramatically. They would simply be put out of business. The prison population would dwindle. The demand would be met and we could now concentrate our efforts on education and prevention rather than on law enforcement and prisons. Drug users would no longer be exposed to the criminal element created by the illegal industry. This will decrease the social nature of drug use that is created by a black market which would no longer exist. It is the nature of humankind to resist absolute authority. We get more results when we educate people on the dangers of their actions rather than prohibiting them altogether. Complete prohibition only creates rebellion resulting in higher rates of drug use. Isn't it time to put our faith in humankind, and trust the citizens of our nation to make the right decisions? We as a government and our medical system have failed miserably. I think it just might be time for the American people to take the responsibility. Personally, I think we are better qualified for the job than our political and medical institutions.

- submitted by

Response to Deforest Rathbone comment

Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:36:39 GMT

Note: this comment was too long to work in the comments window on Drug WarRant, so it is being posted here.

RE: "legal, effective and compassionate means of getting children off drugs . . ." (comment on post)

You are wrong on all three counts, sir

We suggest you check again:

The penalties for making false claims and receiving or authorizing federal funds are severe:

Link

Link

The false claim that getting tough on marijuana helps children is easily disputed. While heroin arrests and court referrals for treatment dropped precipitously, heroin use by eighth graders spiked along with arrests and so-called treatment mandated to marijuana users in lieu of jail. Also, Barthwell, Rathbone and their cronies all carefully avoid mentioning that vaporizers and cooked marijuana completely eliminate tars and resins believed to cause health problems in smokers.

Of course, fanatical zealots have long made it their business to lie in an effort to collect often tax-free government, corporate and private money for or in support of marijuana drug testing. Take, for example DeForest Rathbone's associations, the National Institute of Citizen Anti-drug Policy and 'Drug Free Kids: America's Challenge.' Rathbone claimed in the June 1 letter, "Drug Czar Defended" that former drug czar Barry McCaffrey did not support drug testing while in office. Historical records, including many news clippings prove that claim is untrue.

"Darligton's reference to Clinton administration former drug czar Barry McCaffrey promoting drug testing while he was in office was false."

Link

"The success of Wada is essential to the continued involvement of the world community in the Olympic movement," US drugs czar Barry McCaffrey told reporters after addressing the opening session.

Sydney testing

Wada is to establish a list of banned substances, coordinate unannounced out-of-competition drug testing, develop standards for collecting and analysing samples, set unified drug sanctions and promote research.

Link

Barry McCaffrey also urged Wednesday that U.S. Olympians be subject to drug testing at any time -- not just when they are in competition.

Link

, by not testing for drugs, baseball now appears to have the same problem other leagues have. Officials of the league and its players union have allowed -- even encouraged -- steroid use to take hold in America's pastime, said Gen. Barry McCaffrey, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Link

Only the community, Mr McCaffrey suggested, had any hope of winning the war. The best he could offer was the idea that anyone arrested by the police should be required to submit to "rehabilitation" if they tested positive for drugs.

Link

On October 19, Clinton announced that his administration will develop a plan to test the urine of driver's license applicants under the age of 18, and he gave drug czar Barry McCaffrey 90 days to present the plan to him.

Link

" . . . so-called medical marijuana is really nothing more than a form of snake-oil medicine backed by a $500 billion international drug trafficking industry as a ruse to gain acceptance of marijuana, which serves as bait to lure children into addiction and the subsequent compulsive consumption of the drug traffickers' lucrative evil products. "

DEFOREST RATHBONE

Link

- Submitted by Jose Melendez

Open Letter to the President of the United States George W. Bush

Sat, 28 May 2005 01:20:49 GMT

I work for a French NGO , "Tchendukua" whose goal is to recuperate land for the Kogi Indians living in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in Colombia. In 2000 we bought, La Luna, a land, with access to the sea, It was the first time since the Spanish invasion, the Kogis had a low land. They where so happy, full of hope. At the end of June 2004, La Luna became an " Indigenous Reserve" , a protected area... The Sierra is also one of the UNESCO's "Biosphere Reserves". Fifteen days later, on July 17th, a plane from Dyncorp passed only once to fumigate La Luna. That was enough to provoke a complete disaster. Some days ago, I saw the rushes of a second movie we have made on the Kogis. Now, La Luna is like some places in Asia after the tsunami... I could not believe it. The Kogis took five years to regenerate the soil, now they will have to wait, at least, five more years to replant. Everything is contaminated and the streams are dry because there are no more trees to retain water. What are they going to eat? What are they going to drink? Where to go? Tchendukua's director in Santa Marta organized some time ago with the Kogis and the farmers around, the eradication of coca by hand. There was no coca in La Luna. It is impossible that your sophisticated planes are unable to detect Indians villages. In the movie there is a scene with a Kogi shaman sitting in front of his house, in the middle of the devastation. He is crying. This image is absolutly unbearable and it will remain in my memory forever. Yes, Mr. Bush, an image can turn people really angry. Remember the picture of Nick Ut showing a little girl naked, burned by Napalm, running on a road in Vietnam. This image had an incredible impact in America. Condolezza Rice wants Colombia to change its laws and spray in National Parks such as La Macarena, El Catatumbo, La Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, etc... To achieve that dirty job, a new aerial base for fumigation planes will be build, $125 million. The fumigation of La Luna on July 17th 2004 was completely illegal. In the Sierra, Kogis, Arsarios-Wiwas, Kankuamos and Arhuacos are starting to have health problems , especially children (see notes-page 14). In Vietnam, after 45 years, Agent Orange is still active. The new poison cocktail is called Agent Green. If you take the ingredients one by one, it doesn't seem so dangerous. If you mix them, highly concentrated, it is a terrible weapon. The mixture is made with Monsanto Round Up Ultra, Cosmoflux 411F (illegal in the US), POEA and fusarium oxysporum EN-4. Dr David Sands, an American scientist who made some researches on EN-4 admits (interview with the BBC-2000) that you can call it a Green Warfare or a Biological Warfare. When you had a few cases of Anthrax in your country it was immediately called a terrorist biological attack... The Dutch government donated 500.000 euros for the eradication of coca by hand in the Amazonas and the Sierra. A part of this donation is dedicated for substitution cultures and social development. The Netherlands asked the parks director, Julia Miranda, to confirm whether the decision to fumigate on the protected aeras was definitive, because if it were so, "it could be motive to request the suspension of activities financed by his Embassy". Mr. Bush and your government, you will be responsible for the genocide or ethnocide (see notes-page 10)) of the most ancient and sophisticated precolombian cultures in Colombia. The proper name for this worthless so-called drugwar is « BIOLOGICAL and CHEMICAL WARFARE «. Before writing this, I've asked to a Dr in Molecular Biology if I could use those words, the answer was yes. Mr. Bush, will you dare to say that you are doing this "In the Name of God"? Where are the courageous American scientists who helped to stop the fumigations with Agent Orange in Vietnam in 1971? REQUIEM FOR THE SIERRA NEVADA DE SANTA MARTA... AND MANY OTHER PLACES!

