Dan Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 If something is decriminalized, it means that cops can't pursue me criminally for doing it. Thefore, it is within my legal rights. It's either legal, or illegal. No in-betweens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 Actually it is wrong, there is a difference between decriminalising the minim posession of an amount of something, without making the thing in question "legal." When you posses the thing in question in a limited amount, even if the thing is not legal, no one will sue you for it, but if you sell the thing, you'll be charged, because the thing in question is not legal. Decriminalising means that it is more controled then something that is legal. That means, that even if the possession of the thing is not legal, possessing a limited amount, for your own consuption, you will not be brough on court for it, but that drosnt imply you won't have ny contravention. The difference lie on the fact that if it were legal, someone should have sold you that thing legaly, this pressuposes that the person had the right to sell it to you, if he has no right, then the thing in question you have is still illegal, but since its possession in a limited quantity is decriminalised, then the authorities will just close their eyes, but on the other way they still can ask you for cooperation to find who sold you the thing and you not cooperating may have problems, because the decriminalisation only concern the limited possession, and there is still ways fo charging you for non cooperation. Right now, there is some places that the "pot" is cultivated and sold, it is in a limited amount and only for people having medical conditions, recently the person who run the place was charged, but will eventually be acquited. But there is still questions to be answered, if you have a medical condition(there is a classification with 4 symptoms to be treated) If you have a cronic disease, etc... you can always ask your physician to prescribe you to consume "pot" in future that will permit those that uses it for medical reasons, to cultivate their "pot" in a limited amount for their won pocessions, that is done already by some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 (edited) A parking or speeding ticket is normally not considered a criminal offense - yet you still can be fined and such for it. I think this is the primary difference - and it is a major one I think. If legal - there would be no penalties for possesion etc - but if just decriminalized it still would be essentially illegal - just not treated as a criminal offense - but just a violation of law. I'm no lawyer however - so this is just a laymens understanding. In general I am oppsed to criminal penalties for any activity which does not harm/effect others - this includes not just drugs but prostitution and such. So at the very least I strongly support decriminalization of these sorts of activities. I also am generally in favor of legalization - but we must be careful of what message we are sending folks. Its not necissarily OK to support use (and perhaps abuse) of potentially dangerous or addictive substances. I certainly believe however - that the current laws are much too harsh and lead to more crime and corruption etc and that it would be in our best interest to at very least decriminalize and preferably find some way to legalize that won't lead to some sort of epidemic of use/over use of harmful substances. And even in the case of pot - smoking in particular - is not a healthy thing - and stoned people - just like drunk or otherwise impared folks are not necissarily a positive thing in the workplace or out in public and can be harmful to public safety and such...otherwise I would just say - "party on!" or such... Edited May 7, 2003 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 (edited) Actually, Domino, you are wrong. Possession of drugs is illegal. If they find me with one pill of Ecstasy, I can be charged with posession under the Criminal Code and Controlled Substances Act. Why? Because if you got it, then there must be someone selling it, and you encouraged the sale of that drug, and were thus complicit in the crime because you did not report it. Unless you've got really good connections in the police dept., you will be held and brought to court. How do I know this? Well, let's just say I've seen it happen. The bill I am talking about makes the usage and trade of pot legal. That is, you can go and buy it anywhere, in the market, etc., just like you can get cigarettes. And I happen to think that if those drugs are decriminalized, the black market will eventually cease to exist for those drugs, and since the drug will be accessible any time for anyone above a certain age, there will be less crime related to drugs. One more thing: if posession of any quantity of drugs is decriminalized, that means that traders can't be charged with posession of those drugs (trafficking), which indirectly means that what we're looking at is an implicit legalization of the drug in question. And if it's only an issue of addiction, tobacco is more addictive than marijuana. I've smoked pot and cigarettes, and I can tell you that cigarettes are more addictive than pot. Cigarettes have worse effects on health than does pot or Ecstasy. Why is it legal? That's for you to ponder. Everything takes time. It's just like the black liberation and women's movement. Edited May 7, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 I am not wrong. Decriminalising and legalizing