Defending the Truth

"Drug use is a social and health issue, not a crime."
I finally agree with John and Ken from KFI.

Court Backs Religious Right to Hallucinogenic Tea
Feb. 21, 2006 — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a congregation in New Mexico may use hallucinogenic tea as part of a four-hour ritual intended to connect with God.

In their first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices moved decisively to keep the government out of a church's religious practice. In the decision, Roberts wrote that federal drug agents should have been barred from confiscating the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based church and that the Bush administration had failed to meet its burden under a federal religious freedom law to show that it should be allowed to ban "the sect's sincere religious practice."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1644314

Good deal.

And people think this court is going to overturn Roe...keep dreaming pro-lifers.

There is a call back to the original natural pharmacy of God's creation.

[b]“I think people need to be educated to the fact that marijuana is not a drug. Marijuana is an herb and a flower. God put it here. If He put it here and He wants it to grow, what gives the government the right to say that God is wrong?”---Willie Nelson

DEATHS FROM DRUGS: STATISTICS UK 1990

There has not been a single death attributed to an overdose of cannabis - it is completely non-toxic. That means that it is not possible, even for a child, to consume a fatal dose of the herb.

Known drug-related deaths in the UK, 1990

Tobacco: .................110,000
Alcohol: ..................30,000
Volatile Substances: 112
Morphine: ................91
Methadone: ..............84
Heroin: ....................62
Barbiturate Type: ....7
Anti-depressants: ....4
Cocaine: .................4
Pethidine: ...............3
MDMA (ecstasy): ...3
Amphetamine Type: .2
Hallucinogens:........ 0
LSD:....................... 0
Psylocibin:............. 0
Cannabis: ...............0
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/deaths.php

See, I think drugs have done some *good* things for us, I really do. And if you don’t believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a Favor: go home tonight and take all your albums, all your tapes, and all your cd’s and burn em’. 'Cause you konw what? The musicians who’ve made all that great music that’s enhanced your lives throughout the years...
Rrrrrrrrrrrrreal ------ high on drugs."
--Bill Hicks

Indeed...or you could try some with an open mind and see for yourself...

These stats are from 1990. 16 years ago. I was two and these stats made sense then and not now.

I do believe alcohol should slowly be legalized. I suggested during a debate in my History of Philosophy class that a system should be created in which alcohol should the legal drinking age should be lowered by a year once every three years. (It doesnt have to be three years, but this is just an example). Check out this interview/article. From: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj//Yo...048680374.html

Drinking 'Learner Permits' for
Under-Age Persons

Interview with Dr. Roderic B. Park
Long-time college administrator Dr. Roderic B. Park proposes the issuance of drinking 'learner permits' or licenses for under-age persons as a way to help teach moderate drinking and reduce alcohol abuse. Prof. Park is interviewed by Dr. David J. Hanson.
Dr. Hanson--

Dr. Park, you served as Chancellor of the University of Colorado as well as the Vice Chancellor at Berkeley and have had many years of experience with college students. Could you explain the problem of alcohol abuse among college students and other young people?

Dr. Park--

Yes. Currently, young people can legally purchase and drink alcohol only when they reach the arbitrary age of 21. There is no educational requirement before they can legally purchase, such as knowledge of legal limitations and liabilities, the facts of intoxication, or the role of intoxication in the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. There is no reason to assume that people suddenly and magically become mature or wise or thoughtful at any arbitrary age. Nevertheless, in a kind of simplistic hypocrisy, the age of 21 law has become part of our culture's "solution" to the problem of irresponsible drinking. Indeed, if this law actually worked, and a decrease in automobile fatalities of ages 16-20 could be attributed to the age 21 law, why not make it age 25 -- or 34 -- or 42?
On the other hand, we permit people to marry, join the military, sign legally binding contracts, and vote at the age of 18. Thus a couple getting married at the age of 20 can't enjoy a toast of champagne at their wedding! Not very logical.

Dr. Hanson--

I see your point. What are the effects of the current age 21 legislation?

Dr. Park--

Well, it is clear that the minimum drinking age of 21 is not working. Recent national surveys show that about 90% of U.S. high school students have consumed alcohol beverages. Half of these teenagers drink regularly. These are "inexperienced" drinkers who have generally received no education on the personal and social consequences of alcohol abuse and are typically acting without parental knowledge or guidance.
Such inexperienced and untutored young people usually consume alcohol in an environment with a lack of norms promoting moderation. We see the results daily in the police blotter. Lives are ruined or cut short, families are heart-broken, and society loses productive human resources. Police write endless citations in an almost futile effort to reduce underage drinking, which has the effect of driving it underground into even less social-controlled environments, making drinking abuse worse. And of course, underage drinking leads to a disrespect for law among young people, who see the legislation as unfair and discriminatory.
Underage drinking is also a concern of parents, many of whom have offered high school "keg parties" at home rather than accepting the alternative of young people being out drinking and driving. Thus many parents are forced into joining the disregard for age 21 laws. We all join Mothers Against Drunk Driving in our rejection of drunk driving. But if, as Benjamin Franklin stated, death and taxes are a certainty, so too are alcohol and automobiles. There is evidence that underage drinkers are more conscious than their parents about using designated non-drinking drivers. Why not build on this sense of responsibility among the young through a program of education and monitoring?

Dr. Hanson--

That's an intriguing concept. Could you elaborate on what you have in mind?