NOTES:

UNITED NATIONS
Economic and Social Council
Distr. GENERAL E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2 10 November 2004

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session Item 15 of the provisional agenda

INDIGENOUS ISSUES
Human rights and indigenous issues.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen Addendum
MISSION TO COLOMBIA*

Page 10

On the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, an area visited by the Special Rapporteur, the Kankuamo people (3,000 families, 13,000 people and 12 communities), who live inside the "black line" which marks the traditional boundary of their territory, are now in the process of reclaiming their indigenous identity. Their lands have been recognized, but no reserve has yet been established. Guerrilla groups started arriving in the 1980s and AUC set up a base there in the 1990s, with the result that the number of kidnappings and murders escalated to a level far above the rural and regional average, particularly from 1998 onwards. It was then that the massacres of indigenous people, the mass displacements, the blockades and the forced confinement of communities to their villages began. More than 300 families are reportedly still displaced as a result of attacks and threats of various kinds. The accounts given to the Special Rapporteur testified to the continued ethnic cleansing, genocide and ethnocide of the Kankuamo people despite the protective and precautionary measures requested by the Ombudsman and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and several urgent appeals by a number of special mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights.

Page 14

Indigenous organizations described to the Special Rapporteur the adverse effects of indiscriminate spraying, including environmental damage to the topsoil, fauna, flora and water, the destruction of subsistence crops and direct damage to human health, including birth defects. The Special Rapporteur was also told that there are technical and scientific studies to substantiate these assertions. The indigenous peoples see the aerial spraying of coca plantations as yet another violation of their human rights and, save for a few occasions when they have given their consent, actively oppose the practice; this position again brands them as guerrilla sympathizers, as happened after the rights marches organized by certain indigenous communities to protest against the spraying. The Office of the Ombudsman has received 318 complaints concerning spraying operations in three municipalities in Putumayo in July 2002 and their effect on 6,070 families and 5,034 hectares of land.

- submitted by Paquita (May 2005)

Inside the National Survey on Drug Use and Health

Thu, 19 May 2005 05:08:46 GMT

So this guy shows up at my house saying my address had been randomly selected for a paid survey. I get a quick interview to see if I qualify for the survey, and this is just to basically confirm my age as being over 18 and under 30. The survey is from the United States Public Health Service and is being executed by the Research Triangle Institute. It is for the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health and takes about an hour to finish. When complete, you get 30$. I don't know how my address was randomly selected, but I am in a pretty good part of town for whatever that counts. The interesting part to this story deals with the type of questions in the survey. The bulk of the mental health section asked if you were or had ever been depressed, anxious, nervous, etc. The bulk of the drug use section asked if you had taken x drug, and if so, at what age and how often. The marijuana questions were more numerous than the other drugs. Most of the questions dealt with if you used, when you used, when you stopped using, how often you used, etc. It featured questions like: "How do you feel about occasional marijuana usage by adults?"

Strongly Disapprove
Disapprove
Neither approve nor disapprove

As you can tell, there was a definite bias in the questions. Directly after this were questions about your spirituality and belief in God, then your mental health. I'm not someone who smokes pot. I don't, I haven't in years, I won't ever return to it, and I'm not an advocate of its usage. I'll even discourage its usage. But, I'd do the same for tobacco, alcohol, or any other drug. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I own no foil hats and I don't think the government is evil. I am for personal privacy and I believe marijuana is a lesser evil than alcohol and tobacco based on usage-related deaths alone. I'm wholly against what I feel are harder drugs, including mushrooms. Now that you know my position, I'll tell you my honest and mostly unbiased feelings about the survey. I got the definite feeling that this survey is going to link sanity and happiness to a persons' spirituality and drug habits. I haven't seen the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health to confirm, but this really seemed to link the belief in god to the usage of drugs and resulting depression. It also seemed to disallow positive connotations of light drug use. You could never approve of an action that was illegal (like adult marijuana smoking), but you could strongly disapprove or disapprove. It asked silly questions, like "Have you ever felt depressed," which almost certainly can be used to confuse any relevant statistics. Having said that, much or most of the survey was definitely statistical, and the majority of the drug questions were about tobacco usage. It asked how harmful I thought smoking and drinking were when done once a week, a couple of times a week, or every day. It was measuring how uninformed or ignorant consumers are, but I believe the way the test was set up will make that problem out to be worse than it really is. I do think, however, this survey is going to be a biased piece of propaganda, and I'm not one of those persons who has really cared in the past. That's the genuine opinion from a regular guy. At any rate, I'm 30$ richer.

