freethefly

I do agree about that lefthand turns do account for a good number of accidents. But, it is also believed that a good number of these accidents could had been avoided had the rider had the skill to do so. The majority of late in life riders do not have the experience of street riding to do so. Most 40+ new riders also choose the wrong bike to start on, ie; a big Harley. Most of these people are more concern with having the image that they are bikers when they are not. Most bikers started riding when they were kids and started on dirt, such as myself. I agree that dirt and street are two different animals but I know from experience that the skills learned by riding trails are carried over to street riding. You need a high level of awareness to navigate through the woods and a high level of awareness to navigate on a motocross track or in scrambles. The same on the street. When I ride I treat each and every cage (and squirrel) as if it is out to get me. In the 41 years that I have been riding I have avoided a good number of potential collisions on dirt and street. I have been hit from behind once by a drunk driver at a stop light and t-boned by another motorcycle. Those two could not had been avoided. Getting around some idiot who didn't see me was avoided by being aware and watching each and every car that is at a corner and seeing an out in case they make the turn in front of me. But, I will also agree that sometimes shit just cannot be avoided no matter what you do or how experienced you are. In 2004, more than 4,000 motorcyclists were killed and more than 76,000 were injured in the US. While motorcycles made up only 2 percent of registered vehicles, they accounted for 9 percent of total traffic fatalities. Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists were about 32 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in an accident. -- Helmet usage made a significant difference in the survivability of motorcycle accidents. The NHTSA report estimated that helmets were 37 percent effective in preventing fatalities, and that helmets saved the lives of 1,316 motorcyclists in 2004, but that the lives of 671 motorcyclists who died could have been saved if they had been wearing helmets. Nationwide, 44 percent of motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents were not wearing helmets. Even higher percentages of fatal motorcycle accidents in many states involved motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets: 81.8% in South Carolina, 79.6% in Illinois, 78.2% in Oklahoma, 76.3% in Colorado, 76.3% in Wisconsin, 74.3% in Indiana, 74.2% in Utah, 73.1% in Ohio, 72.2% in Iowa, 71.8% in New Mexico, 71.4% in Kansas, 71.2% in Minnesota, and 70.0% in Rhode Island. -- Driving while intoxicated was a major factor in fatal motorcycle accidents. 28 percent of all motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents, 41 percent of all motorcyclists involved in fatal collisions with fixed objects, and 60 percent of all motorcyclists involved in single-vehicle accidents on weekend nights, had blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher (the legal definition of driving while intoxicated in most states). -- 36 percent of all motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents were speeding, and 27 percent of all motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents had prior speeding convictions. -- 26 percent of fatal motorcycle accidents involved collisions with fixed objects and, as noted above, 41 percent of all fatal motorcycle collisions with fixed objects involved DWI. Applying these percentages to the data on fatalities overall, roughly 426 motorcyclists, or more than 10 percent of all of the motorcyclists killed nationwide in 2004, were killed by losing control of their motorcycles and crashing into fixed objects while drunk (4,000 fatalities x 26% of fatal accidents involving fixed objects x 41% of fatal fixed-object accidents involving DWI). -- 39 percent of fatal motorcycle collisions with other vehicles occurred when the other vehicle was turning left while the motorcycle was going straight, passing, or overtaking the other vehicle. -- 24 percent of all motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents were driving without a valid license. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The funny thing is that it wasn't even my bike. I had a 1980 Sportster/Roadster that was in the shop at the time getting the electrics sorted out. My buddy had two GSX's and we had been riding all weekend when we went down to Otay to race around. After the crash, I could not figure what happened as I was perfect control going into the turn. Next thing I knew was that I was flying through the air and about to have a nasty landing. Part of a squirrel was in the spokes and a fork was in the engine. His insurance replaced the bike. It was not that we were being unsafe (to a degree, we were being unsafe by racing on the street) it was one of those unseen things that escalated into what could had been a more serious event. I never raced on Otay Lake Rd again after that event. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Hey, I once power slid a 1982 GSX 1100 while street racing out on Otay Lake Rd in San Diego. Actually I hit a squirrel leaning into one of the bank turns and flipped the bike. Totaled the bike, killed the squirrel and put me in Balboa Naval hospital for more than a month. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/ This organization looks at both sides of the issue and is unbias. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/crash.htm The majority of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the rider. Most of these accidents are of wannbe "bikers" age 40 and above whom had only started riding late in life. I, myself, started out on a minibike at age 5 and raced motocross (Hodaka Super rat 100, a Yamaha 125 MX and a CZ 250) and scrambles into my teenage years.Started on the street at age 16 (actually at age 14 as I would steal my brothers bike and cruise around St.Louis before he or my parents got home) The majority of people who start riding for the first time late in life will never develope the skills to ride safely on the streets. My recommendation is that a person should start on dirt before even considering riding on the street. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16863 So, it is clear that Nidal did not shoot himself as some suggest, popping two into the brain pan is not an easy task. What is clear is that Saddam had him killed. Something no one else had been able to do. What was the reason that Saddam had him killed? In an odd twist, your worst enemy can be your best friend, if only for a moment. No doubt that Saddam was looking to do harm to the U.S. but, at what level and would he had ever been able to pull it off? I do not believe that anyone wants Saddam back in power but, as it is now we are in a quagmire with no end in sight and the death toll, due to the actions of this administration, is steadily rising. We are no safer today than we were before 9-11. Putting Bin Laden on the back burner and invading Iraq has done nothing but fueled more hatred towards the U.S.. Should had stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of wasting resources in Iraq. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

And Bin Laden was an U.S. ally during the Afghan - Russian war. After the fall of the Berlin Wall the Afghan Freedom Fighters were abandoned as U.S. support came to a halt in favor of building a relationship with Russia. They were then labeled terrorist. So many betrayals have led up to where we are now. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Oh puleeeze. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe that. They duped themselves into believing it. You're right. Most jumped onboard so not to look as if they were soft on fighting terrorism in case Saddam was involved. Now they find themselves back-pedalling and looking for an excuse to explain why they did jump the gun and agreeded to invade a country that had zero to do with 9-11. Consider the mounting evidence of Saddam's intense hatred for Bin Laden and his cohorts, he might had been a great ally (he was an ally up untill he stepped on the toes of the big oil corporations in Kuwait) in bringing Bin Laden down. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

So, it is clear that the Bush administration flat-out lied and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. This president has a 100% failure rate and yet there are some who still blindly support him. Senate Finds No al-Qaida-Saddam Link 09/09/2006 Associated Press/AP Online WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein rejected overtures from al-Qaida and believed Islamic extremists were a threat to his regime, a reverse portrait of an Iraq allied with Osama bin Laden painted by the Bush White House, a Senate panel has found. The administration's version was based in part on intelligence that White House officials knew was flawed, according to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing newly declassified documents released by the panel. The report, released Friday, discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates. As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, President Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi." Democrats singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on. "Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday. Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin. "Well, it was much more than that," Levin said. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy." Leaders of both parties accused each other of seeking political gain on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Republicans said the document contained little new information about prewar intelligence or postwar findings on Iraq's weapons and connection to terrorist groups. Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., accused Democrats of trying to "use the committee ... insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime." "That is simply not true," Roberts added, "and I believe the American people are smart enough to recognize election-year politicking when they see it." The report speaks for itself, Democrats said. The administration "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe - contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time - that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. Still, Democrats were reluctant to say how the administration officials involved should be called to account. Asked whether the wrongdoing amounted to criminal conduct, Levin and Rockefeller declined to answer. Rockefeller said later he did not believe Bush should be impeached over the matter. According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime." It quotes an FBI report from June 2004 in which former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said in an interview that "Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden." Saddam himself is quoted in an FBI summary as acknowledging that the Iraqi government had met with bin Laden but denying that he had colluded with the al-Qaida leader. Claiming that Iraq opposed only U.S. policies, Saddam said that "if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China," the report quotes the FBI document. The Democrats said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the day Bush gave a speech speaking of that link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States. Levin and Rockefeller said Tenet in July acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint had been a mistake. They also charged Bush with continuing to cite faulty intelligence in his argument for war as recently as last month. The report said that al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader killed by a U.S. airstrike last June, was in Baghdad from May 2002 until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." In June 2004, Bush also defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said. The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents. A second part of the report finds that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key intelligence community assessments on Iraq. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the Net: Senate Intelligence Committee: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Just Say No to DARE After years of ignoring the program's failure, DARE's anti-drug mavens design a new curriculum for a new generation of teenagers By JESSICA REAVES Posted Thursday, Feb. 15, 2001 Here’s a news flash: "Just Say No" is not an effective anti-drug message. And neither are Barney-style self-esteem mantras. While most Americans won’t be stunned by these revelations, they’ve apparently taken a few DARE officials by surprise. According to the New York Times, after years of ignoring stubbornly low success rates, coordinators of the 18-year-old Drug Abuse Resistance Education program are finally coming around to the news that their plan to keep kids off drugs just isn’t working. That means a whole new DARE program — one which critics hope will sidestep existing pitfalls. An ineffective past DARE, which is taught by friendly policemen in 75 percent of the nation’s school districts, has been plagued by image problems from the beginning, when it first latched on to Nancy Reagan’s relentlessly sunny and perversely simplistic "Just say No" campaign. The program’s goals include teaching kids creative ways to say "no" to drugs, while simultaneously bolstering their self-esteem (which DARE founders insist is related to lower rates of drug use). It's apparently not a bad way of educating five-year-olds about the dangers of drinking cleaning fluid. But it's a bust at keeping teenagers from smoking pot. According to an article published in the August 1999 issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, DARE not only did not affect teenagers’ rate of experimentation with drugs, but may also have actually lowered their self-esteem. The study, called "Project DARE: No Effects at 10-Year Follow-Up," bluntly deconstructs every claim the program makes. More than 1,000 10 year-olds enrolled in DARE classes were given a survey about drug use and self-esteem, and then, a decade later, the same group filled out the same questionnaire. The findings were grim: 20-year-olds who’d had DARE classes were no less likely to have smoked marijuana or cigarettes, drunk alcohol, used "illicit" drugs like cocaine or heroin, or caved in to peer pressure than kids who’d never been exposed to DARE. But that wasn’t all. "Surprisingly," the article states, "DARE status in the sixth grade was negatively related to self-esteem at age 20, indicating that individuals who were exposed to DARE in the sixth grade had lower levels of self-esteem 10 years later." Another study, performed at the University of Illinois, suggests some high school seniors who’d been in DARE classes were more likely to use drugs than their non-DARE peers. The weakness in the old DARE program, as several studies suggest, was the simplicity of its message — and its panic-level assertions that "drug abuse is everywhere." Kids, program directors learned, don’t respond well to hyperbole, and both the "Just Say No" message and the hysteria implied in the anti-drug rhetoric were pushing students away. It’s also possible, some researchers speculate, that by making drugs seem more prevalent, or "normal" than they actually are, the DARE program might actually push kids who are anxious to fit in towards drugs. Trying something new The new DARE curriculum, designed with these criticisms in mind, is less preachy, more experiential. It applies to a broader age-range than the old program, reaching kids not only in fifth grade but in seventh and ninth grades as well. It hinges on discussion groups rather than lectures. And it pointedly does not say "drug abuse is everywhere" — a new angle that researchers hope will make kids realize that maybe everyone doesn’t use drugs after all — so maybe they don’t need to either. Programs like this inhale money, and by introducing a new curriculum, DARE officials guarantee a renewed federal grant, whether the program works or not. Obviously, the officials are hoping for the best. But even if the program fails, we can hope for a silver lining: Perhaps this first failure has taught DARE directors a degree of humility; maybe this time around it won’t take them 10 years to recognize failure and plot a new course. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Considering that these studies were funded by the Federal government it leaves the results open to debate of their validity as the Federal government only funds studies that will show mj in a negative light. Any results other than negative is omitted from the reports that are published. The study you have linked is completey bias and actually says nothing at all. A waste of the taxpayers money. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Are you speaking of people who use herion or cocaine or meth or people who use only mj? Nearly all of my friends smoke pot. The majority are parents and did very well raising their kids. My father smoked the majority of his life (21 years in the Navy 1951-72, Senior Chief, aviation electrician, St. Louis Post Dispatch 73-2001, special projects (union busting bastard) and maintenance supervisor). We never went without. Never neglected. I have non idea what "stoned out of their mind" means in relation to mj. Having been around mj my entire life, I have never seen anyone fit the discription on pot. Alcohol, yes. Precription drugs, yes. Other chemical drugs, yes. Just pot, no. You seem to relate mj to drugs such as herion or other extremely powerful narcotics in the sense that the "high" produced is the same. Mj is in class all of its own and should not be considered to be the same as a narcotic, which it is not. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

June 29, 2004, 12:07 p.m. Free Weeds William F. Buckley Jr. The marijuana debate. Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great. The laws aren't exactly indefensible, because practically nothing is, and the thunderers who tell us to stay the course can always find one man or woman who, having taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder. But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating. General rules based on individual victims are unwise. And although there is a perfectly respectable case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very difficult to defend. If all our laws were paradigmatic, imagine what we would do to anyone caught lighting a cigarette, or drinking a beer. Or — exulting in life in the paradigm — committing adultery. Send them all to Guantanamo? Legal practices should be informed by realities. These are enlightening, in the matter of marijuana. There are approximately 700,000 marijuana-related arrests made very year. Most of these — 87 percent — involve nothing more than mere possession of small amounts of marijuana. This exercise in scrupulosity costs us $10-15 billion per year in direct expenditures alone. Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail, but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life. Professor Ethan Nadelmann, of the Drug Policy Alliance, writing in National Review, estimates at 100,000 the number of Americans currently behind bars for one or another marijuana offense. What we face is the politician's fear of endorsing any change in existing marijuana laws. You can imagine what a call for reform in those laws would do to an upward mobile political figure. Gary Johnson, governor of New Mexico, came out in favor of legalization — and went on to private life. George Shultz, former secretary of state, long ago called for legalization, but he was not running for office, and at his age, and with his distinctions, he is immune to slurred charges of indifference to the fate of children and humankind. But Kurt Schmoke, mayor of Baltimore, did it, and survived a reelection challenge. But the stodgy inertia most politicians feel is up against a creeping reality. It is that marijuana for medical relief is a movement which is attracting voters who are pretty assertive on the subject. Every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved, often by wide margins. Of course we have here collisions of federal and state authority. Federal authority technically supervenes state laws, but federal authority in the matter is being challenged on grounds of medical self-government. It simply isn't so that there are substitutes equally efficacious. Richard Brookhiser, the widely respected author and editor, has written on the subject for The New York Observer. He had a bout of cancer and found relief from chemotherapy only in marijuana — which he consumed, and discarded after the affliction was gone. The court has told federal enforcers that they are not to impose their way between doctors and their patients, and one bill sitting about in Congress would even deny the use of federal funds for prosecuting medical marijuana use. Critics of reform do make a pretty plausible case when they say that whatever is said about using marijuana only for medical relief masks what the advocates are really after, which is legal marijuana for whoever wants it. That would be different from the situation today. Today we have illegal marijuana for whoever wants it. An estimated 100 million Americans have smoked marijuana at least once, the great majority, abandoning its use after a few highs. But to stop using it does not close off its availability. A Boston commentator observed years ago that it is easier for an 18-year old to get marijuana in Cambridge than to get beer. Vendors who sell beer to minors can forfeit their valuable licenses. It requires less effort for the college student to find marijuana than for a sailor to find a brothel. Still, there is the danger of arrest (as 700,000 people a year will tell you), of possible imprisonment, of blemish on one's record. The obverse of this is increased cynicism about the law. We're not going to find someone running for president who advocates reform of those laws. What is required is a genuine republican groundswell. It is happening, but ever so gradually. Two of every five Americans, according to a 2003 Zogby poll cited by Dr. Nadelmann, believe "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and make it illegal only for children." Such reforms would hugely increase the use of the drug? Why? It is de facto legal in the Netherlands, and the percentage of users there is the same as here. The Dutch do odd things, but here they teach us a lesson. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The average lifespan in the United States is 76 for a man and 78 for a woman. But if you smoke pot morning, noon and night, you will live an average of two years longer than if you don’t. People who smoke pot but don’t smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol will live approximately 8 to 24 years longer than those who do smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. This was proven in studies done by Dr. Vera Ruben on Rastafarians in Jamaica from 1968 to 1974. The Rastafarians lived up in the hills and were the poorest people in Jamaica. Everyone expected them to have the shortest lives but instead they had the longest lives. They smoked pot morning, noon and night. This study cost $6,000,000.00 and was an extremely comprehensive study. If the same study was done today it would cost approximately $125,000,000.00. In 1979 and 1980, the National Institute of Science did studies on Rastafarians in Costa Rica that proved the same results. There were only 100 copies of this study released to researchers who were working for the government. The only reason we have the results of this study is because someone managed to leak a copy to NORML in 1981. Between 1968 and 1975, there were about 10,000 marijuana studies done all over the world, but mostly in American universities and colleges. Approximately 4,000 of the studies were universal health studies. Almost all of them proved marijuana to be beneficial in every way. The few that were unfavorable were never proven by a second study. In 1974 and 1975, Dr. Donald Tashkin did research to prove marijuana was harmful to the lungs. He was the head of pulmonary research on marijuana at UCLA Hospital. He predicted that more people would develop lung cancer from smoking marijuana than from smoking tobacco. Dr. Tashkin was 100 percent positive that all of the studies about marijuana would come out negative in his lung research. He had the only study in the whole country from 1975 to 1999. After 1975 there was no more funding for positive marijuana studies of any type by the U.S. Government for any reason whatsoever. Only a negative study could get funding from the U.S. Government and Dr. Tashkin had almost all of it. I came out against Dr. Tashkin in 1979. In 1981, I was approached by Dr. Tashkin to take part in his study. I was protesting the marijuana laws on the front lawn of the Federal Building, 500 yards away from the UCLA Hospital and University on Wilshire Boulevard. I signed up (along with about 50 other pot protesters) for Dr. Tashkin’s study because all of the UCLA students refused to participate in his study after Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981. Dr. Tashkin saw us pot protesters every day at the Federal Building for 102 days. We weren’t college students and we smoked pot morning, noon and night. Once or twice a year I would have interviews with Dr. Tashkin. I told him about the positive effects of marijuana. We disagreed 100 percent and he was sure I was wrong. This was a long term study. I was paid $80.00 to $90.00 for each test from 1981 to the mid 1990s. Once or twice a year I would go smoke marijuana to get the pulmonary lung studies done and I would interview Dr. Tashkin as part of my research for my book, “The Emperor Wears No Clothes". I told Dr. Tashkin from 1981 to 1997 that no one gets lung cancer or any other type of cancer from marijuana because Dr. Vera Ruben and Dr. Todd Mikuriya had already each separately proven it. I had been doing research for my book since the early 1970s. Now Dr. Tashkin has come out and is saying the same things I said to him 25 years ago. There is no link between marijuana and lung cancer or any other type of cancer. In fact, Dr. Tashkin has found that marijuana, by killing off old cells that could become cancerous, can actually prevent cancer. If you want to live longer, smoke more pot. Jack Herer July 4, 2006 "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The Gateway Myth January 24, 2003 High Road Marijuana as a "gateway" drug By Jacob Sullum By the 1950s, Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger had backed away from his claim that marijuana turns people into murderers. Instead he began arguing that it turns them into heroin addicts. "Over 50 percent of those young addicts started on marijuana smoking," Anslinger told a congressional committee in 1951. "They started there and graduated to heroin; they took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone." Half a century later, this idea, known as the "gateway" or "stepping stone" theory, remains a bulwark of marijuana prohibition. Its durability is largely due to its ambiguity: Because it's rarely clear what people mean when they say that pot smoking leads to the use of "harder" drugs, the claim is difficult to disprove. Survey data indicate that heroin and cocaine users generally use marijuana first, and that people who try pot are much more likely than people who don't to try other drugs. But there are several ways of interpreting these facts. A recent study by the RAND Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center, for example, found that a general predisposition to use drugs, combined with a four-year lag between access to marijuana and access to other illegal intoxicants, was enough to account for the patterns observed in the government's surveys. "The people who are predisposed to use drugs and have the opportunity to use drugs are more likely than others to use both marijuana and other drugs," said Andrew Morral, the lead author of the study, which appeared in the December issue of the journal Addiction. "Marijuana typically comes first because it is more available. Once we incorporated these facts into our mathematical model of adolescent drug use, we could explain all of the drug use associations that have been cited as evidence of marijuana's gateway effect." Case closed? Not quite. A study reported in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association surveyed 311 pairs of Australian twins in which one used marijuana by age 17 and one did not. The researchers found that the early cannabis users were more likely than their twins to use other drugs. They were four times as likely to use psychedelics, three times as likely to use cocaine or other stimulants, and more than twice as likely to use opioids. These relative probabilities may sound impressive, but they're quite modest compared to the numbers usually cited by defenders of the war on drugs. The prohibitionist propaganda mill known as the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, for example, trumpets the fact that "12-to-17-year-olds who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not." The results of the twin study suggest that almost all of this difference is due to environmental and personality factors, as indicated by RAND's analysis. Even with twins, of course, there are differences in environment and personality. The study's results were similar for monozygotic ("identical") and dizygotic ("fraternal") twins, which suggests that genetic differences of the magnitude seen in siblings are not important in determining who uses the "harder" drugs. But both kinds of twins clearly differed in significant respects; otherwise, it would not have been the case that one from each pair used marijuana early while the other did not. If one twin happens to be less risk-averse or more rebellious, or if he happens to have friends who know where to get pot, that factor could explain both his early marijuana use and his subsequent use of other drugs. The researchers, for their part, speculated that the link between early pot smoking and later drug use "may arise from the effects of the peer and social context within which cannabis is used and obtained. In particular, early access to and use of cannabis may reduce perceived barriers against the use of other illegal drugs and provide access to these drugs." To expand on that point a bit, the government's decision to put marijuana in the same category as cocaine and heroin may contribute to a gateway effect in three ways: 1) Once teenagers break the law to try pot, they are less reluctant to break the law to try other drugs. 