Petraeus Says Bush Committed War Crimes And Warns About The Dangerously Deteriorating Situation In Pakistan

There was a lot of talk yesterday about General David Petraeus' jolting appearance-- jolting for Republicans-- on Fox News. The Fox talking head was apparently too shocked to put up that normal 'ole Fox anti-reality fight. He reiterated that its important for American national defense that the Guantánamo concentration camp be closed down. He told her that he "oversee[s] a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes [systematic torture] in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard."

When she did try to come back with the standard, intellectually dishonest right-wing talking points, he swatted her away like a slow-moving fly. "I don't think we should be afraid of our values we're fighting for, what we stand for. And so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we're doing on the battlefield and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith, I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law."

I'm sure Limbaugh and Rove are plotting their response now. After all, his acknowledgment that we violated that Geneva Conventions-- and committed war crimes-- lead right to prison cells for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. If only! Actually, I was more interested in his assessment of the highly volatile situation in Pakistan-- a dysfunctional nation of 165,900,000 mostly impoverished and angry people, which has been crippled by mind boggling endemic corruption. During the Bush Regime, over 12 billion American tax dollars flooded into the country. Most of the money disappeared down the rathole of corruption and most of the rest of it went in developing a nuclear arsenal which is useless in the guerilla war the country is now mired in. On top of all that, Petraeus warned that anti-American sentiment there is growing. Pakistanis are angered, he wrote, by “cross-border operations and reported drone strikes” that they believe “cause unacceptable civilian casualties."

In today's Wall Street Journal former CIA agent and a top advisor on Pakistan to both Clinton and Obama, Bruce Riedel takes a look at the relationship between this savage hellhole and the U.S. through the prism of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. The background: intense fighting in the Swat Valley just a couple hours from the capital; 2 million internal refugees; rebels bombing cities across the country (Lahore and Peshawar this week); a disgruntled populace; and a failing, hollowed-out political system ready to fall apart completely. And between 60 and 100 nuclear weapons which may or may not be secure.

Today the arsenal is under the control of its military leaders; it is well protected, concealed and dispersed. But if the country fell into the wrong hands-- those of the militant Islamic jihadists and al Qaeda-- so would the arsenal. The U.S. and the rest of the world would face the worst security threat since the end of the Cold War. Containing this nuclear threat would be difficult, if not impossible.

The danger of Pakistan becoming a jihadist state is real. Just before her murder in December 2007, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said she believed al Qaeda would be marching on Islamabad in two years. A jihadist Pakistan would be a global game changer-- the world’s second largest Muslim state with nuclear weapons breeding a hothouse of terrorism.

Riedel has no answers that make the slightest bit of sense. His optimism is unfounded foolishness and I fear he's infected Obama with it as well. He's correct when he points out that "U.S. policy toward Pakistan in general and the Pakistani bomb in particular has oscillated wildly over the past 30 years between blind enchantment and unsuccessful isolation. President Ronald Reagan turned a blind eye to the program in the 1980s because he needed General Zia and the ISI to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. President George H. W. Bush sanctioned Pakistan for building the bomb in 1990, and Mr. Clinton added more sanctions after the 1998 tests [both having been forced to do so by Congress]. President George W. Bush lifted the sanctions after 9/11 and poured billions into the Pakistani army, much of it unaccounted for, in return for Pakistan’s help again in Afghanistan."

The rest is just pie-in-the-sky woolly headed nonsense that ends in tripling "aid" to Pakistan-- more and more billions of dollars annually that do nothing whatsoever to secure the country or make life more bearable for its pissed off population. The U.S. can't be the policeman of the world.

Shredded Weed - Taking the fun out of marijuana.

By William SaletanPosted Wednesday, May 27, 2009, at 9:04 AM ET

We've taken the caffeine out of coffee, the alcohol out of beer, and the smoke out of tobacco. What's next?

Taking the fun out of pot.

What's that? Do I hear you snickering at your keyboard? You think this is a backdoor way of legalizing weed?

For shame, says the company:

Sativex is a cannabinoid pharmaceutical product standardized in composition, formulation, and dose, administered by means of an appropriate delivery system, which has been, and continues to be, tested in properly controlled preclinical and clinical studies. Crude herbal cannabis in any form—including a crude extract or tincture—is none of those things.

So there. Sativex isn't pot. It's a carefully refined derivative: "Once the plants have matured, they are harvested and dried. GW then extracts the cannabinoids and other pharmacologically-active components … [to] arrive at a pharmaceutical grade material." Patients are further expected to regulate their intake to separate pot's approved effects—relief of pain and spasms—from its unapproved effects:

By careful self-titration (dose adjustment), most patients are able to separate the thresholds for symptom relief and intoxication, the 'therapeutic window', so enabling them to obtain symptom relief without experiencing a 'high'.

Bummer, eh? The company knows exactly what you're thinking:

Why not just let patients smoke cannabis?
In GW's opinion, smoking is not an acceptable means of delivery for a medicine. We believe that patients wish to use a medicine that is legally prescribed, does not require smoking, is of guaranteed quality, has been developed and approved by regulatory authorities for use in their specific medical condition and is dispensed by pharmacists under the supervision of their doctor.

That's a sensible approach. From the standpoint of medicinal as opposed to recreational use, it certainly makes more sense than letting everybody grow and smoke the herb, with all the resulting variability, fraud, and side effects. But GW's anti-pot evangelism goes further:

GW has never endorsed or supported the idea of distributing or legalizing crude herbal cannabis for medical use. In both our publications and presentations, we have consistently maintained that only a cannabinoid medication—one that is standardized in composition, formulation, and dose, administered by means of an appropriate delivery system, and tested in properly controlled preclinical and clinical studies—can meet the standards of regulatory authorities around the world, including those of the FDA.

And don't even think of breaking in and stealing the raw goods:

GW's cannabis plants are grown under computer-controlled conditions in secure glasshouses at a secret location in the UK. … The facility is situated in the South of England but for clear security reasons we do not divulge the precise location.

In your wildest dreams, did you imagine that a recreational drug could be so thoroughly, piously sterilized? But here it is. First came Cesamet (a "synthetic cannabinoid"), then Marinol (also synthetic). Only one pesky side effect has remained: Cesamet produces "euphoria in the recommended dosage range," and Marinol causes "easy laughing" and "elation." We can't have that. So the quest to "separate the thresholds for symptom relief and intoxication" continues. According to GW, delivery of Sativex as a spray "enables patients to titrate (adjust) their dose to achieve symptom relief without incurring an unacceptable degree of side effects."

