• Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net

    The Beatles Call For The Legalisation Of Marijuana

    9.00am, Monday 24 July 1967 (43 years ago)

    A full-page advertisement appeared in The Times newspaper on this day, signed by 64 of the most prominent members of British society, which called for the legalisation of marijuana. Among the signatories were The Beatles and Brian Epstein.

    The advertisement was instigated as a response to the nine-month prison sentence for possession received on 1 June 1967 by John Hopkins, founder of International Times, the UFO Club and the 24 Hour Technicolour Dream. The following day an emergency meeting was held at the Indica Bookshop, during which Steve Abrams of drug-research organisation SOMA suggested bringing the issue into public debate by running a full-page advertisement.

    Abrams agreed to organise the signatures, but the question of financing the advertisement proved temporarily problematic. None of The Beatles were present at the Indica, but the bookshop’s co-owner Barry Miles telephoned Paul McCartney, who agreed to finance the advertisement.

    On 3 June Miles and Abrams visited McCartney’s house in Cavendish Avenue. McCartney listened to the plans, told Abrams that all The Beatles and Epstein would put their names to it, and told them how to contact the rest of the group for their signatures.

    On 23 July, the day before publication, the ad was mentioned in The Sunday Times’ Atticus column, written by Philip Oates. Behind the scenes, however, The Times’ advertising manager, R Grant Davidson, nervously insisted on checking that all the people had indeed agreed for their names to be associated with the article.

    Davidson also insisted on advance payment. Steve Abrams contacted Peter Brown at Brian Epstein’s office, and shortly afterwards received a personal cheque for £1,800 made out to The Times. At the time the amount was twice the average annual wage.

    Although McCartney had wanted to keep the funding a secret, in fear of negative publicity, it soon proved impossible. The day after the advertisement appeared, the information appeared in the Evening Standard’s Londoner’s Diary.

    Within a week of its appearance, the advertisement led to questions being asked in the House of Commons, and began a public debate which eventually led to liberalisation in the laws against cannabis use in Britain.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    This advertisement is sponsored by SOMA*
    The law against marijuana is immoral in principle and unworkable in practice.

  • Focus Alerts

    #443 Drug Policy Is Inconsistent With All Available Evidence

    Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010
    Subject: #443 Drug Policy Is Inconsistent With All Available Evidence

    DRUG POLICY IS INCONSISTENT WITH ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE

    **********************************************************************

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #443 – Saturday, July 24th, 2010

    Syndicated columnist Dan Gardner covers an event and provides a
    historical background which has received little attention (the New
    York Times did cover the story http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n583/a01.html
    ).

    Mr. Gardner was recognized by the Drug Policy Alliance with the Edward
    M. Brecher Award for Achievement in the Field of Journalism for the
    series at this link http://www.mapinc.org/gardner.htm You may read
    more of his columns at http://www.mapinc.org/author/Dan+Gardner

    Please read and sign The Vienna Declaration at http://www.viennadeclaration.com/

    An anonymous donor has challenged DrugSense to raise $25,000 in new
    donations and/or increases in current periodic donations. Once the
    goal is achieved the donor will provide us with $25,000. Today we have
    almost reached this important goal. Please help us meet the challenge!
    http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm

    **********************************************************************

    Pubdate: Fri, 23 Jul 2010

    Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)

    Copyright: 2010 The Ottawa Citizen

    Contact: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/letters.html

    Author: Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen

    WHY OUR DRUG POLICY IS ‘INCONSISTENT’ WITH ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE

    It’s safe to assume most people have never heard of the “Vienna
    Declaration.” And that simple fact helps explain why public policies
    that fail — policies that do vastly more harm than good — can live
    on despite overwhelming evidence of their failure.

    The Vienna Declaration, published in the medical journal The Lancet,
    is an official statement of the 18th International AIDS Conference,
    which wraps up today in Vienna. Drafted by an international team of
    public health experts, including Evan Wood of the University of
    British Columbia, the Vienna Declaration seeks to “improve community
    health and safety” by, in the words of the committee, “calling for the
    incorporation of scientific evidence into illicit drug policies.”

    Please don’t stop reading. I promise this will not turn into another
    of my rants about the catastrophic failure of drug prohibition. I’ve
    been writing variations on that theme for more than a decade now and
    everyone knows I am a crazed extremist whose views are not to be
    trusted by decent folk. I’ll spare you.

    Instead, I will merely present a few sentences from the Vienna Declaration:

    . “The criminalization of illicit drug users is fuelling the HIV
    epidemic and has resulted in overwhelming health and social
    consequences.”

    . “There is no evidence that increasing the ferocity of law
    enforcement meaningfully reduces the prevalence of drug use.”