2) Once they discover that the government has been lying about marijuana, they are less inclined to believe official warnings about other drugs. 3) Once they buy marijuana on the black market, they are more likely to have the opportunity to buy other drugs. A more obvious explanation for the connection between pot smoking and other drug use is that people who discover that they like marijuana may be more inclined to try other psychoactive substances, in the same way that people who discover that they like bungee jumping may be more inclined to try sky diving. You could say that bungee jumping is a gateway to sky diving. Notice that none of these interpretations involves a specific pharmacological effect of the sort drug warriors seem to have in mind when they suggest that pot smoking primes the brain for cocaine or heroin. As a National Academy of Sciences panel observed in a 1999 report, "There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular drug effect." Last year the Canadian Senate's Special Committee on Illegal Drugs likewise concluded that "cannabis itself is not a cause of other drug use. In this sense, we reject the gateway theory." Of course, it all depends on which "sense" you have in mind. A few years ago in the Drug Policy Analysis Bulletin, the social psychologist Robert MacCoun laid out seven—count 'em, seven—different versions of the gateway theory. "Given our current state of knowledge," he concluded, "one can coherently argue that (a) the gateway is a myth—it doesn't exist; (b) the gateway is very real and it shows why we must sustain or strengthen our ban on marijuana, or (c) the gateway is very real and it shows why we should depenalize or even legalize marijuana." A theory that versatile will never die. Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason, is the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, forthcoming in May from Tarcher/Putnam. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

As an AIDS patient and a medicinal and recreational user of mj, I make it my business to know the facts. I have been a member and supporter of NORML since the 70's and I am a supporter of Americans for Safe Access. I hope to testify in support of legalization for medicinal use, alongside Jacqueline Patterson (she has cerebral palsy). Look for Jac in the upcoming High Times Miss High Times issue. She will be wearing the top in the photo. The design was created by her and myself and was embroidered by me (I own and run a homebased digitizing and embroidery business). "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

This should be required reading for any person discussing marijuana prohibition. It is a bit long yet, it is based on history and facts, not government misinformational propaganda and scare tactics. Part I NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S. I. Marijuana Use in America Before 1937; Sowing the Seeds for Prohibition Marijuana cultivation in the United States can trace its lineage some 400 years. For most of our nation's history, farmers grew marijuana -- then known exclusively as hemp -- for its fiber content. Colonialists planted the first American hemp crop in 1611 near Jamestown, Virginia. Soon after, King James I of Britain ordered settlers to engage in wide scale farming of the plant. 1 Most of the sails and ropes on colonial ships were made from hemp as were many of the colonists' bibles, clothing, and maps. 2 According to some historians, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson cultivated marijuana and advocated a hemp-based economy. 3 Some colonies even made hemp cultivation compulsory and called its production necessary for the "wealth and protection of the country." 4 Marijuana cultivation continued as an agricultural staple in America through the turn of the 20th century. Marijuana first earned recognition as an intoxicant in the 1920s and 1930s. Recreational use of the drug became associated primarily with Mexican-American immigrant workers and the African-American jazz musician community. It was during this time that hemp was renamed "marihuana" and the plant's long-standing history as a cash crop was replaced with a new image: "The Devil's Weed." In 1930, the federal government founded the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), headed by Commissioner Harry Anslinger. The group launched a misinformation campaign against the drug and enrolled the services of Hollywood and several tabloid newspapers. Headlines across the nation began publicizing alleged reports of insanity and violence induced by "reefer-smoking." Exaggerated accounts of violent crimes committed by immigrants reportedly intoxicated by marijuana became popularized. Once under the influence of the drug, criminals purportedly knew no fear and lost all inhibitions. For example, a news bulletin issued by the FBN in the mid-1930s purported that a user of marijuana "becomes a fiend with savage or 'cave man' tendencies. His sex desires are aroused and some of the most horrible crimes result. He hears light and sees sound. To get away from it, he suddenly becomes violent and may kill." 5 Similar reports swept the country. A widely publicized issue of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology asserted that the marijuana user is capable of "great feats of strength and endurance, during which no fatigue is felt. ... Sexual desires are stimulated and may lead to unnatural acts, such as indecent exposure and rape. ... [Use of marijuana] ends in the destruction of brain tissues and nerve centers, and does irreparable damage. If continued, the inevitable result is insanity, which those familiar with it describe as absolutely incurable, and, without exception ending in death." 6 A Washington Times editorial published shortly before Congress held its first hearing on the issue argued: "The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug and American children must be protected against it." 7 This steady stream of propaganda influenced 27 states to pass laws against marijuana in the years leading up to federal prohibition and set the stage both culturally and politically for the passage of the "Marihuana Tax Act in 1937." Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina introduced the Act in Congress on April 14, 1937 to criminalize the recreational use of marijuana through prohibitive taxation. The bill was the brainchild of Commissioner Anslinger who later testified before Congress in support of the bill. Congress held only two hearings to debate the merits of marijuana prohibition. The hearings totaled just one hour. 8 Federal witness Harry Anslinger testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that "this drug is entirely the monster-Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured." He was joined by Assistant General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, Clinton Hester, who affirmed that the drug's eventual effect on the user "is deadly." These statements summarized the federal government's official position and served as the initial justification for criminalizing marijuana smoking. 9 The American Medical Association (AMA) represented the lone voice against marijuana prohibition before Congress. AMA Legislative Counsel Dr. William C. Woodward testified, "There is no evidence" that marijuana is a dangerous drug. Woodward challenged the propriety of passing legislation based only on newspaper accounts and questioned why no data from the Bureau of Prisons or the Children's Bureau supported the FBN's position. He further argued that the legislation would severely compromise a physician's ability to utilize marijuana's therapeutic potential. Surprisingly, the committee took little interest in Woodward's testimony and told the physician, "If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals ... rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the federal government is trying to do." 10 After just one hearing, the Ways and Means Committee approved the "Marihuana Tax Act." The House of Representatives followed suit on August 20 after engaging in only 90 seconds of debate. During this abbreviated floor "discussion," only two questions were asked. First, a member of congress from upstate New York asked Speaker Sam Rayburn to summarize the purpose of the bill. Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marijuana. I think it is a narcotic of some kind." The same representative then asked, "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support the bill?" Falsely, a member of the Ways and Means Committee replied, "Their Doctor Wharton (sic) gave this measure his full support ... [as well as] the approval [of] the American Medical Association." 11 Following this brief exchange of inaccurate information, the House approved the federal prohibition of marijuana without a recorded vote. Doughton's bill sailed though the Senate with the same ease. The Senate held one brief hearing on the bill before overwhelmingly approving the measure. President Franklin Roosevelt promptly signed the legislation into law on August 2, 1937. The "Marihuana Tax Act" took effect on October 1, 1937. Thus began the criminal prohibition of marijuana that remains in place today. Part II NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S. II. Marijuana Prohibition Is a Failure - Millions of Americans Smoke Marijuana Despite Laws Outlawing Its Use Marijuana remains the third most popular recreational drug of choice in the United States despite 60 years of criminal prohibition. Only alcohol and tobacco are regularly consumed by a greater percentage of the population. Clearly, prohibition fails to eliminate or even significantly deter the use of marijuana among the American public. It is time to put to rest the myth that smoking marijuana is a fringe or deviant activity engaged in only by those on the margins of American society. In reality, marijuana smoking is extremely common and marijuana is the recreational drug of choice for millions of mainstream, middle class Americans. According to the most recent data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), nearly 70 million Americans have smoked marijuana at some time in their lives. 