Posted: June 6, 2011 at 5:58 am
GUEST POST:Holder Complains About Cowards, But Is One
When Eric Holder was sworn in as Attorney General, he forcefully (and controversially) declared that America “is a nation of cowards” for the way in which we refuse to discuss race and racism in an open, direct and honest way. Perhaps this is true.
But who’s the coward now?
For several years, states have been moving toward making their own laws regarding the medicinal use of marijuana, for the basic reason that pot is an effective painkiller that has few of the side effects of the big-gun narcotic painkillers that earn pharmaceutical companies hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
Pot is still an illegal narcotic under federal law, and federal law always trumps state law. Thus from the day in 2005 when Montana’s (and other states’) medical pot statute went into effect, the feds retained the option of arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana users and growers at any time. But Holder, shortly after taking office, made statements to the effect that the Obama administration would look the other way and let states regulate pot for medicinal use within their own borders. These statements were an important indication that citizens need not be concerned with federal criminal statutes regarding marijuana, as long as these citizens were abiding by state law. Thus did a small but thriving medical pot industry come about in several states, including Montana, with lawful participants feeling secure about what they were doing.
But then this past winter, federal Drug Enforcement Agents stormed a bunch of states including Montana, raiding a bunch of commercial pot greenhouses. We don’t really know what these growers were doing that led the Feds to raid them. We do know that the federal indictments are long and vague, as they were described in the news. One gets the impression that the growers who got raided were trafficking illegally both within Montana, and across state lines. But in some cases, I’ll bet that’s not true. My guess is that some of the up-and-up growers ended up sharing greenhouse space with some shady growers, and probably got caught up in the whole mess without ever having done anything wrong. But we will soon see, as these trials take place.
Also unclear is the extent to which Holder, Obama and Mike Cotter, the Obama-appointed US Attorney, were involved in the decision to invade. If a few career officers at DEA took the action without consulting upward, that would be one thing. But if Holder gave or approved the order, or if the White House or the US Attorney were involved, that would be a very strange thing given the strong statements made by Holder that states would be left make and enforce their own laws with regard to medical pot.
Last month, a new law went into effect, authored by Jeff Essman, a 2012 GOP gubernatorial candidate. This law eliminates the commercial growing of medical pot. Under the new law, it appears that patients must grow their own plants or receive their pot from charitable growers who may engage in a limited amount of non-profit growing. But the federal power over all of this is still entirely uncertain.
Even Governor Brewer, the arch conservative nut in Arizona, is demanding clarification from the feds, because she wants to implement a medicinal use law in Arizona. And last week, Holder declared that he would “soon” be “clarifying” his position on this entire issue. But as it stands now, Holder is a coward on this issue. Holder is especially a coward for having complained about people being cowards, and then acted like one himself by having said one thing but done, apparently, another. If his clarification in the coming weeks is murky–as I fear it will be–he will be even more of a coward.
[Thank you Helenan for this guest post. If you are interested in being a guest poster, contact me on the tipline - Cowgirl]
The Drug war, holder from Nixon
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/05
I meant “hold over from Nixon”
Sounds as though cowgirl is going to make room for states rights advocates. Maybe soon, room for secessionists?
This issue is far larger than just State’s rights. The War on Drug has failed. It is as simple as that. Now it just fuels the prison system, the Big Pharma, and is a talking point for politicians.
A few simple facts to consider –
1) There has not been a single (yes, you read that right – not one), reputable study of Cannabus that indicates it is even close to as harmful for the body as Smoking or Alcohol. In fact, most of the more recent studies indicate it is actually beneficial to the body under certain circumstances.
2) Further, Marijuana has been proven to be far less invasive and harmful for pain management than ANY of the prescription pain killers and has far fewer potential side effects. Marijuana can be used to control pain that other medications seem ineffectual for.
3) Many studies have indicated that America alone is losing an estimated 52 BILLION dollars a year by not legalizing and taxing Marijuana like Alcohol. This number does NOT include the revenue that would saved by NOT arresting, procecuting, and imprisoning people for marijuana use.
I dare anyone to link a SINGLE reputable study that indicates Marijuana is more dangerous to the body than alcohol. Show me a reputable study that proves marijuana has caused the death of a single individual. Good luck with that….
Good posts on this topic, Moorcat. Keep’em coming.
Well I was stoned the day my mom got outta prison,
And I went to pick her up in the rain.
But before I could get to the station in my pickup truck,
The Assman caught her smokin’ pot for her pain!
It AIN’T about the drug wars. It’s the CULTURE wars! Assman simply can’t STAND him them no good lazy HIPPIES! They’re lazy, godless, commie MOOCHERS! With long hair inSTEAD of a nice Murcan-style mullet! Assman is still fightin’ the culture wars from the sixties! Hippies bad, ignernt rednecks good! Long hair bad, mullets good! Weed bad, booze GOOD! Moochers bad, producers good! That’s all.
Daddy Assman knows best! You see, in Daddy Assman’s world, democracy is tyranny, and only a white, nerdy, male authoritian figure with Ozzie and Harriet values and bonyfeeds knows best! And like the McKenzie brothers who were always searching for a topic, Assman has finally FOUND himself a topic. HIPPIES! The scum of the earth! Will it be enough to get him elected? I dunno. Maybe what Assman needs is a good Tommy Chong!
