Maptalk-Digest Friday, December 21 2001 Volume 01 : Number 333
Steve & Michele Kubby interview me on POT-TV
From: Richard Lake <>
Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Fw: Re: County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million In Federal Money
From: "RLRoot" <>
Fw: Re: Taft Against Ballot Issue On Drug Treatment
From: "RLRoot" <>
Fw: Re: County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million In Federal Money
From: "RLRoot" <>
Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From:
Fw: Re: County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million In Federal Money
From: "RLRoot" <>
Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave's home" <>
Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Steve & Michele Kubby interview me on POT-TV
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 01:05:34 -0500
*blush*
Steve and Michele interview:
"Senior MAP Editor Richard Lake gives some valuable tips on online activism."
Starts about 2/3rds of the way thru the show
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1100.html
or directly to the realvideo
http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1100.ram
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 06:55:45 -0600
All good points and reasonable people may disagree on some points...of
course. I just want to do my part to try to keep addicts from being thrown
off the legalization/reform ship when waters get rough. I made a vow to
myself (and "to the moon and stars" - he-he) that I would challenge every
comment online I came across which expressed willingness to leave addicts in
the lurch. So that's what I'm doing when I make these challenges.
A bit of clarification:
I do not advocate hard drug use. It is a big mistake. I do not use any drugs
myself and haven't for almost 20 years - excepting a short relapse about 13
years ago. I don't use cannabis because I don't seek it. I have absolutely
nothing against anyone who does. I came across some in a good situation
(late night fishing on the Chippewa Flowage) five years ago and enjoyed it.
I quit drinking my beer five years ago and I'm glad I quit even that. I had
to because of Hepatitis C.
I became addicted to narcotics after a drunk driver hit me at 110 mph. I was
clinically dead after my right rib cage was crushed and pushed into my
innards with the now sharp broken ribs slicing my liver, right lung, spleen,
and diaphragm up. I was in and out of the hospital for over two years. The
guy was un-insured.
This is late 70's and my hair was long. All that old crap. The doctors
didn't think I should get proper pain control because of it. It all stems
from that.
I eventually found myself on methadone. It worked great. But I tried to get
off it and always relapsed. The third time I quit, I was off it for seven
years. Abstinence does not work for opioid addicts. Trust me.
So I take methadone. I still consider myself as sober and "in recovery."
There is no high. If I get a headache I take an Advil, like anyone else. I
have severe un-treated chronic pain but that's another story.
There's a huge number of aging methadone patients. We are the survivors. We
are indistinguishable from anyone else. Lawyers, teachers, engineers...you
name it. But we are treated - legally - as if we are the scum of the earth.
It's quite extraordinary. It keeps me writing LTE's. Many of my LTE's, BTW,
are in support of medimar issues.
Dave
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Suther" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
Dave
I am not sure if I would take it that way. But I agree that the addicts
like the pot smokers are being unfairly sought out. I think the smugglers
ought to be stopped. The means is the difference. They out to be stopped
by providing the materials via a regulated source. I say this because I do
not want to see users get the bad stuff or not know the concentration and
OD.
The government can do some things right and regulation is one they make a
good attempt at being right about. Pot without herbicides and pesticides
would be my desire. I am sure the addict or the some time users of heroin
and coke would want that too.
BTW not all users of heroin and cocaine are addicted. At least I think I
heard that correctly. Some have the tendency to become addicted easier than
others. This is the main reason I refuse TV in my house. I have the
tendency towards addiction. So I am glad for the difficulty in getting some
drugs.
Cheers
Tom
- -----Original Message-----
From: []On Behalf Of
Dave Michon
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 4:05 PM
To: kim hanna;
Subject: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
"Question from Doug Greer:
Do you think resources could be better allocated from the war on pot, to the
war on hard drugs and foriegn smugglers?"
This is what really makes me angry - the hypocrisy, and the willingness to
trade one related oppressed group - addicts - just to take the heat off your
own rec use. - Dave
------------------------------
Subj: Fw: Re: County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million In Federal Money
From: "RLRoot" <>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:43:03 -0800
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "RLRoot" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 7:40 PM
Subject: Re:County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million In Federal Money
Editor
St Louis Post-Dispatch
Dear Editor,
Perhaps your headline should have read "Drug Warriors Get $1.2 Million Fix From The
Feds" for the story about the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance
awarding the sum to the Missouri Sheriffs Methamphetamine Relief Team, or MOSMART, to
step up their war on methamphetamine production (County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million
In Federal Money, December 20, 2001).
