Drug Criminalization Structure Squanders $88 Billion PER YEAR

Weed Wars blog at the Sacramento Post

A new report, "The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition," has been published by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock, a PhD candidate at the Stern School of Business at New York University. This report has been published by The Cato Institute.

An announcement for Cato study asserts that the "drug criminalization structure" nationally "squanders a total of $88 billion a year - $41.3 billion spent to prosecute the 'war on drugs' and $46.7 billion in lost potential revenue from the taxation of legal drug sales."

A .pdf of the report is available at the link above.

Obama drug-policy adviser says the administration opposes marijuana legalization

...and isn't big on medical marijuana.

Billings Gazette

HELENA — The Obama administration adamantly opposes legalizing marijuana and has a dubious view of medical marijuana, a top White House drug policy adviser said here Thursday night.

Kevin Sabet, special adviser for policy at the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, said marijuana is a dangerous drug that causes documented health and social problems, and should not be subject to voter approval for its use.

“Marijuana cannot be the one exception in history of the world that doesn’t go through a scientific process to be approved as medicine,” he told the Montana Supreme Court Administrator’s annual drug court conference in Helena. “It doesn’t make any sense.

“How can we imagine that a dangerous, illegal drug like marijuana should be voted on by the people? That’s not how we do medicine in this country.

...Sabet said he believes medical marijuana programs are part of a strategy to legalize marijuana, and that the Obama administration is staunchly opposed to legalization.”

...Sabet also said legalization proponents have created a “false dichotomy” by suggesting the only alternatives are legalization or a harsh, punitive approach that emphasizes incarceration.

Those aren’t the only options, and the Obama administration favors an approach that pairs treatment with law enforcement, to reduce illegal drug usage and addiction without sending people to prison, he said.

Sigh. So tired of these stale talking points.

Legal Cannabis is the Best Thing for Medical Marijuana Patients Since Prop. 215

In recent weeks some people in California have spoken out against Prop. 19 by declaring it hurts medical marijuana patients.

A medical marijuana and Prop. 19 supporter asked California attorney David Nick to comment.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Peron’s sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

Here's what Nick has to say:

PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.

Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.

PROP. 19 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO PATIENTS FROM THE ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 & 8) specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”

This is an email from the attorney. You can read the rest of it here

David Borden, Exec. Director of Stop the Drug War, brings this email to the attention of the larger public and notes that opposition is not across the board among those currently involved in the medical marijuana community.

Fortunately, only some medical marijuana people are so shortsighted as to oppose this historic and important measure. Harborside Health Center in Oakland, and the Berkeley Patients Group are among the top quality groups lending their support to Prop 19. But it's still worth asking, why are some other medical marijuana providers opposing it?

Famed Canadian Marc Emery, from his US prison cell offered the obvious explanation: money.

Of course, the answer could also be a misreading of the current Proposition or simply failing to read the language and arguments themselves among those who have joined those who put their financial gain above every person in this nation who stands to benefit from an end to the war on cannabis.

The Most Censored Health Story of This Century

Cannabis Cures Cancer

Project Censored, Top 25 Stories, 2001
The U.S. Government Attempted to Repress the Marijuana Cancer Research.

...The Madrid researcher (studying the tumor-reducing qualities of cannabinoids, noted in the post immediately below) said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. “I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by theses people, but it has proven impossible,” Guzman said. His response wasn’t surprising, considering that in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966/76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer. “We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared,” he says.

Cured: A Cannabis Story

Antineoplastic Activity Of Cannabinoids

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 55, No. 3, September 1975 (via the UK Cannabis Internet Activist)

Investigations into the physiologic processes affected by the psychoactive constitutuents of marihuana [delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) and delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-8-THC)] purified from Cannabis sativa are extensive (1).

However, only recently have attempts been made to elucidate the biochemical basis for their cytotoxic or cytostatic activity. Leuchtenberger et al. (2) demonstrated that human lung cultures exposed to marihuana smoke showed alterations in DNA synthesis, with the appearance of anaphase bridges. (me: Anaphase bridges are one example of cancer cell abnormalities. Chromosomes are pulled in opposite directions by the spindle apparatus. This can result in double strand breaks that recombine as aberrations.)