Remember how Bush threw Tommy in jail for selling “parapherNALia”? Wow! I mean, we ALL know what parapernalia leads to. ADDICTION!
These bozo Pubbies are without shame. They will attempt ANYthing to get elected. Assman is simply searching for his own personal Tommy Chong!
I agree with Larry – the Republicans want this as a political issue and plan to hammer on it at any chance they can get. After all, a bunch of the GOP-ers have alcohol problems, so if they want to crack down on immoral behavior, alcohol is off the table. Senator Shockely (running for AG), Brad Johnson, Alan Hale, Rehberg and others have lost all credibility if they rail against booze–watch for them to focus on pot.
Jammie, maybe you’ve already read it, but there is a great book called the I Chong by Tommy Chong about his ordeal with the Bush administration. It’s an incredible read. I view Assman to be on a similar type crusade. Again, these folks are without shame! Without shame. Can ya get much lower than that? I don’t think so. They will do ANYTHING to try to get elected, including criminalizing harmless drugs. It very much follows the texASS model where you can still get twenty years for possession of a small amount of weed. Maybe Assman should move his ass to TEXass!
Jami,
Laying this issue at the door of Republicans is just silly. Larry is actually more “right” than you give him credit for. It is a cultural thing. We have been raised to believe that “pot is bad” without a single shred of proof. Now that actual, reputable studies are being done on the drug, we find it isn’t the “boogyman” we were led to believe.
Further, there is a large section of the Republican/Conservative community that wants marijuana legalized. I happen to be one of them. Essmann will not even come close to winning the primary, and part of the reason he won’t come close is his A&&hat veiws on medical marijuana. Don’t alienate potential allies in this fight by assuming that “Republicans want this as a political issue and plan to hammer on it at any chance they can get”. Many of us conservatives want this issue to be resolved – preferably by legalizing and regulating Marijuana.
Glad to hear it. While certain Republicans are sure to attempt to rail against MM for their political gain, I hope more rational conservatives come out.
Of course, I didn’t see any of the rational variety in the Montana legislature…
They were there.. not enough to make a difference, but they were there.
Out of curiosity Moorcat, which Republicans voted against this horrible bill that is hurting people right now, SB423 ?
Honestly, I am not sure. The Montana Legislature’s website is kind of difficult to extract this kind of information from. I do know that the votes were “interesting”. For example, Kendall Van Dyke voted for this bill. If you really want to know, you are welcome to pull up the site and figure it out. There were multiple votes and amendments to this bill, though, so expect to spend some time doing it.
It occurs to me that you (Steve) and others have misconstued my intent and commitment to this specific issue. I really don’t care that much about marijuana (in any of it iterations). What I do care about is willful ignorance and stupidity as is being displayed by James Conner. I am anaphylatically allergic to marijuana so it certainly isn’t a personal issue for me. That is why I didn’t bother to look up the information you requested.
That said, what makes this issue important to me is A)the utter waste of resources (primarily money) we throw at the failed “War on Drugs” that could be better spent addressing real issues that we can effect, B)the willful ignorance people display on this issue – as well as others and C)the seeming need of the government to play nanny instead of dealing with the failing economy, infrastructure and cohesion of this state and this nation.
Marijuana has been studied for decades and the results of those reputable studies have proven that it has a beneficial effect for many people. There is no logical reason to keep it illegal other than ingrained mis-information and the economic benefits for certian organizations. Instead of reacting logically and rationally to the information we have about this drug, we react irrationally and incorrectly by attempting to criminalize it and by doing so we spend vast amounts of money and resources that could be better spent. Further, we hurt people who could be living better lives by the use of this drug which has been proven to provide relief with very few side effects and, more importantly, this drug is cheap to produce.
As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. Nothing you say will change Conner’s mind. He has made his mind up. One can only hope that there are others that read these posts that do so with a little more intellegence and open-mindedness. There are plenty of conservatives, like myself, that see the madness in this war on drugs (Cory Stapleton, Montanafesto etc). This isn’t a partisan issue, it is one of intellegence and logic.
I know of some nationally known Republicans who have openly questioned the wisdom of our drug policy, but i was just curious as to our own legislature. i can look it up, no problem. as I recall, there may have been one or two Republican no votes or abstentions, but I’m not sure.
I agree with your analysis for the most part and I agree that legalization or decriminalization of cannabis both for medical and for other uses as well seems like a natural conservative position, at least from a classical sense of the word “conservative.”
Are you also allergic to tomatoes, moorcat? I read a while ago that people who have an allergy to tomatoes almost always also are allergic to cannabis. i guess both plants share a certain compound that some people can’t tolerate well.
Luckily, no. I am not allergic to tomatos (though they aren’t my favorite food). As I understand it, it is the actual THC in marijuana that I am allergic to.
And, lest we forget, the vast majority of people in Montana really want to get a sensible policy on the issue. As you mention, it just ain’t worth wasting any more time and money on. The war on drugs is over. Time to take the profit out of if for the criminal element. The negative effects of that alone far outweighs any benefit to be had by continuing another senseless war.
You’re always talking about the vast majority of Montanans, doglap. In my experience, the vast majority of Montanans always vote for whomever promises them the next boom…
I would say that the real cowardice comes from our elected federal officials not tackling or engaging on this problem. Holder is not in an easy spot since he is tasked with enforcing federal law not making it. I dont think its really a good idea or a good precedent for the US attorneys office to be picking and choosing which laws they will enforce and not enforce..even if I happen to agree as a practical matter that busting medical mj growers is a waste of time and bad policy. I dont really have any idea what they are thinking or doing or what the specifics are of the individuals they busted but they do have to draw the line somewhere as long as the federal law stays the same. It would be a much better situation if the elected representatives from all the states with medical mj laws started proposing changes in Congress.
