restore Sun, 3 Jun 2001 Volume 1 : Number 57 In this issue: Jamaica: Pot Panel May Help Turn Over A New Leaf CO: Pot Law Passes Muster, But Doctors Risk All Netherlands: Dutch Town's Drug Shops Win Vote NM: Speakers Have Wary Words For Pot-Law Reformers US: The Devil Inside Jenna And George UK: Putting Cannabis Debate Centre Stage The War on Drugs:A Visual by MC Escher * [EMAIL PROTECTED] daily digest web version: http://www.crrh.org/hempnews/viewrestore.asp * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:54:49 -0700 From: "D. Paul Stanford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Jamaica: Pot Panel May Help Turn Over A New Leaf Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newshawk: http://www.cannabisnews.com/ Pubdate: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles Times Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.latimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248 Author: Mark Fineman, Times Staff Writer POT PANEL MAY HELP TURN OVER A NEW LEAF Jamaica: Commission Is Set To Present Its Final Recommendations To Parliament On Whether To Decriminalize Ganja KINGSTON, Jamaica--Imagine a lush, tropical land just a few hundred miles off the U.S. coast where marijuana, though illegal, is a cultural icon worshiped by thousands and so plentiful it goes for just $26 a pound. Now, imagine this place when it's legal. That's precisely what Jamaica's government-appointed National Commission on Ganja has been doing for the last nine months. Led by the dean of social sciences at Kingston's University of the West Indies, the seven-member commission has heard from more than 150 people and institutions ranging from the Medical Assn. of Jamaica to the Rastafarian Centralization Organization, and it has sounded out more than a dozen communities nationwide. This month, the official body will present its final recommendations on whether marijuana should be decriminalized here. An interim report that Commission Chairman Barry Chevannes presented to Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson in May gave no clear indication whether the commission will endorse decriminalization, a recommendation that would then be put to Parliament for a vote. "It may be deduced so far that most persons and organizations would support the decriminalization of the use of ganja for private purposes and in private spaces," the preliminary report said. "However, there are those who would prefer to maintain the status quo regarding the criminal status of ganja in Jamaica." The Bush administration isn't likely to welcome decriminalization. Even under then-President Clinton, the State Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration consistently expressed concern over Jamaica's large marijuana crop and its exports to U.S. markets. Chevannes said the commission is seriously considering the "external consequences" of its recommendation. Beyond a potential U.S. condemnation, they include a possible snowball effect on other marijuana-producing Caribbean islands that have considered decriminalizing the plant in the past. And K.D. Knight, Jamaica's national security minister, said this week that he opposes decriminalization. The commission chairman cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck a blow to medical use of marijuana in America as a sign of the times in Jamaica's powerful neighbor to the north. "The U.S., in the kind of mood it is in today, well, this matter will be one for the commission to weigh," Chevannes said. Privately, however, U.S. and Jamaican law enforcement officials say the island's marijuana trade has been eclipsed by a more lucrative role as a transshipment point for Colombian cocaine bound for the United States--a multibillion-dollar industry that is fueling gang wars in Kingston, the capital, and a murder rate that ranks among the highest in the world. Some proponents of decriminalization argue that Jamaican police could focus more resources on combating the cocaine trade if relieved of targeting ganja; last year, police officials say, they seized more than 6 tons of marijuana and destroyed more than 1,000 acres of the plant. Yet ganja remains plentiful, readily available and cheap; by comparison, a pound of the Jamaican herb that goes for $26 here can fetch more than $1,500 in the U.S. "One opinion on the commission is that [decriminalization] would not significantly increase the use of marijuana," Chevannes said. "Right now, anyone who wants to smoke ganja is virtually at liberty to do so. It is freely available at large gatherings. And, indeed, if police were to arrest everyone who's doing it, tens of thousands would be in jail." Still, he added, police here arrest about 5,000 people on marijuana charges annually, 90% of them for minor offenses. "So, arguably, the only thing the decriminalization of it would be doing is taking the status of a crime off thousands of people," Chevannes said. "And most of them are young people. "Were the commission to recommend decriminalization, it would not seriously change anything here." __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- MAP posted-by: Beth ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:55:49 -0700 From: "D. Paul Stanford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CO: Pot Law Passes Muster, But Doctors Risk All Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newshawk: http://www.cannabisnews.com/ Pubdate: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 Source: Denver Post (CO) Copyright: 2001 The Denver Post Corp Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.denverpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122 Author: Karen Auge, Denver Post Medical Writer POT LAW PASSES MUSTER, BUT DOCTORS RISK ALL Colorado doctors who recommend medical marijuana for their patients could risk federal prosecution, Attorney General Ken Salazar warned Thursday. However, after more than two weeks of review, Salazar said that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling does not invalidate Colorado's medical marijuana law. "The ruling does not prevent the state from moving forward" to implement the amendment allowing use of medical marijuana, Salazar wrote in a prepared statement. Amendment 20, which voters approved in November, is set to take effect today. The new state law does not establish any legal means to obtain marijuana. Salazar, along with Gov. Bill Owens, opposed the amendment. The amendment allows patients who suffer from certain debilitatpetition the state for permission to possess and use small amounts of the drug. For that permission to be granted, a physician must sign a form verifying an applicant suffers from one of several specific medical conditions and that "marijuana may mitigate the symptoms of the patient's condition." Salazar's statement said he and Owens wrote Dr. Richard Allen, president of the Colorado Medical Society, warning that "physicians face the risk of potential federal prosecution if they participate in the program." Allen said Thursday that he had not yet received the letter. But, he said, "it sounds like there are some issues here that physicians need to be concerned about. And nobody has any answers yet." Rich Caschette, a former federal prosecutor in Denver, said federal law prohibiting sale and use of marijuana should cause concern. "I certainly would be wary if I were a physician," he said. Luther Symonds, spokesman for Coloradans for Medical Rights, which backed Amendment 20, said he was disappointed that Salazar included what Symonds termed a threat in his statement. "He is attempting to scare and frighten Colorado doctors. It's unfortunate that they're resorting to fear tactics." But Symonds said he didn't think the warning would effectively derail Amendment 20. "I think once everyone steps back and sees that federal courts were really quick and really decisive in California, it's going to give doctors here a level of comfort that these threats won't be carried out," Symonds said. Last September, a federal district judge in California ruled that federal efforts to bar physicians from discussing medical marijuana with patients violated the doctors' First Amendment right to free speech. Alan Gilbert, Colorado's solicitor general, said courts could interpret a doctor's signature on the application as merely offering an opinion and therefore not a violation of drug laws. Salazar's opinion on Amendment 20 comes in the wake of a May 14 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said cannabis buyers clubs, which provide medical marijuana for people in California, are illegal. In its ruling, the court said there is no scientific basis for the medical use of marijuana. But while it outlawed the buyers' clubs, the high court did not specifically overturn California's Proposition 215, the 1996 law that legalized the use of medical marijuana in that state. The ruling prompted questions about whether Colorado's Amendment 20 would be pre-empted by federal laws barring marijuana use. In his statement Thursday, Salazar said he and Owens had sent a letter to acting U.S. Attorney Richard Spriggs asking him to "enforce federal law." A spokesman for Spriggs said the office hadn't yet received the letter Thursday afternoon. __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:57:30 -0700 From: "D. Paul Stanford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Netherlands: Dutch Town's Drug Shops Win Vote Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newshawk: Amanda Pubdate: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 Source: New York Times (NY) Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298 Section: International DUTCH TOWN'S DRUG SHOPS WIN VOTE VENLO, the Netherlands, May 31 (Reuters) =97 This Dutch town has approved plans to open coffee shops out of town and not far from the German border in a bid to keep thousands of German drug tourists away from its center, local officials said today. The new shops, called "drug drive-throughs" by Venlo residents, will cater to the growing army of German tourists who cross the border to buy drugs that can be sold legally and used in small quantities in Dutch coffee shops, which frequently offer numerous varieties of cannabis. Elke Haanraadts, a Venlo town planner and spokeswoman for the project, admitted that the measure was intended to keep foreign drug tourists out. "I