Tweet that inspired this week's column: 420list Billionaire George Soros supports Proposition 19; Gives 1 million http://t.co/LN8IDQF On election day, California may become the first state in the union to legalize recreational marijuana use. If passed, Proposition 19 will allow residents 21 years or older to possess up to 1 ounce of pot, which they can smoke at home or in licensed establishments. Supporters of Proposition 19 claim that legalization would generate revenue, cut funding to drug cartels and stop the unjust arrests of otherwise law-abiding citizens. So, what's not to love? [continues 494 words]
Dear Editor of the Arbiter, Who do I want deciding policies that affect Me as far as cannabis (marijuana) is concerned (Fiscal Federalism: Are States Rights For Sale? Feb. 9, 2009)? Neither state or federal government has the right to prohibit, persecute or exterminate the relatively safe, god-given plant cannabis. Caging responsible adult humans for using cannabis is luciferous. It's time to Re-legalize cannabis and one reason that doesn't get mentioned is because it is Biblically correct since Christ God Our Father, the Ecologician, indicates He created all the seed-bearing plants, saying they are all good, on literally the very first page. The only Biblical restriction placed on cannabis is that it is to be accepted with thankfulness (see 1 Timothy 4:1-5). Cannabis doesn't belong to government; "For the earth is the Lord's, and all it contains" (1 Corinthians 10:26). Cannabis prohibition is the work of the devil. Stan White lives in Dillon, Colorado. [end]
Did you happen to catch the film "Super High Me?" The documentary follows comedian and former High Times "Stoner of the Year" Doug Benson as he smokes massive amounts of weed. Benson first abstains from smoking for 30 days and is given a battery of tests. After the first period of sobriety, Benson smokes copious amounts of weed for 30 days and is given the same battery of tests. The results are surprising and amusing. Just as surprising is the more serious topic addressed in the film: California's medical marijuana movement. [continues 405 words]
After watching the Broncos decimate the Ducks in Autzen Stadium, I was impressed with how well their fans took the loss. We wished them the best as we made our way out of the stadium and across the river. Upon reaching the end of the footbridge, I noticed that a local glass artist had set up a table to sell pipes in front of several thousands of football fans making their way across the river. "I figured after the loss everyone would want a little pick-me-up," the seller said when asked why he was selling in full public view. [continues 490 words]
Regarding Crystal Sistoni's thoughtful April 28 opinion editorial, if health outcomes determined drug laws instead of cultural norms, marijuana would be legal. Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to cause an overdose death, nor does it share the addictive properties of tobacco. Marijuana can be harmful if abused, but jail cells are inappropriate as health interventions and ineffective as deterrents. The first marijuana laws were enacted in response to Mexican immigration during the early 1900s, despite opposition from the American Medical Association. Dire warnings that marijuana inspires homicidal rages have been counterproductive at best. [continues 147 words]
During my 18 years as a Michigan police officer I was dispatched to zero calls generated by the use of marijuana. Whatever the science says about what good or harm it does, it is a horrendous waste of good police time chasing adult users and sellers. We have crimes which have a real victim going unsolved because we spend so much time on pot. Child porn comes to mind. Give marijuana roughly the same regulations and restrictions as alcohol and tobacco. Get this monkey off our backs! Officer Howard J. Wooldridge (retired) is an Educational Specialist for Law Enforcment Against Prohibition in Washington D.C. [end]
I would like to respond to the article titled, "Dank? No thanks." I believe parts of this article are misleading. Yes, I do agree with the short-term effects marijuana has on some people, but how do you explain the highly educated professionals of this world that smoke? There are many professionals who are accredited academics, lawyers, doctors, judges and many more that make smoking a part of their lives. It's about self-control and moderation. Anyone who lets anything take control of his or her lives has a problem. Marijuana has shown that it can help people suffering from certain illnesses. We allow doctors to give us all kinds of prescription drugs that sometimes do more harm than good. Considering the list of side effects on most prescription drugs are quite lengthy. Marijuana is sometimes taken to ease the side effects that come along with these prescription drugs. We need to use and treat marijuana as a gift for all people. It is ok if some do not want to smoke, but o! thers should be able to freely. [continues 300 words]