All of which underscores Human Nature's basic question about the war on drugs. Namely: What do you mean by drugs? A war on cigarettes or on nicotine? A war on caffeinated but not alcoholic beer? Legalization of "cannabinoid medication" but not cannabis?

Drugs can be, and are being, re-engineered every day. Nicotine and caffeine appear in new forms. Cannabis is an herb, then a powder, then a capsule, and now a spray, with significant chemical adjustments along the way. How do you fight an enemy that keeps changing? How do you recognize when it's no longer your enemy?

Every feat of re-engineering challenges our moral and legal assumptions. In the case of Sativex, two positions are under attack: the left's lazy tolerance of recreational marijuana in the guise of legalizing medical marijuana and the right's opposition to medical marijuana on the grounds that it's just a pretext. By refining, isolating, and standardizing pot's medicinal effects, pharmaceutical companies are showing us how to separate the two uses. Are you for symptom relief or getting stoned? That used to be a fuzzy question. Now it's concrete: Do you want the reefer or the spray?

Ex-Archbishop: “We did not know that child abuse was a crime”

[A] retired Catholic Archbishop in the US is claiming in a soon-to-be-published memoir that he did not comprehend the potential harm to young victims or understand that the priests had committed a crime.

Said Rembert G Weakland: “We all considered sexual abuse of minors as a moral evil, but had no understanding of its criminal nature.”

Weakland, who retired in 2002 after it became known that he paid $450,000 in 1998 to a man who had accused him of date rape years earlier, said he initially: “Accepted naively the common view that it was not necessary to worry about the effects on the youngsters: either they would not remember or they would ‘grow out of it’.”

Weakland’s critics allege that, when he was Archbishop of Milwaukee, he had tried to cover up some of the widespread abuse that had taken place in the diocese – in particular by overseeing an evaluation in 1993 of Father Lawrence Murphy, one of those prosecuted for abuse.

Who's in Charge of Your Health?

Minnesota cancer patient Daniel Hauser, medical marijuana, and the politicization of medicine.

Radley Balko | May 26, 2009

This Memorial Day weekend, FBI officials are combing Southern California and parts of Northern Mexico in search of Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old from Sleepy Eye, Minnesota who has Hodgkin's lymphoma. Authorities believe Hauser and his mother fled to the area after a Minnesota judge ordered his parents to consent to treating him with chemotherapy on May 14. Hauser's parents claim they're part of an obscure Native American religion called Nemenhah, which eschews chemo and radiation in favor of natural remedies (though there's some indication Hauser and his parents may actually be reacting to a relative's fatal reaction to chemotherapy).

Hauser's case presents some interesting and difficult ethical questions about balancing parental rights with protecting children from potentially deadly parental decisions. Hauser's doctors say that with treatment, he has an 85 percent or better chance of beating the cancer. Without it, he'll likely die.

But even as federal authorities went on a continental manhunt for Hauser this weekend, another issue concerning human rights and medicine is making headlines in Minnesota. Two days ago, Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a relatively tame bill that would have allowed terminally ill people to use marijuana to alleviate pain in their final days. The bill didn't allow patients to grow their own marijuana, and didn't even allow for non-terminal cancer patients to use the drug to treat the nausea associated with chemotherapy, which, as Reason's own Jacob Sullum noted last week, is "remarkable...since this is one of the most common and best validated medical uses for the drug."

Yet in a fit of doublespeak, Pawlenty vetoed the bill while at the same time proclaiming his "empathy for the sick," to which the Marijuana Policy Project's Bruce Mirken replied, "He just thinks they belong in jail if they need medical marijuana." As reasons for his veto, Pawlenty cited (poorly argued) law enforcement opposition and his own worries about "expanded use" of marijuana.

It would at first appear that the two stories are inconsistent: The state of Minnesota is forcing Daniel Hauser into chemo because he isn't old enough to decide his own course of treatment, and because his parents' claimed moral opposition to chemotherapy is irrational. Yet at the same time, the state will forbid Hauser from smoking marijuana to offset the effects of said chemo because, despite research showing marijuana's clear benefits in that area, the state has a moral obligation to prevent people from smoking marijuana. Science should trump belief. Except when it doesn't.

But the two positions are consistent in one important way—perhaps the only way that really matters: The government, not sick people or their parents, gets to make the decision.

When it comes to medically useful drugs that also have psychoactive properties, that's par for the course. Stopping people from getting high always takes precedent over patient care, usually because it's politicians and law enforcement officials—not medical professionals—who write and enforce the laws.

The DEA's decade-long assault on opiod painkillers is perhaps the best example. Because some people get high off of drugs like OxyContin and Percocet, the DEA has determined that political appointees and drug enforcement officials—not medical professionals—will determine what courses of pain treatment are medically acceptable. Consequently, high-dose opioid therapy, a promising and once-emerging method of treating chronic pain patients, has effectively been strangled in the cradle. Doctors are too afraid of getting arrested to administer it.

And it goes beyond psychoactive drugs. Earlier this month, The New York Times ran a front page article about the excruciating battles terminally ill people and their families face to get access to potentially lifesaving drugs not yet approved by the FDA. Even when the companies developing the drugs are willing to provide access, getting a "compassionate use" exemption from the federal agency can be a nightmare. Even if patients are successful there, their efforts can be hampered by complex patent and liability laws.

Last year, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Abigail Alliance v. Eschenbach, thus allowing to stand a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision ruling that the FDA has the power to deny potentially lifesaving drugs to terminally ill patients—even when the only remaining questions center on the drug's efficacy, not its safety. So let's say your spouse dies just months before the FDA finally gets around to approving a drug that later cures people with his or her disease. Tough luck. After all, acknowledging that freedom of association and contract allows private citizens to purchase potentially lifesaving drugs from private companies before government approval could undermine the FDA's regulatory power. And we can't have that.

In other words, policies governing how and when we give sick people access to the medication that could mitigate their pain, ameliorate the side effects of their treatment, or even save their lives, aren't based on compassion, individual rights, or even an honest assessment of science and risk. Instead, we have a patchwork of laws and enforcement policies driven by decades-old drug war hysteria, pharmaceutical paranoia, irrational aversion to risk, bureaucratic turf wars, and, of course, politics.