think that the German people coming especially for their five grams of soft drugs will benefit," she said. "It's easier for them to buy it near the road and then go back again to Germany." Venlo municipal officials estimate that about five million German people are within driving distance of the town, which is just over a mile from the border. And in recent years, thousands have crossed the border daily to take advantage of liberal regulations on drugs in the Netherlands. Germany has substantially tougher laws and has in the past blamed its neighbor for an increase in its own drug problems. Plans for the coffee shops, which are expected to open next year, were approved at a council meeting late on Wednesday. __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart=20 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:52:22 -0700 From: "D. Paul Stanford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NM: Speakers Have Wary Words For Pot-Law Reformers Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newshawk: http://www.cannabisnews.com/ Pubdate: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 Source: Santa Fe New Mexican (NM) Copyright: 2001 The Santa Fe New Mexican Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.sfnewmexican.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/695 Author: Steve Terrell, The New Mexican SPEAKERS HAVE WARY WORDS FOR POT-LAW REFORMERS ALBUQUERQUE - State lawmakers from both parties warned several hundred drug-war critics Thursday that political repercussions for backing Gov. Gary Johnson's drug-reform bills are likely and urged the audience to get involved. "You've got to protect your champions," said Rep. Joe Thompson, R-Albuquerque, speaking at a panel discussion at the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation's annual conference at the Hyatt Regency hotel. Thompson said he expects primary-election opposition next year because he carried several Johnson drug bills in the Legislature. He added jokingly, "I'm not going to ask you for money right now." Thompson, a two-term legislator, said later that last week he learned of a probable Republican opponent who is planning to make an issue of Thompson's role as a sponsor of drug-reform bills. Thompson declined to name his potential opponent. "It's not a good commentary on the two-party system, but the extreme margins in both parties tend to drive the agenda," Thompson told the conference. "These people are tough. You have to be prepared to go to your base and explain your position." Thompson admitted that he was initially hesitant last year when Johnson asked him to carry a medical-marijuana bill to allow sufferers of serious diseases to use marijuana to treat symptoms. However, he eventually agreed to carry that bill and several others. Sen. Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque, who carried several of Johnson's bills on the Senate side, said Thompson's concerns are real. "How are elected officials who back this reform going to survive?" McSorley referred to heroes of the American Revolutionary War, saying, "We might not be the General Washingtons in this revolution, but we are the Swamp Foxes. We are fighting a swamp battle, and we have to survive." If officials who "stick their neck out" by backing drug-law reform go down in defeat at the ballot box, this will make it more difficult for other politicians to come out against the drug war, McSorley said. McSorley is not up for re-election until 2004. However, Johnson, who also spoke on the panel, noted that going public against the drug war does not always have dire political consequences. He gave the example of state Republican Chairman John Dendahl, who came under fire from Congressional Republicans and state Rep. Ron Godbey, R-Albuquerque, for embracing Johnson's drug-reform package earlier this year. The audience cheered when Johnson told them Dendahl last month won re-election to the party chairmanship, defeating Godbey by better than 2-to-1. Earlier at a press conference Johnson said he intends to introduce drug-reform measures that didn't make it through the past legislative session during next year's session. Among this package are bills that would decriminalize marijuana, to do away with mandatory habitual-offender sentences in drug cases, to send first- and second-time drug-possession offenders to treatment rather than prison and to make forfeitures of vehicles, money and other assets more difficult in drug cases. Three of Johnson's bills made it through the Legislature - a $9.8 million drug-treatment and education package, a bill allowing police officers and others to administer drugs such as Narcan to people overdosing on heroin, and a bill that allows pharmacists to sell syringes. McSorley praised Johnson for backing such reforms. However, he brought up a sore point that arose between him and the governor during the session - the fact that Johnson's original package did not include any money for treatment. "This was probably the biggest strategic mistake we made in the last session," McSorley said. "When you start reforming drug laws in any state you have to couple it with treatment and education." Johnson - who had