Breaking News:EVENT: "The Continuing Detention of Senator Leila de Lima," UN Human Rights Council, Geneva and Online

The Economist Calls Medical Marijuana Patients “Stoners”

Why can’t The Economist acknowledge the political progress of marijuana policy reform without resorting to derogatory stereotypes?

Meanwhile stoners continued their slow, shuffling march to social acceptance. Massachusetts voters decided to downgrade possession of less than an ounce of cannabis to an infraction, punishable by a mere $100 fine. Michigan legalised medicinal marijuana.

Grow up. This isn’t a joke, not anymore. In Massachusetts, voters overwhelming supported reforming harsh marijuana laws that ruin lives. It’s not about getting stoned. It’s about getting an education and getting a job.

In Michigan, voters overwhelmingly agreed that it’s wrong to arrest seriously ill patients for using medical marijuana on the advice of their doctors. What the hell does that have to do with being a "stoner"? Seriously, I’d like to know. This isn’t journalism, it’s childish name-calling.

If anyone remains confused about what marijuana policy reform really is, this ought to answer your questions:
Permission to Reprint: This article is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!

getting stoned

In Massachusetts, voters overwhelming supported reforming harsh marijuana laws that ruin lives. It’s not about getting stoned. It’s about getting an education and getting a job.

Of course it's about getting stoned. Why do people smoke pot? Do you think it's to get an education and a job? Of course not. It's to get stoned. According to the new law, if you get stoned you won't be subject to arrest and criminal charge; at worst, you'll pay a fine you can mail in like a traffic ticket.

Of course it's about getting stoned.

rachelrachel

borden's picture

Hmm, does any use of

Hmm, does any use of marijuana constitute "getting stoned"? That's kind of like saying that any use of alcohol is equivalent to getting drunk, which we all know is not the case.

I've never used marijuana, but I have heard that people use it for a lot of other things besides getting stoned. Help with relaxing, medical uses (Massachusetts doesn't have a medical law yet), for example.

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

Hmm, does any use of

Hmm, does any use of marijuana constitute "getting stoned"?

That's kind of like saying that any use of alcohol is equivalent to getting drunk, which we all know is not the case.

I don't drink alcohol. Why? Because I don't want to get drunk. So when people say they are drinking but not to get drunk, well, I just don't buy it. And I've watched people who were supposedly "not getting drunk," and they sure were acting drunk.

If you're an Episcopalian and you take the Eucharist by going up to the altar rail and taking a tiny, tiny sip of wine, then, you're drinking but not to get drunk. But if you have a can of beer to relax, to loosen up, to unwind, well, in that case I'd have to say the "relaxation" that one experiences is in fact a form of alcohol intoxication.

I've never used marijuana, but I have heard that people use it for a lot of other things besides getting stoned. Help with relaxing, medical uses (Massachusetts doesn't have a medical law yet), for example.

I would consider "relaxing" with the aid of a drug the same as getting stoned. There are medical uses, but bona fide medical users make up a small fraction of all those using the drug.

So I think the vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so to get drunk, and the vast majority of people who consume marijuana do so to get stoned.

I stand by my earlier post; the new initiative is mostly about how the law is going to treat people who get stoned.

rachelrachel

??

First you said it was about getting stoned, then the head of StoptheDrugWar.org points out that he doesn't get even stoned, and now you've changed your statement to say that its about how we treat people who get stoned.

Maybe that's what you meant all along, but you should be careful going around acting like you know what people's motives are. For second there it sounded like you were agreeing with the Economist's suggestion that reformers are all stoners who want to get stoned.

sorry

First you said it was about getting stoned, then the head of StoptheDrugWar.org points out that he doesn't get even stoned, and now you've changed your statement to say that its about how we treat people who get stoned.

I was disagreeing with Scott (or at least what I thought Scott was saying), and that's why I echoed his language. He said, "It isn't about getting stoned," so my rejoinder was, "Of course it's about getting stoned."

Perhaps I could have been clearer with my first utterance. But the new law is about getting stoned, just as a speed limit law is about driving cars, and a sales tax law is about buying and selling stuff. So if somebody is saying "It's not about getting stoned," I have to disagree with that.