All of which means that you don't really have much say about what drugs you put into your body, whether you're seeking to alter your state of mind, dull excruciating pain so you can function day to day, or even to prolong (or, for that matter, to end) your life.

These decisions are far too important to let individuals make for themselves. Better that someone like Tim Pawlenty make the decision for them.

Hemp as a Fuel / Energy Source

By Jeremy Briggs

Biodiesel fuel from Hemp Seed Oil

Hemp seed oil can be used as is in bio-diesel engines. Methyl esters, or bio-diesel, can be made from any oil or fat including hemp seed oil. The reaction requires the oil, an alcohol (usually methanol), and a catalyst, which produces bio-diesel and small amount of glycerol or glycerin. When co-fired with 15% methanol, bio-diesel fuel produces energy less than 1/3 as pollution as petroleum diesel.

Energy and Fuel from Hemp Stalks through Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is the technique of applying high heat to biomass, or organic plants and tree matter, with little or no air. Reduced emissions from coal-fired power plants and automobiles can be accomplished by converting biomass to fuel utilizing pyrolysis technology. The process can produce, from lingo-cellulosic material (like the stalks of hemp), charcoal, gasoline, ethanol, non-condensable gasses, acetic acid, acetone, methane, and methanol. Process adjustments can be done to favor charcoal, pyrolytic oil, gas, or methanol, with 95.5% fuel-to-feed ratios. Around 68% of the energy of the raw biomass will be contained in the charcoal and fuel oils -- renewable energy generated here at home, instead of overpaying for foreign petroleum.

Pyrolysis facilities can run 3 shifts a day, and since pyrolysis facilities need to be within 50 miles of the energy crop to be cost effective, many new local and rural jobs will be created, not to mention the employment opportunities in trucking and transportation.

Hemp vs. Fossil Fuels

Pyrolysis facilities can use the same technology used now to process fossil fuel oil and coal. Petroleum coal and oil conversion is more efficient in terms of fuel-to-feed ratio, but there are many advantages to conversion by pyrolysis.

1) Biomass has a heating value of 5000-8000 BTU/lb, with virtually no ash or sulfur emissions.

2) Ethanol, methanol, methane gas, and gasoline can be derived from biomass at a fraction of the cost of the current cost of oil, coal, or nuclear energy, especially when environmental costs are factored in. Each acre of hemp could yield about 1000 gallons of methanol.

3) When an energy crop is growing, it takes carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air, and releases an equal amount when it is burned, creating a balanced system, unlike petroleum fuels, which only release CO2. When an energy crop like hemp is grown on a massive scale, it will initially lower the CO2 in the air, and then stabilize it at a level lower than before the planting of the energy crop.

4) Use of biomass would end acid rain, end sulfer-based smog, and reverse the greenhouse effect.

Coal

Unlike petroleum reserves, America has enough coal to last 100-300 years, but burning it for electricity puts sulfur (toxic to every membrane in which it comes in contact, especially the simplest life forms - into the air, which leads to acid rain, which lills 50,000 Americans, and 5,000 - 10,000 Canadians, annually, and destroys the forests, river, and animals.

Charcoal can be created from biomass through pyrolysis (charcoaling), which has nearly the same heating value in BTU as coal, virtually without sulfur. Biomass can also be co-fired with coal to reduce emissions.

Ethanol and Methanol

Ethanol is a water-free, high-octane alcohol which can be used as fuel to drive cars. Under current conditions, use of ethanol-blended fuels such as E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) can reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases by as much as 37.1%. Ethanol-powered vehicles do suffer in performance (barely), but ethanol is effective as a fuel additive because it helps engines burn cleaner.

Once pyrolysis facilities are up and running, converting biomass into charcoal for electrical power plants, it will be more feasible to build the complex gasifying systems to produce ethanol and/or methanol from the cubed biomass, or to make high-octane lead-free gasoline from the methanol using a catalytic process developed by Georgia Tech University in conjunction with Mobil Oil Corporation.

Ethanol is currently being used as a fuel additive, replacing toxic methyl tertiary ether (MTBE). Ethanol producers are currently providing only 1% of America's liquid fuel. Soon though, as new development processes are researched, and with the use of hemp, the plant worlds number one producer of biomass, the cost of this alternative fuel will give petroleum vigorous competition.

Hydrolysis: A process whereby cellulose is converted to fermentable glucose, which holds the greatest promise for production and feedstock, because it could produce 100 gallons/ton. Tim Castleman and the Fuel and Fiber Company are researching this technology. Their method extracts the high-value bast fiber as first step. Then the remaining core material (mostly hurd) is converted to alcohol (methanol, ethanol), and then to glucose. Hydrolysis could produce 300,000 to 600,000 tons of biomass per year per facility, if each facility could process input from 60,000 to 170,000 acres.

Gasification: A form of pyrolysis which converts biomass into synthetic gas, such as ethanol, and low grade fuel oil with an energy content of about 40% that of petroleum diesel. This process is good for community power-corporation and people seeking self-sufficient energy needs. A small modular bio-powered system is in place in the village of Alaminos in the Philippines, using gasification techniques for energy.

Anaerobic Digestion: A process of capturing methane from green waste material (biomass). This process is toxic, but well suited for distributed power generation when co-located with electrical generation equipment.

Boiler: Biomass can also be burned in a boiler, but this energy has a value of $30-50 ton, which makes it impractical due to the higher value of hemp fiber, unless used on a local small scale, and in remote rural applications.

Hemp Produces the Most Biomass of Any Plant on Earth.

Hemp is at least four times richer in biomass/cellulose potential than its nearest rivals: cornstalks, sugarcane, kenaf, trees, etc.

Hemp produces the most biomass of any crop, which is why it is the natural choice for an energy crop. Hemp converts the sun's energy into cellulose faster than any other plant, through photosynthesis. Hemp can produce 10 tons of biomass per acre every four months. Enough energy could be produced on 6% of the land in the U.S. to provide enough energy for our entire country (cars, heat homes, electricity, industry) -- and we use 25% of the world's energy.

