Skip to main content

Latest

Chronicle
Chronicle

Solicitud: Hay una victoria en obras, con su ayuda

Nuestra campaña de varios años para revocar una ley infame que niega la ayuda financiera a estudiantes en razón de condenaciones por delitos de drogas puede llegar pronto a una conclusión exitosa.
Chronicle

Semanal: Blogueando en el Bar Clandestino

Ya es hora de que el secretario antidroga dimita, El senador Coburn cree que la policía debería disparar contra sospechosos de delitos de drogas por la espalda, Clinton promete terminar los allanamientos federales contra los dispensarios de marihuana medicinal, La diferencia entre cultivadores de marihuana y terroristas, La posición de Rudy Giuliani sobre el Oxycontin y la terapia del dolor está correcta, Cuando la supervisión es en serio: Waxman persigue a Walters por politizar su gabinete y más...
In The Trenches

Eurodrug: UK Government's Reponse to Petition to Prime Minister to Legalise Cannabis

This is more or less a copy of the reply sent to individuals who write to the Government about cannabis. Visit the petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cannabis/ ------------------------------------------------------ 13 July 2007 We received a petition asking: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis." Details of Petition: "Prohibition does not work. Any possible dangers the government believes to be involved in the use of cannabis can only increase the need for the government to take the control of it's supply away from criminals and regulate it as alcohol and tobacco are regulated. Add to this the proven medicinal uses of cannabis and it's religious use throughout the world, for which prohibition is illegal under human rights law, and legalisation can be the only logical way forward." Read the Government's response: Thank you for your petition seeking the legalisation of cannabis. The Government has no intention of legalising cannabis. In response to the Home Affairs Committee report on The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working? in 2002, we stated that "We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs" and that includes cannabis. Whilst there is every sympathy for those with debilitating illnesses and chronic pain who are looking to alleviate their symptoms and who may not find adequate relief from existing medication. The Government's view that cannabis is and will remain a controlled, illicit drug for good reasons. When recommending the reclassification of the drug from Class B to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs asked for it to be clearly understood that cannabis is unquestionably harmful. It has a number of acute and chronic health effects and prolonged use can induce dependence. Most cannabis is smoked and smoking, in any form, is dangerous. Even the occasional use of cannabis can pose significant dangers for people with mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, and particular efforts need to be made to encourage abstinence in such individuals. The Government believes that it clearly makes sense, on health grounds, for cannabis to remain a controlled drug whose unauthorised production (including cultivation), supply and possession for whatever purpose are and will remain illegal. The Government understands the reasons for your opposition to the prohibition of cannabis and your support for legalisation of the drug and control of its quality in a regulated way. However, we have concluded that the disadvantages of legalisation would outweigh the benefits. Legalisation would run counter to the Government's health and education messages. Our message to all - and to young people in particular - is that all controlled drugs, including cannabis, are harmful and no one should take them. To legalise the possession of cannabis for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse. The Government's objective is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs - including cannabis - substantially, not to encourage increased consumption due to more ready access to increased supply. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation. Among other things, the prohibition on cannabis and many other drugs was introduced by UN Convention specifically for protecting public health and welfare. On the human rights front, it is widely agreed that the law has a function in protecting public health and welfare, including protecting people from the consequences of their own actions - compare, for example, speed limits, seat belts, safety and crash helmets, tobacco health warnings, etc. The Government must balance the rights of individuals on the one hand and the greater public health and welfare considerations on the other. Whilst the Government has no intention of legalising the use of cannabis in its raw form for medicinal purposes, we have said that we would seek Parliament's agreement to make any necessary changes to the law to enable the prescription of cannabis-based medicine, for the purposes of relieving pain, but not before the granting of product approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). It would not be appropriate for the Government to circumvent or undermine the well-established process attached to the evaluation of the safety, quality and effectiveness of all prospectively prescribable products by the MHRA. It is a process, which is designed to protect public health. Doctors must be confident about what they prescribe. In order to protect public health, the Government faces difficulty in making any changes to the law unless and until we are satisfied that the benefits have been formally established by the statutorily recognised means. This position is supported by the British Medical Association.
Chronicle
Chronicle
Chronicle