A preliminary report from this laboratory (9) indicated that the ability of delta-9-THC to interfere with normal cell functions might prove efficacious against neoplasms. (me: an abnormal mass of tissue.) This report represents an effort to test various cannabinoids in several in vivo and in vitro tumor systems to determine the kinds of tumors that are sensitive to these compounds and reveal their possible biochemical sites of action(s).

...Delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol (CBN) all inhibited primary Lewis lung tumor growth, whereas cannabidiol (CBD) enhanced tumor growth.

Oral administration of 25, 50, or 100 mg delta-9-THC/kg inhibited primary tumor growth by 48, 72, and 75% respectively, when measured 12 days post tumor inoculation (table 1)

This paper, published more than 25 years ago, indicates that cannabis is a first-line cancer treatment. The reason this information is not widely available is that there is little to no profit for anyone (other than those suffering from cancer and the ones who love them) in this knowledge. Cannabis is a naturally-occurring substance whose properties may not be copyrighted.

Researchers at Harvard published a study in 2007 that indicates cannabis cuts lung cancer tumors by 50%.

Science News

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

Although the researchers do not know why THC inhibits tumor growth, they say the substance could be activating molecules that arrest the cell cycle. They speculate that THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.

Research in Spain, published in 2009, demonstrated the mechanism by which cannabis induces cancer cell death.

Journal of Clinical Investigation

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active component of marijuana (7), exerts a wide variety of biological effects by mimicking endogenous substances — the endocannabinoids — that bind to and activate specific cannabinoid receptors (8). One of the most exciting areas of research in the cannabinoid field is the study of the potential application of cannabinoids as antitumoral agents (9). Cannabinoid administration has been found to curb the growth of several types of tumor xenografts in rats and mice (9, 10).

Based on this preclinical evidence, a pilot clinical trial has been recently run to investigate the antitumoral action of THC on recurrent gliomas (11). Recent findings have also shown that the pro-apoptotic and tumor growth–inhibiting activity of cannabinoids relies on the upregulation of the transcriptional co-activator p8 (12) and its target the pseudo-kinase tribbles homolog 3 (TRB3) (13).

However, the mechanisms that promote the activation of this signaling route as well as the targets downstream of TRB3 that mediate its tumor cell–killing action remain elusive. In this study we found that ER stress–evoked upregulation of the p8/TRB3 pathway induced autophagy via inhibition of the Akt/mTORC1 axis and that activation of autophagy promoted the apoptotic death of tumor cells. The uncovering of this pathway, which we believe is novel, for promoting tumor cell death may have therapeutic implications in the treatment of cancer.

California Breast Cancer Research Program (from Molecular Cancer Therapeutics)

An anti-cancer agent with a low toxicity profile that can both inhibit cancer cell growth and metastasis would be extremely valuable clinically. We have discovered that cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychotropic cannabinoid constituent of the plant Cannabis sativa, can inhibit the growth, migration and invasion of aggressive breast cancer cells in culture.

Cannabinoid compounds, in general, have low toxicity profiles. Furthermore, our preliminary research demonstrated that CBD is a novel inhibitor of a protein whose activity has been closely linked to the aggressiveness of human breast cancers; called inhibitor of DNA binding-1 (Id-1). Whether CBD can inhibit the spread of metastatic breast cancer in vivo (in the body), compared to cell culture conditions, has not been determined.

However, CBD has been demonstrated to inhibit aggressive human brain cancers in vivo. Understanding the mechanisms behind the anti-cancer activity of CBD may lead to the validation of new biological targets for diagnostics and therapies for breast cancer.

Combining Cannabinoids Enhances Inhibition of Brain Cancer Cells

The study was done at the California Pacific Medical Center by researchers who combined a non-psychoactive ingredient of marijauna, cannabidiol (CBD), with Δ9-tetrahyrdocannabinol (Δ9-THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in Cannabis. The findings demonstrated the inhibitory effect of these two ingredients on brain cancer cells when used together.

“Our study not only suggests that combining these two compounds creates a synergistic effect,” says Sean McAllister, Ph.D., a scientist at CPMCRI and the lead author of the study. “but it also helps identify molecular mechanisms at work here, and that may lead to more effective treatments for glioblastoma and potentially other aggressive cancers.”

It would seem that "magic nature," as noted in the Michael Pollan quote here, does indeed have knowledge to impart.

Beer Distributors Donate $10,000 to Keep Cannabis Illegal

Redding Record Spotlight

On Sept. 7, the California Beer & Beverage Distributors gave $10,000 to a committee opposing Proposition 19, the measure that would change state law to legalize pot and allow it to be taxed and regulated.