To put which in perspective, right now we pay farmers not to grow on 6% (around 90 million acres) of the farming land, while another 500 million acres of marginal farmland lies fallow. This land could be used to grow hemp as an energy crop.

Conclusion

The most important aspect of industrial hemp farming, the most compelling thing hemp offers us, is fuel. Right now we are depleting our reserves of petroleum and buying it up from our Arab enemies. It would be nice if we could have a fuel source which was reusable and which we could grow right here, making us completely energy independent.

Petroleum fuel increases carbon monoxide in the atmosphere and contributes heavily to global warming and the greenhouse effect, which, the EPA has warned, will lead to global catastrophe in the next 50 years if these trends continue. Do you want to find out if they are right, or do you want to grow the most cost effective and environmentally safe fuel source on the planet?

Using hemp as an energy and rotation crop would be a great step in the right direction.

Hemp Seed Oil

Hemp seed oil has historically been used as lamp oil. It is said to shine the brightest of all lamp oils. Hemp seed oil lit the lamps of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham the prophet, and was used in the legendary lamps of Aladdin.

Anything which can be made from fossil fuels can be made from an organic substance like hemp. Toxic petrochemicals can be replaced with hemp oil.

Hemp oil can be made into anything with an oil base, including paint, varnish, detergent, solvent, and lubricating oil. The advantage of these product is that they are earth friendly and biodegradable, and do not destroy ecosystems around them like petrochemicals do.

Until the 1930s most paint and varnishes were made with non-toxic hemp oil. Hemp paint provides superior coating because hemp oil soaks into and preserves wood, due to its high resistance to water.

Hemp oil is a good base for non-toxic printing inks. Soy is currently made into inks, but soy ink requires more processing and takes longer to dry than hemp oil based inks.

Because I Got High

The facts and logical fallacies about marijuana use



THE FACTS



No one has ever overdosed on marijuana
In 2001, 331 people died from alcohol overdose, with 75,000 people having alcohol-related deaths, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. It is impossible to know the number of deaths caused by marijuana, although most experts agree it is significantly lower than alcohol.



Students lose federal aid when convicted for possessing marijuana


In 1998, an amendment to the Higher Education Act withdrew financial aid from students convicted of any drug offense — including simple possession — before or during studies. Although the bill has been scaled back to include only those convicted while in school, a bill introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., seeks to repeal all penalties. More than 200,000 students have been denied aid by this provision, according to Students for Sensible Drug Policy.



Marijuana does not cause cancer



According to a UCLA study — the largest of its kind — even heavy marijuana use does not lead to lung cancer. Although marijuana contains known carcinogens, it is believed THC keeps cells from becoming cancerous. Marijuana contains tar and other chemicals, which may lead to an elevated chance of bronchitis and respiratory infections. However, these risks can be nearly entirely eliminated by using a vaporizor — a device used as an alternative to smoking — which only combusts the THC.



Marijuana is not addictive



While any behavior can become a force of habit, marijuana is not physically addictive. Those who experience withdrawl symptoms, if experienced at all, are extremely mild. Nicotine withdrawl is much worse by comparison.



Marijuana has not been proven to impair long term brain function



While intoxication impairs learning ability and memory, no study has proven any long-term cognitive effects of marijuana. There is no evidence that marijuana kills brain cells.



Marijuana is America’s No. 1 cash crop



Although the exact amount is impossible to know, one study estimated the total marijuana production in the U.S. in 2006 to be $35.8 billion. That’s more than the combined value of domestic corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion).



Marijuana has medicinal value



Marijuana is useful in reducing nausea in chemotherapy patients, reducing the pressure of glaucoma and stimulating appetite for AIDs patients, aside from other treatments for pain. Critics argue the commercially produced pill Marinol is not as effective as smoking marijuana.



Legalizing marijuana would have a net benefit of about $15 billion per year
If marijuana was taxed like tobacco and alcohol it could bring in $6.2 billion, according to a 2005 Harvard study. The nation would save $7.7 billion in law enforcement ($5.3 billion in state and local government expenses, $2.4 billion in federal expenses). Who knows how much of the federal deficit could be eliminated by taxing marijuana consumption.



THE LOGICAL FALLACIES



The gateway theory



Correlation does not prove causation. Simlarly, as Austin, Texas criminal defense lawyer Jamie Spencer put it, lack of correlation does show lack of causation. On Spencer’s Web site, a Dallas lawyer explained why ineffective government programs like the DARE program don’t reduce drug use.



Legalizing marijuana is not a good investment for “the children”



Legalizing and regulating marijuana might make it more difficult for young people to get their hands on it. But do we have a problem with anyone under 15 abusing alcohol today? Why would it make a difference?



Marijuana causes people to be unmotivated



Coed Magazine created a list of the ten most successful pot-smokers of all time.
The list included Sir Richard Branson, Michael Phelps, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Stephen King and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Stoners Volunteer to Save California

While Sacramento scrambles to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for public transportation and other programs around the state, a serious group of underground marijuana professionals are offering to pay at least a billion dollars in taxes, if only California would legalize pot.

A coalition of California marijuana growers and dealers has offered Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger one billion dollars to solve the current state budget crisis. The group, calling itself Let Us Pay Taxes makes the offer through its web site LetUsPayTaxes.com. The offer comes at a time when the California legislature is deadlocked on a new budget and California has stopped issuing checks for vitally needed social services. Legislators are currently arguing over which programs will be cut in order to balance the budget.

“It is ridiculous that California can’t pay its bills,” said spokesman Clifford Schaffer. “It is a tragedy that they will cut badly needed services and programs such as medical care for the elderly and prison drug treatment when the money to fund all these programs and more is there and available. Everyone who is currently waiting for a check from the state should be enraged at this foolishness.”

Regulation and taxation of marijuana could produce six billion dollars in additional tax revenue, according to economic studies linked from their web site LetUsPayTaxes.com. In addition, it could save up to ten billion dollars in enforcement costs. “That is a conservative estimate,” said Schaffer. “By other estimates, the revenues could be five times that. The economists are with us all the way on this one. Marijuana prohibition is an economic disaster.”

One thing the Prop 215 medical marijuana dispensary craze has shown - people are willing to pay far more for legal marijuana than ever expected.

Our sources tell us that a bag of high quality "reefer" that would be sold on the street for $50 for an eighth of an ounce was being sold for $75-80 in most dispensaries.