are not the same thing. Like Thoth gave the example with the parking thing. If you park your car in a place you have no right to park, you did an illegal thing, but you have not done a criminal thing, parking your cr in places you have no right to part is illegal, but is not criminal. There is a restrictif law and others proposed about decriminalising marijiona, those does not make it legal, but only change its statue in term of law, it does not become a criminal offense anymore but rather only an illegal act. If you park your car on the wrong place you will have a contravention, parking your car in the wrong place is not a criminalised thing, but since it is not legal you will get a contravention, what many proposes is to change the consuming marijoina, as a mair illegal act rather then a criminal act. Those discussions about legalising the mari... will not become actions, those propositions are ammended and discussed about, and the legalisation will be controled as and titled as Controled substance by Health Canada, its like medications that you have to pocess a prescription to consume. This is what will pass as "legal." In Quebec and other places, the mari could be consumed when you have a prescription from a physician already, but there is a contradiction since in order that you have it it must be cultivated and sold, and thats illegal, this is why there is a proposition about cultivation a limited amount for your own consuption, or giving some rights to some to cultivate them only for those that have a prescription for it, we are far from doing like tobaccos etc... And another note, I was only talking about the mari, when I said "dop" (This word is used by quebecers to call the thing), And no, decriminalising the limited amount of it, with a special prescription does not mean that traders can not be charged, it simply means that it could be used as a prescription drug for some, a controled substance, and for the others, that their limited pocession is not a criminal thing anymore, but only illegal. Metilamphetabines, or amphetamines-lie drugs are a controled subtance, that one has to have a special prescription to pocess, that does not mean that those traders could not be charged, one of those, Ritalin, is sold in the black marked labeled as Vitamin R, and pocessing it is illegal and criminal if you do not have prescription, even if you have prescriptions, you have to pocess a limited amount of the amount of not exeding 1 month of prescription, and only in a very limited cases you can have about I think as much as 3 months. As for Ecstasy, it is not less dangerious then tobbaco, I would ask you to verify your sources, Ecstasy is as well a limited subtance by its true name "Gamma hydroxybutyrate" It has been recently approved for the uses of some sleep disorders, " Gamma hydroxybutyrate" has an irreversible effect on the central nervous system, one of those, the killing of neurons that produces neutransmettors(dopamine etc...)... it has an effect on the hearth as well. Tobbaco is no more dangerious then MArijiona, why it is so dangerious is because of the added more then a hundred s.t in it, there is even cyanure in it. And to finish Marijionais not less addictive then Cigarette, the reason that you can smoke less mari then cigarettes, and the addiction of mari would not be more then 5 consuption per day, is because it is destroyed by the body more slowly then cigarette, and the "shortage" and the dependence takes more time to manifest after your last consuption... and the mari dependence is different, because it makes you dependent of stronger drugs before even having taked those srong drugs, and as well mari has been associated with various psychoatric disorders, there is even theories in the neuropsychiatric cycles, about it inniciating psychiatrical and neurological disorders for those that are at risk. So, before telling that those drugs are not dangerious, or that they are not very dangerious in comparaison with others, you should be aware of their severe side effects, and that many of those are irreversible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 So I assume you will also argue that anti-depressants don't cause liver cirrhosis, eh? And that Depleted Uranium doesn't cause cancer. After all, you just love arguing with me and trying to prove me wrong. My friend, I talked about Ecstasy because I am familiar with it. I'm also familiar with tobacco, and tobacco has given me more problems so far than the E. Marijuana is NOT addictive, and it has no more undesirable effects than Nicotin. I don't need a lesson in chemistry. I'm familiar with the structures and the chemical names. Experience gives me a better perspective. This, by the way, is my last reply. Not looking for arguments with you, as I'm aware that you are impossible to debate an issue with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 ... These kids (not all of them, of course!) are bored, they don't have enough appropriate stimulation, and they lack nothing - in other words, they're spoiled! Most of them come around eventually - but many never appreciate their good fortune, and end up blowing it... I personally don't have much to say directly on this current "drug" debate since I've never done any and will not do any ... heck I don't even take tylanol when I have a headache (but thank God I am very healthy at the moment and don't need any medication) ... but that's my personal choice. I have also often said that I'm not a big fan of alcohol and with the exception of an occasoinal