The goal of this website is to create a useful tool that can be applied to relevant, current events. All information is great information, but applicable information is powerful information. In this case, a reader, @MaryJCannabian, found the transcription to the video for me so I could show her the facts. Well, @MaryJCannabian, I would love nothing more than to de-filter this segment for you and my other readers.
——————————————–
On May 6th, 2009, Anderson Cooper did a segment regarding marijuana legalization on his show, AC 360. In the segment, he did a short “debate” between Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, and John Walters, former Drug Czar for President George W. Bush.
As you will see in the video clip (which I hope stays up), the information war starts before the debate even begins with a curious statement made by John Coleman, director of the pro-prohibition group Drug Watch International. In response to the question of whether or not marijuana has gotten stronger in comparison to decades ago, Coleman claims:
No question about it. I mean, it’s the difference between having maybe a 4 ounce glass of beer versus an 8 ounce glass of Jack Daniels.
He completed his sentence with a bit of a chuckle, but to be honest, the only thing I find funny is the idea that he somehow became the director of an international non-profit organization while lacking the ability to do simple conversions in math.
The purpose of his claim is to illustrate just how much more potent “today’s marijuana” is when compared to marijuana from, say, the 1960’s. To do so, he needed to use something that is more tangible to viewers (such as comparing it to one of America’s most popular drugs, alcohol). The problem is, however, that the comparison is completely misleading when you look at the numbers.
I stumbled upon a great article today and I wanted to share it with everyone. It was written by John Stossel and addresses the current double-standards/ignorance when it comes to dealing with drugs and the drug war going on in Mexico.
My favorite part from the article:
I don’t expect politicians to be sticklers for logic, but this is ridiculous. Americans also have a hefty demand for Mexican beer, but there are no “Mexican beer cartels.” When Obama visits France, he doesn’t consult with politicians about “wine violence.” What’s happening on the Mexican border is prohibition-caused violence.
A legal product is produced and traded openly, and is therefore subject to competition and civilizing custom. If two beer distributors have a disagreement or if a liquor retailer fails to pay his wholesaler, the wronged parties can go to court. There’s no need to take matters violently into their own hands. As a result, in legal industries the ability to commit mayhem is not a valued skill.
On the other hand, dealers in a prohibited product operate in the black market. Upstanding businesspeople stay away, relinquishing the trade to those without moral scruples. Black-market operators can’t resolve disputes in court, so being good at using force provides a competitive advantage.
Politicians gave us prohibition and created the conditions in which violence pays. This doesn’t excuse those who commit it, but the fact remains that a legal drug market would be as peaceful as the beer, wine and whiskey markets. When alcohol prohibition, which spawned large-scale organized crime, ended in 1933, there was a brief upsurge in drinking, but America became a more peaceful and less corrupt place.
We should learn from that, but we haven’t. American politicians are largely responsible for the atrocities now taking place.
The whole article, located here, is well worth a read. It is a refreshing perspective with unique comparisons, like the one above. Bravo, Stossel.
My fiancee deals in antiques & I help him on the side. I went to an estate sale & purchased a bunch of handspun cloth nightgowns from the 1820s/30s era. The woman at the sale was telling me about the process of how the woman made the cloth from hemp & showing me the beautiful tiny details of their work.
There was not a hole in ANY of the fifteen I purchased. They were thick & sturdy. I brought them home & gently washed them with some oxyclean & put a little fabric softner in with them. They came out white & beautiful.
I was awe-struck. I have always known, intectually, that hemp was suppossed to make great clothing & it has a million & one other uses as well. But, it wasn’t until I put my hands on these nearly 200 YEAR OLD pieces of fabric that I realized why industry would want to fight this plant. It lasts, if not forever, then for a couple of life-times or more. How on earth would they be able to generate profit, if we weren’t wearing holes in our Chinese factory made clothing every two weeks? And, of course, this is a plant that anyone could grow, it is a WEED. If it was used as fuel source (as I was told it would be a excellent use for…), how would they ever profiteer once the average person figured out how to make hemp oil, or each local community had a grower who would supply the fuel. Where would the oil billionaires be?
Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, had promised to end federal medical marijuana raids as conducted by the Clinton and Bush administrations, leaving alone dispensaries operating legally under state law (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/policy-marijuana-judge-2345186-lynch-department). Obama broke the spirit of the promise, but not the letter. The excuse for this last raid was state law violations — supposedly, sales taxes were being evaded. Now the feds will probably prosecute under federal law.
The state government was not agitating for a crackdown. Sacramento was not complaining about sales tax evasion. San Francisco had given a permit to this dispensary.
On Friday, I had the opportunity to hear Glenn Greenwald speak at the Cato Institute regarding his Cato-sponsored report, Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies. You can read the report here and Cato also has a downloadable MP3 of the event.
The back-story here is that Portugal implemented an across-the-board drug decriminalization policy back in 2001. There’s been very little discussion and research regarding its impact, hence Cato recruited Greenwald (a genius and extremely popular political blogger) to study Portuguese drug policy. His findings thoroughly illustrate the efficiency of decriminalization towards addressing key drug policy goals, while refuting the myth that removing harsh penalties will lead to increased consumption.
Original post by Ron Paul is copied below, but can be found HERE.
End the War on Drugs
We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented.
Alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes.
This article, by Pete Guither, provides a bit more information on the hypocrisy of the US government claiming no medicinal value of marijuana, yet providing FDA-approved marijuana to people, such as Irv Rosenfeld.
Here’s an excerpt:
You see, Irv Rosenfeld is one of a small group of patients who actually gets medical marijuana legally from the federal government — yep, that same federal government that sends storm troopers to arrest California patients doing the same thing. He is part of the Compassionate IND (Investigational New Drug) program and gets about 300 marijuana cigarettes in a metal tin prescribed to last 25 days.
He was a real hit at the Illinois House Committee hearing yesterday. The press was particularly fascinated by the notion that someone could be legally carrying around a tin of marijuana in the State Capital. (seen here examining Irv’s tin and supporting letters)
Today I received a link to an article by Art Toalston of the Baptist Press. In it, Toalston asserts that the current violence in the drug war is directly related to marijuana consumption and use.
I find the article not only interesting due to it being complete and utter mythology, but that it was written by the same man who only a few years ago wrote a very detailed, long article about forgiveness and why he embraces people, such as Ted Haggard (the man who was caught using a male prostitute despite publicly preaching against homosexuality), as “hypocrites” who only temporarily give into sin yet ultimately continue to follow the path of Christ.
So, to be clear, according to Toalston, if you are a marijuana user you are negatively affecting the “good of humanity”, yet if you are a Christian who commits adultery with a homosexual prostitute while preaching against such actions, you are a man that fell victim to sin and will find forgiveness in the eyes of God? Did I miss something, or is Toalston treading on very murky moral waters?
Now, for full disclosure, I will say that I am a proud Christian and have been for a vast majority of my life. I do my best to pursue the path of Christ, however, no where in the Bible can I find Jesus endorsing the use of ignorance and propaganda to get your way; I believe facts are facts, despite your religious affiliation.
While I had no real assumptions that Obama would completely legalize marijuana, I had hoped that a man in his position would respect something that he himself started (the interactive town hall). A few of the top questions posted to the White House’s website referred to legalization of marijuana; asking not only if the President would support legalization or not, but why he wouldn’t.
Obama took time to go over many of the top questions, yet when it came time to answer the most popular one:
“There was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation, and I don’t know what this says about the online audience ,” Mr.Obama said, drawing a laugh. He said he wanted to make sure the question got answered. “The answer is no, I don’t think that was a good strategy.”
I personally don’t understand why he did not take it as a serious question and–even worse–seemed to alienate much of his audience by saying, “I don’t know what this says about the online audience”.
You know what it says, Obama? It says that the internet audience is curious why you will continue to allow corporate needs and greed outweigh the will of the people. Marijuana as a drug aside, Hemp is aboslutely, unquestionably a non-issue when it comes to the “health and safety” of the American public.