already left the room when McSorley spoke - eventually came forth with the $9.8 million treatment bill. But, as he did during the legislative session, McSorley said that amount was far too low. McSorley said he favored $40 million for treatment and education. Although he didn't speak to McSorley's desire for more treatment money, state Health Secretary Alex Valdez, another panelist, agreed with the senator on the the necessity of including treatment funds. "If you do not have commitment to treatment, any discussion of drug reform will fall on deaf ears as it should," Valdez said. __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:53:46 -0700 From: "D. Paul Stanford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: US: The Devil Inside Jenna And George Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newshawk: http://www.cannabisnews.com/ Pubdate: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 Source: Salon (US Web) Copyright: 2001 Salon Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.salon.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/381 Author: Gary Kamiya THE DEVIL INSIDE JENNA AND GEORGE It's Not The Bush Family's Party Spirit I Object To -- It's Dubya's Compulsion To Punish It In Others Party on, girl! That was my first reaction to the news that 19-year-old Jenna Bush had been busted for using a fake I.D. to score some Cuervo -- just a month after she was cited for underage drinking by Austin undercover cops. It was similar to my reaction when her father acknowledged that he had been a major party animal in his youth: It was the only thing I'd ever heard about him that I liked. I have since had reason to rethink both reactions, of which more later. But it's worth examining why it was that I immediately found a dope-smoking, line-snorting, brewski-quaffing Bush more congenial than the same imaginary Republican cutout without those props. Call it the counterculture fallacy, a direct descendant of the Beat fallacy that preceded it by a decade: Lefties of a certain age, like me, still presume, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, that a conservative who has messed around with mind-altering substances is somehow cooler, less straight, less, well, right-wing, than a conservative who hasn't. Leave aside the question as to whether either booze or coke qualifies as a mind-altering substance; it's reflexive for '60s vets to see Republicans who have "partied" as more enlightened than those who haven't. Why? Part of it is that in those Greening of America salad days when you could still say "counterculture" with a straight face, conservatives came across as being opposed not just to liberation, sexuality and equality, but to sensation itself. We all knew that the Man wanted to lock down not just unorthodox actions, but unorthodox experiences. Whatever else it might have been, to seek out what Rimbaud called the "systematic derangement of the senses" was definitely to leave the paths trod by Young Republicans on campus. Our syllogism had all the logic of a Cheech and Chong exchange: Conservatives didn't get high: Ergo, getting high was progressive. The good guys got high; the bad guys didn't. Alas, the equation of highness with holiness proved to be one of those '60s ideas that vanished in a puff of smoke. Smoking big spliffs turned out to be quite compatible with machine-gunning Bosnian Muslims. Drinking and taking drugs, it turned out, could be fun but could also lead to addictions and various pathologies -- bummer! And as for the Man, it turned out that he had been more of a party animal all along than we counter-culturists had ever dreamed. Those Episcopalian-bred stockbrokers and sturdy captains-of-industry in training liked a high old time just as much as their freaky cousins, and had more money to pay for it. Unbeknownst to pious lefties, a frat-boy party quickly sprang up next to the Rimbaud one, both of them listening to Hendrix and taking the same drugs -- but when the party was over, the frat boys still voted Republican. That is, of course, the story of George W. Bush. But the crucial additional fact is that after the party was over, he made the penalties for doing what he did in his indiscreet youth much more severe. (The zero-tolerance law that may -- but probably won't -- bedevil Jenna was the work of his administration.) In that regard, those black-and-white '60s distinctions still hold true: At least the drug-tolerant lefties had the decency to respect the joyous impulse. Caught up in a sterile guilt-punishment formation we are all too familiar with, the conservatives hypocritically decry the very things they once eagerly did, with zero insight into why they did them. Once you realize that -- and just how profoundly formulaic, unenlightening and yes, conservative, Bush's "young and irresponsible" days were -- those impulses to welcome him into the brotherhood of roach-clip-handlers seem pretty idiotic. Jenna's actions, by comparison, seem a lot more congenial. Her celebratory ways belong to a venerable tradition, that of the raucous student, the wing-testing youth. Which is why so many of us were taken aback by the moralistic hand-wringing and gloating -- much