I just read an article by Brandon Stoker, "Shoot this idea up." I understand this is an opinion, but I have to say this opinion was really out there. I am an advocate of marijuana legalization. I have used it for a medical condition, as well as for recreational use. The government can lie all they want, but it really does have serious medical applications, and it is not the "gateway drug." I am an educated 43-year-old, that has a family, a great job, and a history of government and local service. I am a responsible adult, and a tax paying American. [continues 104 words]
Why do you believe all of the negative effects of drugs are somehow diminished with prohibition? For example, "a stoner who gets high and decides to take a spin for some munchies endangers everyone in his immediate vicinity." Exactly how does prohibition help this situation? I can get stoned and drive cross-country anytime I want. I can endanger anybody anytime, but I don't. The law has nothing to do with it. If I were unable to operate a motor vehicle while high, a police officer would notice me. They would arrest me for operating a vehicle under the influence. The influence of alcohol, LSD, or legal prescription painkillers, it makes no difference. [continues 143 words]
No amount of interdiction, prosecution, incarceration, police, judges or jails will ever, ever make a difference in terms of human beings seeking, finding, and using chemicals to alter their consciousness. It's who we are. Throughout our entire history there has been drug use and abuse. The only thing that a just society can do is choose whether to maximize the negative impact of drugs through misdirecting resources towards useless endeavors or to minimize their impact through funding education, safe injection sites, education, education, education. [continues 129 words]
As a retired police officer, I found Mr. Stoker's defense of drug prohibition so sad. He refuses to recognize that prohibition causes 75 percent of felony crime decade after decade. Drug use is a consensual act, whether it's whiskey or pot. Murder, rape, etc is a non-consensual act and will always remain illegal. As legal drugs kill at a 55:1 ratio over illegal drugs, he wants my profession to continue chasing pot smokers instead of focusing on drunk drivers who killed 17,000 innocent Americans last year. [continues 56 words]
After reading the article in the latest Arbiter entitled, "Shoot this idea up" I was rather filled with disgust. I'll cut to the chase because mincing words is immature. First off, comparing Cannabis to Methamphetamines. I don't know how Mr. Stoker can draw a line between the two besides the fact they are both illegal. Also drawing correlations between legalizing cannabis and legalizing things such as "rape, murder and grand theft" is completely preposterous. He claims that drugs are highly addictive, which they are. But cannabis is less addictive than cigarettes or alcohol. And strangely there is not a single recorded fatality associated with cannabis. Can the same claim be made for cigarettes or alcohol? [continues 187 words]
I'm writing in reference to an article by Brandon Stoker, "Shoot this idea up," and appreciate your future response to my criticism. As I am running out the door to my theoretical physics final exam, I haven't got the time to point out all the fouls in this would-be-intellectually-stimulating piece of shit. However, I will say that for this guy to make a comparison between freeing up resources by the legalization of now illegal substances and the legalization of what can only be described as violent crimes of moral turpitude is disgusting and I'm surprised to know an editor regardless of their ideals would publish such a stain as the one in question. Please let me know why such baseless ideas would be allowed to see the light of day. Chris Alameddin Texas [end]
Brandon Stoker makes the common mistake of assuming that punitive drug laws actually reduce use. The drug war is in large part a war on marijuana, by far the most popular illicit drug. The University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Study reports that lifetime use of marijuana is higher in the United States than any European country, yet America is one of the few Western countries that use's its criminal justice system to punish citizens who prefer marijuana to martinis. [continues 160 words]
I read the Opinion Editorial in the Dec. 5th issue of The Arbiter entitled, "Shoot This Idea Up." I have read many such items, and love reading them. They are usually a mix of half, quarter, and non truths-twisted around, and put together with a lot of straw man arguments. For those who do not know, a straw man argument is one where you compare two non-similar things, and claim they are the same. Mr. Stoker makes this error when he compares something done by one to oneself, such as smoke a joint, to something bad done to someone else, such as rape or assault. However, few writers, are able to encompass as many lies, damned lies and misinformation into one piece. It boggles the mind, I know not where to begin. Of course, it is much easier for gentle reader to look it up themselves. The information which puts forth the truth countering everything Mr. Stoker says is found at http://www.drugwarfacts.org/ and the distortions are summarized at www.drugwardistortions.org/. This whole opinion piece is redolent with the odor of livestock. Bruce Symington Medicine Hat, Alberta [end]
