Back to Map

MAPTalk-Digest Wednesday, December 24 2003 Volume 03 : Number 288

001 RE: Count the lies in this press release. Nobody will print it anyway!
    From: "Jim White" <>
002 Good quotes from Canadian Supreme Court dissenting opinions
    From: Tim Meehan <>
003 Online Poll
    From: Tim Meehan <>
004 Re: MAP: RE: Count the lies in this press release. Nobody will print it
    From: Tim Meehan <>
005 FW: [CogLib] Court Plants Red Cross in the War on Marijuana
    From: "kim hanna" <>


Subj: 001 RE: Count the lies in this press release. Nobody will print it anyway!
From: "Jim White" <>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:19:21 -0500

We've all seen the "medical *excuse* marijuana" argument, but note that 
isn't even proper grammar.

These people employ masters of marketing and their thoughts *must* be to
introduce the word "excuse" and as many negative connotations as 
into the debate. (What they're doing now is even worse, see below)

It's these damn subtleties we need to pay more attention to and address 
as they arise.  Take this line from the PFDFA's release;

" This agenda is pursued through decriminalization efforts and under the
guise of medical excuse marijuana, even while there has been no 
or approval of smoked marijuana by any major American medical 

Note;  Agenda, Guise, Excuse, Smoked and No acceptance ,
Then at the end they infer that these negative responses came from a 
source with; "Major American Medical Association."

Five negatives and the implication that it came from a reliable trusted
source in one sentence. And when they get free reign in (as in paid for 
.gov) the editorial sections....

What are they doing now?

The whole premise of marketing is to influence people, without their
knowledge - propaganda is the same thing only worse.

Why are they going after the pot ads on busses?

It's the same tool they use to propagandize. Its not about opening up 
- - they're used to debate, its not about public transit or the children, 
about the power to influence the perception of the mass market and they 
it. You can call it a free speech issue, it is, it's the ultimate 
control of
the market they're worried about.

Take for example the CASA survey. Did the ONDCP's recent media campaign
intentionally target *only* the demographic group surveyed by CASA, 
other demographic groups in the process?

Knowing where when and whom (as in specific demographic areas) will be
surveyed, one could easily influence that small group and achieve the
desired results. Broaden the demographic range and the results differ,
sometimes drastically, which is why more comprehensive surveys and 
are in direct conflict with CASA's results.

Bush gets credit for an 11% decrease in drug use while it actually
increases, and the drug warriors, well they get bragging rights and 
go at the gravy train, the kids, well, we all know what they get.

The only plausible explanation is that these guys are deliberately
manipulating the markets with mass media to produce the desired results. 

The current administration are masters of spin, but they are also 
masters of
manipulation, subterfuge and deception.

And what about those recent Afghanistan drug busts? Remember those 
equal terrorism" Ads? Remember when Donald Rumsfield didn't want to 
US forces in anti-drug activities back when the crops first sprouted?
(Except now that they need the busts to boost black box ratings at 
Remember how the US cut off all outside economical influences *accept* 
drug trade?

Then, what'dya know...? All of a sudden the terrorists *are* involved in 
drug trade!!  *What* drug trade? The Marijuana, Hashish and oh yeah,
methamphetamine trade.  (But where did they get the precursor chemicals 
the METH?)


Did they *let* 9/11 happen, or did they *plan* 9/11?  How many people 
executive (and economic) power does it *really* take to manipulate 
like these?

What better way to launder billions of dollars than to have a few
corporations *fold* because of accounting schemes?