Maybe that's what you meant all along, but you should be careful going around acting like you know what people's motives are.

I don't know what people's motives are. I was talking about what the law was about, not the motives of the people who were pushing it.

For second there it sounded like you were agreeing with the Economist's suggestion that reformers are all stoners who want to get stoned.

I don't think they are saying that. "Meanwhile stoners continued their slow, shuffling march to social acceptance." By that, I think, they mean that "stoners" are gradually becoming more and more socially acceptable. And I think that's right.

I don't see where the Economist is saying that all reformers are stoners.
I think you're misinterpreting the article.

On the other hand, maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Sorry if I expressed myself in a way that led people to misinterpret me.

rachelrachel

Whatever

If I take marinol for nausea that's not getting stoned. If I take a couple drags for the same reason, neither is that. Marijuana reform isn't about getting stoned just like ending alcohol prohibition wasn't about getting drunk.

Getting Stoned?

Dearest rachelrachel, It would be so wonderful to live in your perfect little world. No puking your guts up from chemo, no eating disorders, no glaucoma. I rather think you probably work for the alcohol industry or your a prison guard looking for more overtime in our overcrowded prisons. In fact, you are probably so perfect, you are way too good for this planet and all of us infallible humans, so why not leave it. It would go along way in relieving the world of one more gas bag like yourself.

Impressive!

Rachelrachel, it sounds like you know about everything! The issue here is that one group of people who does not find the behavior of another group of people acceptable is using immature name calling to single out a single group of people. If you knew about the pharmacology of cannabis or had tried it maybe I would respect your thoughts but you are speaking from a true "point of ignorance" so you have know room to decide what is occurring with people consciousness. Thats really what the issue is, the right to control/affect your consciousness.

Duh...

"It" is about getting stoned without threat of losing job or student loan over the "offense". Get "it"? Now MA has elevated Cannabis prohibition to the same deal as that of 18th amendment alcohol-- now the police can let the users alone, and go after their friends from which they acquired the herb. Isn't that just special?

The chaos and gross injustice, black-market fueled crime and violence will only cease when any adult with sufficient credentials to buy whiskey and cigars is able to choose the non-toxic herb at the same venue. Bottom line.

Give me a break

This is nonsense. Huge numbers of people voted for this who don't even smoke pot. Those that do can already get stoned if they want. The frequency with which people in Massachusetts get stoned won't change. What will change is the number of people whose futures are placed in jeopardy by cruel punishments, and that's exactly why it won so decisively.

getting stoned

Huge numbers of people voted for this who don't even smoke pot.

They voted for it because they didn't think that criminal prosecution was warranted against people whose only crime was getting stoned. As the Economist writer wrote, it reflects a movement toward social acceptance of "stoners."

Those that do can already get stoned if they want.

Yes, but now they don't face criminal prosecution. The people who are most affected by this new law are the ones who get stoned.

The frequency with which people in Massachusetts get stoned won't change.

Maybe not. On the other hand, maybe it will. I keep hearing people saying that more lenient laws aren't going to make people more likely to use drugs, but this seems more like an article of faith than based on evidence. Yes, I know you can quote all kinds of studies, but so can the other side. The truth is that we don't know.

I think that it is likely that liberalized laws will have a small but significant upward effect on rates of drug use.

What will change is the number of people whose futures are placed in jeopardy by cruel punishments, and that's exactly why it won so decisively.

I would have voted for the measure, too, but not because I thought people were put in jeopardy by "cruel punishments," or anything like that.

As I've pointed out, arrests for marijuana possession are not at all common in MA (about 1 such arrest for every 1000 residents) and there's no jail time -- just probation -- for the first offense. After successful completion of the probation, the record is expunged.

How is this different from what I faced in Maryland some years back? Simple possession of marijuana held a maximum sentence of a year, which of course was rarely applied if you plead guilty, so I got six months probation. I didn't particularly like it, to call it "cruel punishment" would be the absolute height of self-indulgence.