beer or wine with xhorovats, I don't drink much either. I don't need alcohol to feel lose and rediculous and happy most of the time! (Note: this part was for the impressionable kids that may be reading this ... you can be just as cool as me, and maybe even cooler, without doing drugs! ... this message sponsored by the local all-you-can-eat buffet) But, having said that, I think Vavava totally hamered the nail on the HEAD, dead center, knocking it into the wall and out the other side. I think in general, young kids do drugs since they got nothing else to do (also due to peer pressure but boredom is a much stronger force I believe). With teenagers and adults, it gets more complicated ... a lot of psychological reasons play into it ... some do it to escape reality (sad), some do it as a stress releiver and mechanism to cope with pain (very understandable) .. some do it to be accepted and be considered cool (by far the WORST reason in my opinion) ... and some do it just for the heck of it since they got nothing else to do (I can accept that!) So, we can deal with the "drug problem" the correct way, i.e. trying to see why there is a need and getting rid of the need, or we can deal with it the brute-force and idiotic way by outlawing it and just saying no, you can't do that. I think it is fairly obvious that the second way doesn't really work with humans. I mean that stupid Eve "ate the apple" (and swallowed ;)) 2000 years ago and we got kicked out of eden (from what I've been told), even though she was specifically told not to touch the "apple". You have to give a purpose to kids ... you have to give them things to do, goals to accomplish, rewards for goals and punishments (sometimes harsh) for failure. In the US, we now have a society where everything a kid does is rewarded. They give trophies for 10th place! WTF? So of course the losery dumbass kid will go and start playing with drugs and frying his brain ... he doesn't need the brain to get rewards ... and there is no punishment in sight for anything. Kids think they cannot fail ... kids don't know the meaning of the word failure until waaaaaaaay into their adulthood, when they realise they are nothing more than worthless bums and leeches on the rest of the world. And that is when they come crashing down from their "high". Ok, I'm off the box! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 I think in general, young kids do drugs since they got nothing else to do (also due to peer pressure but boredom is a much stronger force I believe). Boredom is a factor, but I dont think its the biggest one: I think its just the way society has become, I mean if todays kids are bored, what about those born 500 years ago? When there were no computer games, no internet etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 I mean if todays kids are bored, what about those born 500 years ago? When there were no computer games, no internet etc. LOL. Good point. But who says kids 500 years ago didn't do drugs? There's opium out there, and you'll get high if you eat it, you know? You don't need processed pills like Ecstasy or anything to get high. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 Obviously, I will stop here, because someone thinks that his personal experience warants facts, when in fact is just a digit in a satistical representation. I will just post here few links, and let people judge by themselves. http://www.marijuana-addiction.net/index.htm http://www.marijuana-detox.com/m-dangers.htm Here new studies about the link between psychiatric disorders and marijuana. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Heal...sion021122.html http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s777336.htm Here, others. http://members.optusnet.com.au/~apfdfy/Suicide.html http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...p-mrg061802.php http://www.ndsn.org/summer99/marij3.html Many studies have proven what this alleged safe drugs does to the brain, the idiocy, is that some pro-marijuana groups claimed in the past that Marijuana can treat disorders, that recent studies have shown that the disorder in question that they allegedly treat, in precipited and even could be caused by it. Here an example of such a claim by such a group. http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2527.html I can give lots of examples like this. Here more links. http://my.webmd.com/content/article/53/61380.htm --- Before posting more, there is even more rubbish and rubbish, about Marijuana containing anti-oxidants protecting the brain. Like if the said molecule in question would resist when you put fire on it and then smoke it, when the production of CO is capted and will take off the properties of any subtance acting as an anti-oxidant. They even now claim, that governments and institutions have finally admited that Marijuana dosnt do any brain dommage... yes, like the claim in the past that Rubtake inhibitters of neurotransmetters, or amphetamines, or any like drugs were allegly not destroying brain cells... Now, lets post about Ecstasy. http://substanceabuse.about.com/library/we...ly/aa101302.htm http://health_info.nmh.org/HealthNews/reut...ry092620024.htm http://www.q.co.za/2001/2001/10/15-ecstasy.html Since, mr. Dan is so good at knowing the names of the molecules, it is surprising that he even didnt answered me when I refered to the GHB, that is commonly known as a form of ecstasy, and said nothing about "methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine" an amphetamine like drug, having a direct role