I think I'll stop and have a look around, the fog is beginning to clear 

Happy Holidaze everyone!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Richard Lake
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 2:25 PM
> To: ; ;
> ; 
> Subject: MAP: Count the lies in this press release. Nobody
> will print it anyway!
> Press Release
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003
> December 24, 2003 12:23 PM US Eastern Timezone
> ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 24, 2003--Drug Free
> America Foundation commends and supports Canada's court decision. This
> decision enforces the correct perception that illegal drugs are
> harmful, which is precisely the message that we need to be sending to
> our children. The drug policy reform movement has been working
> throughout the United States and internationally to tear down drug
> laws and ultimately legalize drugs. This agenda is pursued through
> decriminalization efforts and under the guise of medical excuse
> marijuana, even while there has been no acceptance or approval of
> smoked marijuana by any major American medical association.
> "The legalization movement has suffered a major setback with the
> Canadian court decision. However, we are very concerned over the
> proposed bill by Prime Minister Martin that would soften penalties for
> pot possession," says Calvina Fay, executive director of Drug Free
> America Foundation, Inc. "Canada's proposed decriminalization, as well
> as the legalization movement's desensitization of marijuana use,
> creates the illusion that marijuana is not harmful." A Schedule I drug
> with addictive tendencies cannot be considered harmless.
> According to Dr. Eric Voth, chair of the Institute on Global Drug
> Policy, a brain trust of the world's leading experts in drug
> prevention, "Softening drug policy increases drug use and the
> associated harm to society." History has shown us that when the
> perception of the harms of drugs increased, drug use went down, and
> when the perception of the harms of drug use decreased, use rose.
> Hopefully, Prime Minister Martin and other Canadian policy makers will
> apply this same logic.
> Contacts
> Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., St. Petersburg
> Lana Beck, 727-828-0211


Subj: 002 Good quotes from Canadian Supreme Court dissenting opinions
From: Tim Meehan <>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:09:10 -0500

Good quotes from SCC dissenting opinions (from Philippe Lucas):

Justice Louise Arbour:

266     If there remained any doubt as to whether the harms associated with
marihuana use justified the state in using imprisonment as a sanction
against its possession, this doubt disappears when the harms caused by the
prohibition are put in the balance. The record shows and the trial judges
found that the prohibition of simple possession of marihuana attempts to
prevent a low quantum of harm to society at a very high cost. A "negligible"
burden on the health care and welfare systems, coupled with the many
significant negative effects of the prohibition, cannot be said to amount to
more than little or no reasoned risk of harm to society. I thus conclude
that s. 3(1) and (2) of the Narcotic Control Act, as it prohibits the
possession of marihuana for personal use under threat of imprisonment,
violates the right of the appellants to liberty in a manner that is not in
accordance with the harm principle, a principle of fundamental justice,
contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

276     The constitutional questions in the Caine appeal should be answered
as follows:

     (1) Does prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for personal
use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, by
reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act
(now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.
19), infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

     Answer: Yes.

     (2)If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the
infringement justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

     Answer: No.


Justice Louis LeBel:

280 In my mind, it cannot be denied that marihuana can cause problems of
varying nature and severity to some people or to groups of them.
Nevertheless, the harm its consumption may cause seems rather mild on the
evidence we have. In contrast, the harm and the problems connected with the
form of criminalization chosen by Parliament seem plain and important.  Few
people appear to be jailed for simple possession but the law remains on the
books. The reluctance to enforce it to the extent of actually jailing people
for the offence of simple possession seems consistent with the perception
that the law, as it stands, amounts to some sort of legislative overreach to
the apprehended problems associated with marihuana consumption. Moreover,
besides the availability of jail as a punishment, the enforcement of the law
has tarred hundreds of thousands of Canadians with the stigma of a criminal
record. They have had to bear the burden of the consequences of such
criminal records as Arbour J. points out. The fundamental liberty interest
has been infringed by the adoption and implementation of a legislative
response which is disproportionate to the societal problems at issue. It is
thus arbitrary and in breach of s. 7 of the Charter. For these reasons, I
agree with Arbour J. that fundamental rights are at stake, that they were
breached, and that this Court must intervene as part of its duty under the
Constitution to uphold the fundamental principles of our constitutional


Justice Marie Deschamps:

284     I agree with the majority of this Court on the arguments relating to
the protection of lifestyle and the shifting purpose of the Act. I will
limit my comments to the arguments concerning the harm principle and the
arbitrary nature of the legislation. The latter argument leads me to
conclude that the inclusion of cannabis in the schedule to the Narcotic
Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N--1 (rep. & repl. S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 94)
infringes the appellants' right to liberty.