So, from my reading -- and I've been pulling my data from a NORML site -- it looks like the biggest change would be that people would pay a fine instead of -- as I did -- get taken down to the police station, appear in court, plead guilty, and serve probation. I've been through it, and I didn't think it was a particularly big deal.

Yes, I'm glad that it passed. I would have voted for it, but ultimately I don't see that it really makes a huge difference. We have a state where MJ possession is treated as a petty crime and infrequently prosecuted. Now it's treated like a traffic ticket.

The people facing cruel punishments are those who are arrested with cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other "hard" drugs. If the public really wanted to protect people from cruel punishments, maybe an initiative reducing the severity of punishment for these drugs would have passed.

There was such an initiative, California Prop 5, and as we all know, that one went down in flames. The pot initiatives passed, because smoking pot has become kind of acceptable, or at least not as UNacceptable as using these other drugs.

that was me, by the way

rachelrachel

I think....

you need to keep putting in your two cents here and elsewhere Rachelrachel. You have an interesting way of looking at things, and a talent for debating and writing.

Everyone needs people that challenge, or appear to challenge their views. I think it helps both sides get closer to the truth and brings up points that may be thrown into the ring against us later.

Thanks.

( I fully support Dave and others here at Stop the Drug War, but found Rachelrachel's discourses very interesting. )

I think that it is likely

I think that it is likely that liberalized laws will have a small but significant upward effect on rates of drug use.

What's more liberal than allowing criminal groups to dominate the marijuana market and dealers selling this stuff around high schools and colleges? This year the vast majority of police officers in this country will be lucky to make one arrest for a marijuana law violation while 25 million people will continue to consume marijuana. Tobacco cigarettes are legally allowed to be regulated, no politician would be stupid enough to say kids think they are safe to use because the govt allows a regulated tobacco market to exist, and in every large city surveyed by the CDC cigarette consumption has been cut in half over the past 10 years and has fallen below marijuana use among high school kids. The only thing "marijuana prohibition" prohibits is every effective regulation over the marijuana market.

borden's picture

The Economist

In defense of The Economist, I should mention that the magazine played a significant role getting me interested in the legalization cause, back in the early '90s. Back then they were writing about legalization almost every week. So The Economist shares indirect responsibility for the founding of DRCNet.

Still, Scott is right about this particular comment.

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

Economist Should Lead Not Follow

Scott,

Thank you for pointing this out -- I, too, was taken aback when I read this, and you just inspired me to e-mail them my feelings.

The Economist (which believes in ending drug prohibition) should be one of the sensible points of light leading the way, not promoting stereotypes through name calling. Would the editors at The Economist call the losers of California's gay marriage proposition "homos," "fags," or "queers"? I think not.

My husband and I have been using cannabis for twenty-plus years, we have three wonderful, intelligent, well-adjusted children, pay our taxes, and participate in all sorts of community groups and events. We are not "stoners" -- we are good people who choose to use a drug much safer than alcohol, period.

Also, let's not forget that Massachusetts voters could have never won this reform if it wasn't for the fact that most of the people voting for it aren't even cannabis consumers -- they simply understand that decriminalization -- and hopefully, eventually legalization -- is a better policy.

-- Sandy

Marijuana and violent behavior.

Out of the hundreds of one on one fistfights I have witnessed in my life - Inever saw a fight where both of the fighters were "hopped" on weed. Never once.

Addendum

Also, as an addendum to my earlier post. Today there exists a group of less than 2,000 men who control Uganda and large parts of the countries adjacent to that blood soaked piece of real estate. What they do to control millions upon millions of people can only be described as demonic. Their actions for the last twenty years compete with the likes of Hitler. In sheer size, scope and length and absolute and total fear instilled, they would be the knew Mongols, or Khans. Except there are only 2,000 of them.

They are called the "Lord's Resistance Army. They are funded by anything, including large amounts of narcoterrorist dollars. You can read all about them at "The Economist" at this web link below:

http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=...

WEll, they finally decided a weed that used to grow wild throughout the entire USA (including large fields next to the white house) was perhaps not so much "madness" at all. I would like to hear the Economist call the Acholi of Uganda "cowards" for being to scared to fight them, even though the odds are tens of thousands to one.