If there was a $25 tax on an eighth of an ounce of marijuana, like there seems to be on medical marijuana, the government would reap $3,200 per pound in taxes. To make $1 billion in taxes, California would have to sell about 320,000 pounds of the green stuff, the equivalent of 14 tons.

It seems like a lot of pot until you realize that every week it seems theres a story of a ton of weed being discovered in a truck over here or a half ton of weed being nabbed by the cops over there. Which makes us assume that there are tons and tons of marijuana being smoked and sold every day. Thus, the theory that pot could save Cali could be true.

Too bad we have a Governor in office who was perfectly happy smoking weed when he was younger, and saw first hand that it did not hinder him from achieving wild success, but who now has no interest in sharing that experience regardless of what the people who he was elected to represent think, and regardless of the fact that the harmless plant could very well save the world - or at least the budget.

Political girlie men are the worst.

High court won't hear county's marijuana challenge

By Greg Moran Union-Tribune Staff Writer

The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up San Diego County's challenge to state medical marijuana laws.

For more than three years the county has been fighting in court to overturn state laws that require counties to issue medical marijuana identification cards. The county contends federal law, which does not recognize medical marijuana usage, trumps the state law.

The county has lost that argument in state trial and appellate courts, and the state Supreme Court declined to take up the case, too. The county's last, long-shot chance was to have the U.S. Supreme Court take up the case.

San Bernardino and Merced counties initially joined the suit, but Merced eventually dropped out. The high court also rejected San Bernardino's petition to take up the case.

Senior Deputy County Counsel Thomas Bunton said that with the county now out of legal options, a recommendation to begin issuing the cards will be placed before the Board of Supervisors on June 16.

The law requires counties to issue the cards, but does not require that an individual medical marijuana user have one. Bunton said he did not know how soon after the June 16 the cards would be available, if the board adopts the recommendation.

Supervisor Dianne Jacob said in a statement that she was “disappointed the state did not take our case, but I'm respectful of the court's decision.”

Supervisor Bill Horn said he, too, was disappointed the court did not take the case and said “we have to revert back to obeying the California Supreme Court.” That court decided not to hear an appeal of lower court rulings that said the county had to issue the cards.

Dick Cheney, Patron Saint of Torture-Free

by: Steve Weissman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


"Hitler gave anti-Semitism a bad name," as many high-born Europeans used to say, yearning for the good old days when all right-thinking people could disparage Jews in public. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is similarly giving torture an odious reputation, all in his zeal to prove himself the rightest thinking guy in America. By the time he's finished with his mouthy defense of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," no one with any sense will want to have anything to do with them, at least not where others can see or hear.

Cheney's signature success with torture came when the CIA sent al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shayk al-Libi to Egypt, where he "confessed" that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda in chemical weapons. Al-Libi's statement, extracted under torture, was the smoking gun that Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell all used to sell their pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. So, don't tell Cheney that "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" do not work. They damned sure do if your goal is to get the propaganda you want to go to war.

Few in Congress or the mass media have pushed Cheney on this "great success." Fewer still have seen that that Bush and Cheney's illegal use of torture to sell their pre-emptive war in Iraq was probably their single greatest crime. Why the reluctance? Why do so many Americans refuse to see the obvious?

In large part because Congress, the corporate media, and even the general public were to some degree complicit in the crime. Whatever the CIA told Congressional leaders about waterboarding, sensory and sleep deprivation, stress positions, or sending captives to other counties for interrogation, only the mentally challenged had any excuse for not knowing from the public record at the time the rough outlines of how far Bush and Cheney had stepped beyond the law.

As early as February 2002, the Bush administration publicly announced that it would not abide by the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of enemy captives. Dick Cheney spoke openly of going to "work the dark side." Donald Rumsfeld and others talked of "taking off the gloves" with detainees like John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban and the first known victim of the administration's turn toward torture.

President Bush even used his State of the Union address in January 2003 to let everyone in on the game. "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries," he said. "And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."

In these and dozens of similar boasts, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others proudly told the world what they were doing. And, very much like the Good Germans of an earlier time, Congress and the media went along, as did most of the American public. Even worse, almost no one questioned the validity of all the so-called intelligence that the administration's methods produced.

"We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time," National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told PBS' Jim Lehrer on September 25, 2002. "We know too that several of the [al-Qaeda] detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaeda in chemical weapons development."

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases," President Bush told an audience in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002.

Saddam Hussein's regime "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda," Vice President Cheney told an audience in Arlington, Virginia, on January 30, 2003. "He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us."

"I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al-Qaeda," Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003. "Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story."

We now know from several sources that these selling points for invading Iraq came primarily from torturing al-Libi in Egypt. We also know from the recent report of the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Bush administration pushed the torturers from the beginning to find such a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. That was one of the major purposes of the entire effort, as only those on the inside truly understood.

But, even before the invasion, anyone paying attention should have been able to see that the administration's "evidence" had to be tainted the moment Mr. Bush stepped beyond the Geneva Conventions and began "working the dark side."

Having failed to catch the crime at the time, many major media figures and members of Congress are understandably reluctant to accuse Bush and Cheney of criminal conduct and bring them to trial now. How much easier just to forget the whole sordid mess and get on with the nation's business. But, if Congress and the media do, they will fail again, as Mr. Cheney's spirited defense of torture and unlimited presidential power will come back to haunt us all in the secret memos of a new administration not so many years from now.

Slam Idol

White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'

Kerlikowske Says Analogy Is Counterproductive; Shift Aligns With Administration Preference for Treatment Over Incarceration

By GARY FIELDS

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.

"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country."

Mr. Kerlikowske's comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate -- and likely more controversial -- stance on the nation's drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.

The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment's role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said.

Already, the administration has called for an end to the disparity in how crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine are dealt with. Critics of the law say it unfairly targeted African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent.

The administration also said federal authorities would no longer raid medical-marijuana dispensaries in the 13 states where voters have made medical marijuana legal. Agents had previously done so under federal law, which doesn't provide for any exceptions to its marijuana prohibition.

During the presidential campaign, President Barack Obama also talked about ending the federal ban on funding for needle-exchange programs, which are used to stem the spread of HIV among intravenous-drug users.

