You don’t see this every day President Obama signs into law the Fair Sentencing Act relaxing sentences for drug crimes. This will narrow the disparity between sentences for crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine. As President Obama loosens one drug policy, the senate is advancing a bill that would toughen the penalty for pot brownies. Aaron Houston the Executive Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy says the demand for marijuana is fueling the drug wars. Bishop Allen President of International Faith Based Coalition debates legalizing and drug addiction with Houston.
-
-
This editorial is begging for letters-to-the-editor.
Pubdate: Sun, 08 Aug 2010
Source: Ottawa Sun (CN ON)
Copyright: 2010 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.ottawasun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/329
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n637/a06.htmlThe debate about legalizing marijuana goes around every few years like a joint in frat house on a Friday night.
This past week we fired it up again. An exclusive Leger Marketing poll commissioned by QMI Agency shows that more than half of Canadians believe marijuana possession should not be a crime.
That’s a shame. Although possessing marijuana might appear to be a minor offence, if one at all, no one should dispute the negative impact marijuana addiction can have on people’s lives, especially
young people.Now before you pot-smoking, self-righteous readers write us that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, no more dangerous than cigarettes, stop, put your roach down and relax.
Ask Greg Thomson, whose teenage son was killed by a drug-impaired driver in 1999, how dangerous marijuana can be.
In reality, the driver who caused the accident that killed Stan Thomson was found not guilty of driving while impaired, and it is clear from the circumstances of the accident that he did not lose control of his car, rather, he attempted an illegal, high-speed pass in the oncoming lane, probably to impress his teenaged passengers and other friends in a convoy of four vehicles. See http://www.mapinc.org/newstlc/v00/n1386/a03.html
-
Here’s a nice rebuttal from Dale Gieringer of California NORML to a recent column in the Sacramento Bee which raised an alarm over Proposition 19 causing carnage on California’s highways.
Pubdate: Sun, 8 Aug 2010
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2010 The Sacramento Bee
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376
Author: Dale Gieringer, Special to The Bee
Note: Dale Gieringer is the California director of the marijuana legalization group NORML, the National Organization for Reformof Marijuana Laws.
Cited: Proposition 19 http://www.taxcannabis.org/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272RISK OF STONED DRIVERS MINIMAL WITH PROP. 19
Critics of this November’s Proposition 19 initiative to legalize marijuana are raising concerns that it could lead to an epidemic of road accidents by pot-impaired drivers.
Because accidents, unlike other purported hazards of marijuana, pose a risk to non-users, such concerns deserve to be addressed seriously.
Fortunately, there exists extensive evidence showing that marijuana, unlike alcohol, does not pose a major highway safety hazard, and that
liberal marijuana laws have no adverse impact on highway safety.Studies on marijuana and driving safety are remarkably consistent, though greatly under-publicized because they fail to support the government’s anti-pot line. Eleven different studies of more than 50,000 fatal accidents have found that drivers with marijuana-only in their system are on average no more likely to cause accidents than
those with low, legal levels of alcohol below the threshold for DUI.The major exception is when marijuana is combined with alcohol, which tends to be highly dangerous.
Several studies have failed to detect any increased accident risk from marijuana at all. The reason for pot’s relative safety appears to be that it tends to make users drive more slowly, while alcohol makes them speed up.
Thus legalization could actually reduce accidents if more drivers used marijuana instead of alcohol, but it could also increase them if there were more combined use of the two.
-
By Ryan Grim
Putting the question of marijuana legalization on state ballots in 2012 may be one of the most effective ways for a dispirited Democratic Party to get reluctant voters out to the polls. The wild card in the coming midterms and in 2012 will be the “surge” voters — people who were driven to the polls in 2008 through a once-in-a-generation mix of shame at the outgoing administration and hope in a new, barrier-breaking candidate. Democrats are investing millions in figuring out how to get those voters out, and the marijuana issue is getting increasing attention from political operatives.
A survey making the rounds among strategists, which has yet to be made public, indicates that pot could be just the enticement many of these voters need: Surge voters, single women under 40 and Hispanics all told America Votes pollsters that if a legalization measure were on the Colorado ballot, they’d be more likely to come out to vote. Forty-five percent of surge voters and 47 percent of single women said they’d be more interested in voting if the question was on the ballot. Most of these were energetic, with 36 and 30 percent, respectively, saying they’d be “much more interested” in coming out to vote. Roughly half said it would make no difference. For Latinos, 32 percent said they’d be “much more interested” in voting and another 12 percent said they’d be somewhat more attracted to the idea of trudging to the polls.
-
Pubdate: Fri, 30 Jul 2010
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Copyright: 2010 Independent Media Institute
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
Author: Daniela Perdomo, AlterNet
Note: Daniela Perdomo is a staff writer and editor at AlterNet
Cited: Proposition 19 http://www.taxcannabis.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Proposition+19WILL CALIFORNIA LEGALIZE POT?
With Only a Few Months to Go Until the Election, the Campaign to
Legalize Marijuana in California Has Only $50,000 in Cash on Hand.
The Question Now Is: How Can It Win?Continues: http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0444.html
-
Legal marijuana would be a boon for California consumers.
By Jacob Sullum
A group called Public Safety First warns that “the pre-tax price of marijuana could substantially decline” and “consumption of marijuana would increase” if Californians vote to legalize the drug in November. Well, yes, that’s sort of the idea.
Proposition 19, a California ballot initiative that would legalize cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal use while authorizing local governments to allow commercial production and sale, would move marijuana into a legal, regulated market, transforming criminals into consumers. Lower prices and increased use mean greater consumer satisfaction, something that should be welcomed rather than feared.
-
Pubdate: Sat, 24 Jul 2010
Source: New York Times (NY)
Page: A1, Front Page
Contact: [email protected]
Author: Dan Frosch
Cited: Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access http://www.veteransformedicalmarijuana.org/
Referenced: The letter to Mr. Krawitz http://drugsense.org/url/qWkiEgE5V.A. EASING RULES FOR USERS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DENVER — The Department of Veterans Affairs will formally allow
patients treated at its hospitals and clinics to use medical
marijuana in states where it is legal, a policy clarification that
veterans have sought for several years.A department directive, expected to take effect next week, resolves
the conflict in veterans facilities between federal law, which
outlaws marijuana, and the 14 states that allow medicinal use of the
drug, effectively deferring to the states.[snip]
Continues: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n585.a09.html
-
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. -
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.