289     The criminal law is one of the most aggressive weapons the state has
to enforce its dictates. This weapon must be wielded with great care. The
courts must intervene when an enactment violates constitutional guarantees.
More specifically, and without repeating the detailed comments of my
colleagues, the courts must act when the right to liberty is infringed
without regard for the principles of fundamental justice. In the present
case, I believe Parliament has exercised its power arbitrarily.

290     When the state prohibits socially neutral conduct, that is, conduct
that causes no harm, that is not immoral and upon which there is no societal
consensus as to its blameworthiness, it cannot do so without raising a
problem of legitimacy and, consequently, losing credibility. Citizens become
inclined not to take the criminal justice system seriously and lose
confidence in the administration of justice. Judges become reluctant to
impose the sanctions attached to such laws.

291         There are several basic tenets of criminal law that can be used
to measure the arbitrariness of a prohibition. I shall rely on three of
these principles here: the need for the state to protect society from harm,
the availability of tools other than criminal law that could adequately
control the conduct and the proportionality of the measure to the problem in

293     As mentioned by the majority, the reasons for adding marihuana to
the schedule to the Narcotic Control Act are nebulous, at best. The
historical background outlined by the trial judge in the case of the
appellant Caine clearly shows that Parliament's decision was made at a time
when a climate of irrational fear predominated, owing to a campaign led by
Edmonton magistrate Emily Murphy, who claimed that marihuana caused users to
lose their minds, along with all sense of moral responsibility, becoming
maniacs capable of murder and many other acts of cruelty.

294     Fortunately, the consequences of marihuana use are nothing like
those described at that time. Although I do not accept the harm principle as
an independent principle, I believe that the need for the state to protect
society from harm plays an active role in any assessment of the
arbitrariness of legislation.

295        The inherent risks of marihuana use, apart from those related to
the operation of vehicles and the impact on public health care and social
assistance systems, affect only the users themselves. These risks can be
situated on a spectrum, ranging from no risk for occasional users to more
significant risks for frequent users and vulnerable groups. On the whole,
with a few exceptions, moderate use of marihuana is harmless. Thus, it seems
doubtful that it is appropriate to classify marihuana consumption as conduct
giving rise to a legitimate use of the criminal law in light of the Charter.

297         The minimal harm caused by marihuana does not fit squarely
within the categories of conduct usually kept in check by the criminal law.

298        Only three groups are traditionally identified as requiring state
intervention for their protection: young persons, pregnant women and certain
people with medical conditions. This line of reasoning does not have to be
pushed very far before it becomes obvious that criminal law is not society's
preferred means of controlling the conduct of these groups. The use of
imprisonment and all the other aspects of the criminal justice system,
including the imposition of a criminal record, to suppress conduct that
causes little harm to moderate users or to control high-risk groups for whom
the effectiveness of deterrence or correction is highly dubious and seems to
me out of keeping with Canadian society's standards of justice.

299     This brings me to the third factor, proportionality. The harmful
effects of marihuana use have already been discussed and are highly
debatable. The harm caused by its prohibition, however, is clear and
significant. For the details, I refer back once again to the effects listed
by Arbour J. (para. 200). A balancing of these two factors yields the result
that the harm caused by prohibiting marihuana is fundamentally
disproportionate to the problems created by its use that the state seeks to

301     The harm caused by using the criminal law to punish the simple use
of marihuana far outweighs the benefits that its prohibition can bring.
LeBel J. notes that the fact that jail sentences are rarely imposed
illustrates the perception of judges that imprisonment is not a sanction
that befits the inherent dangers of using marihuana. In the case of the
appellant Caine, Howard J. also observed that the prohibition had brought
the law into disrepute in the eyes of over one million people. These are
exactly the kinds of reactions that are indicative of the arbitrariness of
the impugned provisions. As I have already mentioned, and as Howard J.
observed, when the state prohibits socially neutral conduct, it exposes
itself to the risk of eroding its credibility.