12 Of these, 18 million have smoked within the past year, and approximately 10 million are current smokers (defined as having smoked at least once in the last month). 13 In fact, HHS found that 57 percent of all current illicit drug users report that marijuana is the only illegal drug they have used; this figure rises to 77 percent if hashish (a more concentrated form of marijuana) is included. 14 A recent national survey of voters conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that 34% -- one third of the voting adults in the country -- acknowledged having smoked marijuana at some point in their lives. 15 Many successful business and professional leaders, including many state and federal elected officials from both political parties, admit they used marijuana. It is time to reflect that reality in our state and federal legislation, and stop acting as if marijuana smokers are part of the crime problem. They are not, and it is absurd to continue spending limited law enforcement resources arresting them. Marijuana smokers in this country are no different from their nonsmoking peers, except for their marijuana use. Like most Americans, they are responsible citizens who work hard, raise families, contribute to their communities, and want to live in safe, crime-free neighborhoods. They are otherwise law-abiding citizens who live in fear of arrest and imprisonment solely because they choose to smoke marijuana for relaxation instead of drinking alcohol. Marijuana prohibition is a misapplication of the criminal sanction which undermines respect for the law in general and extends government into inappropriate areas of private lives. Millions of Americans use marijuana; few abuse it. The government should limit its involvement in this issue solely to address and sanction irresponsible marijuana use. Responsible marijuana use causes no harm to society and should be of no interest to the federal government. Part III NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S. III. Law Enforcement Arrests a Marijuana Smoker Every 45 seconds in America at a Tremendous Cost to Society. In 1972, a blue-ribbon panel of experts appointed by President Richard Nixon and led by former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer concluded that marijuana prohibition posed significantly greater harm to the user than the use of marijuana itself. The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended that state and federal laws be changed to remove criminal penalties for possession of marihuana for personal use and for the casual distribution of small amounts of marijuana. 16 That year, law enforcement arrested almost 300,000 Americans on marijuana charges. 17 A 1982 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) report on marijuana reaffirmed that criminal justice approaches were inappropriate and harmful. It recommended not only that marijuana possession be decriminalized, but that lawmakers give serious consideration to creating a system of regulated distribution and sale. 18 Law enforcement arrested over 450,000 Americans for violating marijuana laws that year. 19 In May of this year, research findings from a comprehensive, long term study performed by Kaiser Permanente concluded that no link existed between regular marijuana smoking and mortality and emphasized that marijuana prohibition posed the only significant health hazard to the user. The report advocated that "medical guidelines regarding [marijuana's] prudent use ... be established, akin to the common-sense guidelines that apply to alcohol use." In 1995, the most recent year for which the federal government has arrest statistics, law enforcement charged almost 600,000 Americans with marijuana violations. This figure is the greatest number ever recorded since marijuana prohibition began; it means that one marijuana smoker is arrested every 45 seconds in America. Despite criticism that President Clinton is "soft" on drugs, annual data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Report demonstrate that Clinton administration officials are waging a more intensive war on marijuana smokers than any other presidency in history. Law enforcement arrested approximately 1.5 million Americans on marijuana charges during the first three years of Clinton's administration -- 84 percent of them for simple possession. The average number of yearly marijuana arrests under Clinton (483,548) is 30 percent higher than under the Bush administration (338,998), and last year's total alone is more than double the 1991 total (287,850). 22 Marijuana penalties vary nationwide, but most levy a heavy financial and social impact for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are arrested each year. In 42 states, possession of any amount of marijuana is punishable by incarceration and/or a significant fine. 23 For example, individuals arrested for simple marijuana possession in Arizona may face eighteen months in jail and a $150,000 fine. 24 Many states also have laws automatically suspending the drivers' license of an individual if they are convicted of any marijuana offense, even if the offense was not driving related. Penalties for marijuana cultivation and/or sale also vary from state to state. Ten states have maximum sentences of five years or less and eleven states have a maximum penalty of thirty years or more. 25 Some states punish those who cultivate marijuana solely for personal use as severely as large scale traffickers. For instance, medical marijuana user William Foster of Oklahoma was sentenced to 93 years in jail in January 1997 for growing 10 medium-sized marijuana plants and 56 clones (cuttings from another plant planted in soil) in a 25-square-foot underground shelter. 26 Foster maintains that he grew marijuana to alleviate the pain of rheumatoid arthritis. Unfortunately, Foster's plight is not an isolated event; marijuana laws in six states permit marijuana importers and traffickers to be sentenced to life in jail. 27 Even those who avoid state incarceration are subject to an array of punishments that may include submitting to random drug tests, probation, paying for mandatory drug counseling, loss of an occupational license, expensive legal fees, lost wages due to absence from work, loss of child custody, loss of federal benefits, and removal from public housing. In some states, police will notify the employers of people who are arrested. As a result, employees may lose their job. 28 Federal laws prohibiting marijuana are also severe. Under federal law, possessing one marijuana cigarette or less is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and one year in prison, the same penalty as for possessing small amounts of heroin and cocaine. In one extreme case, attorney Edward Czuprynski of Michigan served 14 months in federal prison for possession of 1.6 grams of marijuana before a panel of federal appellate judges reviewed his case and demanded his immediate release. 29 Cultivation of 100 marijuana plants or more carries a mandatory prison term of five years. Large scale marijuana cultivators and traffickers may be sentenced to death. Presently, Congress is proposing that the amount of marijuana necessary to trigger the death penalty be substantially lowered. The "Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1997," introduced by admitted former marijuana smoker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), would potentially sentence first offenders convicted of bringing more than 50 grams (less than two ounces) of marijuana across U.S. borders to life in prison without parole. Those offenders convicted for a second time -- presumably the first offense would have been convicted before H.R. 41's enactment -- would be sentenced to death. Thirty-seven members of Congress are present cosponsors of this bill. Federal laws also deny entitlements to marijuana smokers. Under legislation introduced by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and signed into law last year, states may deny cash aid (e.g., welfare, etc.) and food stamps to anyone convicted of felony drug charges. For marijuana smokers, this includes most convictions for cultivation and sale, even for small amounts and nonprofit transfers. Currently, a murderer, rapist, or robber could receive federal funds and benefits, but not most individuals convicted of cultivating a small amount of marijuana. In addition, under both state and federal law, mere investigation for a marijuana offense can result in the forfeiture of property, including cash, cars, boats, land, business equipment, and houses. Amazingly, the owner does not have to be found guilty or even formally charged with any crime for the seizure to occur. In 1993, Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde (R) reported that 80 percent of the individuals whose assets are seized by the federal government under drug forfeiture laws are never charged with a crime. Law enforcement often targets suspected marijuana offenders for the purpose of seizing their property, sometimes with tragic results. For example, millionaire rancher Donald Scott was shot and killed by law enforcement officials in 1992 at his Malibu estate in a botched raid. Law enforcement failed to find any marijuana plants growing on his property and later conceded that their primary motivation for investigating Scott was to eventually seize his land. 30 State and federal marijuana laws also have a disparate racial impact on ethnic minorities. While blacks and Hispanics make up only 20 percent of the marijuana smokers in the U.S., 31 they comprised 55 percent of the marijuana offenders sentenced under federal law in 1995. 