-- by Marco

Marijuana Lies

Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:00:46 GMT

Anyone who claims to be 'addicted' to marijuana has either: been misled, is too young to know better and therefore too young to smoke, is an alcoholic, is on medication yet still smokes pot, is lying, is in a court-ordered drug rehab (giving the Repub drug czar (Walters) false statistics/propaganda to spread about the increase of marijuana use and 'treatment'), is just an ass, has never heard the words "grass fast". Any marijuana 'abuse' comes from lack of education about marijuana 'use'. For alcohol there's, "don't drink everyday, don't drink too much, don't start too young, take a break, you can die, your liver can collapse, don't drink and drive, don't be an ass, drink responsibly, have fun". For marijuana there's, "just say no, it can lead to harder drugs, you can get addicted or else driven insane, you can go to jail so be paranoid, be very paranoid...blah blah blah". The drug war is a lie. Pharmaceuticals are the fourth leading cause of death in the US, killing over 100k each year. Alcohol related deaths in the US are over 300k, tobacco kills 400k--yet these drugs are not only legal, they're subsidized. Illegal drug deaths are around 3,000. Marijuana-----0. Yet marijuana arrests make up 75% of the drug war's efforts. Since the budget for the war on drugs is now over $13 billion and the drug-war industry is worth over $50 billion annually, and since 75% of the drug war's budget goes to what is, essentially, a harmless weed; how long do you think it'll take before marijuana is decriminalized and removed from prosecution? How long will it take before the positive studies done on its use (suppressed during both the Nixon and Reagan Administrations) are released to the public? And how long before we can expect hemp fiber to be grown in the US to replace the more toxic and dioxin-polluting paper products created by the timber and paper industries, or hemp seed oil used in place of polluting petrochemicals in the production of plastics and related products? How soon before the $300 billion dollar pharmaceutical industry relinquishes 3% of its profits to allow for medical marijuana? Don't hold your breath. Pay attention. This is why marijuana is illegal; Republican and corporate greed--now there's the addiction. Let's have a toast to all those greedy repubs who would rather clear-cut 500 year old trees to make their toilet paper while they light up their fatties with $100 bills. I hope they gag on it. If there were true justice in the world they would be jailed and their assets confiscated.

-- by greg thurwell

Breeding Tells

Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:44:52 GMT

Liberals opposed to drug prohibition, and in favor of legalization, have always faced a cruel legacy: Liberalism, as a philosophy, as a practice, was founded in prohibition and still feels that old urge to ban something. It's in the blood. Liberalism as we know it in America is the follow-on to the early 20th century Progressive movement. The Progressives were non-partisan, and usually urban, dedicated to reining in the excesses of capitalism and cleaning up the partisan cesspools of machine politics. Often Republican, they inadvertently elected Woodrow Wilson in 1912 by splitting the Republican majority with the presidential challenge of the Bullmoose Party. The Progressives responded to abuses too numerous to list fully here. Opiate drugs and cocaine were pandemic in cough syrups and other 'medications', but these were often the least harmful of adulterations in our food and drink. The cities of the day were ruled by criminal gangs disguised as political parties; the fire departments and police departments were more often complicit in crime than they were to be found fighting crime or fires. The largest corporations bilked shareholders and customers alike as they formed monopolistic cartels and bought legislatures to extend their rule. None of this, of course, was conducive to any real economic development, and the process of history was on the side of the Progressives. Banning the adulteration of flour with dirt made it possible for bakeries to improve the quality and quantity of their output; instituting non-partisan municipal government and civil service reforms tipped the municipal balance sheets toward the positive side. Nor were these efforts confined to the early part of the century. In our lifetimes we have seen the first real efforts to criminalize drunk driving, spousal abuse, and incest. With justice the liberal descendants of Progressivism have felt the job was far from done. Unfortunately, they have been Prohibitionists. "There oughta be a law!" has been one of the most enduring and deepest sentiments of all of us at some time or another, and perhaps the rank stench of the American cigarette industry has done more than almost anything else to keep that sentiment alive. We've also seen alliances with unfortunate consequences, perhaps most notably the liberal alliance with black Baptist churches, but also the alliances with feminists and environmentalists, in which some very illiberal opinions are mooted. The fundamentalist black churches have opposed AIDS education and gay rights, the feminists have tried to restrict the free speech of pornographers, the campaigns against drunk driving have included roadblocks and mass searches- the list could go on, but the underlying trend should be plain to see. Historically, liberals have been progressives and vice versa. For a number of reasons the interaction between tighter regulation and improved productivity will continue to buttress this historical prohibitionism. The challenge, for anti-authoritarian liberals, will be to spotlight the most egregious errors in this trend, and form alliances with anti-authoritarians who aren't liberal. It won't be easy.

- by Serial Catowner

The American Inquisition

Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:24:17 GMT

Guest DrugWarRant by Ian MacLeod I would like to introduce you to the problem - some of the reasons that people in pain are not being treated properly in this country; sometimes they're not treated at all. I call this The American Inquisition for several reasons. In the religious Inquisitions, there was no way that people who were being accused could answer any question or accusation that was not interpreted as supporting the accusation - all who were accused were guilty, period. This is the same for chronic pain patients, to whom I will refer as CPPs from now on. Here are a few examples: Patient:

"The drugs only take the edge off the pain."
"Just give me something to take the pain away. Do something, anything!"
"I just want to stop hurting."
"Nothing else helps."