of it from commentators on the left, who are traditionally libertarian about substance use -- about a 19-year-old who got popped for drinking. Didn't any of these guys ever stand outside the 7-Eleven, like I did in high school a few times, trying to convince some 21-year-old to score them some beer? Give the girl a break -- she's just trying to exercise her God-given right to get twisted! My colleague Joan Walsh declines to take such a light, Happi-Hour view of young Bush's recent troubles with the law and alcohol. In her view, Jenna and her twin sister Barbara (who was also cited for illegal drinking in the recent unpleasantness at Chuy's) are "acting out" against a pathological conspiracy of silence imposed by their father, a presumed alcoholic who, by his own admission, never told his daughters about his problem. In Walsh's view, the actions of the twins "seem designed to force a family reckoning that their father's drinking never triggered." The family drama being played out in Austin is "Long Day's Journey Into Bush." Walsh's conjecture may well be true, but in my opinion it pushes the known facts just a little further than one can safely go with them. But buy it or not, her argument is fascinating because it raises yet another culturally contradictory aspect of the Bush presidency, one that also carries a host of subterranean assumptions about the way those on the left and those on the right handle their personal demons: Bush's problem drinking and the way he has dealt with it. Bush has never admitted to being an alcoholic, but because he did admit to having drinking problems that he addressed, he is about as close to being a 12-step president as we've ever had. (Ulysses S. Grant, mercifully, lived before the days of the Pledge.) The fact that it's a right-wing Republican who is our first self-help president is deeply ironic. For people who overcome their personal problems, in our post-Freud, Oprah-ministered society, are supposed to go through some kind of metamorphosis, a sea change accompanied by deep and honest communication with everyone in sight. Yak yak get in touch with my feelings yak yak I feel your pain yak yak. But those moist, empathetic, talk-it-all-out qualities are totally associated with wimpy, bleeding-heart liberals; they're anathema to macho conservatives, who flaunt their repression like an oversized Texas belt buckle. John Wayne didn't need no stinking John Bradshaw lectures. Bush's status as a strong, silent reformed drinker leaves him in a murky area, somewhere between the therapized left and the repressed right. And if only his personal behavior was in question, one might simply be content to leave it there. But his and his party's hypocritical drug and drinking policies make it only too clear that here, to use the '60s catchphrase, the personal truly is the political: It's hard not to conclude that Bush's draconian stance on mind-altering substances is the result of his unwillingness or refusal to explore his own youthful behavior, his dismissal of his deeds as simply "bad." They may indeed have been "bad" for him, but the first thing an examined life teaches one is that what is bad for thee is not necessarily bad for me. Moralizing stands in for insight: Every kid languishing in a Texas jail because he was caught with a joint can only regret that Bush didn't go to a few more therapy sessions. As for whether he needs to go more Oprah with his kids, as Walsh suggests, I don't presume to judge. Jenna may be acting out, but it seems more likely to me that her recent problems are the result of a good old-fashioned desire to get wasted, perhaps combined with something she inherited from dear old Dad: a massive sense of entitlement, a knowledge that no matter what she does, no matter how idiotically she behaves, nothing will happen to her. How could Bush try to tell his daughter with a straight face that her actions have consequences? Forget the laundry list of Bush boo-boos that have been cleaned up for him, from the DUI bust that remained hidden for years to lingering questions about his National Guard record. We're talking about a young woman whose father drank away his youth, then benefited from a series of family handouts and string-pulling, and finally took possession of the White House after losing the popular (and perhaps the electoral) vote. Consequences? Consequences are for losers! So party on, Jenna. The worst thing that could happen to you is you'll become president. __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- MAP posted-by: Beth ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:56:16 -0700 From: "D. Paul Stanford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: UK: Putting Cannabis Debate Centre Stage Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newshawk: The Legalise Cannabis Alliance <http://www.lca-uk.org> Pubdate: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 Source: Evening Courier (UK) Copyright: 2001 The Halifax Courier Ltd. Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/918 Author: Tim Power PUTTING CANNABIS DEBATE CENTRE STAGE This election will bankrupt me, says Philip Lockwood, with a wry grin, as he takes another puff and then a quick swig of Carlsberg. Calder Valley's "free the weed" candidate - one of 14 standing for the Legalise Cannabis Alliance - is in a mellow, meet the media mood. He's sitting outside the Clifton Arms in Brighouse enjoying the sun. He doesn't seem too worried about his impending bankruptcy. Two local bands are talking of doing a benifit gig and the alliance is providing him with the fliers for the free mailshot that every candidate gets. Anyway, six years as a fireman and many years on and off benefit have taught him a range of survival skills. But not quite enough, it seems, to survive a cannabis possession charge and one year's probation. That still rankles. Defending himself - his barrister didn't turn up - Philip Lockwood, 43, claimed he used cannabis as "self-medication". It worked better than NHS drugs for treating depression he told the court. His own medical history, presented at the court by expert witness Matthew Atha, reads like a pharmaceutical A to Z. Since he was a hyperactive seven-year-old, doctors have prescribed him literally dozens of drugs. Painkillers, anti-epileptics, major tranquilisers, anti-depressants, beta blockers, sleeping tablets, mood enhancers and muscle relaxants - he's been prescribed them all, some 29 different drugs since 1982 alone. And none of them, he says, has done as much good as a regular cannabis spliff. That's why he was nurturing some 56 plants at Back Charles Street, Brighouse when the police arrived. The Bill meets Little Weed. "When I was arrested I felt it was inappropriate. I'd been saving the NHS money and I was keeping well in myself. For once I'd pulled my life together. I was director of a computer web design company," he says. His defence of medical need didn't persuade the court, however. But the conviction did persuade him that the laws against cannabis are unjust and inapproprate and must be changed. Using the internet and read voraciously, Philip Lockwood has become an expert on the subject. He is impressively well-informed about the history of cannabis and about medical research and its effects. "Queen Victoria used it for period pains, you know," he says. "And hemp seeds are more nutritious than soya. Napoleon invaded Russia because France needed new supplies of hemp to make rope and sails." His enthusiasm is genuine and he says "I don't give a monkey's if I only get one vote for myself. At least people are talking about cannabis. I've helped to open up the debate and people's response has been fantastic." "Some people say we arepromoting use of an illegal drug. We are not. We are promoting open debate on the legislation. We don't advocate its use. I'd love to be able to, but I'm not allowed," he adds. The crusading zeal is clear. And so is his anger at the hypocrisy of Governments, which raise billions in tax from alcohol and nicotine - both killer drugs - yet criminilise "a natural product, which harms no one and does many people good." Prohibition of cannabis, he says, was bound to fail. Like American Prohibition of alcohol, it is unworkable and has encouraged the rise of organised crime. He quotes Francis Wilkinson, a former chief constable, to support his case. "An old bloke came up to me while I was canvassing, flat cap Albert Tatlock type. 'When I was in the army in South Africa, we used to buy squiffy black, a tanner a lump. Great stuff. The they opened the NAAFI selling alcohol. That's when the trouble started,' he said." 'Nuff said. __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT) From: DdC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Solidarity **Forever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Standford **Restore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Hemp Talk" *3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: **axiom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dana **Beal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MUTANEX **FutureWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: The War on Drugs:A Visual by MC Escher Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Relativity http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/politics/media/36/36912.jpg World of Escher http://www.worldofescher.com ===== Safe Sacramental Cannabis Food Fuel Fiber FARM-aceuticals Hardrug&Booze Alternative Eliminated from the Free Market by Legislation and Administrated Education Depravation! http://server5.ezboard.com/bendingcannabisprohibition.html http://pub3.ezboard.com/bendingcannabisprohibition Cybrary (links above)Why do you think they call it dope? http://www.cannabis.com/ezine/just_say_know/2.shtml __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of restore V1 #57 ********************* * ------ CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore the unregulated production of industrial hemp. ------ To subscribe, unsubscribe or switch to immediate or digest mode, please send your instructions to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. ------ *Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp* mail: CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA phone: (503) 235-4606 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.crrh.org/