A couple of statements within the story are telling: "MOSMART ... was formed to ...
win drug-fighting grants." "Jefferson County Sheriff Oliver Boyer ... said that
without it ... the county would be unable to finance its narcotics task force."
Why is it that federal grants are not necessary to fight robbery, rape, and murder?
Is it that drug activity wouldn't be viewed as so important if not for the federal
government co-opting local jurisdictions into it's war on drugs by making it
profitable for them?
Is the drug war really about public safety, or is it about public safety _budgets_?
Addiction comes from sources other than just ingestible substances, and certainly,
money is the drug of choice for all bureaucrats.
Richard L. Root
(contact info)
------------------------------
Subj: Fw: Re: Taft Against Ballot Issue On Drug Treatment
From: "RLRoot" <>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:46:07 -0800
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "RLRoot" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Taft Against Ballot Issue On Drug Treatment
Editor
Dayton Daily News
Dear Editor,
Governor Bob Taft is correct in noting the proposed ballot issue that would send
first- and second- time offenders of drug possession laws to treatment instead of
jail would undermine Ohio's drug treatment programs (Taft Against Ballot Issue On
Drug Treatment, December 20, 2001). Of course, one must understand these current
programs would be undermined in the sense that some agencies dependent on prohibition
would see declining budgets.
The drug war: It's not about public safety. It's about public safety _budgets_.
Richard L. Root
(contact info)
------------------------------
Subj: Fw: Re: County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million In Federal Money
From: "RLRoot" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 19:50:57 -0800
Editor
St Louis Post-Dispatch
Dear Editor,
Perhaps your headline should have read "Drug Warriors Get $1.2 Million Fix From The
Feds" for the story about the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance
awarding the sum to the Missouri Sheriffs Methamphetamine Relief Team, or MOSMART, to
step up their war on methamphetamine production (County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million
In Federal Money, December 20, 2001).
A couple of statements within the story are telling: "MOSMART ... was formed to ...
win drug-fighting grants." "Jefferson County Sheriff Oliver Boyer ... said that
without it ... the county would be unable to finance its narcotics task force."
Why is it that federal grants are not necessary to fight robbery, rape, and murder?
Is it that drug activity wouldn't be viewed as so important if not for the federal
government co-opting local jurisdictions into it's war on drugs by making it
profitable for them?
Is the drug war really about public safety, or is it about public safety _budgets_?
Addiction comes from sources other than just ingestible substances, and certainly,
money is the drug of choice for all bureaucrats.
Richard L. Root
(contact info)
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From:
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:58:54 EST
writes:
> All good points and reasonable people may disagree on some points...of
> course. I just want to do my part to try to keep addicts from being throw
n
> off the legalization/reform ship when waters get rough.
I agree. Richard Cowan said it best when he said:
The point here is not that opponents of cannabis prohibition must advocate
the legalization of other drugs, some do, some don=E2=80=99t. Rather, the po
int is
that _we should not join the prohibitionist chorus to distract the narks fro
m
"us" in hopes that the predators will now go after "them."_
This statement is posted onMarijuanaNews.com in an article
(http://216.9.192.67/news.php3?sid=3D469) called:
How Does The Legal Regulation Of Cannabis Compare To That Of Other Illicit
Drugs?
The Merit of Health Arguments in the Legalization Debate
By Fredrick Polak, MD
Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation
It can be found at:
http://216.9.192.67/news.php3?sid=3D469
Best to all,
Richard
------------------------------
Subj: Fw: Re: County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million In Federal Money
From: "RLRoot" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 19:55:56 -0800
Editor
St Louis Post-Dispatch
Dear Editor,
Perhaps your headline should have read "Drug Warriors Get $1.2 Million Fix From The
Feds" for the story about the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance
awarding the sum to the Missouri Sheriffs Methamphetamine Relief Team, or MOSMART, to
step up their war on methamphetamine production (County Will Get Part Of $1.2 Million
In Federal Money, December 20, 2001).
A couple of statements within the story are telling: "MOSMART ... was formed to ...
win drug-fighting grants." "Jefferson County Sheriff Oliver Boyer ... said that
without it ... the county would be unable to finance its narcotics task force."
Why is it that federal grants are not necessary to fight robbery, rape, and murder?
Is it that drug activity wouldn't be viewed as so important if not for the federal
government co-opting local jurisdictions into it's war on drugs by making it
profitable for them?
Is the drug war really about public safety, or is it about public safety _budgets_?
Addiction comes from sources other than just ingestible substances, and certainly,
money is the drug of choice for all bureaucrats.