There are medical textbooks out that quote these very phrases and others like them, telling these nursing and medical students that these things are what addicts say. Of course, CPPs say them spontaneously, as they are reasonable things to say if you are and have been hurting without relief; the books don't mention this, however. Solutions that are on offer usually range from inhumane to horror stories: I had a Nursing Manual from the late seventies that advocated prefrontal lobotomy for intractable pain! Despite test results that show a patient should be in pain - though often tests are never done - doctors can and do answer all of these with, "That's exactly what an addict would say". It reminds me of the old question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no". Of course, there's nothing you can say that isn't incriminating. It's exactly the same for a CPP. If he wants drugs, he must be an addict, so he gets none (as though an addict deserves no pain relief). If he doesn't emphasize that only the narcotics bring any relief, he still gets none. Either way, no one looks for a cause or reason if he thinks he already knows the answer, and addiction is enough of an answer to obviate the tests. It's always a lose-lose situation. - Read the Rest -

Staying Focused

Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:44:17 GMT

In the heat of the electoral campaign, surely some of us are advocating. But what to say? Well, those of us who have had sex know that there is a time and a place for everything. And, to be blunt, if you want to have sex, don't put it off until your retirement. Surely an election would be one of the things you can't put off forever. Herewith I offer this thumbnail guide to staying focused: This country is worse off than at any time since 1932. In the Thirties they attacked the roots of the problem by repealing Prohibition, establishing Social Security, and giving labor the right to collective bargaining. We need to do the same things today. We need to establish universal health care, end Drug Prohibition, and restore the rights of the people when they bargain with corporations. Until we end Drug Prohibition, we can't afford to pay for schools, because we're paying so much for prisons. We can't afford healthcare because we're paying so much for diseases transmitted by the mechanisms of Prohibition. Prohibition complicates, or takes funding from, every other public problem we face. We can't afford healthcare unless it is universal. Our all-sizes-fits-nobody policies cost us twice as much per capita, and twice as much as a per centage of our GNP, as similar nations with better healthcare. We can no longer afford to provide healthcare to some but not to others. The corporation as we know it today is a tumor on society. We need to restore accurate accounting, prosecute investment fraud, collect the taxes they owe us, ensure fair labor practices, and provide redress for people defrauded by corporations using practices such as fraudulent labeling or predatory lending. If you think about it, the only radical part of this program is the concept of actually controlling the corporations, instead of having them control us. As in the Depression, these are things we have to do if we want this society to survive. All of them will save us money. They did it then, we can do it now. We darn well better.

- submitted by Serial Catowner

US and Canadian Trade

Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:37:26 GMT

There have been several articles that I've read that have stated that Canada's relaxation or legalization of Cannabis laws would result in increased border security and have a detrimental effect on Canadian trade. It is my view that a change in the (Canadian) laws would hurt US trade more than Canadian trade. Here's my line of thought based on the assumption that our countries are more concerned with scrutinizing goods (and people) being imported rather that exported.. Goods moving to the US from Canada are usually destined for US consumers or US producers (Canadian suppliers to US manufacturers). A slow down in the movement into the US would hurt the US manufacturer's ability to produce their products due to the extended lead times needed for customs inspection. Goods moving from the US to Canada should move as they normally would. This is a very elementary viewpoint, and of course there are many other factors influencing our supply channels and economies, but I believe that the US is overplaying the detrimental effect of Canada's proposed change in the law. The US is using its usual modus operandi of either bullying tactics (economic, military, etc.) or by scaring the "opponent" into vacating their position. I read this quote a few weeks back and it struck a chord with regard to the US approach to the War on Drugs: "The one means that wins the easiest victory over reason: terror and force."- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Canada should march to its own drum and not the "war drums" from the south.

- submitted by: Interested Reader

Enhance State Revenues - New Tax Possibility

Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:05:42 GMT

Here's a copy of a letter I just sent to both my state representatives. It's full of common sense and logic so I don't know how much good it will do... lol. I believe it could be used in any state if someone wants to copy it and send it to their elected officials as well.

Dear ______ I have an idea for increasing state revenues from a voluntary base as well as saving millions of present tax dollars for other more beneficial uses. Possibly even putting the state budget in the black and lowering other taxes. The legalization and distribution of marijuana through already licensed alcohol outlets under the same provisions as the sale of alcohol is done now. Carrying the same requirements, responsibilities, and penalties as are currently in effect. Our children would be protected since no one checks I.D.'s now. Laws are already in place for penalizing driving and being in public while intoxicated for any reason. This legislative move would instantly free up millions of current tax dollars spent on marijuana control, eradication,prosecution, and incarceration of people for simple possession of a plant that grows wild. These newly freed funds could be used to remedy budget shortfalls and the additional funds generated by a REASONABLE tax on the sale would enhance the state's coffers. All done on a voluntary basis with the collection system already in place. I believe this would be a much more sensible approach than imposing another form of mandatory taxation on the property, goods, and services that are already overtaxed in the mind of the public. There seems to be no reasonable argument against making money from, rather than spending money on the activity of consenting adults. Not to mention the reduction in crime due to the elimination of a segment of the black market, which would free up more funds in a residual manner. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

- submitted by Tim

Drugs in Sports

Wed, 26 May 2004 04:39:16 GMT

What should drug policy reformers make of the apparently bottomless “scandal” swirling around drugs in sports? Can ideas like harm reduction and responsible use apply to sports, or is sports an exception, a different realm that needs different rules? The sports world has yet to learn that when you make substances illegal and drive them underground, you’re giving up just about all hope of “controlling” their use and of helping people who get overwhelmed. It might also help to be honest about the fact that an atmosphere more conducive to performance-enhancing drugs than big-league baseball would be hard to create. You bring together 750 highly talented, very competitive people. You make the stakes enormous – money, acclaim, maybe even a run at immortality. Finally, you concoct a game where the difference between winning and losing is achingly small. How many games are decided by one play or at-bat? How many seasons come down to the last weekend? It’s dismaying but not surprising that the orgy of public hand-wringing and wind-bagging over steroids in sports has produced nothing more than the same tired, discredited “solutions:” tougher penalties, more testing. We won’t even get into the fact that the case for keeping sports drug-free is not a slam dunk once you get past the mythology of the “values” and “ideals” that sports is supposed to embody. What’s an athletic supporter to do?