32 State arrest and incarceration rates paint a similar portrait. For example, in Illinois, 57 percent of those sent to prison for marijuana in 1995 were black or Hispanic. 33 In California, 49 percent of those arrested for marijuana offenses in 1994 were black or Hispanic. And in New York state, 71 percent of those arrested for misdemeanor marijuana charges in 1995 were non-white. 35 Since the Shafer Commission reported their findings to Congress in 1972 advocating marijuana decriminalization, over ten million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges. Marijuana prohibition is a failed public policy that is out of touch with today's social reality and inflicts devastating harm on millions of citizens. Part IV NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S. IV. Nonviolent Marijuana Offenders Often Serve Longer Sentences Than Murderers or Rapists. Elected officials at both the state and federal level often engage in what the National Criminal Justice Commission calls "bait and switch." Employers of this technique exploit the public's natural fear of violent crime and propose harsh, sometimes mandatory anti-drug legislation in response. Unfortunately, this legislation seldom targets violent criminals or large drug traffickers. Rather, it often inflicts a devastating impact on minor, non-violent drug offenders. For example, harsh federal and state sentences often apply to all marijuana distribution and "possession with the intent to distribute" offenses, regardless of whether any violence was associated with the event or the defendant is a significant marijuana trafficker. Even minor offenses may qualify for harsh mandatory sentences. This is a needlessly destructive policy that is both a misuse of the criminal process and a waste of criminal justice resources. If combating violent crime is the reason for imposing harsh and unyielding mandatory sentences, then such legislation should solely target violent offenders. There is no justification for treating non-violent marijuana offenses differently, yet many laws continue to do so. For instance, many adult marijuana smokers share marijuana on a nonprofit basis with friends. Under many state laws, this activity could subject them to lengthy prison sentences. Similarly, many seriously ill people -- including AIDS and cancer patients -- use marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. Often their illness requires that a primary caregiver obtain marijuana for them. Many of these caregiverscould serve a mandatory prison sentence if convicted under existingmarijuana laws. Also at great risk are the proprietors of cannabis buyers' clubs (CBCs) who supply marijuana to seriously ill patients who possess a doctor's recommendation. Despite operating with the tacit acceptance of local law enforcement, all clubs operate in violation of federal law and most are in violation of state law. Owners of these clubs, who sometimes grow medical marijuana on site, often face federal mandatory minimum sentences for their activities. For example, federal agents confiscated over 300 marijuana plants at a California CBC called Flower Therapy on April 24, 1997. 36 Even though the club operated in accordance with state law and the plants confiscated were grown for medicinal purposes only, the owners of the club face a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years in prison if they are found guilty of cultivation. This mandatory sentence is equal to the average prison time served by defendants convicted of violent crimes like manslaughter and is over one-year longer than the average federal sentence served for assault. 37 Likewise, individual patients preferring to avoid the black market altogether and grow a few marijuana plants in their homes are also subject to stiff state and/or federal penalties. Marijuana possession and cultivation offenses have absolutely nothing to do with violence, yet people convicted of these offenses regularly serve longer sentences than those convicted of violent offenses, including rape and murder. State and national leaders need to reconsider our country's priorities and attach more importance to combating violent crime rather than targeting marijuana smokers. Most Americans do not want to spend public funds incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders, at a cost of $23,000 per year. 38 NORML insists that our elected officials recognize that marijuana smokers are not part of the crime problem and it is wasteful, deleterious, and inhumane for our criminal statutes to treat them as if they were. Part V NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S. V. Marijuana Prohibition Costs Taxpayers at Least $7.5 Billion Annually While there is a lack of information on the precise costs of marijuana prohibition in the available literature, it is possible to estimate the tremendous annual fiscal costs of marijuana prohibition. Annual federal government expenditures on the "war on drugs" average $15.7 billion annually. 39 In addition, state and local governments also spend $16 billion per year enforcing drug laws. 40 In 1995, nearly 600,000 of the total 1.5 million drug arrests in America were for marijuana offenses. 41 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that between 25 and 40 percent of the total $31 billion annual costs are related to marijuana prohibition. Using this basic calculation, marijuana prohibition costs the American taxpayers between $7.5 and $10 billion annually in enforcement alone. A second way to quantify the costs of marijuana prohibition is to isolate the yearly financial burden inflicted on the criminal justice system by arresting over half a million otherwise law-abiding citizens on marijuana charges. Every time a marijuana arrest occurs -- even the most trivial arrest -- at least two police officers are taken off the street for several hours to prepare the paperwork and process the defendant. (This occurs even if the individual is allowed to later go free on bond.) If one assumes for simplicity that all the approximately 600,000 marijuana arrests reported in 1995 were simple cases involving no prior use of police time or resources and taking no more than two hours to process, then marijuana prohibition costs law enforcement a minimum of 2,400,000 man hours annually. These are police man hours and fiscal costs that could be better spent targeting violent crime. For example, following the adoption of marijuana decriminalization in California in 1976, the state saved an average of $95.8 million annually. 42 Of course, these fiscal costs do not end with an arrest. In many instances, police continue to investigate the facts of the case, prosecutors prepare the case for trial or negotiate a plea bargain (estimated at between five and ten hours per case), 43 and judges and court personnel engage in a trial or accept a plea agreement in open court. These prosecutorial costs alone likely cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Clearly more sophisticated economic analysis is needed in this area. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that government is interested in calculating the precise cost of marijuana prohibition because it does not want to have to justify these costs to the American public. It is wasteful and disadvantageous to spend billions of otherwise limited federal dollars on a failed and ineffective public policy at the expense of already underfunded social programs. Part VI NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S. VI. Marijuana Prohibition Makes No Exception for Medical Users Marijuana prohibition applies to everyone, including the sick and dying. Of all the negative consequences of marijuana prohibition, none is as tragic as the denial of medicinal marijuana to the tens of thousands of seriously ill patients who could benefit from its therapeutic use. It is clear from available studies and rapidly accumulating anecdotal evidence that marijuana is therapeutic in the treatment of a number of serious ailments and is less toxic and costly than the conventional medicines for with which it may be substituted. In many cases, marijuana is more effective than the commercially available drugs it replaces. Prestigious groups such as the American Public Health Association, the Federation of American Scientists, and the British Medical Association, as well as New England Journal of Medicine editor Jerome Kassirer, publicly endorse the medicinal use of marijuana. Moreover, in 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's own chief administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, declared that marijuana was "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." 44 The best-established medical use of smoked marijuana is as an anti-nauseant for cancer chemotherapy. During the 1980s, smoked marijuana was shown to be an effective anti-emetic in six different state-sponsored clinical studies involving nearly 1,000 patients. 45 For the majority of these patients, smoked marijuana proved more effective than both conventional prescription anti-nauseants and oral THC (marketed today as the synthetic pill, Marinol). Currently, many oncologists are recommending marijuana to their patients despite its prohibition. 46 In addition to its usefulness as an anti-emetic, scientific and anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana is a valuable aid in reducing pain and suffering for patients with a variety of other serious ailments. For example, marijuana alleviates the nausea, vomiting, and the loss of appetite experienced by many AIDS patients without accelerating the rate at which HIV positive individuals develop clinical AIDS or other illnesses. In addition, it is generally accepted -- by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and others -- that marijuana reduces intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients suffering from glaucoma, the leading cause of blindness in the United States. Clinical and anecdotal evidence also points to the effectiveness of marijuana as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of a variety of spastic conditions such as multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, epilepsy, and quadriplegia. A number of animal studies and a handful of carefully controlled human studies have supported marijuana's ability to suppress convulsions. A summary of these findings was published by the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Institute of Medicine in 1982. 