Richard L. Root
(contact info)
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave's home" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:59:47 -0400
Oh rant where is thy sting?
The problem of "prohibition" is an ideological one of the "rule of law". And as such,
just as the Prohibition of Alcohol created a system whereby it actually created
horrendous problems that encouraged corruption and injustice, besides the economic
incentives for a black market, it also established a puritanical "Punishment Culture"
towards certain consensual activities, whereby the NARK POLICE are "above the law"
and they can "do as they please" so to speak. The result has been that the so-called
"cure" for "drug dependency and abuse" is worse than the so-called "crime" of illicit
drug use and/or trafficking.
Therefore the Law Establishment under a Criminal Interdiction System is no longer
governed by sound principles of JUSTICE in the context of a "legally healthy" and
democratic Constitution based upon Rights and Freedoms in a Fair and Open Society.
Instead society is governed by a mish mash of tyrannical, puritanical thugs,
operating under federal sanction of so-called "law enforcement" under the pretext of
"government regulations".
Many people tend to think it is this illicit drug or that illicit drug etc. that
needs to be "regulated" by the government and all will be well. If this was the case,
Prohibition would have been dumped long ago. The Fact of the matter is that
Government itself is part of the Problem and hardly the solution as long as the
underlying error is not addressed and corrected. It's like Prohibition is a central,
religious fundamental belief, like the sun rotates around the earth despite the fact
to the contrary.
Well, in any true Open Market there will be regulatory aspects of any commodity; so
the notion of HARM REDUCTION, in terms of Drug Policy is Really about Reforming a
Basic Error in Law Practice as it applies to Drug Policy Issues. Drug use is a
medical issue and should NEVER have been a Criminal one, in the First Place.
As long as Prohibition is considering a valid ideological application of Law Practice
to address issues of drug use in society, there will Never be Reform of the Drug
Laws.
Drug Prohibition is a major 20th century SCANDAL (in essence it is a cultural
INQUISITION) in how any government applies the pragmatics of Law and Order and
Criminal Interdiction to censure criminal behaviour. Prohibition actually encourages
crime. This is the SCANDAL that the government refuses to acknowledge.
The Berlin Wall had to come down before the economic errors of Communism could be
dumped once and for all. So too, the Judicial Error of Prohibition must Fall!
Prohibition is a PURITANICAL POWER EDIFICE of the despotic, Authoritarian (police)
State, intent upon dictating and coercively enforcing and punishing its citizens, for
what it is consumed into their own bodies. It is the underbelly of tyranny which is
slavery.
"Let us declare nature to be legitimate. All plants should be declared legal, and all
animals for that matter. The notion of illegal plants and animals is obnoxious and
ridiculous."
—Terence McKenna
peace pipe,
d8>D
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:16:32 -0600
Wonderful words indeed!
Dave
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave's home" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
Oh rant where is thy sting?
The problem of "prohibition" is an ideological one of the "rule of law". And
as such,
just as the Prohibition of Alcohol created a system whereby it actually
created
horrendous problems that encouraged corruption and injustice, besides the
economic
incentives for a black market, it also established a puritanical "Punishment
Culture"
towards certain consensual activities, whereby the NARK POLICE are "above
the law"
and they can "do as they please" so to speak. The result has been that the
so-called
"cure" for "drug dependency and abuse" is worse than the so-called "crime"
of illicit
drug use and/or trafficking.
Therefore the Law Establishment under a Criminal Interdiction System is no
longer
governed by sound principles of JUSTICE in the context of a "legally
healthy" and
democratic Constitution based upon Rights and Freedoms in a Fair and Open
Society.
Instead society is governed by a mish mash of tyrannical, puritanical thugs,
operating under federal sanction of so-called "law enforcement" under the
pretext of
"government regulations".
Many people tend to think it is this illicit drug or that illicit drug etc.
that
needs to be "regulated" by the government and all will be well. If this was
the case,
Prohibition would have been dumped long ago. The Fact of the matter is that
Government itself is part of the Problem and hardly the solution as long as
the
underlying error is not addressed and corrected. It's like Prohibition is a
central,
religious fundamental belief, like the sun rotates around the earth despite
the fact
to the contrary.
Well, in any true Open Market there will be regulatory aspects of any
commodity; so
the notion of HARM REDUCTION, in terms of Drug Policy is Really about
Reforming a
Basic Error in Law Practice as it applies to Drug Policy Issues. Drug use is
a
medical issue and should NEVER have been a Criminal one, in the First Place.
As long as Prohibition is considering a valid ideological application of Law
Practice
to address issues of drug use in society, there will Never be Reform of the
Drug
Laws.
