Thanks for the suggestions. I've passed them along to our web developer, who is preparing to do a partial redesign along with some other work. I don't know what we'll decide, but we will definitely give consideration to the possibility of changing the fonts -- perhaps even to serif and san-serif.

- Dave

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Is that what you call it when Jr high school kids get cannabis easier than they can cigarettes?! Keep up, with the same way of fighting the drug war, and you are handing these kids to the drug dealers on a silver platter. You know? Dealers don't card! And even though one dealer is caught, there are ten more willing to replace him! It is going to take some thinking out of the box to protect the kids. It certainly is not happening with the current situation. But, I don't have any young kids, so it is not a problem for me! ?

And let me get this straight. You are for letting the kids have the great access to drugs, the way it is now. Or, you do not favor regulation to keep the drugs out of the hands of kids? Regulation works pretty good with alcohol and cigarettes. Why don't you like kids?

http://www.theagitator.com/2009/11/24/and-no-one-was-ever-murdered-over-...
This is my comment on that article/link:
"I just want to know why no person arrested for the use of ANY drug has ever used the argument that such arrest (and all that follows arrest) violates his/her unalienable right to self ownership. Seems pretty obvious to me — my body, my choice; and use of any drug violates no one else’s unalienable rights."
Elaborating on that comment:
A couple of wins using that argument and drugs are effectively decriminalized -- no arrests, no convictions, no fines, no jail terms, no forced rehab. Then all that would be needed is to repeal the laws against cultivation/manufacturing and distribution.

I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!

A similar argument could be used for prostitution -- it's a consensual act by both the prostitute and his/her client so again, no violation of anyone else's unalienable rights.

I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!

Moonrider,

I didn't save a copy of the post, but I did look through it before deleting it, and I didn't see a coherent answer to any question about anything. She just thinks that people who advocate legalization are "terrorists."

If she posts anything again, I'll save a copy to email you -- unless she actually posts something coherent and generative of reasoned discussion, in which case we'll gladly leave it on the site for anyone to read.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!

Ahem.

Yes, the statement does say there is medicinal value in marijuana consumption, for at least some conditions.

The report that accompanied the statement says that rescheduling "can be supported" under certain circumstances.

They called for the research route. Previously they said leave it in schedule I. Now they're saying review that but hold off until that review is done. It's a cautious statement, sure. But they're the AMA. What do you expect? For an organization like that, this is a big shift, and it's a shift that points to bigger ones. And that's what our post says.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

From the enacted resolution:

"Our AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease."

Again: "marijuana and related cannabinoids". If it were only referring to the isolated cannabinoids, it would not have said "marijuana AND" cannabinoids. It would have just said "cannabinoids" or "cannabinoids derived from marijuana or somthing like that. They deliberately included marijuana itself, as well as cannabinoids.

Then they wrote "evidence suggests possible efficacy" as the trigger for what research should be done. They would not have passed a statement calling for research into a substance that appears to be efficacious, if the opinion were that evidence does not exist for its efficaciousness. No, useless research does not benefit the medical profession, not when time and money could be spent on useful research.

As for poppy gardens, where do you think the morphine comes from? It comes from poppies, which have to grow somewhere. Whether opium also has medicinal qualities is its own question. I don't know the answer, but generally the question of what is "more effective" or "better" depends on the individual patient -- this idea that "other medicines worl better" is a total fallacy -- that's not how individualized medical care works, and that's not the expected standard for approval of any other medicine by either the medical field or the government.

This is not about semantics. The resolution reasonably read clearly seeks to move legal medical marijuana availability forward, in a cautious, medical establishment sort of way.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org