The California Police Chiefs Association has given the most to the Proposition 19 opposition with a contribution of $30,000, according to Cal-Access, a website operated by the secretary of state’s office.

“Unless the beer distributors in California have suddenly developed a philosophical opposition to the use of intoxicating substances, the motivation behind this contribution is clear,” Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, said in statement. “Plain and simple, the alcohol industry is trying to kill the competition. Their mission is to drive people to drink.”

No one from the Beer Pac was available for comment.

This isn't the first time the Beer lobbyists have worked to continue prohibition (irony duly noted... or rather, hypocrisy, or rather, the truth that prohibition is a financial fight, not only for the petrol and forestry industries, but for the alcoholic beverage industry as well.)

In 2008, "the California Beer and Beverage Distributors contributed $100,000 to the campaign against Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA). This initiative proposed to, among other things, reduce the penalty for cannabis possession in California from a misdemeanor to an infraction, similar to a traffic ticket."

"...The original bill authorizing the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign specifically banned the use of campaign funds to address underage drinking. In fact, when lawmakers attempted to amend the bill so that anti-alcohol messages could be included, the NBWA (National Beer Wholesalers Association) strongly opposed the amendment. To this day, the national Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has remained almost entirely alcohol-free."

Oh, btw, the NBWA gave more than $8 million to federal candidates between 2003 and 2008 "and ranked among the top five most generous PACs each cycle, reaching the no. 2 slot in 2005-6."

(From the book, Marijuana is Safer, pp. 90-91.)

hmmmm.

Parallel Universes in Legal Cannabis Debate

Sacramento Bee: Weed Wars

A state Capitol hearing today on how Proposition 19 may affect the future universe of California produced such disparate views that Assemblyman Tom Ammiano pondered the potential outcomes as perhaps only he can.

"A drug czar today could be on Dancing With the Stars tomorrow," he said.

"It will not impede the drug cartels that are coming across our border and actually growing on our state and federal lands," (Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully. Speaking on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association) told the joint legislative public safety committee hearing chaired by Ammiano and state Sen. Mark Leno, two San Francisco lawmakers and Prop 19 supporters.

But Prop 19 campaign spokeswoman Dale Sky Jones argued that California's initiative will bring about changes mirroring the end of alcohol prohibition if passed.

"This is the first step to take control away from the criminals," she said, adding: "We don't have illegal grape-growing cartels in our national forests. And they don't take out guns. They take out advertising."

Rand Corp. researcher Beau Kilmer claimed cannabis use would increase..."back to where we were in the 70s."

The 70's? OH NO!





If I have to listen to ABBA and the BeeGees in order for justice to be done...I'm ready to make that sacrifice.

Notes on Arizona's Medical Marijuana Prop. 203

Ballotopedia: Proposition 203

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project filed the petition with the Secretary of State’s Office on November 23, 2009, which listed Diane Manchester as the official chairman of the organization. Manchester is a former civilian employee of the Phoenix Police Department who retired on disability. She has turned to medical marijuana in order to help her cope with pain that results from her multiple sclerosis. She has taken her place as chairman due to the growing fear among medical marijuana patients that they might be arrested. According to Manchester: “I am so prone to being scared, and it’s terrible. I want to stop the fear of the people who need it (marijuana). I am so tired of not being able to tell the truth. I know when my name and picture are out there people are going to know me. And that’s okay.”[7]

The Arizona Republic, July 2, 2010

As of Thursday's filing deadline, nine measures qualified for the Nov. 2 general-election ballot. But only one initiative - an effort to legalize medical marijuana - qualified for through a citizen petition.

Proposition 203, driven by the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project, proposes to allow patients with a debilitating medical condition such as cancer, HIV or multiple sclerosis to purchase, possess and use 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks with a doctor's recommendation.

Non-profit dispensaries regulated by the state would grow and sell the drug to approved patients.

It still would be illegal to use marijuana in a public place or drive under the influence of marijuana, but the initiative would forbid employers from firing qualified medical-marijuana users who test positive for the drug unless they can prove patients used or were impaired while at work.

This current Arizona proposition differs from California's 1996 medical marijuana law. The Arizona proposition creates non-profits to dispense marijuana that are regulated by the state. California law allows for-profit sales that are not state regulated. Among the other 14 legal marijuana laws in this nation, states allow personal cultivation.