302     Canadian society is changing. Its knowledge base is growing, and its
morals are evolving. Even if it was once the case, and in my view it never
was, the prohibition against cannabis is no longer defensible. My analysis
leads me to conclude that the little harm caused by marihuana casts doubt on
the appropriateness of state intervention in this case. When I weigh the
prohibition against, first, other available methods for countering the harm
that marihuana use presents and, second, the problems caused by marihuana
use, I must conclude that the legislation is inconsistent with the
constitutional guarantee in s. 7 of the Charter.


Subj: 003 Online Poll
From: Tim Meehan <>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:23:49 -0500

Now that marijuana decriminalization is back in the political arena, what should
Paul Martin do?

	Stay the course	
	Decriminalize personal use

Stay the course	
 3012 votes  	(30 %)	
Decriminalize personal use	
 7053 votes  	(70 %)	

Total Votes: 10065


Subj: 004 Re: MAP: RE: Count the lies in this press release. Nobody will print it anyway!
From: Tim Meehan <>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:44:58 -0500

Jim White said:

>The whole premise of marketing is to influence people, without their
>knowledge - propaganda is the same thing only worse. 

True.  The Swedes use this term too.

That's why I so happy to get my line about police unions out to the media the
other day:

Starts at 33:14

It may not be as intellectually valid as I can get across on live TV (one of the
reasons I hate television: I'm a much better writer when I take the time :) but
DFAF and CAPP are not exactly using Marquis de Queensbury rules, so I take a few
cheap shots when the ref isn't looking...

- -Tim


Subj: 005 FW: [CogLib] Court Plants Red Cross in the War on Marijuana
From: "kim hanna" <>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:28:54 -0500

Court Plants Red Cross in the War on Marijuana
By Richard Glen Boire, California Daily Journal, Wed. Dec. 24, 2003
[The Daily Journal is California's largest daily legal newspaper, read
by the state's 135,000 lawyers, judges, and legal professionals.]

Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal
criminal laws against marijuana are unconstitutional when applied to
sick people who are using the drug with their doctor's approval in
accordance with state law. Raich v. Ashcroft, 2003 U.S.App.LEXIS 25317
(9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2003).

Since 1996, California's Compassionate Use Act has permitted seriously
ill people to use marijuana if their doctors approve. Yet the federal
government has refused to abide by California's law, saying that all
marijuana use is a federal crime. Since Sept. 11, 2001, alone, Drug
Enforcement Agency and other federal agents have terrorized over 35
California users or providers of medical marijuana.

Angel McClary Raich, one of the appellants in the 9th Circuit case, is
battling an inoperable brain tumor. She lives in chronic pain,
constantly nauseated and emaciated. The other appellant, Diane Monson,
has a degenerative disease of the spine and suffers chronic muscle

Both women's doctors approved of their medical use of marijuana. Raich's
doctor tried over 35 pharmaceutical medicines before marijuana, but all
of them produced intolerable side effects and had to be discontinued.
Marijuana not only has provided these women with some degree of relief,
but also has been a lifesaver, at least for Raich. Her doctor testified
that foregoing marijuana treatment could prove fatal.

Patients like Raich and Monson, who are battling serious illnesses,
should not be saddled with the additional burden of battling with their
own government. But that's exactly what is happening in the war on

In conventional wars, like the ongoing war in Iraq, the U.S. government
is supposed to recognize certain limits, such as identifying enemy
combatants and sparing civilians. The government must remove the sick
and the wounded from the battlefield and care for them, even if they are
enemy soldiers. The first pictures broadcast after the capture of Saddam
Hussein showed him receiving medical care.

But in the war on drugs, a war that the federal government is fighting
against our own civilian population, the government recognizes few, if
any, limits. This is a war fought indiscriminately, by spraying
machine-gun fire at anything that moves, even the sick and wounded.

When civilian atrocities occur during a war, it raises troubling
questions about the overall legitimacy of that war. War is never easy on
civilians, but it's another matter entirely when the government
intentionally targets them.