Mike Cotter is the US Attorney in Montana Pat Cotter is a Mt Supreme Ct justice.
I’ve been struggling with this issue for the last year, which is why I’ve yet to post anything on it on Flathead Memo. I’ve got a snappy headline — Dancing with Medical Mary Jane — but that’s all. I don’t think a good solution is possible until marijuana is taken off the Schedule 1 list. As long as it’s Schedule 1, all regulation of it at a state level is at the mercy of the U.S. government and national politics. That means no regulation by the FDA, no quality control, and no sales in pharmacies. The long shadow of federal law darkens everything. All growers and users are federal outlaws, subject to prosecution at any time. That’s not a good situation.
Should marijuana be a Schedule 1 drug? Of course not. The current situation is as stupid and dangerous as Prohibition was. But it’s not a benign substance. It impairs reactions and judgment: there’s a reason “pothead” is a derogatory term. And I have my doubts that it’s that effective as a pain killer. It does seem to control nausea. I don’t want people driving after smoking a joint or eating a cannabis brownie.
And I think that the potheads who want to legalize the weed have partly hijacked the issue, which makes it harder to solve.
But if Medical Mary Jane can ease the suffering of the dying and desperately ill, we should have the humanity and decency to let those poor souls take comfort in her embrace. We area cruel people when we base policy on a fear of addiction instead of a desire to reduce pain and suffering. That’s the message Montanans were sending when they approved the initiative in 2004.
The painkilling medicinal effects of Marijuana are well documented. You are welcome to doubt them, but the science is against you. The idea that ”
pothead” is a derogatory term is skewed at best. That is a societal lable based on decades of mis-information. There are many derogatory terms used in society that have no real factual basis.
Where I sort of agree with you is the idea that “Medical Marijuana” and “Legalizing Marijuana” are two seperate issues that are often confused. I actually support both even though I am deathly allergic to marijuana.
A couple of other points. The “addictive” properties of marijuana have yet to be proven in any study done on the substance. The idea that marijuana is addictive is subjective, mis-informed and without factual basis. Second, I also disagree with your conclusion that only by changing it’s Class 1 standing can the states move forward. History of the US shows us quite clearly that changes such as this one tend to start in the States before they are done on a national level. Hell, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if a number of states hadn’t already either decriminalized marijuana or approved marijuana as a medicinal drug. The momentum is growing stronger each day to force the issue on a national level but it will happen in the states first.
James Conner wrote; “And I have my doubts that it’s that effective as a pain killer.”
Is that opinion based on your personal experimentation, James Conner, or is it derived from an investigation into the scientific literature? Or is it from what you know from TV?
The reason I ask, is that if you have a computer you can find numerous studies that have shown the analgesic qualities of cannabis.
The most interesting and truly revolutionary research (at least to my mind) is on the synergy between cannabis and opiates and opiate analogs.
Please watch this video, James Conner, and let me know what you think. It’s a presentation on the research funded by The National Institute on Drug Addiction (NIDA) on pain and cannabis.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462551044217885349#
Interaction between Opiates and Cannabinoids, by Sandra Welch, PhD – Sandra Welch, Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Virginia Commonwealth University, examines the analgesic effects of combining Cannabinoids and Opiates. at 2004 Cannabis Therapeutics Conference, held in Charlottesville, VA in May of 2008. A synergistic effect was found that required must less opiate drugs to be used for acute and chronic pain.
You need to do better than a single video of a PowerPoint presentation. Cite peer reviewed articles in journals as reputable as the New England Journal of Medicine.
Here is a link to 84 of her peer reviewed published articles.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Search&db=pubmed&term=welch%20sp
I think you are too lazy to have an opinion that carries any weight at all. If googling the multitude of peer reviewed published articles authored by Sandra Welsh is too much for you, I’m afraid you don’t really want to know. You prefer your current ignorant opinion to knowledge.
Never mind that the synergy between cannabis and opiates have been noticed and written about for long before cannabis was criminalized. Never mind that Sandra Welch has been doing pain research since 1980 and doing research on how cannabis fits into the pain puzzle since the 1990s, and never mind that you have no published peer reviewed articles on the subject, I’m going to have to do better to overcome your ignorance of the issue?
Well alrighty then. But i’m afraid that while you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make him drink.
I did not assert that marijuana is addictive. I do not think it is. I know there’s a debate over marijuana’s effectiveness as a pain killer, but I have found no study that I find credible that confirms it’s as effective as opiates such as morphine, hydrocodone, or oxycodone, If you have evidence to the contrary, cite your sources.
The term pothead is derogatory — and I intend it to be so, and I will continue to use it that way. And frequently, because I think it describes perfectly the spaced-out zombies who are to pot smoking what alcoholics are to drinking, and who, high smelling and slow speaking, accost you on the street, slurring “Hey, man. Spare change?”
*****
Reform may start in the states, but states cannot decriminalize marijuana. Federal law is supreme, and can be enforced by federal officials at any time, even when a state objects and tries to interfere (trying to interfere with federal law enforcement is the doctrine of Interposition). That’s what’s happening now with the federal raids in Montana and elsewhere.