on the Serotonin neurotransmetters, while he "assume" I will deny the side effects of anti-depressants, while both acts on the same neurotransmetter(but ecstasy does just more then that). He denies their dangers or try to minimise the danger of their uses, while then he "assume" that I will argue that this or that does not cause this or that. Those drugs are dangerious, and there is no way that they should be legalised, and everyone having common sense will conclude that, many of those drugs are used as drugs to treat medical conditions, and still even then when they are approved, they are not made avelable, why then an uncrontroled s.t that may be more dangerious and where there is no compagnies controling their purity should be legal ? There is absolutly no logic in that. Why one will use such drugs ? Marijuana has its uses, and as a prescription drug could treat some in need of some of its properties, for the rest of the population, well, no justification, possessing a limited amount of Marijuana should not be criminal, but those should expect to have contravention for those possessions. As for cigarettes, they cause many problems yes ! But it is not because something is legal, and that it can be as dangerious as other substances that are illegal, that means those others should be legalised. The dangers of Marijuanas are not as much reported as cigarettes, SIMPLY BECAUSE, there is much less people smoking them, because it is not legalised, when time will come, and that those smoking Marijuana wil equal those smoking cigarettes, then we shall compare those two, untill then, I just take a look at the statistics, from recent studies, 1/7 of those suffering of schizophrenia, Marijuana is the cause, and statistically speaking, considering the population of people smoking marijuana, it is one of the worst correlations one could observe, I too in the past claimed that Cigarretes are much more dangerious then marijuana, but I had no enough knowledge about that. As far as I am conserned, Nicotine, the actif substance does not kill brain cells the way Marijuana does, in fact nicotine alone other then being addictive is one of the saffest drug... it is smoking it, and all the other s.t, that is put in it that makes it so dangerious, while Marijuana, even when taken orally, will still destroy brain cells. Because it acts as a brain depressor. I woud rather prefer dying, having a lung problem by smoking, then having a brain dommage, and dying in a psychiatrical institution or commiting suicide because of Marijuana. And I do not think I have to refer to the correlation between the uses of Marijuana and suicide. And since Dan lives in Canada, there has been a documentary, and they have shown people having taken Ecstasy, people with experiences of the subject, like Dan will claim, those victims the drug telling what it did to their lives, and the dommages to their brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 I think in general, young kids do drugs since they got nothing else to do (also due to peer pressure but boredom is a much stronger force I believe). Boredom is a factor, but I dont think its the biggest one: I think its just the way society has become, I mean if todays kids are bored, what about those born 500 years ago? When there were no computer games, no internet etc. I have a feeling you would get your ASS WHOOOPED 500 years ago if you did drugs (kids). Parents had much tighter control as far as I understand (obviously I didn't exist 500 years ago). I can also imagine that kids didn't have very easy access to drugs due to the fact that their surroundings were much more controlled (also pretty much everyone knew everyone back then in town). Societies were no where near as dynamic as we have now ... both parents working, kids being unsupervised (parental supervision) for more than half the day ... etc etc. Kids now (compared to 500 years ago) know much more, are exposed to much more, have much much more opportunities, and far far fewer constraints placed on them. That was a very different time my friend My boredom coment is more for what is happening NOW. If I was a kid 500 years ago, I would probably kill myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 If I was a kid 500 years ago, I would probably kill myself. You probably wouldn't, because that's the only way of life you could perceive of. If I did time travel and became a kid 500 years ago somehow (but knew about computers, technology, etc), only then would I kill myself, because I would realize how boring the situation I'm living in (500 years ago), is. No computers???? I wouldn't be able to survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 I have a feeling you would get your ASS WHOOOPED 500 years ago if you did drugs (kids). My point exactly, society has changed. 500 years ago it was you would get whoooped, now you will get sent to get 'advice', and 100 years from now its everyone for themselves - society is changing. Kids now (compared to 500 years ago) know much more, are exposed to much more, have much much more opportunities, and far far fewer constraints placed on them. Yes this is another factor, kids these days are more knowledgable, thanks to free and available education and hence ger bored more easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyebruin Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 (edited) No computers???? I wouldn't be able to survive. i can survive without computers! really!!! ...they make things easier for us because we as a society want more and more and are still not satisfied with more!!! that's why you have even more depressed, alcoholic,lonely, unfulfilled people in the developed world!!!