-- submitted by Steve Beitler

Be Stubborn

Wed, 05 May 2004 22:04:19 GMT

Is this irony or what? For decades drug-legalizers have been told that we shouldn’t be single issue voters, that there were BIG ISSUES to be considered. Now all of those BIG ISSUES have coalesced in the greatest policy defeat for the U.S. since the Vietnam War. Racially-biased drug laws made it possible for Bush to steal Florida in the election, and his gang in turn exported American prison guards and police methods to Iraq. As in America, Iraqis were arrested because of the color of their skin, and held in substandard prisons by morally-challenged guards. As a result, the ‘Made in America’ brand will inspire considerable revulsion from a lot of people for years to come. An absolutely huge market, stretching from North Africa to the Phillipines, will pay a little extra to avoid our brand. And this may be the least of our problems. The hollowness of American military might lies exposed. The price of maintaining a ‘volunteer’ army just went up. Bush’s good friend, Putin, laughs discretely in his sleeve while Chechen rebels head for Iraq. And everyone beyond our borders shares this fervent dream, that we may bankrupt ourselves, like the Russians did, and remove ourselves from their lives. For want of a spine, a drug policy was lost. For want of a drug policy, an election was lost. For want of an election, an Empire was lost. And all for want of a spine.....

-- submitted by Terry Scott

Vote for the future...

Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:33:37 GMT

Nurses know what is good medicine. At their national convention last July, the American Nurses Association voted overwhelmingly for a resolution that endorses patient access to medical marijuana and the right of health-care providers to discuss and/or recommend marijuana as medicine without fear of reprisals. It also recommended excluding marijuana from classification as a Schedule 1 drug. On the political front, both 15th district [Illinois] Congressman Tim Johnson and his Democratic challenger Dr. David Gill have gone on record for medical marijuana. Johnson, in a letter to me, wrote "...it is clear to me that industrial hemp has many positive uses, not only as an energy source, but also as a medicinal and nutritional agent..." I heard Dr. Gill say recently that, as a physician, he knows that marijuana is an effective medicine for several conditions. Since both candidates recognize marijuana's value as a medicine, I hop they use their election campaign to educate the public about this important issue. In his letter, Johnson went on to say that hemp "...would be a very profitable alternative crop..." The Wall Street Journal estimated that if hemp were allowed to play its natural role in our economy, it could generate something like half a trillion dollars a year. That might seem far-fetched until you realize that anything made from wood or petroleum can be made more economically with hemp. A single Canadian province, British Columbia, brings six billion dollars a year into its economy because of its relaxed laws and attitudes toward this plant. As Chris Conrad puts it in his book Hemp: Lifeline to the Future: "Hemp restoration will yield permanent financial benefits that will reverberate throughout the economy for generations to come." On the national scene Democratic candidate for president Dennis Kucinich has called for the decriminalization of marijuana. Decriminalization would make it easier for patients to access their medicine and for industrial hemp to be utilized for its many uses. It would also stop the stuffing of our prisons with people who don't really belong there. No wonder Kucinich's candidacy has been endorsed by musical legend and farm-Aid founder Willie Nelson. With the nurses and brave candidates calling out for reasonable and necessary changes, let's stop this foolish war against ourselves and our world. Support those who support this planet.

-- for the future, Gregg Brown

Not just a war on a plant

Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:05:12 GMT

Behind every prohibitionist lie is an equal and opposite giveaway to those born to power. Put people of color in jail and let the Rush Limbaughs go free. Refuse to allow the study of medical marijuana and let drug companies sell their products without adequate testing. Insist that the patient see a doctor for a "medical" prescription and let the county sheriff decide what the doctor can prescribe. It all might seem as incomprehensible as the riddle of alternating current, but only if you look at one point in time. Taken as a whole it's a system of repression designed to evade any reasonable regulation. As outrageous as any individual part of the problem may be, they are small pieces of an almost unimaginably huge concern. Consider the WHO estimates of the international illegal drug trade, typically around $500 billion per annum. How many police forces and prison guards would be out of a job if this were to cease? Such a view, of course, is just too huge to be of much use. We need to focus, on the one hand, and broaden our focus with the other. For example, we can learn that American drug companies are in practice free of effective regulation. Broadening our view, we learn that we "can't afford" a Medicare drug benefit under our present system. To keep their sweet deal, the drug companies must a) prevent the effective use of marijuana as a mood elevator or anti-emetic, b) prevent Medicare from using its buying power to force down prices, and c) prevent effective regulation of their development and manufacturing processes. So as we study the drug wars, and learn of the forces that motivate prohibitionists, we also learn multiple points at which they are vulnerable because their greed and self-aggrandizement offends the average person. And the fact is, they can't afford to really lose even one of their arguments. If they do, the edifice begins to crumble and fall. This is why there is such fierce resistance to medical marijuana. The healing effects might be mild but the lack of evil side-effects is prominent. Let people start substituting home-grown pot for a $600-per-month Dronabinol habit and the virtue of marijuana can be seen by all. A pharmaceutical industry that has devoted most of its efforts to 'mood enhancing' drugs over the past 20 years has, aside from Viagra and Rogaine, few other legs to stand on. Another point at which the box can be pried open is the prison industry. In California Gray Davis stood as the spokesman for prisons, and Schwartzenneger ran as a man who appeared to be healthy in spite of promiscuous drug use. In every respect the prison industry has become incompatible with good government and many judges and legislators are admitting that. To keep your interest fresh, realize that the future of Medicare, or your ability to drive to the store, may depend on defeating the prohibitionists. Your personal safety when you follow your doctor's instructions may depend on defeating the prohibitionists. For people of color, often sentenced to decades in prison for a few grams of "evidence", the stakes are grave. The broken families and bankruptcies that follow affect all of us. And be angry. We're living in a social disaster created by police and politicians who act as tools for big contributors. Be angry enough to do something, or.....you'll live to regret it.