In 1996, the people of Arizona voted to enact a medical marijuana law. The Arizona Legislature voted to overturn the will of the people. The Arizona medical marijuana law was to be hamstrung by federal drug scheduling that prevents doctors from prescribing medical marijuana on the basis of its erroneous scheduling. Catch-420. Doctors were threatened with revocation of their licenses to practice if they prescribed cannabis. Arizona voters rejected that attempt by legislators to impede the implementation of the law in 1998.

Drug Policy Alliance

An analysis by the Arizona Supreme Court found that Proposition 200 diverted 2,600 non-violent offenders into drug treatment in its first year, saving Arizona taxpayers $2.56 million. Over three-fourths of the offenders tested drug-free after completing the program. A follow-up Supreme Court study in 2001 found that Proposition 200 saved taxpayers over $6 million in prisons costs in its second year. The Supreme Court concluded, “The Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996 has allowed the judicial branch to build an effective probation model to treat and supervise substance abusing offenders.

...Despite the fact that two out of three Arizona voters voted for Proposition 200, the Arizona legislature passed legislation overturning most of the initiative. In 1998, voters supported referendums on the legislation such as Proposition 300 and 301 and defeated the changes. Voters also approved an initiative making it more difficult for legislators to tamper with voter-approved initiatives in the future.

In November of 2002 voters narrowly rejected a new drug policy reform bill, Proposition 203. This bill would have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, repealed mandatory minimums, set up a medical marijuana program, and removed court control of non-violent drug offenders. The bill still won the support of 43 percent of voters, demonstrating that support for such bills continues despite resistance from federal officials.

Proposition 203 got on the ballot in Arizona with 252,000 submitted signatures. One fiscal budget legislative study projects that 66,000 citizens of Arizona would qualify as medical marijuana recipients under the current proposition.

Doctors must continue, however, to contend with FDA drug scheduling that hinders the legal use of marijuana - a substance that is considered more dangerous to the federal government than Oxycontin, aka "hillbilly heroin," aka Limbaugh's drug of choice.

This scheduling continues in spite of the reality that there is no realistic scenario for overdose of cannabis in its natural form or any studies that indicate cannabis is physically addictive...again, unlike Oxycontin or Valium or a host of other barbiturates that are physically addictive and able to cause death in users by over- or misuse.

Arizona Republic, September 19, 2010

Even physicians who staunchly oppose the proposition said marijuana can provide medicinal relief for patients.

Dr. Lesley Meng, an oncologist who runs Desert Springs Cancer Care in Scottsdale, said 5 to 10 percent of her patients have told her they use marijuana for medicinal reasons. The clinic sees about 50 to 60 patients a day, she said.

Dr. Sue Sisley, who has a private practice in Scottsdale and specializes in internal medicine and psychiatry, said she has seen patients' quality of life improve after using marijuana to cope with chemotherapy or AIDS side effects.

Dr. Carol Peairs, an anesthesiologist in Phoenix who specializes in pain management, said she does not support Prop. 203 because "anecdote and emotion are not the way to prove a new medicine."

Dr. Ed Gogek, a psychiatrist in Prescott who specializes in addictions, said the medical community "absolutely recognizes" that marijuana is an addictive drug. Marijuana is not as addictive as tobacco or cocaine but about as addictive as alcohol, Gogek said.

Dr. Peairs might want to avail herself of the thousands of studies that indicate the value of medical marijuana.

NORML has a link here.

In 2008, investigators at McGill University Health Centre and McGill University in Montreal and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver reviewed 23 clinical investigations of medicinal cannabinoid drugs (typically oral THC or liquid cannabis extracts) and eight observational studies conducted between 1966 and 2007. Investigators "did not find a higher incidence rate of serious adverse events associated with medical cannabinoid use" compared to non-using controls over these three decades.

In some of these cases, modern science is now affirming longtime anecdotal reports of medicinal cannabis users (e.g., the use of cannabis to alleviate GI disorders). In other cases, this research is highlighting entirely new potential clinical utilities for cannabinoids (e.g., the use of cannabinoids to modify the progression of diabetes.)

This confirmation of anecdotal reports has taken place in spite of the federal government's attempt to demonize the use of a plant for medical use.

Dr. Gogek might want to elaborate on the studies noted by the Drug Policy Alliance that indicate marijuana is mildly addictive in less than 1% of the user population.

Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.

*United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. 2002. June 24 2005.

*Johnson, L.D., et al. “National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults.” Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.

*Kandel, D.B., et al. “Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29.

*Stephens, R.S., et al. “Adult marijuana users seeking treatment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.

All physicians in Arizona might want to investigate this statement by the former DEA administrator Frances Young:

"In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.

(US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.)

This statement was made more than twenty years ago.

I would be hesitant to consult any doctor who chose to remain ignorant about the medical truth of a substance for more than twenty years.

America's Missing Hemp Market

Hemp was abandoned, even though it is a multi-purpose crop that aids in weed suppression (and is thus useful in crop rotation), provides superior paper products, is the best source of EFAs for humans, and even has the capacity to make a car body that is structurally superior to steel. While the U.S. continues to make all cannabis crops illegal, even those varieties bred for low THC content, Canada is at work manufacturing an electric car whose body is made out of hemp.

via CBC News

The article above notes a hemp car was first created by Henry Ford.

Popular Mechanics, December, 1941

Over in England it's saccharine for sugar; on the continent it's charcoal "gasogenes" in the rumble seat instead of gasoline in the tank. Here in America there's plenty of sugar, plenty of gasoline. Yet there's an industrial revolution in progress just the same, a revolution in materials that will affect every home. After twelve years of research, the Ford Motor Company has completed an experimental automobile with a plastic body. Although its design takes advantage of the properties of plastics, the streamline car does not differ greatly in appearance from its steel counterpart.

The only steel in the hand-made body is found in the tubular welded frame on which are mounted 14 plastic panels, 3/16 inch thick. Composed of a mixture of farm crops and synthetic chemicals, the plastic is reported to withstand a blow 10 times as great as steel without denting. Even the windows and windshield are of plastic. The total weight of the plastic car is about 2,000 pounds, compared with 3,000 pounds for a steel automobile of the same size. Although no hint has been given as to when plastic cars may go into production, the experimental model is pictured as a step toward materialization of Henry Ford's belief that some day he would "grow automobiles from the soil."

When Henry Ford recently unveiled his plastic car, result of 12 years of research, he gave the world a glimpse of the automobile of tomorrow, its tough panels molded under hydraulic pressure of 1,500 pounds per square inch from a recipe that calls for 70 percent ofcellulose fibers from wheat straw, hemp and sisal plus 30 percent resin binder. The only steel in the car is its tubular welded frame. The plastic car weighs a ton, 1,000 pounds lighter than a comparable steel car. Manufacturers are already taking a low-priced plastic car to test the public's taste by 1943.

I posted a video of Ford's Hemp Car via YouTube here.

Popular Mechanics, February, 1938. Hemp: The New Billion Dollar Crop

The natural materials in hemp make it an economical source of pulp for any grade of paper manufactured, and the high percentage of alpha cellulose promises an unlimited supply of raw material for the thousands of cellulose products our chemists have developed.

It is generally believed that all linen is produced from flax. Actually, the majority comes from hemp--authorities estimate that more than half of our imported linen fabrics are manufactured from hemp fiber. Another misconception is that burlap is made from hemp. Actually, its source is usually jute, and practically all of the burlap we use is woven by laborers in India who receive only four cents a day. Binder twine is usually made from sisal which comes from Yucatan and East Africa.

All of these products, now imported, can be produced from home- grown hemp. Fish nets, bow strings, canvas, strong rope, overalls, damask tablecloths, fine linen garments, towels, bed linen and thousands of other everyday items can be grown on American farms.

Our imports of foreign fabrics and fibers average about $200,000,000 per year; in raw fibers alone we imported over $50,000,000 in the first six months of 1937. All of this income can be made available for Americans.

The paper industry offers even greater possibilities. As an industry it amounts to over $1,000,000,000 a year, and of that eighty per cent is imported. But hemp will produce every grade of paper, and government figures estimate that 10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average pulp land.

World War II era propaganda to encourage farmers to grow cannabis to produce material for the war effort.

North American Industrial Hemp Council 1997 Fact Sheet

Former San Jose Chief of Police Calls For Legalization of Cannabis

Alternet

Joseph D. McNamara writes:

California voters have a chance on this November's ballot to bring common sense to law enforcement by legalizing marijuana for adults. As San Jose's retired chief of police and a cop with 35 years experience on the front lines in the war on marijuana, I'm voting yes.