If marijuana were removed from the Schedule 1 list (I would have no Schedule 1 list), it could be legalized and regulated as a controlled substance. What states are doing now is defying the federal government and sending Washington a message that is being ignored. But defiance is not decriminalization. The only practical benefit of states “decriminalizing” medical marijuana is eliminating the possibility of de facto double jeopardy. I suppose that’s a start, but we need to understand that as long as marijuana remains a Schedule 1 drug, the issue of medical marijuana cannot be resolved satisfactorily.
What with your several definitions and explanations, Jim, I’m guessing you’ll be taking a degree in Law next spring from UofM? Sophomores and grad students are so easy to spot!
“Sophomores and grad students are so easy to spot!” Perhaps for some, but not for you. Learn more at http://www.flatheadmemo.com.
Oh! You’re that Conner, eh? I will amend my words in the future: “Sophomores, grad students and flatheaders are so easy to spot…”
They’re easy for you to spot only after you’re tipped off to who they are.
“we base policy on a fear of addiction”
My statement about the (non) addictiveness of marijuana was in responce to that line your message.
Any term can be used as derogatory (abusive). You are more than welcome to continue to use it as an insult. It tells far more about you than it does about the issue.
As far as the Federal Government is concerned, you talk about them as if they are somehow different from us. Unless you missed it, the Federal Government is made of people elected by… US. If enough states pass medical marijuana laws, the Feds will follow because “they is us”.
I also question your assertion that the raids being conducted by the DEA (ect) have anything to do with the Feds claiming they are can override state law. It is my understanding after discussing the raids in Montana with someone involved that the raids had more to do with activity that is illegal in MONTANA. Your milage may vary. While the pro-pot people would love us to believe that the Feds are running some kind of conspiracy to eliminate Medical Marijuana, I think you will find that the answer (and reasons for the raids) is far more simple. The raids in Montana were a DIRECT result of the failure of the Montana Legislature to enact any kind of common sense regulations for the Medical Marijuana industry – originally enacted by a voter initiative years ago. If you must look for a boogyman, that is probably a wiser place to start.
And again, a source James Conner
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462551044217885349#
Please watch and learn, Cannabis makes opiates far more effective and requires far less use of opiates for analgesia.
This is revolutionary. Truly. And you don’t know about it yet. so please watch.
James Conner, I hate to contradict you again, but the scientific evidence shows pretty clearly that cannabis is addictive. Work done in the 1970s at Langley Porter Institute at the University of CA at San Fransisco (UCSF) demonstrates pretty clearly that cannabis produces physical withdrawal symptoms in humans when cut off cold turkey from very large doses over time.
The good news is that that the test subjects were being given massive amounts of THC (said to be the equivalent of an ounce and a half of thai-stick a day) for three weeks straight and the withdrawal symptoms exhibited when they were cut off cold turkey were extremely mild. i knew about these experiments at the time because by chance I knew a couple of people who had volunteered for the studies and they told me about their month at the facility while they were being used as guinea pigs.
Symptoms were things like mild irritability, mild insomnia, minor changes in metabolism. Symptoms that might be likened to what happens when a regular coffee drinker goes cold turkey.
And this was after massive doses full time for three weeks.
But please, let us use facts instead of emotion when discussing and deciding. These facts are available. You have the internet. The government published these studies. If we read and researched before we wrote we would be doing the community and ourselves a favor.
Cannabis, the scientific evidence shows, is almost non-addictive. To have a physical reaction to withdrawal similar to coffee or coca cola (caffeine) one would have to consume massive amounts full time. Most people’s medical use I would guestimate be about 0.5 to 5.0 grams per day. At Langley Porter they were giving the equivalent of an ounce and a half (42.6 grams a day,) but in pill form, probably marinol or something similar. It’s been years since I read the study and since I knew people who took part.
Most people inside and outside of government know that marijuana poses an almost negligible risk to public health. The whole prohibition has been to simply put the thumb of government in reality or in threat and by concrete example on a wide swath of Americans.
This has resulted in great harm, both in medical advancements as well as in costs to society as a whole in ways too innumerable to go into right now, since this is about pain management, really)
If any of our leaders were honest (Well, at least one is, Dave Wanzenried)they would admit that cannabis poses no significant public health threat and that medical cannabis is a public health miracle.
A little Cannabis can drastically cut peoples analgesic need for ever increasing amounts of opiates and their chemically derived analogs. A little Cannabis can drastically increase opiates efficacy to control pain. This is revolutionary.
I agree that cannabis must be removed from schedule one. That’s so obvious as to qualify as painful. But if it’s put back at any higher than III, it’s a travesty of the facts.
Where are your citations? Your comments remind me of a research paper sans footnotes. If you have links to credible peer reviewed studies, provide those links.
Yes I posted them. 84 of them. Didn’t you read them? up thread
And where are your citations? You know, to back up your conclusions?
Or do you think you deserve a pass?
You still haven’t said how you arrived at your opinion about the efficacy of cannabis as an analgesic. So how did you arrive at your opinion? Was it experimentation? was it scholarly inquiry? What you heard on TV?
Somewhat in Conner’s defense, many of the so-called studies done on Marijuana in the late 60′s and 70′s were more interested in proving how harmful the drug was. You, yourself, reference one of those studies. None of these studies was done objectively and all attempted to support the conclusions that had already been made by society – that pot was bad. There were even pseudo studies done that claimed pot effected people on a genetic level and as such were far worse than herion or cocaine. The fact that those studies were debunked in the 80′s and 90′s was never given any media attention at all.