- submitted by Serial Catowner

I was wondering?

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:50:27 GMT

Cannabis, is it or is it not medicine? Is cannabis as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. Does tobacco contain over 600 undisclosed additives? Were these additives discussed by the Congress as possibly effecting the health of a smoker? Would these chemicals have an effect when comparing tobacco to cannabis? Do the prohibitionist ever disclose this when they compare tobacco to cannabis? Is it competition out of the way under prohibition? Is prohibition more costly to society in monetary terms and human suffering? Does it provide the prison industry (construction, linen, food, vehicles, guards, uniforms, etc) huge profits and the government taxes on these profits? Are there 2 million prisoners? Are 60% of these non-violent drug offenders? Does the Bush family have stock in the prison food supply industry? Cannabis in its hemp stage has or has not the greatest mass of any plant or animal? Does cotton require 270 million tons of chemicals, does flax destroy the soil and is soybeans hard on seniors digestive tracts? Can cannabis sativa (helpful hemp)grow almost anywhere, aerating the soil, without the chemicals (growing wild in many states providing 99.28% of the cannabis eradications in the US) replace cotton? Is it competition out of the way under prohibition? Do living trees filter up to 5000 gallons of water each day? Do they require more chemicals than any process in paper making? Is hemp stronger than trees? Does it have greter yield? Do tree's provide oxygen? Do they remove carbon dioxide? Do they support thousands of living species in a co-operation that can not survive when they are hewn down? Can hemp replace the industrial use of trees? Is it competition out of the way under prohibition? Is meat the best source of protein? Does it cause health problems? Do poor countries without meat have the same diseases as countries using meat? Do cows require 80% of the US agriculture in grains? Have these corporate grain farms half emptied the Midwest fresh water underground reservoir called Ogalala with irrigation? Are dairy products nutritional? Do waste from daily cow bathings run off into the drinking water? Are corporations burning tropical rain forest to graze cows? Is Hemp Seed the most nutritionally complete food source known to man? Is it used by cultures? Is it competition out of the way under prohibition? Is the use of fossil fuels the most devastating thing to ever hit humanity? Do 15,000 gallons leak into lakes rivers and streams each year? Do crude oil gasoline fueled cars emit harmful emissions? Do they contain lead and sulfur adding to the acid rain? Do they burn as clean as biomass? Could all of the nuclear, coal, crude and natural gas fossil fuels be replace with hemp biomass? Does Bush have crude oil interest? Did Henry Ford shelve a hemp/soybean biomass fueled automobile in the 30's? Did he produce and shelve an auto body from hemp and soybean fiber steel? Is petroleum carcinogenic? Is asphalt from crude tar breaking down and contaminating the soil and water? Do we really have to "protect" our oil rights with wars in South America, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Albania, and do states producing oil have the harshest cannabis sentencing? Are the herbicides pesticides made from crude oil? Can Hemp replace crude oil and fossil fuels? Is it a lubricant? Does hemp plastic biodegrade in compost? Is it legal? Is it grown in over 30 countries worldwide? Is it imported at higher cost? Is it on the list of things to become illegal? Can hemp produce paint. Can hemp make paper without the crude chemicals used in process the less cellulose tree paper? Can hemp grow without the crude oil pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers? Is it competition out of the way under prohibition? Many have passionate reasons for choosing the side they stand on, many will profit from prohibition on both sides. The urine tester labs and the labs that make the antidotes to urine testing. The lawyers defending and prosecuting. The Bars and Taverns, Tobacco and hard drug dealers. The growers and the cops, the prisons, peddlers and pharmacies. The drunks released if they snitch and the prohibitionist propagandist receiving corporate funding. And they all spend it on everything advertised putting a big smily face on the tax collector.Is it competition out of the way under prohibition? Who makes money growing it for personal use at home? No one, and maybe thats also why its illegal. No taxes, and it doesn't raise the GNP. Peace, Love and Liberty or the Merchants of DEAth

- submitted by DdC

America Divided

Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:10:56 GMT

Americans today are being divided by the American government through use of propaganda campaigns specifically designed to divide its citizens into several very polarized camps.. This is done using a very simple technique known as the "straw man" argument. The two main fronts of this propaganda campaign are the war on "Terrorrism" and the war on "Drugs". "Terrorism" and " Drugs" being the "straw men" in that they are easy to knock down and they are not "real"men. Terrorism is a concept of projecting fear or terror for some sort of personal gain against a civilian individual or group of individuals. This would have to include acts of aggression and war . By using "Terrorism" as the "straw man" or the Objective in a war, you create a perpetual war , because the straw man can never be eliminated as long as war continues. The instigator commits "Terrorism" through aggression and the defender commits "terrorism" through retaliation . With both parties guilty of acts of "Terrorism" there can be no winner , which perpetuates the activity. Terrorists are not countries or societies , they are individuals or groups of individuals who are guilty of acts of physicsl assault causing injury to others and must be prosecuted through legal means. Terrorism cannot be prosecuted through military actions against entire countries of peoples, simply because any group of people contains both the innocent as well as the guilty. Prosecuting the innocent civilians is an act of terrorism in itself!! This paradox divides our country into three main camps , (1) those in favor of dominating the world through intimidation (war) ,(2) those blindly seeking revenge against anybody our government says is the enemy and (3) those who seek honest justice through the rule of law and honestly want to see the world as a place where ALL are truly endowed with certain rights. Modern warfare is a massive jobs program!! Thus the need to have perpetual war is to have perpetual jobs!! This brings us to our second "Straw man," the War on Drugs !! Drugs are inanimate objects !! War cannot be waged on such objects!! We as a nation must admit that there is no such thing as a drug free society, drugs are used by the vast majority of people in the world in various forms. therefore there is no such thing as a war on drugs !!! By declaring that there is a war to create a drug free society which is physically impossible to obtain , the government has created a perpetual situation behind which it can hide a vast array of controls on society . This is a war or police action against certain segments of the population that use substances that other segments of the population have demonized. Through the use of propaganda , half truths, sensationalism and outright lies, our own government uses this issue to divide the citizens into many camps. The abuse of any drug is a social and medical problem, not a criminal one, thereby creating a myrad of social problems. Creating a criminal prohibition on this type of behavior has created a huge police and prison industial complex allowing our government to supress large segments of minorities by imprisoning them, stripping them of the right to vote, denying them a method of voting to oppose such policies. It has also created a huge criminal enterprise out of dealing in illicit substances creating massive organized crime, violence and money laundering. Large fiancial institutions profit form this activity and the goverments both federal and local generate huge budget requirements by sustaining this unwinnable perpetual war. I promise you that neither the Democrat or Republican leadership in our government wish this situation to end. Their desire is to perpetuate this lie and continue on the path of reforming the United States into a police state controlled by multinational corporations. My geatest fear is that the average american will remain ignorant of this until it is too late !! The only hope I see is to educate every person I come in contact with and hope that there are others like me who are commited to do the same.