He cites the arguments of opponents of Prop. 19 and shoots them down.Regarding the claim that Mexican cartel violence would increase, McNamara says:

No one today shoots up the local neighborhood to compete in the beer market. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that Mexican cartels derive more than 60 percent of their profits from marijuana. How much did the cartels make last year dealing in Budweiser, Corona or Dos Equis? Legalization would seriously cripple their operations. With more than 20,000 people in Mexico killed in the past three years in drug turf battles, which are spreading north of the border, undercutting the cartels is an urgent priority for both Mexicans' and Americans' safety.

Regarding the lack of political courage and the vested interests of certain groups:

The same professional politicians who recklessly caused huge budget deficits predictably are taking an irresponsible position of opposing the "evil" of cannabis legalization, just as they opposed California voters' decision a decade ago to legalize medical marijuana. The California Police Chiefs Association, of which I have been a member for 34 years, is also in opposition. Personally, I have never even smoked a cigarette, let alone taken a hit from a bong, and while I have great respect for the police chiefs, I wouldn't want to live in a country where it is a crime to behave contrary to the way cops think we should.

That perhaps brings up the most significant and least considered cost of criminalizing marijuana - turning people into criminals for behavior of which we disapprove, even though it doesn't take others' property or endanger their safety. It is worth remembering that our last three presidents, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, would have been stigmatized for life and never would have become presidents if they had been in the wrong place at the wrong time and been busted for pot during their reckless youthful days. Countless other Americans weren't so lucky. California voters have an opportunity in November to return reason to our state by decriminalizing adult use of marijuana.

Politicians become irrelevant when they do not have the courage to look at facts and recognize the value of changes in laws that - in this case, most certainly - were bad laws to begin with - born of corruption and collusion with favored corporate entities. Sort of like how we can't get to the point of health care reform in the U.S. - because political institutions have been so corrupted by the corporate cartels called health insurance and the pharmaceutical industry.


McNamara is joined by other members of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)

From left, Stephen Downing, retired deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, William Fox, former deputy Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, former Torrance Police Department beat officer and drug identification expert Kyle Kazan, at podium; and retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, right. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Their statement was noted in the Press Democrat

Current law enforcement officials are obligated to support laws and are ethically unable to oppose it in public, but retired officers can speak out, said McNamara, who is now a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute.

“We’re pushing police into a war they didn’t declare and they can’t win, and that comes at so much cost to taxpayers and society,” he said.

Nationally, President Barack Obama’s director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske, spoke out against the proposed law. Nine former Drug Enforcement Administration bosses wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that legalizing the drug threatens federal authority.

Federally authority should be threatened when it insists on bad laws.

Prosecutor who indicted Marc Emery ("king of pot") : Legalize It

Seattle Times

As Emery's prosecutor and a former federal law-enforcement official...I'm not afraid to say out loud what most of my former colleagues know is true: Our marijuana policy is dangerous and wrong and should be changed through the legislative process to better protect the public safety.

Congress has failed to recognize what many already know about our policy of criminal prohibition of marijuana — it has utterly failed. Listed by the U.S. government as a "Schedule One" drug alongside heroin, the demand for marijuana in this country for decades has outpaced the ability of law enforcement to eliminate it.

Not only does our policy directly threaten our public safety and rest upon false medical assumptions, but our national laws are now in direct and irreconcilable conflict with state laws, including Washington state. So called "medical" marijuana reaches precious few patients and backdoor potheads mock legitimate medical use by glaucoma and chemotherapy patients. State laws are trumped by federal laws that recognize no such thing as "medicinal" or "personal" use and are no defense to arrests by federal agents and prosecution in federal courts.

So the policy is wrong, the law has failed, the public is endangered, no one in law enforcement is talking about it and precious few policymakers will honestly face the soft-on-crime sound bite in their next elections.

While I don't share McKay's stereotypes about many cannabis users, his rational approach to the issue of cannabis laws in this nation is necessary and long-overdue from the many, as he notes in his op-ed, who are in law enforcement who recognize the law is the worst offender in regard to cannabis drug policy in this U.S.

McKay's op-ed only touches briefly, however, on the real problem with making rational changes to current law: the toxic political environment promoted by right-wing politicians who care more about scoring points on a political opponent than they do about the welfare of American citizens.