The drug czar doesn't have the power to enforce any of these changes himself, but Mr. Kerlikowske plans to work with Congress and other agencies to alter current policies. He said he hasn't yet focused on U.S. policy toward fighting drug-related crime in other countries.

Mr. Kerlikowske was most recently the police chief in Seattle, a city known for experimenting with drug programs. In 2003, voters there passed an initiative making the enforcement of simple marijuana violations a low priority. The city has long had a needle-exchange program and hosts Hempfest, which draws tens of thousands of hemp and marijuana advocates.

Seattle currently is considering setting up a project that would divert drug defendants to treatment programs.

Mr. Kerlikowske said he opposed the city's 2003 initiative on police priorities. His officers, however, say drug enforcement -- especially for pot crimes -- took a back seat, according to Sgt. Richard O'Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. One result was an open-air drug market in the downtown business district, Mr. O'Neill said.

"The average rank-and-file officer is saying, 'He can't control two blocks of Seattle, how is he going to control the nation?' " Mr. O'Neill said.

Sen. Tom Coburn, the lone senator to vote against Mr. Kerlikowske, was concerned about the permissive attitude toward marijuana enforcement, a spokesman for the conservative Oklahoma Republican said.

Others said they are pleased by the way Seattle police balanced the available options. "I think he believes there is a place for using the criminal sanctions to address the drug-abuse problem, but he's more open to giving a hard look to solutions that look at the demand side of the equation," said Alison Holcomb, drug-policy director with the Washington state American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Kerlikowske said the issue was one of limited police resources, adding that he doesn't support efforts to legalize drugs. He also said he supports needle-exchange programs, calling them "part of a complete public-health model for dealing with addiction."

Mr. Kerlikowske's career began in St. Petersburg, Fla. He recalled one incident as a Florida undercover officer during the 1970s that spurred his thinking that arrests alone wouldn't fix matters.

"While we were sitting there, the guy we're buying from is smoking pot and his toddler comes over and he blows smoke in the toddler's face," Mr. Kerlikowske said. "You go home at night, and you think of your own kids and your own family and you realize" the depth of the problem.

Since then, he has run four police departments, as well as the Justice Department's Office of Community Policing during the Clinton administration.

Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that supports legalization of medical marijuana, said he is "cautiously optimistic" about Mr. Kerlikowske. "The analogy we have is this is like turning around an ocean liner," he said. "What's important is the damn thing is beginning to turn."

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest law-enforcement labor organization, said that while he holds Mr. Kerlikowske in high regard, police officers are wary.

"While I don't necessarily disagree with Gil's focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don't want to see it at the expense of law enforcement. People need to understand that when they violate the law there are consequences."

Changing federal view of medical-marijuana laws creates opportunity

The Obama administration seems to be softening the federal government's view of the use of medical marijuana, writes guest columnist Ronald Fraser. That means opportunity for states with medical-marijuana laws, such as Washington, to develop policies surrounding the issue.

By Ronald Fraser

Special to The Times

AT long last, policymakers in the nation's capital have begun to draw a line between illicit drug use and the legitimate use of drugs as medicine. In March, President Obama's attorney general announced the federal government will no longer prosecute medical-marijuana clinics that operate in compliance with state laws. This means lawmakers in Olympia are now free to decide — without federal interference — how to regulate medical marijuana within Washington state.

Thirteen states, including Washington, have pioneered the removal of criminal penalties for the use of medical marijuana and actively regulate how, with a medical doctor's recommendation, marijuana is made available for patients with cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, severe pain, glaucoma, epilepsy and other chronic conditions.

Until now, federal agents have disregarded these state laws. For example, since California legalized medical marijuana in 1996, drug-enforcement agents have raided more than 100 marijuana-distribution centers there.

The first step has been taken with President Obama's tacit acknowledgment that closing down state-regulated marijuana clinics is a misuse of taxpayers' money and harmful to Americans coping with serious illnesses.

Many thousands of ill people attest that smoking, vaporizing or orally ingesting marijuana relieves pain, nausea and other symptoms far more effectively than Marinol, a pharmaceutically available synthetic version of marijuana. The federal government still officially maintains — contrary to solid medical evidence — that marijuana has no medicinal value.

Perhaps the pioneer states will now serve as public-policy laboratories for other states. According to the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.,-based advocate for legalizing medical marijuana, 14 states never have passed a law dealing with medical marijuana and 23 states have limited legislative experience with using marijuana for medical purposes.

As state lawmakers consider introducing medical marijuana in the future they can, and should, draw on the lessons learned in Washington and other states already allowing the use of medical marijuana to avoid pitfalls along the way.

Marijuana is not the only targeted medical drug. In all 50 states, federal raids can still close down pain clinics and arrest pain-management physicians who prescribe large doses of opioids, highly effective, legal painkillers made from opium or synthetics with the properties of opiate narcotics.

Dr. Joel Hochman, director of the National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain in Houston, Texas, says these raids on so-called "pill mills" are making it too risky for many doctors to accept patients in chronic pain and that, with help from the media, paints a false picture that the streets are awash in drugs carelessly handed out by unprincipled doctors. Instead, he claims, these clinics provide last-resort care to largely uninsured or underinsured blue-collar and other limited-income workers, many with work-related injuries, who can afford only a five-minute visit at high-volume, low-cost, low-profit clinics.

To stay in business, these clinics must see 60 to 100 patients each day. With this level of traffic, doctors can make errors and patients can lie about their ailments — making the clinics easy targets for federal agents.

Instead of getting drugs off the streets, Hochman says, closing down these pain clinics will "drive patients into the streets, seeking relief from their suffering. Their choices become: Score hydrocodone off the street; score heroin off the street; drown their pain with alcohol. No one can tolerate unrelieved pain." His bottom line is: "Wake up, America. The dope lords are making billions. The little pain clinics in the strip shopping centers sure aren't."

What to do? This is a rare opportunity for elected officials from coast to coast, and on Capitol Hill, to take a long, hard look at how harsh drug laws are undermining medical care in America. For the millions of people desperately coping with chronic ailments, let's not waste it.

Ronald Fraser writes on public-policy issues for the DKT Liberty Project, a Washington, D.C.,-based civil-liberties organization. Write him at: fraserr@erols.com

this poem is called catfish

Medical marijuana OK, say DA hopefuls Leslie Crocker Snyder, Cy Vance and Richard Aborn

The three Democratic candidates for Manhattan district attorney said Tuesday they back the legalization of medical marijuana.