And, let's either drop some marijuana on the LRA in one of their jungle redoubts to either get them to quit, or be to stoned to fight back when justice finally comes - provided at least ONE other NATO or major UN country gets involved.

And may they meed the real Real Lord's army. And that right soon.

Shame on you "Economists".

Reality

Stay positive people, 3,000 Massachusetts students aren't going to be losing their financial aid every year due to question two and that is a step in the right direction to solving our nation's substance abuse issues.

And don't forget...

...only dopes call it dope. Demonization is one form of propaganda,and it works. Regulation works, control does not.

some common sense please

The bottom line here is "who's gd business is it if I relax in front of the t.v. with cannabis"? Call me a stoner if you want and I'll simply continue to call you an asshole. But if you break into my house to impose your "war" on me then I should be allowed to kill you.

Sam Sharp

I am a user.

YUP, I'm a user. Am I a stoner? Decide for yourself. I am a white male, I turned sixty eight years old in August of this year. I'm kinda shut-in, since I have glaucoma, and only partial sight in my right eye. Left eye, not even a sign of light. I have been told, in a round about sort of way, I may be able to continue to see, as long as I use cannabis along with my very expensive eyedrops. My Dr. cannot even discuss it with me, he might lose his license. So someone else had to take me outside and talk to me about being a criminal. Do I enjoy the stoned feeling? Sometimes, I do get angry thinking about going blind. But a couple of hits and the anger calms, and isn't that the purpose of most medicines? However, I live in Arkansas, here a roach can get you a year in lockup, an $1800 fine and a criminal record. That's what you get here in the bible belt, for trying to keep from going completely blind.

You've got to be kidding me...

Are you people for real? Since when is "stoner" or getting "stoned" a derogatory term? It's especially weird coming from people who claim to smoke pot (for whatever reason) - yet still claim to be offended by the words "stoner" or "stoned". Give me a break.

And another thing - anyone who actually reads the Economist would know they meant nothing by the term "stoner" - they often enjoy using slang terms and I'm sure they were not being derogatory at all.

Sheesh - what does this all have to do with ending the stupid "war on drugs"?

Right now, due to years of

Right now, due to years of reefer madness propaganda, marijuana consumers are considered criminal and morally wrong in the eyes of the mainstream. Sure there has been recent success toward reform. But the term "stoner" means someone who has escaped reality and vegitated one's consciousness. The funny thing is, a person who drinks too much is the real 'stoner.'

The marijuana experience, however, is a hightened awareness. It is my oppinion that natural psychedelics shift one's consciouness into alternate dimensions that the conscious mind can percieve. In other words, the effect allows additional input to the consciousness. So the consciousness is used creatively, not shut off.

Drug warriors and their stooges would have you believe that sniffing glue and smoking pot is the same thing. Basically, stoners are anybody they choose to not like. In my opinion, the drug war, and it's propaganda, is committing serious human rights violations.

Of course, between two stoners, as with between two African Americans, it is cool to use the derogatory. Still the mainstream is not part of the session, so they should treat things as informative and neutral.

Usually, the Economist is great on this issue...

I am glad Scott called them on the "stoner" crap, but The Economist has been great on the medical cannabis issue in the past. I wonder if they are trying to fit in with Gordon “cannabis on the streets is now of a lethal quality” Brown (there's a lot of pressure to help spread propaganda).

But one of my favorite quotes came from a great Economist article on medical marijuana:

“If Cannabis were unknown, and bio-prospectors were suddenly to find it in some remote mountain crevice, its discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would praise its potential for treating everything from pain to cancer, and marvel at its rich pharmacopoeia — many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body."

"Reefer Madness, Marijuana Is Medically Useful Whether Politicians Like It or Not," The Economist, April 29, 2006

The Importance of Proper Word Selection

Word selection is important and journalists (not to mention lawyers) understand this.

One could argue that the War on Drugs continues to exist due to prohibitionists basically swapping the words use and abuse to their convenience.