Drug Prohibition is a major 20th century SCANDAL (in essence it is a
cultural
INQUISITION) in how any government applies the pragmatics of Law and Order
and
Criminal Interdiction to censure criminal behaviour. Prohibition actually
encourages
crime. This is the SCANDAL that the government refuses to acknowledge.
The Berlin Wall had to come down before the economic errors of Communism
could be
dumped once and for all. So too, the Judicial Error of Prohibition must
Fall!
Prohibition is a PURITANICAL POWER EDIFICE of the despotic, Authoritarian
(police)
State, intent upon dictating and coercively enforcing and punishing its
citizens, for
what it is consumed into their own bodies. It is the underbelly of tyranny
which is
slavery.
"Let us declare nature to be legitimate. All plants should be declared
legal, and all
animals for that matter. The notion of illegal plants and animals is
obnoxious and
ridiculous."
- -Terence McKenna
peace pipe,
d8>D
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:18:31 -0600
It appears that Richard Cowen and Terrence McKenna both said it best. I
deeply appreciate the quotes.
Dave
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
writes:
> All good points and reasonable people may disagree on some points...of
> course. I just want to do my part to try to keep addicts from being
thrown
> off the legalization/reform ship when waters get rough.
I agree. Richard Cowan said it best when he said:
The point here is not that opponents of cannabis prohibition must advocate
the legalization of other drugs, some do, some don't. Rather, the point is
that _we should not join the prohibitionist chorus to distract the narks
from
"us" in hopes that the predators will now go after "them."_
This statement is posted onMarijuanaNews.com in an article
(http://216.9.192.67/news.php3?sid=469) called:
How Does The Legal Regulation Of Cannabis Compare To That Of Other Illicit
Drugs?
The Merit of Health Arguments in the Legalization Debate
By Fredrick Polak, MD
Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation
It can be found at:
http://216.9.192.67/news.php3?sid=469
Best to all,
Richard
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From:
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:32:53 -0500
The problem (at the risk of stating the obvious) is that the various
groups that challenge the current drug laws do so on the basis of some
pretty divergent ideologies. For example, some supporters of medical
marijuana, myself included, are against prohibition in general. Other
medmj supporters are in favor of prohibition of hazardous substances but
don't think mj belongs in that category. Certain doctors and other
health care providers are in favor of medical marijuana just like they
are in favor of medical morphine, medical Ritalin, etc, but opposed to
allowing recreational use of any of these things.
A similar situation exists with hemp. Many farmers and other agrarians
support the prohibition of hazardous substances, but don't think hemp
belongs in that category any more than soybeans or corn.
Obviously it is more difficult to convince the public and politicians to
accept recreational marijuana than medical marijuana or hemp. It is not
surprising, given this difficulty, and ideological beliefs, that some in
the hemp or medmj movement would wish to distance themselves from those
who advocate repeal of prohibition of marijuana (or all controlled
substances). The association is seen as excess baggage that might hurt
the narrower agenda they are seeking to advance.
Can this mistrust and alienation be set aside to allow cooperation? If
so, certainly the addicts must not be tossed off the ship, as Dave says.
As well, those who want to send the CSA to the scrap heap will have to
support initiatives that are narrow in focus, it seems.
Phin MacDonald
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:58:54 EST writes:
> writes:
> > All good points and reasonable people may disagree on some
> points...of
> > course. I just want to do my part to try to keep addicts from
> being thrown
> > off the legalization/reform ship when waters get rough.
>
> I agree. Richard Cowan said it best when he said:
>
> The point here is not that opponents of cannabis prohibition must
> advocate
> the legalization of other drugs, some do, some don’t. Rather, the
> point is
> that _we should not join the prohibitionist chorus to distract the
> narks from
> "us" in hopes that the predators will now go after "them."_
>
> This statement is posted onMarijuanaNews.com in an article
> (http://216.9.192.67/news.php3?sid=469) called:
>
> How Does The Legal Regulation Of Cannabis Compare To That Of Other
> Illicit
> Drugs?
> The Merit of Health Arguments in the Legalization Debate
> By Fredrick Polak, MD
> Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation
>
> It can be found at:
>
> http://216.9.192.67/news.php3?sid=469
>
> Best to all,
> Richard
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web">www.juno.com/get/web">http://dl.www.ju/.
------------------------------
End of Maptalk-Digest V01 #333
******************************
Mark Greer () ___ ___ _ _ _ _
Media Awareness Project /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651 | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258 (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759 | |
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ (_)
|