"Doctors should be able to prescribe marijuana for patients with serious health conditions - or side effects, like those from chemotherapy - when they determine that it is medically appropriate," said DA hopeful Richard Aborn in response to a Daily News inquiry.

"Patients, in turn, who receive their doctor's prescription, should be able to obtain marijuana, with appropriate controls to ensure safety and prevent criminal trafficking," Aborn added.

Leslie Crocker Snyder and Cy Vance, the other two Democratic candidates, also voiced support.

In Albany, Assemblyman Richard Gottfried and state Sen. Thomas Duane, both Manhattan Democrats, introduced legislation that would protect New York patients from arrest for using medical marijuana.

"It is cruel to make seriously ill patients criminals for relying on medical marijuana for relief when their doctor recommends it," said Gottfried, who has been pushing the issue for more than a decade.

Over the years, the bill has repeatedly gone up in smoke in the GOP-controlled Senate. Although Democrats now control the Senate, the bill's chances of passing still remain unclear.

Mayor Bloomberg is opposed to legalizing medical marijuana, his aides confirmed yesterday. In 2004, Bloomberg said legalizing medical marijuana is a "slippery slope."

Doctor Steel's Fibonacci Sequence

Dylan unnoticed on Beatles tour

Dylan and Lennon are both 1960s musical ic

Folk legend Bob Dylan mingled unnoticed with Beatles tourists during a minibus tour to John Lennon's childhood home.

The 67-year-old troubadour paid £16 for the public trip to the 1940s semi in Woolton, Liverpool, last week as his European tour called at the city.

He was one of 14 tourists to examine photos and documents in the National Trust-owned home, where Lennon grew up with his aunt Mimi and uncle George.

A National Trust spokeswoman said Dylan "appeared to enjoy himself".

The trust said its tours of the Beatle's childhood home form "an insight into his humble beginnings".

Visitors are free to wander around the property while asking questions of the curator.

He could have booked a private tour but he was happy to go on the bus with everyone else National Trust spokeswoman

But as tourists prepared to drive out to the house to get an insight into one musical icon, they did not recognise another one sitting next to them.

"He took one of our general minibus tours. People on the minibus did not recognise him apparently," the spokeswoman said.

"He could have booked a private tour but he was happy to go on the bus with everyone else," she added.

The house, called Mendips, has been restored to its original 1940s style by the trust and contains early Lennon memorabilia.

Lennon is said to have developed his passion for music in the suburban house and wrote some of the earliest Beatles songs in his bedroom.

The spokeswoman said a number of singing stars had been on the tour in the past, including James Taylor and Corinne Bailey Rae.

But she refused to be drawn on whether Dylan was the biggest star they had shown around.

The singer's European tour stopped in Liverpool for a concert at the Echo Arena on 2 May.

hunter s. thompson

right-wing insani-tea party

the human body

The Human Body It takes your food seven seconds to get from your mouth to your stomach. One human hair can support 3 kg (6.6 lb). The average man's penis is three times the length of his thumb. Human thighbones are stronger than concrete. A woman's heart beats faster than a man's. There are about one trillion bacteria on each of your feet. Women blink twice as often as men. The average person's skin weighs twice as much as the brain. Your body uses 300 muscles to balance itself when you are standing still. If saliva cannot dissolve something, you cannot taste it. Women reading this will be finished now. Men are still busy checking their thumbs.

oh geez, postage too?....

Yep, 'fraid so. Just one goddam self-promotional post after another. Well, at least it's not multi-level marketing, or Nigerian Princesses... I guess that's a plus. anyway, look at the stamps, you might find something you can't live without.

Hitler & the Poop The World iPhone App

David Letterman Asks How Dick Cheney Did As VP

High school teacher's anti-Creationism comment violated law

Mission Viejo history teacher James Corbett violated the First Amendment, a federal court rules.
By SCOTT MARTINDALE
The Orange County Register


SANTA ANA – A Mission Viejo high school history teacher violated the First Amendment by disparaging Christians during a classroom lecture, a federal judge ruled today.

James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, referred to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan.

The decision is the culmination of a 16-month legal battle between Corbett and Farnan – a conflict the judge said should remind teachers of their legal “boundaries” as public school employees.

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."

In a December 2007 lawsuit, Farnan, then a sophomore, accused Corbett of repeatedly promoting hostility toward Christians in class and advocating "irreligion over religion" in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

The establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" and has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

"We are thrilled with the judge's ruling and feel it sets great precedent," said Farnan's attorney, Jennifer Monk, who works for the Christian legal group Advocates for Faith &Freedom in Murrieta. "Hopefully, teachers in the future, including Dr. Corbett, will think about what they're saying and attempt to ensure they're not violating the establishment clause as Dr. Corbett has done."

Chad Farnan and his parents did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment, but released a prepared statement through their attorney: "We are proud of Chad's courageous stand and thrilled with the judge's ruling. It is a vindication of his constitutional rights."

Fees, injunction to be determined

Farnan's original lawsuit asked for damages and attorney's fees. These issues – plus a possible court injunction prohibiting Corbett from making hostile remarks about religion – will be considered in court at a future, undetermined date, Monk said.

Advocates for Faith &Freedom does not have an estimate yet of the legal fees the group incurred, she added.

Selna said that although Corbett was only found to have violated the establishment clause in a single instance, he could not excuse or overlook the behavior.

"To entertain an exception for conduct that might be characterized as isolated or de minimis undermines the basic right in issue: to be free of a government that directly expresses disapproval of religion," Selna said.

Farnan's lawsuit had cited more than 20 inflammatory statements attributed to Corbett, including "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies – that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

In an April 3 tentative ruling, however, Selna dismissed all but two of the statements as either not directly referring to religion or as being appropriate in the context of a class lecture, including the headline-grabbing "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

"We're happy that the court saw 99.9 percent of the case our way, but we're disappointed obviously with regard to finding against Dr. Corbett on that one statement," said Corbett's attorney, Dan Spradlin.

Corbett, who has declined all requests to be interviewed about the lawsuit, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Lemon test applied to statements

Selna applied a three-pronged legal analysis known as the Lemon test to determine whether the establishment clause had been violated.