The word stoned, which I'm guessing is based on the word stone, at least seems to suggest a completely motionless person (perhaps the result of many bong hits of strong marijuana).

A stoner, at least it would seem, is someone who experiences that motionless state regularly.

I have never heard of someone having a beer or a glass of wine with dinner referred to as a drunk before this comment thread. A beer or a glass of wine doesn't generally even constitute a buzz.

The amount of substance intake counts when it comes to differentiating use from abuse, so having the same word to describe the result of one beer versus two cases begs the kind of confusion that keeps drug prohibition going.

Marijuana can be used responsibly, and there is no credible evidence concluding otherwise.

A stoner does not sound like a responsible marijuana user (one who uses in moderation).

Whether the word stoner is derogatory or not, use of stoner is a poor word selection when it comes to writing about the general marijuana-using population, because it is inaccurate to say the least.

We're not slowly shuffling. We're winning strong. The only thing slowing down progress is many in the mainstream media who talk the talk when it comes to the journalism code of ethics, but to avoid jeopardizing access to law enforcement, inevitably fail to walk the walk.

Rachel Stinks

Any use is abuse, unless it is the Blood of Christ ...sounds like Rachel has been listening to the ONDCP & the DEA too much.

Get Thee Behind Me, Satan, whoever the Hell you are. You smell like Cotton Mather-Farts.

Here's how the Episcopal Church really feels about medical marijuana:

"The Episcopal Church urges the adoption by Congress and all states of statutes providing that the use of marijuana be permitted when deemed medically appropriate by duly liscensed medical practitioners."

-- 67th Convention of the Episcopal Church, B-004a, 1982

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

Stoner?

My name is moldy and I'm a PC... er stoner. ;-)

Brinna's picture

The use of the word stoner is meant to trivialize the issue

I am glad that Stopthedrugwar.org picked up on the use of stoner in this article. This is what I said to the economist when I wrote to them:

"Meanwhile stoners continued their slow, shuffling march to social acceptance."

Those of us who are working hard for cannabis reform are not 'stoners'. In fact, I don't know any stoners. I know medical cannabis patients who have suffered the side effects of conventional drugs, and resorted to cannabis when nothing else helped them. I know people who use cannabis to enliven their creativity. I know people who use cannabis as a sacrament. I know people who use cannabis to relax, get rid of their migraines, or simply to fall asleep.

Why do these perfectly ordinary citizens deserve the derogatory epithet stoner? Why does the author of this article use the insulting imagery of a slow, shuffling march?

The overreaching intrusion into personal life, and the abrogation of our constitutional rights is not a laughing matter. When our governments resources are spent to undermine the will of the people, as the DEA does by raiding medical cannabis dispensaries in California; when critical research into the powerful potential of cannabinoid medicines is squelched by our government's inane drug policies; when a whole agricultural industry based on hemp products is irrationally outlawed -- this is a call for a revolutionary change, not a couple of yuks.

I expected better from The Economist.

Real Culprits: WSJ, for starters

And the Wall St. Journal loves using the word "dope," when discussing medical marijuana, to do their part in conflating medical marijuana with heroin, needles, and death. Of course word choice is deliberate. That's what journalists do: choose words.

Why are some of our more reputable media outlets still stuck in the 1930s, when it comes to medical marijuana? If the WSJ covered financial topics in such a wildly biased, irresponsible and negligent fashion, they'd lose most of their readers in a few months.

Here's how we end the media and politician hatchet jobs on medical marijuana:

If anybody has some time and money, we need a website solely devoted to tracking two things:

1. The media's coverage of medical marijuana. EVERY MSMedia article "tagged", analyzed, dissected, and PUBLICIZED. All journalists of biased articles be followed up with polite:

a. emails
b. letters
c. phone calls to journalist
d. faxes
e. letters to the editor
f. phone calls to the editor

2. ALL of our politicians' stances and attitudes toward medical marijuana.

We need to politely "leverage" the politician-liars, fools, cowards and crooks by holding them accountable for their lies and ignorance regarding medical marijuana. Make them think twice about spreading disinformation:

a. All stances (state and fed politicians) documented, dissected and analyzed.
b. All ignorant stances PUBLICIZED.
c. All politicians with ignorant stances should be written, called, and even VISITED by real patients, if possible.
d. All ignorant politicians be provided with reputable information & research and followed up with on this research. Develop relationships with their aides. Work them.
e. Website should have "liar/fool of the week" to publicize the politicians who perpetuate this very real war on patients, doctors and medicine.