- submitted by jeff shivers

Another Drug War Victim

Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:20 GMT

The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, but the righteous are bold as a lion. (Proverbs, 28:1)

My mother had lived in Vermont since 1991, the same year Howard Dean became governor of that state. She moved into a very rural community about an hour north of the state capitol, Montepelier. The drive to my mother's house was mostly over dirt roads with few other houses to be seen among the small valley farms and thick northern woods. My mother of course became extremely close to the few neighbors she did have. In that area, a "neighbor" qualifies as nearly anyone within a ten mile radius of your own home. The most popular members of my mother's community were two brothers who had lived together in a farm house most of their lives. I've changed their names for this essay but the community had a nickname for them that was affectionate and funny. I'll call them Phil and Stan Boiz, or as they might have been named together, the Boiz brothers. As is common in rural Vermont, the Boiz were subsistence farmers. They had a small number of meat livestock which they cared for well. They had a two acre patch of various vegetables that they would eat fresh in the warm months and have canned in the fall for winter. They tapped maples for syrup every year which they would sell for processing for some extra cash. The Boiz were active in the community and would always show up with a lending hand whenever a new barn was being built or repairs were being done. They were often trusted to care for the livestock of their neighbors if the owners had to travel for some reason. They were the guys you could trust your kids with. Then one day the Vermont state troopers came by with their SWAT team in full commando raid gear. These guys tore the whole farm up and found all of three marijuana plants. Even a subsistence farmer likes to get high every so often and usually can't afford to buy intoxicants. So Stan, the older of the Boiz brothers, copped to the charges to shield his younger brother and to keep the farm from being seized (since it was jointly owned). It seems the cops had earlier busted some college kid who was growing his own in his apartment. They made the kid play the "if you give up your dealer, you won't stay in jail forever" game. The Boiz brothers were the only other folks he knew that weren't just users. So some months later, Stan is facing some really stiff mandatory minimums. He was a 50 year old man. Rather than sitting in jail till he's sixty he opted instead to jump off the rafters of his barn with a noose of aviation cable tied round his neck. Being the smart and efficient farmer he was, the attempt severed his head clean off. I understand that the authorities aren't directly responsible for Stan's death or the chaos that erupted in the community following the tragedy. I also understand that when someone commits a crime against society they should be removed from that society or punished. However the Boiz brothers weren't any threat to society or anybody. On the contrary, they were a huge benefit. They didn't sell their pot to anyone. They only grew it for themselves and visitors. These guys weren't corrupting children or shooting cops. They weren't doing anything but minding their own business and helping out where they could. They didn't deserve what they got. The state police organized the arrest but I don't really blame them. They were acting on a policy decision of the governor, who at the time was Howard Dean. I hold Howard Dean responsible. I also hold Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and all the elected officials that allow these laws to exist responsible for the death of a really nice guy who never did anything wrong. These laws do not need to be passed, enforced, or upheld by any part of our government. I'll never again vote for a party that supports the continuation of the war on drugs.

- submitted by Casey

I Don't Want to Wake Up in the Middle of the Night Worrying Anymore.

Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:04:12 GMT

(I actually wrote this for my own blog, but I am going to donate it here, coz it's a better place.) Glutter Socio-Political Rants: The Drug Issue I just woke up in the middle of the night. It's 4 something blah blah am. I had a dream I was on the phone with a dear dear friend who is a meth addict, and that in one hand I was holding a little girl and on the other telling him to please stay away from me until he gets clean. But at 4am I just want to ask, why don't they just legalize the stuff and use the tax money to build rehabs, plug it back in educational campaigns and community centers and help all those people who are in trouble and their families? My friend has two little girls. One who is 11 and the other who is 7. They don't have a daddy. Not a real one. And he hates himself and the world because he feels his children were taken away from him. He will cry while he cooks thinking of the times when he was able to do this for his little girls. Those girls will grow up knowing their father is an addict and his parents knowing their two sons are addicts and wonder what they did wrong. I don't know if they did anything wrong. This guy is brilliant, his brother even more. You know that your Air Nikes now have greenhouse-safe gas in them? Yeah. Partly thanks to the world's favorite villain: a drug addict. Maybe they were just self medicating, whatever bio-chemistry imbalance they were born with and it got out of hand. Maybe they were weak, maybe they made some stupid mistake. Aren't we allowed those? I just know they are in trouble and they are more likely to end up in jail than rehab. Seems wrong to me. I have no moral problems with drugs but I have issues with the fact it's not legal. We can build guns, bombs, and start wars and be rich, Presidents, Prime Ministers or whatever, but if you grow a little pot in the basement you can be incarcerated. It makes me know that at the end of the day, the system is bunk. I don't believe in it. Call me a radical, which is my favorite new word, coz it sounds so sixties. Call me an idealist. Call me mad. Whatever. I just know it doesn't work as it is because if it did, the world would not have a drug problem. I think I am just practical. See a problem admit the way it used to be was wrong. Sorry to all those people who invested a career or a religion or a belief that didn't work out. Grow up. It happens, deal with it. Coz right now the governments and the people keep wasting tax money building prisons and knocking its head against a wall. Time to re-conceive real solutions to problems. If it means trying new ways to do things. I am all for it. If it fails. Whoo Hoo, we are back where we started. He and others suffer -like as if they aren't already. I am back into bed. I prefer if I didn't have to get up and write this at all. But it's the truth. I do it because I have to deal with having bad dreams because of both one person and society's weakness in not willing to make change.

