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.
U.S. asked to stop ‘false information’ on medical pot
Advocacy group tells the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the government needs to update the official view of marijuana to reflect its use as a pain reliever.
By Carol J. Williams and Maura Dolan
8:07 PM PDT, April 14, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles — Citing “overwhelming” evidence that marijuana eases pain and anxiety for the chronically ill, medicinal pot advocates told a federal appeals panel Tuesday that the federal government should be stopped from spreading “false information” about marijuana.
As was argued in the debate over whether stem cell research should be resumed, Americans for Safe Access cast the Bush administration’s opposition to any legalized use of marijuana as being shaped by conservative sentiments instead of hard facts.
President Obama has signaled to Cabinet members that science should be guiding government judgments in controversial matters of medicine and technology, not the prevailing political mood. On Tuesday, however, a government lawyer told three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the administration wasn’t required to explain or retract its statements that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use.”
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.