( compared to developing countries )...computers as great and as awesome as they are canNOT replace human contact, emotions, empathy, ...you know where i'm going with this!....and anyone who thinks otherwise is either in serious denial or hasn't been around people...we CAN live without computers...we just as a society have chosen not to....for MANNNNNY reasons!!! Edited May 8, 2003 by hyebruin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 I think in general, young kids do drugs since they got nothing else to do (also due to peer pressure but boredom is a much stronger force I believe). Boredom is a factor, but I dont think its the biggest one: I think its just the way society has become, I mean if todays kids are bored, what about those born 500 years ago? When there were no computer games, no internet etc. You guys are forgetting that 500 years ago, most of the 'kids' were all working their arses off on the family farm in order to be able to eat. There was no leisure time to 'do drugs'...actually it sounds kind of nice <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Didn't know whether to post this in the "Meet the U.S." thread or here - but perhaps it belongs here as mayhaps did some of the posts in the other thread about American-sponsored fumigation of coca plants (consumed as recreational drug in leaf form - not as extract cocaine - and also in the manufacturing of everything from soap and shampoo to goodness knows what else) in Colombia and how this in fact led to the toppling of their head of state - To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser. West Africa's Cash Crop G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet January 4, 2004 Viewed on January 8, 2004 What if a poor African country could grow a plant that would fetch healthy prices in the U.S? What if the plant could be grown on small farms, encouraging democracy in this poor African country by putting cash into the hands of its poorest and most powerless people? What if such a plant could reduce the poor African country's dependence on the U.S. for aid? Of course, the U.S. would cheer such a plant and the country that grows it. And President George Bush would be especially glad, since improving living standards in Africa is one of his key global objectives. Such a plant does exist, and an African country is growing it in good measure. Yet President Bush isn't cheering. Worse, the Bush administration is fighting a war against the plant and the poor African country that grows it. The country is Ghana, in West Africa, and the plant is cannabis or "ganja," the term preferred by Ghanaians. Marijuana grown in Ghana is of good quality, plentiful and relatively inexpensive. Twenty neatly rolled sticks of pot, or about half an ounce, sell for about $3. That's right, good pot sells for $6 an ounce in Ghana. Here is the highest stage of capitalism -- the free market -- in action. Ghana is one of the most peaceful countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The country rarely sees any violence (a benefit of pot-smoking?), has a democratically elected government and boasts one of the freest societies in Africa. Pot has been grown and smoked in the country for decades, drawing little comment. In Accra, the coastal capital of Ghana, people smoke discreetly, to be sure, because the sale and possession of pot is technically illegal. But pot is easy to purchase, arrests are rare, and smoking is popular, especially among American and European aid workers in the country. For pot smokers, Accra is an African paradise. But like many a paradise in Africa, Accra is threatened by a man-made disaster. The disaster, funded by American tax dollars, is the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). I am no expert in the world's drug wars, or the DEA, but I spent the better part of the past two years in Ghana and I never saw any signs of pot ripping apart the fabric of Ghanaian life. There are no drug lords in Accra, no gun-toting bodyguards or pot addicts strewn across the city's derelict roads. Just the opposite is occurring, actually. Pot is giving a people starved for economic opportunity a chance to participate in the global economy. Ghana is one of the losers in the world's experiment with widening trade. Goods flood into Ghana from China, Brazil, Mexico, even the U.S. And not just manufactured products either. Butter is imported from France, pasta and canned tomatoes from Italy, rolled oats from Germany and rice from the U.S. Because the cost of producing and shipping these foods is subsidized by European, U.S. and Canadian governments, their cost in Ghana is sometimes less than it is in the country of origin. And even if it isn't, these imports ruin the lives of African food producers. American rice, imported into Ghana, sells for substantially less than rice grown in Ghana. The burden of food imports would be less crushing if Ghana exported an equal amount of goods, but the country doesn't. It hardly exports anything. The country's two leading exports are cacao beans (the basic ingredient in cocoa and chocolate) and gold. These exports are the foundation of Ghana's economy -- today and 100 years ago. Ghana has low-cost farms, making it an attractive place (in theory) to grow fruits and vegetables. But because of deplorable "feeder" roads to Ghana's cities and ports, roughly one-third to one-half of the country's crop