As a Law Enforcement Officer in the 80′s, I was given this false information and for years beleived it without any kind of doubt. It was actually when I got into a rather heated discussion with none other than Dave Budge shortly after returning to Montana that I found out that the information I had learned about pot all my life was incorrect. In the course of that argument, I read the studies done in the last two decades on marijuana and found out information that turned many of my pre-conceived notions on their head. There may even be hope of a cure – or at least some relief – from my rare form of meningitus from a synthetic derivative of wacky mushrooms. That drug (which is easy to produce and VERY inexpensive) may provide relief for many who suffer the debilitating headaches and neurological effects from meningitus as well as those who suffer from chain headaches.
I guess my point is simple. Instead of assuming you know everything about a topic – especially when there are those who provide you with the links to better information regardless of what you think of them personally – it is far better to educate yourself on the matter. The alternative is to keep your mouth shut rather than proliferate false and misleading information out of ignorance.
Removing weed from schedule ! it would seriously damage the bottom lines of wine and liquor makers and sellers–not even to mention its effects on big pharma. I suspect it will be a cold day in Butte when that happens.
Removing weed from schedule 1 would seriously damage the bottom lines of wine and liquor makers and sellers–not even to mention its effects on big pharma. I suspect it will be a cold day in Butte when that happens.
More likely, Big Pharma would start growing cannabis on an industrial scale, crowding out the home growers and charging a fine high price for FDA certified weed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/06/982526/-Medical-Marijuana,-Big-Pharma-Style?via=siderec
Most things done in public policy are done with intentions other than those stated. There is not concern about marijuana within DEA, except the the lower non-policy levels. And if there were any real concern about drugs in general, they would go with what works – information and treatment. They are not clueless. They know this stuff.
Marijuana laws are especially insidious, as the drug itself is essentially harmless, even beneficial in many ways. Prohibition laws are aimed primarily at minorities. Thousands upon thousands of blacks and Hispanics are serving prison terms for marijuana busts. The policy is an effective weapon to control unemployed minorities who might otherwise be troublesome. For that reason the feds are going to fight to the death to keep marijuana laws at their disposal for this purpose. (I realize that other drugs are trafficked along with mj, and believe that the entirety of the drug war was never anything but a sham that could not possibly succeed, and was never intended to succeed.)
Imagine that pot was legalized – what then to do with the thousands serving terms for its possession? Let them go? Get real.
Anyway, Holder is up against the wall, as policies in place are there for a reason, and he does not have the power to overcome the forces that put those laws into being.
So the corporations that produce cultural outputs (movies, songs, etc.) that support the use of illegal drugs as a somehow sticking it to the man – are they complicit the effort to remove thousands of potentially challenging individuals from society?
You cannot wait for information to be handed down from on high. Every player at every level does not know the real purpose of their own activities, so low-level people are not of much use. But policy is generally not subject to advice offered from voters, as voters don’t know much. So policy is made for one reason and sold to voters for another. much of the artof public policy is to make it and disguise its purpose at once.
That’s elementary. Our job then is to try to understand policy. Given that marijuana is harmless, and not a “gateway” drug, there must be some other reason for such harsh enforcement activity around it.
From there you look at our unemployment and massive prison industrial complex, and the makeup of the prison population, and connect the dots. Marijuana laws are used mostly to imprison mInorities. This is plainly obvious.
Maybe it’s not meant to be that way. Maybe it is. I cannot say, as no one from on high has explained it to me in detail, nor will they.
Movies and music – wtf?
WHAT “corporate outputs”? Man, you’re a weirdo, dude! Please cite some examples and list sources. You make NO sense.
Corporate outputs – like Snoop Dogg ‘puff puff passing’ and Harold and Kumar and their blazed adventures. These things are sold as counter-cultural, sticking it to the man. And yet the behavior they are encouraging makes their audiences all the more susceptible to imprisonment and the more heavy-handed methods of the state. I look at my students, and rather than articulate their discontent in a reasonable way, the culture they are fed claims to make them rebels by encouraging them to smoke weed and fail at school. In the end, the former de-legitimizes their voices (in addition to providing a temporary release for their discontent), while the latter strips away the chance at ever joining the political elites where their voices might be heard.
I don’t know to what extent this is planned and to what extent it is unintentional, but I do think it is happening – the voices of the ‘have nots’ are being obscured because the culture they ingest stunts their ability to communicate with the ‘haves’. I’m not asking for your wisdom from on high, merely your opinion: does what I’m saying make sense?
The National Security State does reach into popular culture for propaganda purposes. For example, any film that needs to use military equipment – tanks and aircraft – must have its script approved by the Pentagon. If you see a tank, you know that Big Brother approved the script. But take a movie like Three Kings, some years back, with a subversive message, saying that George Bush Sr. sandbagged the Iraqis to “rise up” to expose them so we could kill them. There was not one piece of military hardware in that movie, even though it was a war movie. That’s why. The Pentagon did not approve of the script.
But movies and TV aimed at youth are generally in tune with culture rather than causing it. I frankly don’t think that anyone in the high reaches of government much cares about pot or even the other harsher drugs available these days … unless they are being used by a minority member. I’m a white guy – I could sit on my porch every night smoking pot and nothing would happen. If I were black, I’d be a damned fool to do so. Minorities have to watch their back, as they are easily caught in DEA sweeps and imprisoned.