Reportaje: Marihuana medicinal – Un informe de progreso

Hace once años, ningún estadounidense contaba con la protección de una ley estadual sobre la marihuana medicinal. Ahora, unos 50 millones la tienen, pero eso significa que 250 millones no. Aunque se haya hecho progreso, ello ha sido lento y hay mucho que hacer.
Latest News
Blog

To Spark a Resolution, from "letters to Congress"

more on "jamwave.com/IrpSnerple" To Spark A Resolution Today is one of those “daze” when my depression balances on the verge of “letting me leave this world behind,” and/or “staying to fulfill the reason I believe is my reason to be.”
Blog

David Murray Lies About Steve Kubby's Position on Medical Marijuana

Via DrugWarRant, here's a glimpse at the brilliant methods of ONDCP Chief Scientist David Murray.

First, recall Steve Kubby's brief imprisonment last year. Due to his unique medical condition, many people were concerned that Kubby might not survive being denied access to medical marijuana while in jail. He survived thanks to Marinol and said this about the experience:

"During that time I experienced excruciating pain, a vicious high blood-pressure crisis, passed blood in my urine and I lost 33 pounds. However, there was also good news. I learned that Marinol is an acceptable, if not ideal, substitute for whole cannabis in treating my otherwise fatal disease. Now I am a free man and I am profoundly grateful to be alive and to have friends and supporters such as you."

Testifying before Congress last week, David Murray then twisted Kubby's statement into a pretzel, casting it as a complete reversal of his position on medical marijuana in general:

Founding proponents of medical marijuana in the United States have reversed their key positions of support for medical marijuana. [...] Steve Kubby, another Co-founder of medical marijuana in California stated in a letter to supporters on April 14th, 2006 that "Marinol is an acceptable, if not ideal, substitute for whole cannabis in treating my otherwise fatal disease."

Steve Kubby was just glad to be alive. He lost 33 pounds. He was pissing blood. If that sounds like an endorsement of Marinol as an alternative to whole cannabis, your name must be David Murray. The guy gets caught lying every time he opens his mouth, but this is obscene and disgusting, even by Murray's rock-bottom standards.

It would serve the U.S. Congress well to understand that David Murray does things like this. His claim that Steve Kubby changed his position on medical marijuana is a perfect example of the boundless dishonestly of which he is capable, and in fact specializes in.

This is the typical behavior that can be expected from the very Serious, Scientific, and Responsible people at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Don't bother asking why it is necessary for them to lie shamelessly about what Steve Kubby has said. They lie to our elected representatives only because they care about us. So we should be grateful that they are as good at lying as they are, lest we should be legally allowed to select medicines based on our experience rather than theirs.

Blog

Drug Czar Says Pot Growers are "Terrorists"

The escalating lunacy of Drug Czar John Walters becomes more apparent all the time:
John P. Walters, President Bush's drug czar, said the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties.
…

"These people are armed; they're dangerous," he said. He called them "violent criminal terrorists." [Redding.com]
So when Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff warned of an imminent terrorist attack this summer, did he mean that someone was planning on planting some pot in the woods?

Hopefully not, but it should come as no surprise that the people responsible for U.S. marijuana policy actually believe that they're fighting terrorists. Nothing could better explain their behavior or more perfectly illustrate the sheer mania by which they are driven.

All we need now is for the national media to report on ONDCP's unsightly divorce from reality, which can be easily documented and displayed. When the drug czar hallucinates violently onstage, spewing unfathomably bizarre exaggerations, it should be fairly clear that something has gone terribly wrong and that his microphone must be turned off immediately before he speaks again.

This is truly a definitive moment in the drug policy debate; a crystal clear depiction of the limitless enthusiasm of the drug czar's office for saying absolutely anything. Even people with no sympathy for drug policy reform should be asking questions about the fundamental competence and sanity of our top anti-drug officials.

Unless, of course, this is all a cynical plot to send Ed Rosenthal to Guantanamo Bay.