of delicious pineapples rots before reaching market. Nearly as many of Ghana's plentiful bananas suffer the same fate. Marijuana has a longer shelf life. For poor Ghana, it offers a lifeline to a more diverse and durable economic future. To achieve this does not require a revolution in world drug laws either. European countries have eased their restrictions on marijuana, creating a chance for African growers to tap the huge market in cities such as Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. After all, West Africa is a short hop by sea or plane to Western Europe, giving Africans an edge over producers elsewhere in the world. Simply, then, by sticking to the gray area of the world's fuzzy pot laws, Ghana could reap substantial benefits. Instead, the U.S. insists that Ghana buy American rice and yet refuses to allow its citizens to purchase Ghana's marijuana. Whatever the arrangement is, it is not free trade. To add to the injury, the Bush administration wants to fuel a drug war in Ghana, where pot exporters are so sophisticated and nefarious that their preferred method of transporting weed is to hide it in shipments of yams bound for Europe. Against this menace stands the DEA. About six months ago, the agency privately persuaded the government of Ghana to accept its advice and mount a campaign of resistance against pot production and distribution. The DEA offered the carrot of "technical assistance" -- jargon in foreign-aid speak for equipment and cash that African police, who are woefully underpaid, long for. For now the DEA-inspired move against Ghana's pot growers has resulted in publicized destruction of fields, some arrests -- and more aid for Ghana from a grateful U.S. government. G. Pascal Zachary served in 2003 as Ghana director for Journalists for Human Rights, a media training group based in Toronto. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. « Go Back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Something for the Amerikanskis among us, from the Drug Policy Alliance: Call Congress this Friday, June 4th Terminally ill patients with cancer, AIDS and other diseases have become collateral damage in the government's War on (some) Drugs. Will you make one phone call this Friday, June 4th to help protect them? The Drug Policy Alliance is working with the Marijuana Policy Project, NORML and other reform groups to stop the federal government from arresting patients who use marijuana for medical reasons. Last year we managed to get a remarkable 152 votes in favor of an amendment that would have stopped the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from spending any money to undermine state medical marijuana laws. This was 66 votes short of what we needed to win, but enough to rock Congress and the White House. We hope to get a second vote on the amendment later this year - and we're aiming to win. June 4th launches our summer offensive. Supporters of the Drug Policy Alliance and our coalition partners will be passing out fliers outside the offices of more than 100 Members of Congress that voted against the medical marijuana amendment last year. These fliers will inform voters in their districts that those Members "think cancer, MS, and AIDS patients should be put in federal prison." We will be holding local press conferences in a number of Congressional districts, as well as working to get national media coverage. The Drug Policy Alliance is also running newspaper ads in several districts. We need you to call your U.S. Representative on Friday, and if you have time and are in the right Congressional district help pass out flyers. ACTIONS TO TAKE: 1) CALL YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATVE on Friday, June 4th. Let him or her know you are tired of the federal government wasting scarce law enforcement resources arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients. If your Representative voted for last year’s medical marijuana amendment, call and say thanks for supporting medical marijuana last year and urge him or her to continue supporting medical marijuana. If your Representative voted against the amendment, call to say you are disappointed he or she voted last year to send cancer and AIDS patients to prison and that it’s time to support federal legislation to protect medical marijuana patients. You can contact your U.S. Representative toll-free through the Capitol Switchboard at 1-800-839-5276. To find out who your Representative is, go to www.house.gov. Find out if your Representative voted for or against last year's medical marijuana amendment. The amendment is often referred to as the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment. It was offered to last year's Commerce Justice State spending bill. [Note: Hinchey-Rohrbacher is pronounced Hinch-ee-Roy-bocker] 2) Get Active, Organize and Participate! To learn more about possible June 4th activities scheduled in your local community, please contact our National Field Coordinator, Naomi Long, by e-mail at 3) Inform those around you and generate discussion! Write a "Letter to the Editor" and get it published in your local newspaper. For etiquette and tips on how to get published check out the MapInc website. Talking points are provided on our website. 4) Forward this action alert to friends, family and acquaintances. BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE: Alliance Medical Marijuana Page News Summary: 152 Members of Congress Vote Pro Medical Marijuana MORE INFO AND TALKING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.