I doubt that there is any more or less drug use in the population than ever before. And a certain percentage of the population are addictive, and so will succumb to just about any mind-altering substance. But most of us as we mature, learn to either do without or keep it under control and so it does not affect our lives. Drugs are no more or less a problem than ever before, but drug enforcement does have a political purpose.
Had no idea you could be so eloquent, Mr. Tokarski. More on the prison industrial complex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh8ZrGhzJIM
This is certainly now always the case (as is true of most of Mark’s many conspiracy theories). Check out Pentagon Wars (as just one example of this)
Interesting for a couple of reasons – one, the message is not subversive. It’s a complaint about bureaucracy, but praises military accomplishments in the Persian Gulf War, a human tragedy and horrible massacre. Three Kings, around the same time, went after the underlying ugly truth, and that is the meaning of subversion.
And second, HBO – there is an interesting phenomenon there in that some really good programming will get through there that would not make it in sponsor-driven media. Pentagon Wars, mildly rebellious, made it to HBO, but not to network TV.P
Even though I don’t use it-trips my migraines off. I Know I would much rather work with someone who had just smoked pot the night before rather than gotten drunk. Hung over people are worthless. I believe it has legitimate medical uses that would cost the Pharma-industry customers because it works so much better than their products for several issues.
I have to say I agree with Mr. Conner on a couple of key points. First, a faction of people behaving like potheads is ruining the reputation of the medical marijuana industry. Just look at the spew coming from Heidi Handford and her bunch and you’ll see what I mean. The more mainstream side of the issue has no chance with these albatrosses around their necks. They’re toast.
Define “toast”, please. As each year passes, more and more states either decriminalize marijuana completely or pass medical marijuana law. This trend shows no sign of slowing either. Even here in Montana, as hard as Essmann and the “God Squad” tried to overturn the medical marijuana initiative, they had to resort to passing a regulation bill that effectively kills it – they knew they didn’t have the voter support to outright overturn it.
You do have a point (though in this issue, I hardly feel it is “Key”). If you want to convince someone of something, you certainly don’t go about it by being “In your face”. When I testified before the Oregon Legislature about alternative lifestyles, it surprised and horrified me how many showed up to testify in outragious outfits or were combative about the issue. These stuffed suits listening to the testimony simply tuned them out. Who they did listen to were the calm, well dressed individuals that showed up prepared and ready to give logical, well thought out testimony. Those that want to change a societally accepted norm (even if there is no factual basis for that norm), should take a hint from those people.
Right, cat.
The best way to convince fascists is to behave like a fascist.
If one wants to convince Americans to treat queers like they are human beings is of course to act like you hate queers.
When will we ever learn?
Dear “Wow,”
I disagree with your analysis of the politics of the medical cannabis issue.
My prediction is that the people will easily collect enough signatures quickly to block the stupid idiotic SB423 passed in the dark of night with no hearings and no citizen input and no deliberation. Everyone who helped pass medical marijuana will be on board and many more new people as well.
If we even need to go that far. Because the law suit will probably prevail in a number of areas and may preclude the necessity of people once again doing what the legislature is too lame to do.
I have never encountered a bunch of paranoid, uninformed morons than this group. They have no idea what they are talking about, zero civic information, and are generally hostile at public meetings, shouting profanity etc. This is why this cause is a losing one. Not that I don’t sympathize with those of genuine need, but the hippy idiot squad is just too much.
You got THAT right, Danno. HIPPIES! DIRTY hippies! They suck! And the Assman KNOWS they suck! I mean, who really CARES if nearly seventy-eight percent of Montanans think it should be legal. I mean, hippies shouldn’t even be allowed to VOTE!
And I STILL maintain that that’s exactly why we lost in Nam. Oh sure, they had short hair and uniforms, but underneath, they was still hippies! All them damn hippies smokin’ doobie! Hell, how can you fight a decent war when you’re stoned!
Dan, thank you. I think that you’ve inpsired me. I’m gonna get me a crewcut, stop usin’ profanity, start votin’ Pubbie, and JOIN the Murcan team for the Murcan dream! Maybe I’ll even vote for the Assman! You see, being deluded by the Teaparty is KINDA like goin’ through life high!………or at least being oblivious to reality!
Dan? Is that you? Is this Dan from Hawaii?
Did you hear that Willie Nelson is playing this summer in Missoula? I bet you don’t like Willie Nelson, do you Dan?
On behalf of Willie Nelson I’d like to dedicate this Jerry Jeff Walker song to you, your mom, and your wife Betty Lou Thelma Liz Bob
Red Neck Mother- by Jerry Jeff walker
He was born in Oklahoma,
His wife’s name’s Betty Lou Thelma Liz
And he’s not responsible for what he’s doing
Cause his mother made him what he is.
And it’s up against the wall Redneck Mother,
Mother, who has raised her son so well.
He’s thirty-four and drinking in a honky tonk.
Just kicking hippies asses and raising hell.
Sure does like his Falstaff beer,
Likes to chase it down with that Wild Turkey liquor;
Drives a fifty-seven GMC pickup truck;
He’s got a gun rack; “Goat ropers need love, too” sticker
And it’s up against the wall Redneck Mother,
Mother, who has raised her son so well.