John McKay knows this aspect of American political life personally. He was one of the attorneys who was ousted by the theocratic quislings in the Gonzales Attn. General's office, most likely because of his attempt to keep an investigation into the murder (in his home) of Asst. U.S. Attn. General Tom Wales (who took on the NRA, the death penalty and white-collar crime.)

Jeffrey Toobin wrote about the incidents leading to the firing in The New Yorker:

On September 22, 2006, McKay’s office received a glowing evaluation from the Department of Justice. On December 7th, McKay, along with six other U.S. Attorneys, was fired.

...Gonzales’s justifications for McKay’s dismissal now seem unlikely to be true, because it has become clear that Justice Department officials were seeking to fire McKay before 2006. On March 2, 2005, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’s chief of staff, included McKay’s name on a list of thirteen U.S. Attorneys to be fired, in an e-mail to Harriet Miers, the White House counsel. Sampson sent the e-mail four months after the 2004 elections, and after McKay decided not to bring charges against the Democratic Party, or people affiliated with it, in Washington State, in the wake of a narrow victory by Christine Gregoire, the Democratic candidate, in the governor’s race. The contest, which was resolved after two recounts, prompted a lawsuit by the state Republican Party alleging widespread voting irregularities.

Several of the fired U.S. Attorneys had declined to prosecute Democrats in electoral disputes. Many Democrats have suggested that the prosecutors were dismissed by Gonzales and the Bush White House in retaliation for failing to advance Republican political objectives.

California Council of Churches IMPACT endorses legalization of cannabis

Yes On Prop 19 Website

...The California Council of Churches IMPACT, which represents 21 different denominations and over 1.5 million members within the mainstream and progressive Protestant communities of faith, endorsed Proposition 19, the initiative to control and tax cannabis in California.

“Proposition 19 is the moral choice for California,” said Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of the California Council of Churches IMPACT. “The prohibition of marijuana has failed. It’s created a culture of criminality around a substance that is less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco, which are both legal, controlled, and taxed. Let’s control marijuana like alcohol by passing Proposition 19 in November.”

The Council's endorsement joins a growing list of medical, religious, political, civic, law enforcement, labor, and academic voices who have spoken out in support of Proposition 19.

A list of endorsements is available at this link.

Former (Republican) Governor of New Mexico, Gary E. Johnson has also joined former Mexican Foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda, speaking out in favor of Prop. 19.

Gary E. Johnson:

Mexican drug cartels make at least 60 percent of their revenue from selling marijuana in the United States, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The FBI estimates that the cartels now control distribution in more than 230 American cities, from the Southwest to New England.

How are they able to do this? Because America’s policy for almost 70 years has been to keep marijuana—arguably no more harmful than alcohol and used by 15 million Americans every month—confined to the illicit market, meaning we’ve given criminals a virtual monopoly on something that U.S. researcher Jon Gettman estimates is a $36 billion a year industry, greater than corn and wheat combined. We have implemented laws that are not enforceable, which has thereby created a thriving black market. By denying reality and not regulating and taxing marijuana, we are fueling not only this massive illicit economy, but a war that we are clearly losing.

Castaneda:

A growing number of distinguished Mexicans from all walks of life have recently come out in favor of some form of drug legalization. Former presidents Ernesto Zedillo and Vicente Fox, novelists Carlos Fuentes and Angeles Mastretta, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Mario Molina, and movie star Gael García Bernal have all expressed support for this idea, and polls show that ordinary Mexicans are increasingly willing to contemplate the notion.

Via Raw Story

An interview with Ethan Nadelmann, exec. director of the Drug Policy Alliance

Alternet

Nadelmann talks about the concept of harm reduction as a paradigm shift.

(From drug policy)...in which criminal justice approaches are dominant to one in which health approaches are dominant. So much of drug policy takes place on the ground, and so much involves both governmental and non-governmental agencies and workers -- cops, prosecutors, housing, public welfare, health, you name it. We’re just trying to come up with pragmatic solutions.

These events push in a new direction: To reduce our reliance on a criminal justice and punitive approach in dealing with drugs, and to elevate the role of health in dealing with people who are addicted; To focus criminal justice resources on the harms that people do to one another, rather than simply arresting people for drugs; To move toward decriminalization of drug possession, both for those who are addicted and want help and for those who don’t have a drug problem and should essentially be left alone.