I'm writing about Brandon Stoker's not-so-thoughtful opinion "Shoot this idea up." My question for Stoker: Why does he want recreational drugs to remain completely unregulated, untaxed and controlled by criminals? Only legal products of any kind can be regulated, controlled and taxed by any government. Norm Stamper is the former Chief of Police of Seattle, Wash. and a member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). Four years ago, LEAP didn't exist. Today they have more than 4,500 members who are current or former drug warriors (Law enforcement personnel, DEA agents, judges and prosecutors). [continues 55 words]
Prohibition has enriched violent mobsters and corrupted law enforcement officials. It has caused gang warfare, stray bullets, and dead police officers. It has failed to keep drugs off our streets (or even out of our prisons and schools), and has made it easier for young people to obtain illegal substances (black market dealers don't typically ask for identification). It has even made the illegal products more dangerous, since there is no regulation of the production or distribution for quality, purity and dosage. It has pushed addicts underground, rather than into treatment. After thirty years of the drug war, children can purchase drugs on any street corner in America. [continues 64 words]
In the years I have gone to school here at Boise State, The Arbiter has always had a very liberal perspective, and didn't seem to give very good, if any coverage from a conservative perspective. Reading the articles by Brandon Stoker has provided a nice balance and better presentation of that conservative point of view. It has been a new and fresh experience, and I appreciate both his efforts, and whoever took the risk of bringing him on as an opinion writer. Both deserve congratulations for their actions. I also want to thank you for returning Dilbert to the comic's section. I always enjoy those short clips too. Rhead Hatch Boise State Graduate Student [end]
Brandon Stoker does little to further his argument against Cannabis legalization other than trot out the same tired and disproved propaganda we have heard for years from his crowd. Gateway theory? Give me a break! I've smoked Cannabis for over 30 years (with no ill effects whatsoever) and lead a happy normal productive life and have no desire to "graduate" to harder drugs. Furthermore, no one I know who still smokes has this perceived desire either. His usage of terms like "Flower children" and "Mary Jane" tip you off right away that his is nothing more than a continuation of the Culture War spawned during the 1960's that continues today. [continues 176 words]
Liberal Thinking And Legalizing Drugs Are Equally Dangerous I love reading arguments in favor of drug legalization. They often include statements to the effect of "marijuana is not as bad as smoked tobacco," or "marijuana causes fewer auto accidents than alcohol." People might as well argue "methamphetamine isn't any worse than snorting pseudo ephedrine, red phosphorous, hydrochloric acid, drain cleaner, battery acid, lye, lantern fuel and antifreeze." Apparently, these are all thoroughly convincing rationalizations that justify drug legalization. After all, lots of other things are worse than drugs. [continues 495 words]
I'm writing about Robert Sharpe's outstanding letter, "Drug war only fuels crime." I'd like to add that if tough-on-drugs policies worked, the quixotic goal of a drug free America would have been reached a long time ago. And if tolerant drug policies created more drug use, the Netherlands would have much higher drug usage rates than the United States. They do not. In fact, the Dutch use marijuana and other recreational drugs at much lower rates than Americans do. [continues 153 words]
"The United States is at war," said Micahel Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate. Badnarik spoke Thursday in the Student Union Jordan Ballroom. "I'm not talking about the war in Iraq," he continued. "We are engaged in a... war of ideas. We are in a war between individualism and collectivism."Badnarik, a self-declared expert on the Constitution, lectured to a group of around 100 supporters and students about the abuses of the Constitution throughout American history up to and including the present.One of the major themes of his lecture was a comparison of the United States with its current form and institutions to the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels. According to Badnarik, the United States is not a truly capitalist nation. "The United States is .. supposed to be the antithesis of communism," Badnarik said. "The first item in the Communist Manifesto is the abolition of private property. Our Founding Fathers said that