    . “The evidence that law enforcement has failed to prevent the
    availability of illegal drugs, in communities where there is demand,
    is now unambiguous. Over the last several decades, (there has been) a
    general pattern of falling drug prices and increasing drug purity —
    despite massive investments in drug law enforcement.”

    . (Existing policies have produced) “a massive illicit market. …
    These profits remain entirely outside the control of government. They
    fuel crime, violence and corruption in countless urban communities and
    have destabilized entire countries, such as Colombia, Mexico, and
    Afghanistan.”

    . “Billions of tax dollars (have been) wasted on a ‘war on drugs’
    approach …”

    . Governments should “undertake a transparent review of the
    effectiveness of current drug policies.”

    . “A full policy reorientation is needed.”

    Remarkable, isn’t it? It’s exactly what this crazed extremist has been
    saying for more than a decade and yet the people who wrote and signed
    it are anything but crazed extremists. Among them is a long list of
    esteemed public health experts, including the president of the
    International AIDS Society, the executive director of the Global Fund
    to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, and Canada’s own Dr. James Orbinski.
    There are former presidents of Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. And there
    are several Nobel laureates, including the economist Vernon Smith.
    (See the full list of signatories, along with the statement, at
    viennadeclaration.com).

    This should be big news. Drug policies affect everything from the
    local street corner to the war in Afghanistan — and here is a long
    list of informed and eminent people who agree what we are currently
    doing is a horrifying mistake that wastes money and takes lives. The
    public should be alarmed.

    But this is not big news. And the public is not alarmed. In fact, most
    of the public has never heard of the Vienna Declaration. Why not?

    To answer that, let me take you way back to Sept. 5, 1989. That
    evening, U.S. president George H.W. Bush made a televised national
    address. Holding up a bag labelled “evidence,” Bush explained that
    this was crack seized at the park across the street from the White
    House. Crack is everywhere, he said. It’s an epidemic. Bush vowed
    “victory over drugs.”

    The whole thing was a fraud. Federal agents had tried to find someone
    selling drugs in the park but couldn’t. Posing as customers, they
    called a drug dealer and asked him to come to the park. “Where the
    (expletive) is the White House?” the dealer said. So the police gave
    him directions.

    This chicanery was exposed not long after but it didn’t matter. Bush’s
    address was a smash. The media bombarded the public with hysterical
    stories about the “crack epidemic.” Popular concern soared. And “all
    this occurred while nearly every index of drug use was dropping,”
    noted sociologists Craig Reinarman and Harry G. Levine.

    The power to throw the switch on media coverage isn’t exclusive to the
    White House, of course. In 1998, the United Nations convened a General
    Assembly Special Session which brought leaders from all over the world
    to discuss illicit drugs. The media deluged the public with stories
    about drugs — and the UN’s official goal, signed at the end of the
    assembly by all member states, of “eliminating or significantly
    reducing the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant
    and the opium poppy by the year 2008.”

    Time passed. The Special Assembly was forgotten. When 2008 rolled
    around, cocaine output had increased 20 per cent and opium production
    had doubled. But this spectacular failure was almost completely
    ignored in the media. Why? The UN stayed mum. So did national
    governments. With no major institutions putting the subject on the
    agenda, the media ignored it.

    This is the essential problem: If governments talk about drugs,
    journalists talk about drugs; if they don’t, we don’t. And since
    governments are full of people whose budgets, salaries, and careers
    depend on the status quo, they talk about drugs when doing so is good
    for the status quo, but they are silent as mimes when it’s not. Thus
    the media become the unwitting propaganda arm of the status quo.

    I’m not sure what it will take to change this. It would certainly help
    if the media would stop letting governments decide what is news and
    what is not. Even better would be leaders with the courage to put
    evidence ahead of cheap politics, entrenched thinking, and vested interests.

    But that’s not happening. And so, on Monday, the government of Canada
    felt free to categorically reject the Vienna Declaration because it is
    “inconsistent” with its policies — policies which have never been
    subjected to evidence-based evaluation and would surely be condemned
    if they were.

    This is how failure lives on.

    **********************************************************************

    Suggestions for writing letters are at our Media Activism Center
    http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

    For facts about HIV/AIDS & Injection Drug Use please see
    http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/48

    **********************************************************************

    Prepared by: Richard Lake www.mapinc.org

    =.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net - International

    Comedic Immunity

    A Canadian newspaper chain has taken exception to Cheech and Chong criticizing Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his regressive cannabis policies.

    CHEECH AND CHONG, JUST SAY SO LONG

    It’s not an exhaustive list, but here are some things Canada needs, followed by something that this country does not need.