The Lemon test, developed during a 1971 federal court case, asks whether a statement has a secular purpose, whether it advances or inhibits religion as its principal or primary effect, and whether it fosters an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Corbett made his "superstitious nonsense" remark during a class discussion about a 1993 court case in which former Capistrano Valley High science teacher John Peloza sued the Capistrano Unified School District, challenging its requirement that Peloza teach evolution.

Corbett's attorney said Corbett simply expressing his personal opinion that Peloza shouldn't have presented religious views to students. Selna, after reviewing an audio-taped recording of the discussion, decided that wasn't the case and that Corbett crossed a legal line.

For the other disputed statement – in which Corbett was accused of saying religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool" – the judge ruled in Corbett's favor, arguing Corbett may have been simply attempting to quote American author Mark Twain.

Corbett's full statement was, "What was it Mark Twain said? 'Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.'"

The Capistrano Unified School District, which paid for Corbett's attorney, was found not liable for Corbett's classroom conduct.

Corbett remains in his teaching position at Capistrano Valley High. Farnan, who dropped out of Corbett's class after filing the lawsuit, is now a junior at the school.

"The court's ruling today reflects the constitutionally permissible need for expansive discussion even if a given topic may be offensive to a particular religion or if a particular religion takes one side of a historical debate," Selna said in his written decision.

"The decision also reflects that there are boundaries. … The ruling today protects Farnan, but also protects teachers like Corbett in carrying out their teaching duties."

unique greeting cards by exileguy

just say no

Time Machine

Churchgoers & Torture

Here’s “some terribly depressing news,” said Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic. According to Pew research, more than half of Americans who attend church at least once a week said torturing suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified, while only 42 percent of people who don’t attend regular services agreed. “So Christian devotion correlates with approval for absolute evil in America.”

Not only that, said Rod Dreher in Beliefnet, but evangelicals are more pro-torture than white mainline Protestants, and the more frequently people go to church the more pro-torture they seem to be. “What on earth are these Christians hearing at church?! Very sad indeed.”

This is not really so hard to understand, said Ed Morrissey in Hot Air. “Evangelicals are more likely to be conservative and conservatives are more likely to support coercive interrogation, ergo evangelicals are more likely to support coercive interrogation.” And remember, these techniques are done to stop future attacks, “which is about as pro-life as you can get.”

Pew’s research is meaningless, said Paul Chesser in The American Spectator. They don’t even define what practices people are supposed to consider torture—“waterboarding? Insects in the room?”—so there’s no way to compare the beliefs of one group to those of another. This study says more about the researchers’ “hatred for traditional Christian beliefs” than anything else.

ABC News: Public’s Support For Pot Legalization Has Never Been Higher!

April 30th, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

Earlier this year, a NORML-commissioned national Zogby telephone poll revealed that a record 44 percent of American voters — including nearly six out of ten adults on the west coast — now believe that cannabis should be “taxed and legally regulated like alcohol and cigarettes.”

Since then, several additional polls have confirmed that the nation’s support for legalizing marijuana has never been higher, and is fast approaching “super-majority status.”

In fact, a recent poll sponsored by Oaksterdam University indicates that support for legalization among Californians has already achieved such vaulted status (well, almost).

Today two more polls are reaffirming America’s new “marijuana Zeitgeist.”

First, in California a new Field Research Corporation poll of 901 registered voters found that 56 percent of voters agree with the statement: “Legalize marijuana for recreational use and tax its proceeds.”

According to pollsters, this is the first time ever in a California Field poll that a majority of voters have endorsed regulating the adult use of cannabis. In February, California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano introduced legislation — Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act — to tax the commercial production and retail sale of cannabis. To date, over 8,000 NORML supporters have contacted their state representatives in support of AB 390, which is expected to be taken up by the state Assembly early next year.

Nationally, a just-released ABC News/Washington Post poll of 1,072 adults finds that a record 46 percent of all Americans now favor “legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use.” This total is more than double the percentage of Americans who responded affirmatively (22 percent) to a similar ABC poll question in 1997!

ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL: HOT-BUTTON ISSUES
via ABCNews.go.com

46 percent of Americans now favor legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use, the most in data back to the mid-
1980s and more than double its level 12 years ago. While 52 percent remain opposed, that’s down from 75 percent in the late 1990s and 78 percent in 1986.

The biggest changes in the past two decades are 29- and 27-point advances in support for legalization among Democrats and independents, to 49 and 53 percent, respectively. The slightest: a 10-point gain among Republicans, to just 28 percent support.

So much for the myth that supporting marijuana law reform is ‘politically suicidal.’ In fact, if you are a politician — or President — whose constituency leans Democrat or Independent, it’s becoming increasingly likely that more of your supporters favor legalization over prohibition, and if you want to stay elected, you should too!

Playing for Change - Chanda Mama

Chanda Mama - Song Around The World from Concord Music Group on Vimeo.

War/No More Trouble

Legalize Me

Hello Everyone,
This latest episode of the Radio Free Exile podcast is "Legalize Me" - geez, do you think you can guess what that might be about? By the way, do you know if you have googletalk installed, you can contact me at exileguy@gmail.com, maybe even end up on the podcast yourself. I think that's pretty cool.
Here's the link: http://exileguy.mypodcast.com/index.html

featuring music & spoken word, in order of appearance, from:

Steve Gofstein - "Balance"
Roger Flensing - "Speaks of Love"
Common - "A Letter To The Law"
high - "Stop Da War"
Tracy Thielen - "Trash Day"
OSHO - "Strange Consequences"
Playing For Change - "Stand By Me"
Playing For Change - "One Love"

____________________________________________________

For unique & cool gifts and things from exile, check out the Radio Free Exile Shoppe, swag for the masses.
NEW! - Do Time With exileguy - check out exileguy's watches - you'll be glad you did!

Everyone is invited to submit to Radio Free Exile. I'm always on the lookout for interesting and cutting edge Indie Music, Spoken Word, and Commentary. What have you got to lose?

To submit your material for consideration, go to:
https://www.sendthisfile.com/f.jsp?id=fskCM6gQzqdvYFD2PWa4SkGM
and use the widget there to upload your mp3 files directly to me.


exileguy @ myspace
exileguy's blog
exileguy's twitter
Radio Free Exile Social Network

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved
____________________________________________________