Nadelmann goes on to mention that Prop. 19, the ballot initiative to legalize cannabis, has an amazing 70% recognition rate - that's a phenomenal number of people who know what this issue is and why it is on the ballot. He compares this moment with past initiatives that involved reforms in the criminal justice system (Prop. 5) - which was torpedoed by a political maneuver by Jerry Brown (with help, Nadelmann notes, from the quarter million that Meg Whitman devoted to its demise), and Prop. 25, a move to treatment rather than punishment in drug sentencing that passed with 61% of the vote a decade ago, in spite of opposition from politicians and law enforcement. At this moment, depending on polls, Prop. 19 polls at 50/50 (tho electronic polls show a majority of Californians favor the initiative.) Nevertheless, in spite of recognition, Prop. 19 is not a sure thing and voter turn out will be essential to its passage.

He notes that:

There’s no simple easy way to jump from where we are today to a world in which marijuana is legally regulated and taxed in the US and Mexico and much of the rest of the world. It’s going to be a messy political process, with inconsistencies in laws and enforcement and different forms of decriminalization and people exploiting that, but it’s ultimately the only solution that can really reduce the violence and murder and mayhem. We really have no choice but to head down this road, negotiating the twists and bumps along the way, until both the US and Mexico, and other countries as well, are ready to embrace a more rational and orderly system of marijuana regulation.

Nadelmann credits the Obama administration for its stance and actions on three policy changes: raids on medical marijuana facilities, needle exchange and differential sentencing for types of cocaine (crack v. powder.) He also talks about the political reality of any attempt to create change with the current Republican mindset and the nasty political atmosphere that seeks to label any move away from Calvinist punishment drug policy to health-centered harm reduction as a "soft on crime" stance. Current federal funding reflects this political reality.

Nevertheless, Nadelmann observes: Obama made another commitment when he was running for office – that he would no longer allow science to be trumped by politics. But in the drug area, they continue to let it happen.

From Terrence McNally (the interviewer):

On July 27 the House unanimously passed HR5143, which, if enacted, creates a bipartisan commission to conduct a top to bottom review of the entire criminal justice system, and offer concrete recommendations for reform within 18 months. This is the companion bill to Senator Jim Webb’s S714, already approved by the Senate Judiciary committee. According to Senator Webb, legalization should be on the table for discussion.

These are bills to watch for anyone who supports sane drug policy. One issue the House can bring up for consideration is the rescheduling of cannabis. This one change can have major implications. It's not the only change we need, but it's a major move that needs to be made to bring current drug law in line with current medical research.

Hulu: High - The True Tale of American Marijuana

UK's Leading Pharmacological Expert on Cannabis To Call for Legalization

Financial Times

Roger Pertwee, professor of neuropharmacology at Aberdeen University, will on Tuesday tell the British Science Festival in Birmingham that making cannabis available from licensed outlets would reduce drug-related crime and cut the risk of users moving on to more dangerous drugs.

“At the moment cannabis is in the hands of criminals,” he will say. “We are allowed to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Cannabis, if it is handled properly, is not going to be more dangerous.”

Although research has shown cannabis may increase the risk of developing schizophrenia in particularly vulnerable individuals, this danger does not apply to the general population, he will say. The risk could be reduced by setting a minimum age of 21 for consuming cannabis or requiring individuals to obtain a licence to buy it.

The article is very short - but behind a free registration wall.

Pertwee was involved in the development of Sativex for MS patients - so he has a pretty good idea of the way in which cannabinoids function - and an understanding of the medical uses of cannabis extracts.

The First Post

Pertwee's recommendation to "license" cannabis users (does the UK "license" beer drinkers?)...

comes almost a year after the Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson fired Professor David Nutt, the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and the government's top drugs advisor, after he suggested that drugs such as cannabis and LSD were less harmful than alcohol.

Prior to that, the Labour government had upgraded cannabis from a Class C to a Class B drug against the advice of the ACMD. So it was no surprise when another seven members of the ACMD resigned after Nutt's dismissal - either citing Nutt's shoddy treatment or the government's prohibitionist attitude towards drugs.

Edited to add Pertwee on the BBC

Personally, I find the idea of an individual "license" to be ridiculous - just another indication of how irrational people are about the issue of cannabis. Liquor stores require licenses. They are required to abide by the law and not sell to minors. They are not required to screen all customers for signs of mental illness - because the idea is ludicrous - just as it is for cannabis.