    Canada needs to return to its budding glory as a world leader in aerospace technology. When the Avro Arrow was cancelled in the 1950s, many of our best aerospace engineers and technicians followed the jobs to the U.S. It has not significantly turned around yet.

    [snip]

    Canada also needs a continued sense of self-worth. It has been growing of late, for which we can thank the 2010 Olympics, international success of our athletes, comedians, actors and musicians, financial stability in the midst of a global economic crisis, and worldwide humanitarian aid – again, well out of proportion to our population. There’s more, but here’s something we do not need: Americans offering us unsolicited advice.

    We don’t need Hilary Clinton telling us what our military obligations are in Afghanistan. We made our commitment, we’ve lived up to it, we stated our case and we’re leaving next year.

    [snip]

    And we don’t need a couple of stoners ( Tommy Chong, who is originally from Edmonton, and American Cheech Marin ), addicts or not, holding what can only be described as a “bitchfest” to gripe about Canada’s rules regarding marijuana.

    That anyone would come here and insult our national leader shows a gross lack of respect for a sovereign nation of which he is not a part. Marin was a guest for a comedy show in Montreal but he used the opportunity to insult the entire country. Whether we took offence or not ( and many wouldn’t ) doesn’t change the fact that it was crass and disrespectful.

    Canadians have long been criticized of having low self-esteem.

    Accepting such rudeness indicates the criticism is just.

    What gives them the right?

    It’s a secondary matter whether or not you like Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The office itself demands a certain amount of respect and if Canadians want to breach that standard, that’s our right because we’re citizens and we vote and we live here.

    But for anyone else to insult our leaders, our politics, our laws, our culture, well, that we don’t need.

    Here’s a map. Go home.

    Continues: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n573/a06.html

    Of course, it is not as though Canadian comedians who have gained international success have not cashed in on making fun of U.S. leaders, politics, laws and culture. See for example Rick Mercer talking to Americans.

    Or Canadian talk show hosts prank calling Sarah Palin.

    When did political leaders become immune from critics, comedians and satirists from other countries?

    Of course, Canadians do not like being bullied by Americans, but Cheech and Chong are comedians, and they did not insult Canadians or Canadian culture. American Cheech Marin called Harper a “douchebag” for trying to import U.S. drug policies, while Canadian Tommy Chong implied that Harper is a G.W. Bush wannabe, and they are right. When it comes to drug policy, Harper is an international embarrassment, and Canadians deserve to be reminded of that, especially by Americans.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - International

    When did Canada go from laid-back to straight-laced on marijuana policy?

    by Marc-Boris St.-Maurice Founder, Bloc Pot and the Marijuana Party of Canada.

    I can totally understand why legendary stoner comedians Cheech and Chong might be tempted to take a shot at Harper. OK, I think calling the prime minister a “douchebag” is overly harsh language – I always thought you could catch more flies with honey – but as actors they can get away with it.

    Of course, the real irony here is that they are not “acting” one bit. However crass the comment, it could not have been more sincere. In 2003, Chong and his son were arrested for the interstate distribution of drug paraphernalia – their company “Chong Glass” had been selling pipes and bongs with the icon’s image on them. Chong pleaded guilty and served nine months in jail to save his son from prosecution.

    Prior to the arrest, Tommy was somewhat vocal about legalization, but since his stint in the joint, he has become a full-blown activist. His show has gone from comedy classics to political theatre. Adversity breeds activism, and going to jail certainly qualifies as adverse.

    But when did Canada go from laid-back-ganja-cool to button-down-straight-laced?

  • Cannabis & Hemp - What You Can Do

    Stop Michele Leonhart

    The DEA has raided five medical marijuana providers in the past few weeks. DEA acting administrator Michele Leonhart is out of control, and it’s time to demand a response from President Obama. Tell the president that he needs to find a DEA administrator who respects patients’ rights and local sovereignty.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net

    The Link Between Marijuana and Schizophrenia

    By Maia Szalavitz

    Since the days of Reefer Madness, scientists have sought to understand the complex connection between marijuana and psychosis. Cannabis can cause short-term psychotic experiences, such as hallucinations and paranoia, even in healthy people, but researchers have also long noted a link between marijuana use and the chronic psychotic disorder, schizophrenia.

    Repeatedly, studies have found that people with schizophrenia are about twice as likely to smoke pot as those who are unaffected. Conversely, data suggest that those who smoke cannabis are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as nonsmokers. One widely publicized 2007 review of the research even concluded that trying marijuana just once was associated with a 40% increase in risk of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

  • Focus Alerts

    #442 Battle Of Words In The War On Drugs

    Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010
    Subject: #442 Battle Of Words In The War On Drugs

    BATTLE OF WORDS IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

    **********************************************************************

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #442 – Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

    The Miami Herald’s syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts column below has
    been printed in various newspapers as you may see at
    http://www.mapinc.org/author/Leonard+Pitts

    All are appropriate targets for you letters to the
    editor.