Dr. Park--

I think we should step up to the challenge of changing the youth culture from one that is too accepting of abusive behavior to one intolerant of abuse and promoting responsibility. We should consider establishing a type of "learner's permit" for limited alcohol consumption, similar in concept to the driver's permit. With parental or guardian permission, a person under the age of 21 might apply for such a "license" which allowed limited use of beverage alcohol under monitored conditions where the licensee is held accountable. Licensing would occur within the context of educational programs and parental or guardian supervision. Permit cards, similar to a student driving license, could be issued for the purchase of alcohol and, like a driving license, could serve as a social contract used to help monitor the holder's conduct.
One prerequisite for receiving the card would be passing a course on the expectations of responsible use of alcohol, what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable conduct, and the consequences of alcohol abuse. We have similar, clearly defined expectations for receiving a driver's license; why not have the same for alcohol consumption?

Dr. Hanson--

This seems like a positive rather than negative approach to the problem, doesn't it?

Dr. Park--

Yes. I have always believed that the way people become most responsible is by giving them responsibility. I think young adults would be responsible with such a privilege following education and with appropriate monitoring. Federal legislation allowing states to experiment within certain guidelines and with careful monitoring would lead us to more civil, productive and effective citizenship for our sons and daughters.

Dr. Hanson--

Are there any potential downsides from this approach?

Dr. Park--

Well, first, we would be trying to change an "alcohol culture" and that could be difficult. However, I am encouraged by such an effort at the University of Colorado at Boulder. During the first year of our programs police reports of alcohol-related incidents around football games were running at less than half the previous level. Fraternities and sororities are running dry formal events. We received support from local police, from the Parents Association and from the Commissioner of the Big XII Conference representing the Big XII presidents.

Dr. Hanson--

Well, MADD and SADD had remarkable success in changing our society's drunk driving attitudes and behaviors....and they did so in a short period, so I think you good reason to be very optimistic. Are there any other potential problems?

Dr. Park--

Some in the advertising industry might try to exploit a new and younger population. However others are promoting and engaging in responsible advertising, a trend which should be encouraged. Could education and monitoring outweigh these two potential risks? I believe they would. I have confidence that our young people will be more responsible when properly educated and given appropriate responsibility with guidance and positive societal expectations.
No one can be certain that any particular idea such as the "learner's permit" will work. The point is to seek creative and workable solutions to the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse in American society. We can and must do better.

Dr. Hanson--

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us.

Yes the stats are OLD! The real problem lies in man made drugs and the way we are going about it!

An Ex Police Chief Speaks Out Against The War On Drugs

NORM STAMPER, FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE, SEATTLE, WA - Historically, the criminalization of drugs was a revenue-producing public policy. It was, 'If we're going to make money off these drugs, we've got to regulate them.' It began as taxation, and then we started moralizing the behavior -- attaching moral judgments to the use of drugs, and demonizing the drug users. If we were an honest nation, consistent and with any integrity, we would do the same thing with caffeine, nicotine and alcohol, but we don't.

While there are restrictions, certainly, on the use of nicotine and alcohol, both of those substances and the behaviors around them are perfectly legal for adults, yet we know that cigarette addiction is the most egregious form of addiction.

But we're fundamentally dishonest, and in demonizing illicit drug users, we deny medical attention for those who choose to get off drugs. We under-invest in smart education and prevention programs; we deny IV drug users clean syringes in many, many cities. We deny them methadone when it has been clearly established that that's a healthier alternative to heroin.

You have to start with the premise that if tobacco and alcohol, with all of their harms and enormous social and financial costs, are lawful substances, then how can we, in good conscience, deny somebody the right to smoke a joint -- or to snort coke or shoot heroin? I don't do those things, but I believe I ought to have a right to do those things.

From very early on, we teach children that the people who use drugs are monsters and fiends. Well, excuse me, but they're not. Some of them manage to handle it successfully, and many do not. Many abuse the drugs and wind up very ill psychologically, physiologically, mentally, emotionally. But rather than demonizing them, we ought to be reaching out to help them. If we spent far less money on the supply side of the supply/demand equation, we'd be able to spend much more money on prevention, education, medication and rehabilitation and the like. . .

I was really impressed, during my days as Seattle's police chief, with a visit to representatives of The Hague. These are judges, prosecutors and high-ranking police officers -- about a dozen of them. We started talking about drug enforcement. They made clear that they continue to go after organized-crime drug dealers, which is terrific and I would never advocate stopping.

But they recognized that drug use is a social problem, and if adults take drugs and behave responsibly under their influence -- i.e., don't drive, don't batter, don't furnish the kids -- they'll leave them alone. If they've got a problem of abuse -- which is fundamentally a medical problem -- then they get help, and the cops are on board with that. That's also true in Canada, where the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police advocated decriminalization of marijuana.

All of this has to do with the obscene level of profit associated with illicit drug dealing. The reason illicit drugs cost so much money is because they are illicit. If government would enter the regulation picture as it has with tobacco and alcohol, it could easily transform a pretty miserable picture into a better one. It will never be rosy, but it can be a much healthier and more sensible picture.
DrugSense: Drug Law Reform - WODClock

AlterNet: DrugReporter: War on Crime, Not on Drugs

Basic Facts About the War on Drugs
Basic Facts About the War on Drugs

I just watched the movie "Grass". Great documentary.
It showed how many billions of dollars have been wasted on marijuana prohibition. It is sick and wrong.
Even if you don't smoke you should check out this movie.