He’s thirty-four and drinking in a honky tonk.
Just kicking hippies asses and raising hell.
Well,
M is for the mudflaps you give me for my pickup truck
O is for the Oil I put on my hair
T is for T-bird
H is for Haggard
E is for eggs, and
R is for REDNECK.
Up against the wall Redneck Mother,
Mother, who has raised her son so well.
He’s thirty-four and drinking in a honky tonk.
Kicking hippies asses and raising hell.
He’s up against the wall Redneck Mother,
Mother, who has raised her son so well.
He’s thirty-four and drinking in a honky tonk.
Just kicking hippies asses and raising hell.
I hate to comment on this piece of crap blog – I am a regular commenter at the Billings Gazette, but you people clearly have no grasp of the facts. Let me tell you what’s going on, since you can’t seem to figure it out on your own.
Your precious Max Baucusreceived more money than any other current member of congress from the pharmaceutical industry. For the 2006, 2008, and 2010 election cycles, Baucus received $229,520 from the pharmaceutical industry.
As Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus calls himself the 10th most powerful prick in the world. Is he ordering federal raids, no but it was Baucus who recommended that Obama appoint Mike Cotter, the Montana U.S. Attorney who issued the letters warning of a crackdown, and then ordered raids the same day as the HB 161 hearing. Cotter, as U.S. attorney, is the top federal law enforcement guy in the state. The raids were all carried out by federal agents.
At the beginning of the legislative session and before the raids, Baucus set up for himself a special briefing to ask questions about drug enforcement in Montana with law enforcement types. I suppose you party hacks think its just a coincidence.
Think again morons!
Really a gutsy anonymous post!
Really a “gutsy anonymous blog” deserves no less. You folks keep burying your heads in the sand that Montana can outsmart the feds on this and win. See where that gets you. Meanwhile, the federal government will go on with its crackdown unimpeded with nary a word against them. Carry on.
Common knowledge.
Liability is the core of the argument: if states have a hand in dispensing it, the first mishap involving its use sues the state. Same with the Feds: taking it off the Schedule 1 list lays blame at their door. Distribution for recreational use is vastly different than for therapy, the realm of pharmacies in the real world.
Thus, two systems should be in place: casual use would put the onus on individuals to maintain insurance to grow their own and legitimate sufferers should be able to go Walgreens.
I could file a lawsuit against Calvert on Monday or against a bartender that overserved me just before I T-boned another car at an intersection (people do that all the time; they’d win), the tobacco lawsuit is another example. But file a lawsuit against my cannabis dealer?
Remember that the primary reason for the defeat of Prop 19 in Cal. was that the state would have been given the power to control strains. That’s unacceptable to those of us who already enjoy a huge selection. As a glaucoma sufferer who enjoys other benefits of cannabis, I can grow whatever I choose as a cardholder while Montana is streamlining its laws to define therapeutic uses for those of us who are too ill to grow.
So, corporate control of the industry seems counterintuitive just as microbrews and specialty vintners and distillers produce the best product and cottage industries seem far more organic.
Allowing large players to buy billboards and commercial tv time drives too many minors into the marketplace the way it is. California is moving in the right direction by slowing international trade in the product with domestic production. Bringing transparency into the process is how The Netherlands succeeded in making pot boring to the generations following its initial spike. Building tax revenue into the industry is beyond my capacity to comprehend so that would have to be hammered into each state’s legislation in committee.
After President Obama is reelected this blogger expects the kind of change he promised to deliver…with luck AG Holder will have enough of a case built against the Bush cabal, too.
Here is the President’s position. We Democrats have our orders; get out of the fucking way redstaters.
I just came across this blog on accident. Didn’t know it existed. Looks like garbage. Last I checked, Montana voted a lot of Repubs in last time and I can’t for the life of me figure out how marijuana became a Democrat or Republican issue. Please, I beg of all of you-base your opinions on facts, not emotions. Emotion gets in the way of being logical. Reserach everything you hear, whether you agree with it or not. You may be surprised.
Consider self-administering Demerol with a plastic bag over your head.
What the…;
Well you have been gone so long you missed everything that happened.
Almost every Republican in the legislature, both House and Senate, voted to overturn the will of the voters.
They want to turn good hardworking Montanans into criminals and they want to make the black market more profitable.
The Republican vote shows they are anti-job and anti-freedom, anti-private property and anti voters.
The want government in our lives big time. That is what their vote did. They own it just like the few Democrats who joined them own it.
Actually, quite a few Dems joined them. They were swayed by emotional fictitious stories told by people that, while they knew better, they wanted the “evil” of Marijuana removed from our sight.
Luckily, many of them are now reaping a much different outcome than they expected. Essmann can’t make a public appearence without facing a hostile crowd – even when they are primarily conservative. Knox is a joke that wouldn’t survive a recall if recall actually meant anything in this state anymore. Expect an entirely different wave of upsets next year when these jokers have to face their voters at the ballot box. This is one conservative that will probably be voting an Independant or Democratic ticket next year.
Only one Republican voted against SB 423, Terry Murphy. Here is the vote: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/LAW0211W$BLAC.VoteTabulation?P_VOTE_SEQ=S2126
Jami, that’s in the senate. i know of at least one Repo who voted no on 3rd reading in the house, that was Krayton Kerns.Still looking to see if there are more, just curious.