- contributed by Yan

Guest Drug WarRant now in operation

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:22:29 GMT

After numerous requests to allow/encourage guest rants, this sub-category of Drug WarRant has now been established. Here's your chance to have your say. Fed up with something you've read in the media, but your response just won't fit the 250 word Letter to the Editor format? Upset with something I've written in Drug WarRant, because you feel I went too far, or not far enough? Just want to get something off your chest? Send your submission in to me (see details at left). There will be no attempt to maintain any level of posting in this category, so it will depend entirely on submissions received.

- posted by Pete Guither

The futillity of our half-assed effort at halting drug use in this country

Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:29:56 GMT

NOTE: this e-mail was originally an attemted post on freevibe.com that turned into a rant! I tried to email it to the CIA only to have it rejected because of so called dagerous characters(in the ASCII sense) I kid you not! Since you wouldn't allow me to say above the subject of this message is basically the futillity of our half-assed effort at halting drug use in this country. I must say that I know that the CIA has received secret funding from drug trafficking and I have proof. you people should be ashamed of yourselves! The U.S. government is rapidly losing its credibility, along with it's consent to govern. I love America! It is my homeland. I am sending this email in hopes that I may restore freedom and dignity to a segment of society that has been scapegoated, persecuted, and humiliated, so that others can profit off of their misery.(drug dealers, prisons, police, so-called treatment centers, doctors, lawyers, the media, the list goes on) Hello everyone! let me start by saying that this probably won't make it to the message board. But at least that means someone will read it. If just one person reads this then it is worth it for me to type this. I am 31 years old, college educated and have been smoking marijuana daily for 11 years( I occasionally puffed as a teenager but didn't start smoking daily until about age 20) I have a college degree in a very tecnical and lucrative discipline, Unfortunately I am stuck as an assistant manager at a gas station making $7.65/hour. (all decent jobs seem to have this urine fetish!! although lately I have learned to consider myself lucky for having a job at all!) I am mad now about it now because my first joint sit's on my left next to my keyboard. In fact the only time I do not crave marijuana is when I am snowboarding. this kind of tripped me out because I just learned to snowboard last year and yes I can do it while high, but it seems that the natural rush provided by the new activity makes pot unneccessary. (Unfortunately snowboarding costs more than pot!! and the winter only lasts so long). therefore snowboarding has become my antidrug. My concern is that our young people are being lied to by a government that promotes some drugs (alcohol, tobbacco, prescription meds) and criminilzed the use of others(heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, PCP etc.) and uses the enforcement of said laws to implement a racist policy, engages in drug trafficking itself(the gov't), and lies to the American people about it thus perverting our democracy! to get back to my point though(I am so angry!!!) many of us such as myself who are addicted to an illegal drug who may wish to seek help are afraid to do so because we are afraid of getting busted. Decriminilizing use of drugs only works for those of us that are fortunate to have a legitimate source of income that can support our habit.(i.e. the rich) the rest of us must resort to dealing drugs to support our habit. Doesn't anyone else see the problem with this!!! Now little drug addicts are selling drugs to our children to support their habits.(much the same as school children who sold alcohol during prohibition.) making drugs illegal also makes using drugs cool to modern day 'James Dean' types who may use drugs only because they are illegal. In myself I noticed that my use of alcohol went way down after I turned 21. (coincidence? or just growing up, maybe) furthermore the only way to eliminate drugs from our society would be to change the War on Drugs to the Inquisition against drugs) yes the complete suppression of any knowledge of psychoactive subtances. all books must be burned. all information(like this website) destroyed. drug users and dealers executed as well as those who are suspected drug dealers or users.(I personally recommend the time honored tradition of burning at the stake.. It worked in the past!) No half Assed solution will work. the only other possible soultion is to learn to live with drugs and drug users. Drug education programs such as DARE may be well intentioned but are actually counterproductive and can be seen as actually advertisement for the drug industry.(you people are so naive!) well I am suffering the full effects of marijuana withdrawl(as well as caffiene intoxication) so I must go now. Just remember Its your life. Drugs are addictive, and should you choose to use drugs there is a chance that you may become a loser like me. fyi I have done the following illegal drugs in my life..(alcohol under the age of 21, cigarrettes under the age of 18, marijuana, LSD, Psylocibin('shrooms) cocaine (powdered(snorted and injected) and crack)methamphetamine(snorted smoked and injected any orafice will do thank you), opium oxycontin (ask Rush), vicodin, morphine all recreationally without a prescription I might add. I have enjoyed premarital sex (only sex I have ever had since I have never been married) I guess this makes me evil, perverted and persecuted and imprisoned in the so called land of the free. thank you for your time.

- somewhat anonymous social degenerate