While the 9th Circuit's opinion is narrowly limited to patients who use
marijuana for medical purposes in compliance with state law, it begs the
question of why exactly the federal government is hell-bent on waging
war against peaceful adults who smoke marijuana for pleasure or
relaxation. Wouldn't that money be spent better helping heroin and other
drug addicts get treatment, educating our children or providing decent
healthcare for older Americans?

The starting salary for a Drug Enforcement Agency agent is $40,000 year,
which is almost exactly what a new registered nurse earns. Sick people
are served better by nurses than by DEA agents.

Likewise, the average yearly salary for a starting teacher is $30,000,
meaning that for every three DEA agents sent to bust medical-marijuana
patients, we could have four new teachers.

Marijuana is illegal because many people enjoy its psychological and
physical effects. Instead of a glass of wine, they rather would have a
joint. But as long as they aren't causing harm, what business is it of
the federal government? To justify federal law-enforcement intervention
in such cases under the guise of regulating interstate commerce is
stretching it, to say the least.

Regardless of what they think about federal marijuana laws in general,
the vast majority of Americans believe that if a doctor recommends
medical marijuana, then a patient shouldn't be made a federal criminal
for following his or her doctor's advice. A Pew Research poll conducted
in 2001 found that 73 percent of Americans support permitting doctors to
prescribe marijuana for their patients.

Arresting and terrorizing patients like Raich in the name of the war on
drugs is like arresting Vicodin-taking cancer patients because other
people, like Rush Limbaugh, use it for non-medical purposes. It turns
logic on its head.

The 9th Circuit's decision speaks loud and clear: Enough is enough. Like
in its decision last year upholding the First Amendment right of doctors
to talk about medical marijuana with their patients (Conant v.
Walters(9th Cir 2002) 309 F.3d 629, cert denied Oct. 14, 2003), the
court in Raich is sending a message to the executive and legislative
branches: There are limits on federal power.

Waging war on sick people who are following their doctor's
recommendation in accordance with state law is one of those limits. This
not only is reasonable, but also is just and compassionate - virtues
that the federal government's all-encompassing war on drugs is
lamentably lacking.

The federal government is supposed to have only the limited powers
granted to it by the Constitution. The federal government's power to
create criminal laws is strictly limited to regulating activities that
cross state lines or that have a substantial economic affect on
interstate commerce.  (United States v. Morrison (2000) 529 U.S. 598.)

Neither Raich nor Monson were engaged in interstate commerce when they
smoked marijuana to lessen their suffering. The marijuana that they used
came entirely from within California.

In fact, no "commerce" was involved. Raich's marijuana was given to her
for free, and Monson grew her own. “The cultivation, possession, and use
of marijuana for medicinal purposes and not for exchange or distribution
is not properly characterized as commercial or economic activity.
Lacking sale, exchange or distribution, the activity does not possess
the essential elements of commerce.” Likewise, their personal medical
use of marijuana in no way produced a "substantial effect on interstate

Although it's shameful to continue harassing Raich and Monson, the
Justice Department nonetheless is expected to appeal the 9th Circuit
decision. It likely will reach the U.S. Supreme Court next year.

Richard Glen Boire is legal counsel for the Center for Cognitive Liberty
& Ethics in Davis, a public education, law and policy center working to
defend and promote the rights of the mind.

You received this message because you joined the
Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CCLE)
e-mail alerts and announcements list.

Please forward this message to others
who may be interested.

To Subscribe send a blank e-mail to:

To unsubscribe, scroll down.

The Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics, is entirely funded by grants and 
the tax-deductible contributions of members and allies. Your contribution is 
necessary to continue our efforts to protect the full potential of the human 

Please make a donation or become a member now. Visit:

- --^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: 

Or send an email to: 

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
- --^----------------------------------------------------------------

Worried about inbox overload? Get MSN Extra Storage now!


End of MAPTalk-Digest V03 #288

Mark Greer ()         ___ ___     _ _  _ _
Media Awareness Project              /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651                        | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258                (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759                                         | |
URL:                      (_)

HomeBulletin BoardChat RoomsDrug LinksDrug News
Mailing ListsMedia EmailMedia LinksLettersSearch