I have to burst y’all’s bubble, but there is no constitutional right to smoke weed. And there is no way 30,000 people in the state are using it for a chronic illness. Jason Christ himself already has said publicly that he gave out the cards for like 28,000 of the people for “chronic pain.” If you want weed to be legalized (and I can’t disagree there) why hide behind the disease thing. Why not just go for legalization?
I haven’t seen anyone claim that smoking marijuana is a constitutional right. If so, please point the post or comment that made that claim.
As far as how many people in Montana experience chronic pain that can be relieved by marijuana… Do you have any figures or studies to point to? Are you a medical doctor with a degree in the field to back up your claim? Hell, I live in chronic pain but get around it without marijuana because it is not an option for me. In fact, the last figures I have seen suggest that over 8% of the American population live in some form of chronic pain. Given that there are 970,000 people in Montana (give or take) that would mean that 77,600 people in Montana live in chronic pain. Given those numbers, 30,000 cards doesn’t seem out of the realm of probability. Even if half those people never considered the use of marijuana to control pain, there would still be more people in pain than cards issued.
Now I am aware that there were “excesses” in the issuance of cards. Any rational person would actually expect that given the prohibitionary treatment marijuana has received. What I object to is your flat statement that you are qualified to even comment on the number of cards issued or whether any of those cards were issued to someone who couldn’t use the drug for medicinal purposes. Further I object to the idea that a bunch of stuffed suits in Helena – ignoring the truely qualified testimony they were given by professional in the field of medical treatment – can make an arbitrary limit to the number of people in the State of Montana that are “allowed” to experience chronic pain or are allowed to seek relief from that pain.
Like you, I think marijuana should simply be legalized. The revenue alone that could be generated by regulating marijuana like alcohol or tobacco is staggering. Further, it would reduce the need for illegal activity to procure the substance, reduce the drain on law enforcement and jails/prisons, drop the price of marijuana making it unfriendly for the criminal element that preys off the people who feel they want/need to use it and end this silly waste of resources keeping us from addressing real issues like the economy, our national infrastructure, three useless wars, and other more important concerns.
That said, I do think it is criminal to deny a medication that has been proven over and over to provide relief for certain conditions out of ignorance and stupidity. The people fighting for the chance to use medical marijuana desire and need that medication as much as I need mine when my meningitus acts up. The only difference is that mine comes from some big pharmacy (and can have HUGE negative side effects) and theirs can be home grown or grown in small outfits easily.
I am referring to the lawsuit which says that the new regulations with 423 are unconstitutional. I get that people have a right to disagree with the law, but I don’t see how it is unconstitutional to prohibit someone from setting up a big weed business and smoking it all day as a hobby. I am not a doctor, but I can read the newspaper, and it has been reported that this excessive number of medicinal clients has banded together to sue the the state on constitutional grounds. http://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/article_f390a709-b1d8-5ca1-a0e0-3ccd50b04359.html
Your first mistake is taking anything written by a journalist as gospel. Your second mistake was assuming that your “take” on what was written is something that it isn’t.
Had you actually read the article in question a number of things would become crystal clear…
1) The article was primarily a press release of an opinion given by the Montana Attorney General’s office (you know, the office that has to combat the suit). In that opinion, the Attorney General’s office makes a number of opinion statements that may or may not hold up in court.
2) You completely mischaracterize even the opinion statement of the Attorney General’s office. They claim that the law itself is not unconstitional even if provisions of the law are found to be unconstitutional due to certain provisions of the law as passed. As I understand it, that is a factual statement (at least as far as previous Montana Supreme Court decisions go). That does not mean that certain elements of the law will not be found to be unconstitutional. More importantly, if those provisions under the law are found to be unconstitutional, the question remains as to whether the law itself is enforceable with those provisions stricken.
3) Third.. you state ” it has been reported that this excessive number of medicinal clients has banded together to sue the the state on constitutional grounds” but no where in that article was this claim made. Further, having personal knowledge of the suit and at least some of the people involved, I can personally attest that A) not all of them use marijuana for any purpose, B) not all of them are medicinal clients and C) There are not an “excessive” number of people involved in the suit. You are correct that the law is being brought on constitutional grounds. It remains the court’s decision on whether those grounds have merit, not the State Attorney General’s office.
If this is the single source of your information, you really need to get out more. Further, you should be aware that there is already a movement, tens of thousands strong, to get yet another citizen’s initiative on the ballot for next year. It will likely be successful. Whether the ballot measure will be successful will depend on how many people take their misguided cues through ignorance and blind stupidity, and how many people take the time to actually learn something about what they are voting on.
Yeah, i support the law suit. SB 423 is just as bad and just as illegal as about 90% of the crap this whacko Republican run legislature passed.
It is unconstitutional for the state to take property without just compensation.
It is unconstitutional to deny equal treatment under the law
Don’t ya think?
The lawsuit has real merit and is likely to succeed. I got the impression from reading that article that Bullock has to say that because it is the official state position (upholding current law).
One small correction. While the opinion came from the Attorney General’s office and Bullock was one of the signiturees, I found it interesting that the article minimized Bullock’s personal involvement in that press release. The article kept refering to “the Attorney General’s Office” not “Attorney General Bullock”. This could well be an important distinction. If this release was a “group think” responce, I would be curious as to what Bullock’s personal view on this issue is – especially if he has intentions of running for Governor.
I bet we see marijuana legalized in 5 years or less.