    An anonymous donor has challenged DrugSense and MAP to raise $25,000
    in new donations and/or increases in current periodic donations. Once
    the goal is achieved the donor will provide us with $25,000. Today we
    are about four fifths of the way to this important goal. Please help
    us meet the challenge! http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm

    **********************************************************************

    BATTLE OF WORDS IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

    Bishop Ron Allen probably thinks Alice Huffman has been smoking
    something.

    Huffman, president of the California Conference of the NAACP, recently
    declared support for an initiative that, if passed by voters in
    November, will decriminalize the use and possession of marijuana.
    Huffman sees it as a civil rights issue.

    In response, Allen, founder of the International Faith-Based
    Coalition, a religious social activism group, has come out swinging.
    “Why would the state NAACP advocate for blacks to stay high?” he
    demanded this month at a news conference in Sacramento. “It’s going to
    cause crime to go up. There will be more drug babies.” Allen wants
    Huffman to resign.

    But Huffman is standing firm, both in resisting calls for her head and
    in framing this as an issue of racial justice. There is, she notes, a
    pronounced racial disparity in the enforcement of marijuana laws.
    She’s right, of course. For that matter, there is a disparity in the
    enforcement of drug laws, period.

    In 2007, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, 9.5
    percent of blacks (about 3.6 million people) and 8.2 percent of whites
    (about 16 million) older than 12 reported using some form of illicit
    drug in the previous month. Yet though there are more than “four
    times” as many white drug users as black ones, blacks represent better
    than half those in state prison on drug charges, according to The
    Sentencing Project. The same source says that though two-thirds of
    regular crack users are white or Latino, 82 percent of those sentenced
    in federal court for crack crimes are black. In some states, black men
    are jailed on drug charges at a rate 50 times higher than whites.

    And so on.

    So while the bishop hyperventilates about blacks “staying” high (?),
    he ignores a clearer and more present danger. As Michelle Alexander
    argues in her book The New Jim Crow, those absurd sentencing rates,
    combined with laws making it legal to discriminate against even
    nonviolent former felons in hiring, housing and education, constitute
    nothing less than a new racial caste system.

    Allen worries about a baby being born addicted to pot, but the
    likelier scenario is that she will be born to a father unable to
    secure a job so he can support her, an apartment for her to live in or
    an education so he can better himself for her — all because he got
    caught with a joint 10 years ago.

    It is a cruel and ludicrous predicament.

    And apparently Huffman, like a growing number of cops, judges, DEA
    agents, pundits and even conservative icons like the late William F.
    Buckley Jr. and Milton Friedman, has decided to call the war on drugs
    what it is: a failure. It is time to find a better way, preferably one
    that emphasizes treatment over incarceration.

    You’d think that would be a no-brainer.

    We have spent untold billions of dollars, ruined untold millions of
    lives and racked up the highest incarceration rate in the world to
    fight drug use. Yet we saw casual drug use “rise” by 2,300 percent
    between 1970 and 2003, according to Law Enforcement Against
    Prohibition, an advocacy group. And as drug use skyrocketed, we find
    that we have moved the needle on “addiction” not even an inch, up or
    down.

    All we have managed, and at a ruinous cost, is to relearn the lesson
    of 1933, when alcohol Prohibition ended: You cannot jail or punish
    people out of wanting what they want.

    I’ve never used drugs. I share Allen’s antipathy toward them. But it
    seems silly and self-defeating to allow that reflexive antipathy to
    bind us to the same strategy that has failed for 30 years.

    By now, one thing should be obvious about our war on
    drugs.

    Drugs won.

    **********************************************************************

    Suggestions for writing letters are at our Media Activism Center
    http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

    Over thirty thousand published letters provide examples at
    http://www.mapinc.org/lte/

    **********************************************************************

    Prepared by: Richard Lake www.mapinc.org

    =.

  • Hot Off The 'Net - International

    ‘Plan Colombia’ Turns 10

    Looking at the Effects of Bill Clinton’s Signature Drug War Project

    By Phillip S. Smith, Drug War Chronicle

    The United States has been trying to suppress Colombian coca production and cocaine trafficking since at least the time of Ronald Reagan, but the contemporary phase of US intervention in Colombia in the name of the war on drugs celebrated its 10th anniversary this week. As Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) security analyst Adam Isaacson pointed out Wednesday in a cogent essay, “Colombia: Don’t Call It A Model,” it was on July 13, 2000, that President Bill Clinton signed into law a $1.3 billion package of mainly military assistance known as Plan Colombia.