private property was as sacred as the word of God and the communists think we're going to abolish private property."Badnarik cited the recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain and compared it with the first plank of the Communist Manifesto. "The purpose of the Constitution and the government it creates is to protect you private property," Badnarik said.Badnarik said his taxes, when he lived in California, totaled 48 percent. "When do you get to say 'alright, that's too much'?" he asked. "The founding fathers asked that same question. The Founding Fathers decided that if the government is taking or controlling one third of your productive output the system we have is no better than the feudal system we tried to replace," Badnarik said.He also spoke on topics such as the drug war. According to Badnarik, the U.S. Government has no business restricting the use of drugs. Badnarik referred to Prohibition during the early 1900s as "the first drug war.""We passed... the 18th Amendment and alcohol was now not only illegal but unconstitutional," Badnarik said. "The government ha! s no aut hority to tell you what you can or cannot drink. The 18th Amendment was technically unconstitutional."Badnarik said more people died because of alcohol during prohibition but not because they drank more. He said that it was because of the black market created by making alcohol illegal. Badnarik said he blamed bootleggers and gangsters such as Al Capone, who thrived on the underground market, for violence that resulted from a profitable black market for liquor. "We are doing the same thing with drugs," Badnarik said. He noted that Coca-Cola contained twelve grams of cocaine at one time and that opium was once available at drug stores."We didn't have the drug problem until we made it illegal, and now that it's illegal it makes a lot of money.... $10,000 to make the drugs and you can sell it for $1,000,000, and that kind of profit margin is worth killing for," Badnarik said.He also related a story of how he was arrested trying to get into a presidential debate during the last election to illustrate limitations set by government on political freedom.The lecture was followed by a question and answer period in which attendees asked about specific points of the Libertarian platform. Questions ranged from the status of Area 51 to immigration to education. [end]
Kudos to Brian Holmes for an excellent Oct. 31 column. Attempts to limit the supply of illegal drugs while demand remains constant only increase the profitability of drug trafficking. For addictive drugs like heroin, a spike in street prices leads desperate addicts to increase criminal activity to feed desperate habits. The drug war doesn't fight crime, it fuels crime. With alcohol prohibition repealed, liquor bootleggers no longer gun each other down in drive-by shootings, nor do consumers go blind drinking unregulated bathtub gin. While U.S. politicians ignore the drug war's historical precedent, European countries are embracing harm reduction, a public health alternative based on the principle that both drug abuse and prohibition have the potential to cause harm. [continues 88 words]
Out of all the thousands of words available to the American policy maker, the one most difficult to utter, even in private, is the word failure. Much in the same a way a broken 2x4 hits the gut, the word just cannot grab hold of the surrounding air and make its way from the mouths of our elected officials. But, alas, without even much provocation, the Bush Administration has done just that. By proposing a series of cuts to the grossly ineffective and asinine drug programs, our leaders are finally getting the hint: The war on drugs has been a complete and abysmal failure. However, it didn't take a mountain of evidence, criminally, socially nor judicially, to make a case strong enough to warrant the cutbacks. Instead, it took the mother of all hurricanes to stir the fiscal pot. Hurricane Katrina, followed closely by Rita, gave immediate rise to fund-raising awareness. And what better way to fund disaster relief than to kill all of those failed drug war programs that did nothing more than incarcerate generations of minority youth and petty users. But, at least the proposal makes sense to just about everyone. [continues 229 words]
A flood of emerging research and an avalanche of anecdotal evidence, and is showing medicinal cannabis' efficacy in the treatment of many diseases and conditions such as "wasting syndrome" secondary to AIDS, and cancer therapy, severe nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, and narcotic pain therapy, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's Disease) and other neurological and neuromuscular diseases as well as spinal cord injury, neuropathic and other pain, Crohn's Disease, ulcerative colitis, glaucoma, anorexia and recurrent migraines and menstrual pain. In addition, research reveals that cannabinoids (the active compounds in cannabis) are neuroprotective, slowing the advance of neuromuscular diseases. [continues 397 words]