48 Between 1978 and 1996, legislatures in 34 states passed laws recognizing marijuana's therapeutic value. Twenty-five of these laws remain in effect today. Most recently, voters in two states -- Arizona and California -- overwhelmingly passed laws allowing for the legal use of marijuana under a physician's supervision. Unfortunately, all of these laws are limited in their ability to protect patients from criminal prosecution or provide medical marijuana to those who need it by federal prohibition. In addition, federal officials have threatened to sanction physicians who recommend or use marijuana in compliance with state laws. Clearly, patients who could benefit from marijuana's therapeutic value are being held hostage by a federal government that continues to treat the issue as if it were part of the "war on drugs" instead of a legitimate public health issue. Congress must act to correct this injustice. When compassion and justice are in conflict with current law, then the law must change. At NORML's urging, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), along with co-sponsors Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), introduced legislation in Congress on June 4, 1997, that would remove federal obstacles which currently interfere with an individual state's decision to permit the medicinal use of marijuana. H.R. 1782, the "Medical Use of Marijuana Act," allows physicians to legally recommend or prescribe marijuana to seriously ill patients where state law allows them to do so. In addition, it permits states to legally implement different systems of growing and distributing medical marijuana under state law. H.R. 1782 is not a mandate from Washington and would not require any state to change its current laws. It is a states' rights bill that acknowledges the will of the American people and would allow states to determine for themselves whether marijuana should be legal for medicinal use. It is a common-sense solution to a complex issue and would provide a great deal of relief from suffering for a large number of people. NORML implores Congress to support this compassionate proposal to protect the ten of thousands of Americans who currently use marijuana as a medicine and the millions who would benefit from its legal access. Many seriously ill patients find marijuana the most effective way to relieve their pain and suffering and federal marijuana prohibition must not, in good conscience, continue to deny them that medication. Part VII NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S. VII. It Is Time To End Marijuana Prohibition and To Stop Arresting Otherwise Law-Abiding Marijuana Smokers The "war on drugs" is not really about drugs; if it were, tobacco and alcohol would be the primary targets. They are the most commonly used and abused drugs in America and unquestionably cause far more harm to the user and to society than does marijuana. Yet neither is illegal. America tried to prohibit alcohol, but soon discovered that the crime and violence associated with prohibition was more damaging than the evil sought to be prohibited. With tobacco, America has learned over the past two decades that education is the most effective way to discourage use. Americans smoke far fewer cigarettes today than in the past without having the criminal justice system issue a single arrest, administer one drug test, seize any property, or sentence anyone to jail. Yet, the federal government fails to apply these lessons toward a rational and effective marijuana policy. Instead, politicians continue to support and enforce a failed, 60-year old public policy at the expense of rational discourse, billions in misappropriated funds and resources, and many of the founding principles and freedoms that America was built upon. The "war on drugs" has become largely a war on marijuana smokers, and the casualties of this war are the wrecked lives and the destroyed families of the half a million otherwise law-abiding citizens who are arrested each year on marijuana charges. As a nation we have talked too long in the language of war. It is time to seek a policy that distinguishes between use and abuse, and reflects the importance America places on the right of the individual to be free from the overreaching power of government. Most would agree that the government has no business knowing what books we read, the subject of our telephone conversations, or how we conduct ourselves in the bedroom. Similarly, whether one smokes marijuana or drinks alcohol to relax is simply not an appropriate area of concern for the government. By stubbornly defining all marijuana smoking as criminal, including that which involves adults smoking in the privacy of their home, government is wasting police and prosecutorial resources, clogging courts, filling costly and scarce jail and prison space, and needlessly wrecking the lives and careers of genuinely good citizens. Responsible marijuana smokers present no threat or danger to America, and there is no reason to treat them as criminals. To do so is to wage war without cause against a significant segment of our nation's adult population. Speaking before Congress on the 40th anniversary of marijuana prohibition -- August 2, 1977 -- President Jimmy Carter stated: "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use." Twenty years later, the former president's words ring as urgent as ever. After 60 years of a failed and destructive policy, it is time to once and for all end marijuana prohibition. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Have a look at ASA, Americans for Safe Access http://www.safeaccessnow.org/ As for information concerning the medical use http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3376 To date there is not one documented case of cancer associated with marijuana. It is fact that biggest danger of using marijuana is the government itself. The governments "War on Drugs" has caused more harm than all drugs combined. Cannabis May Help Reduce Brain Tumors A research study, published in the September 2004 issue of the journal Neuropharmcology (Vol. 47, Issue 3, p. 315-323) reports: "Gliomas, in particular glioblastoma multiforme or grade IV astrocytoma, are the most frequent class of malignant primary brain tumours and one of the most aggressive forms of cancer. Current therapeutic strategies for the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme are usually ineffective or just palliative. During the last few years, several studies have shown that cannabinoids—the active components of the plant Cannabis sativa and their derivatives—slow the growth of different types of tumours, including gliomas, in laboratory animals. Cannabinoids induce apoptosis of glioma cells in culture via sustained ceramide accumulation, extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation and Akt inhibition. In addition, cannabinoid treatment inhibits angiogenesis of gliomas in vivo." The study's abstract concluded: "Remarkably, cannabinoids kill glioma cells selectively and can protect non-transformed glial cells from death. These and other findings reviewed here might set the basis for a potential use of cannabinoids in the management of gliomas." 9/04 Neuropharmacology Cannabis does not cause cancer, lung disease, or ill health. Recent reports confirm this. CANNABIS AND CANCER Go back to the contents page CANADA: Pot Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer, Researcher Says: Toronto Star, 12 June 2001 New 126-Page Study, 'NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans-Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F(1) Mice, Gavage Studies': February 1999 from AIDSNEWS BOSTON, Jan. 30, 1997 (UPI) - The U.S. federal government has failed to make public its own 1994 study that undercuts its position that marijuana is carcinogenic - a $2 million study by the National Toxicology Program. The program's deputy director, John Bucher says the study found absolutely no evidence of cancer. In fact, animals that received THC had fewer cancers. Bucher denies his agency had been pressured to shelve the report, saying the delay in making it public was due to a personnel shortage. The Boston Globe reported on Thursday 30th January 1997 that the study indicates not only that the main ingredient in marijuana, THC, does not cause cancer, but also that it may even protect against malignancies, laboratory tests on animals show. The report comes on the heels of an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine that favors the controlled medical use of marijuana, and calls current federal policy misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane. SO, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS THE TAR THAT CAUSED CANCER The KAISER PERMANENTE. Prohibition is unhealthy. 1997 Kaiser-Permanente is a large US health-care provider. This study into the effects of long-term smoking of cannabis took 10 years and involved 65,000 people who had received check-ups between 1979 and 1985. The patients were divided into those who had, and those who had not, used cannabis regularly or currently. It was reported that risks associated with cannabis smoking were lower than for tobacco smoking. It also noted that smokers with AIDS had no higher death-rate than non-smokers with AIDS. The report stated "Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity." The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health". See also: Radioactivity in Tobacco UCLA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE An 8-year study at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine, concluded that long-term smokers of cannabis do not experience a greater annual decline in lung functions than non-smokers. Researchers said: "Findings from the present long-term follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that the continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant factor for the development of [chronic lung disease]" "No difference were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana." Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1997 NATIONAL DRUG AND ALCOHOL RESEARCH CENTRE, AUSTRALIA, January 1997 A study of 268 cannabis smokers who, on average, had smoked for 19 years and 31 non-using partners and family members, concluded that the health of the long-term smokers is virtually no different to that of the general population. Chief researcher Richard Reilly said "The results seem unremarkable...The exceptional thing was that the respondents were unexceptional." For more information e-mail Jamnes Danenberg Source: New Scientist (UK) Website: http://www.newscientist.com/ Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 Author: Redford Givens DOPE VERSUS CANCER Michael Roth's "preliminary evidence" suggesting that the THC in marijuana may promote a carcinogenic effect (This week, 25 July, p 16) flies in the face of Louis S. Harris's findings in Analgesic and Anti-Tumor Potential of The Cannabinoids (Medical College of Virginia, 1972) that delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC and cannabinol are quite active as anticancer agents. At the time of Harris's research, no anticancer agent that was much more potent than delta-9 THC existed and no compounds differentiated between tumour and normal cells the way delta-9 THC does. Considering that delta-9 THC alone increased survival in cancerous rats by 36 per cent, it seems very unlikely that THC promotes carcinogenic effects. THC's known anticarcinogenic properties are probably the reason the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, has never been able to trace any cancers to marijuana use. Redford Givens San Francisco Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson) "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I am shocked!!!! People smoking pot at a rock concert!!!!!!! How dare those said hippies not give a shit about your rights. If you don't like pot smoke at rock concerts, don't go to rock concerts. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Follow the links supplied for each Middle-East country. There is alot to read. Does give insight to why the U.S. is dispised by those whom were once supported by the U.S. http://www.socialist.nu/middle-east/ "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I have two acres, not much but it is mine. I am going to call it a country. I am naming it Neoamerica. We are not at war with anyone and, for the most, self-sufficient. We do, however, have strict immigration laws and frown upon border jumpers. Guns are welcomed and we have no plans to enact any gun control laws. We do frown upon alcohol and drug use unless it is marijuana. So far our industry consist of embroidery and tomatoes. Since we are a country of one person and one cat, our military is quite small and the only weapons are a winchester 30.06 and a big knife. Currently our electrical source is supplied by an electric co-op. I am considering building a nuclear reactor to free my country from the hold that the co-op has over us. Doing so, however, may have consequences. But since we do not depend on aid from the U.S. we do not fear sanctions. We do fear the pre-emptive strike. Our war plan, should a pre-emptive strike occur, is to let them come in and then launch a full scale guerrila war. Seeing that there is only two sheds and one house in my country the guerrila war approach may not be the way to go. Chances are we, the cat and I, will be turned into minced meat during the shock and awe portion of the pre-emptive strike. Being a small and non-threatening country I will, as El Presidente of Neoamerica, appeal to the U.N. for intervention prior to the pre-emptive strike. I will call upon the POTUS for a sit down talk to smooth things over and ensure him that our nuclear ambitions are for peaceful means but will also maintian that we have the right to protect our country if invaded. I do realize that any hope of diplomacy is bleak when dealing with the current administration as we are a small country and the POTUS will cast me as a nutcase dictator bent on bringing down democracy. I will have him know that I did get 100% of the votes and that is democracy. The citizen (the cat) supports me 100% (he better or I'll cut him off from the aid that I have given him, ie; cat food). I am the Supreme El Presidente of Neoamerica and it is my duty to protect the citizen of my great country at all cost. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Actually, I never stated that the Bill of Rights "gave" the right. I did state that the second amendment "secured" the right. I do believe, however, that every person has the right to protect themself regardless where the right came from. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

What you take as argument, I see as a discussion with many fine points being made by many of different opinion. The devout christians make fine points and I research what they say for a better understanding of their faith. By doing the research on my own I can go far beyond what they originally said and see the connection to Taoism. I have elavated myself by doing so but, I am far from enlightened. I much prefer to carry my own load. When it gets to be a strain, I rest and then afterwards carry on. I have chosen not to seek anymore assistance. I have ended all medical care as I have dropped myself from medicare and will not go back to the doctor. My situation looks bad, on the surface but, below that I am content. There are so many whose situation is far more bleak than mine. I own my house, I have something to eat, I have water to drank and bathe in and I have good friends. What else could I need? Last December, I reached the breaking point of depression and some how made it through. Between suicidal episodes, reading the Tao Teh Ching and some good words from quite a few here at DZ.com I was able to clear my mind and start anew. If I die of AIDS complications, so be it. I could just as easily die in a skydive accident or get hit by a car. I have no more control over it than you or anyone else. I could prolong my life by taking meds but, to be honest, I am tired. The weight loss (from 250 to my current 130 pounds), the nausea, fever and night sweats along with other complications are wearing me down. Yet, I am content with my desicission to let it flow to where it will. No one is going to come along and take my tomatoes. If someone does and I confront that person, I will let them have them. The vines are full. Last year I gave away close to 500 tomatoes and I still have close to 50 tomatoes in the freezer from last summer. No need to get pissed. I could shoot the squirrels and rabbits that feed off of my plants but they are marked for the fall (not safe to kill and eat rabbits during the summer months anyways as they carry a parasite untill the first frost). Does the devine not get anrgy? What about the wrath of god? Seems I have read quite abit in the bible concerning the anger of god. Does this mean that god is not devine? Being a pacifist does not mean that one cannot get angered when confronted and forced into a conflict. Being a pacifist means that one will exhaust all means to end a conflict by diplomacy before having to take the harsher route. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Palestine was not a country -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Palenstinians seem to think it is a country. If they say it is, maybe it is. http://www.hejleh.com/countries/palestine.html "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

My understanding is that I am not the center of the universe yet I am the center of all that surrounds me. I am no more important than a grain of sand yet, I am just as important to the making of a population as a grain of sand is to the making of a beach, although removing me does not cause the population to cease to exist the same as removing a grain of sand does not cause the beach to disappear. Each and everything upon our planet and beyond is just as important as the next. I should not concern myself with myself. Egotism and vanity does not contribute to the well being of the one nor the whole. Vast amounts of riches do not ensure happiness nor good health but contributes to loneliness and ill will. No one can harness the universe or control the future. I surely cannot as I once believed that I could. What happens to us is merely the flow of ciircumstance. I have no more control over death than I do over life. I am to only do what is right and to see others as I do myself. If I am starving then I should eat when I can. If I am amongst many who are starving then I should strive to feed them and they should strive to feed me. As of now I have very little. All of my money has gone to medical bills in the last couple of years. I have only tomatos that I grew to eat. I am fine with that. There are others who have nothing to eat and will die today. If I could give them my last tomato, I would. I cannot afford propane to heat my water but, I can still bathe. There are many who have only enough water to drink. I am grateful that I can do both. I am not worried for myself and fully realize that I will be dead within the next two years as AIDS has taken a major toll on me. I am not concerned with it anymore. For me the point of Taoism is to not concern yourself with yourself but with the concern of others and to truely be a part of the One. From the Tao Teh Ching: 81: True words are not necessarily beautiful. Beautiful words are not necessarily truthful. One who is achieved does not argue, and one who argues is not achieved. One who knows the deepest truth does not need segmented information. One who knows vast amounts of information may not know the truth. One of deep vitue is not occupied with amassing material goods, yet the more he lives for others, the richer his life becomes. The more he gives, the more his life abounds. The subtle Way of the universe is beneficial, not harmful. The integral nature of a person is to extend one's virtue unconditionally and to contend with no one. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young