At this point, the media and our politicians can say pretty much say anything about medical marijuana, without consequence. We need to begin to hold them accountable for their lies, half-truths, and exaggerations.

In short, the media and politicians still spellbound by "reefer madness" or still spouting deliberate lies need to be called on it CONSTANTLY by a credible, organized medical marijuana WAR ROOM.

Good job catching this one, Scott!

Access And Money

Not to ignore your good suggestions to expose the lies, but to address an important facet of your post:

"Why are some of our more reputable media outlets still stuck in the 1930s, when it comes to medical marijuana? If the WSJ covered financial topics in such a wildly biased, irresponsible and negligent fashion, they'd lose most of their readers in a few months."

Society's leaders are generally the first people to have newsworthy information, and therefore make excellent sources.

Mainstream journalists rely on access to those leaders to get better information sooner than the competition. Access is critical to mainstream journalists.

These reputable media outlets are businesses, and so the first priority must be a healthy financial flow (more money coming in than going out).

These outlets have to factor in the cost of jeopardizing their access, and the cost of digging up the truth (versus just echoing what an official says).

If the people's right to know conflicts with financial health, financial health must come first for them.

In the past, it would have been nearly impossible for the mainstream media to suffer from ignoring the truth, because they had a vastly superior "megaphone" to fight off opposition.

While their megaphone can still be considered superior, the open Internet has made it possible for people like us to regularly publish (and substantiate) the truth, shining a bright light on the mainstream media's consistent lying (throughout their history), a major threat that has already left a mark.

To protect powerful liars, they will attempt to control the Internet, by implementing a system allowing them to 'quietly' terminate Internet access quickly, a system that they will tell us is to protect our children.

And the public majority, uninformed as they have demonstrated to be throughout history, will support it.

We need good people in power to fight the lies.

We need good people in power to teach the truth to the public.

We need good people in power to exercise their rights responsibly.

Remember that if any of you are, or ever become, a person with power.

WEBSITE THAT TRACKS POLITICIANS & MEDIA

"If the people's right to know conflicts with financial health, financial health must come first for them."

Amen to that. That's why we got to bombard the MSmedia constantly with the truth, to counter their lies.

If our media and elected officials were constantly tracked, "tagged," and responded to by a MEDICAL CANNABIS WAR ROOM, they would be held more accountable for spreading outright lies (obama wiggled around this issue b/c the facts were flying around, when he was asked about if)...

The larger MSMedia and Dolitician-lies would soon end once politicians and the media were held to the flame of truth; and their lies were PUBLICIZED ACROSS THE GLOBE. Eventually, the sales of said media would be affected if we firmly and consistently established that they were peddling lies, half-truths, exaggerations, and outdated stereotypes.

Right now, politicians and media can say/write whatever they want about medical cannabis, regardless of whether its true. We need a national effort to correct this.

PLEASE create a website that tracks the media and politician-lies, every second of the day, and the lies will end. Two people could run the whole thing would be my guess.

WEBSITE THAT TRACKS POLITICIANS & MEDIA

btw, I don't mean to offend the DWC with this suggestion. I think the DWC rocks! And it does a great job of tracking a LOT of articles and staying completely on top of this issue. I stop in almost daily to see what Scott or the rest of DWC have written. But the DWC is covering the whole drug war, a very big task.

And btw, I really appreciated "Access & Money's" thoughtful response.

But I'm convinced if we tracked the media-lies and politician-lies like RealClearPolitics covers polls, I think the lies would really slow down.

I realize that access & money rules, but if we start tracking the media and politician-lies, one by one, and holding the liars accountable through the global media, I think we could help bypass the normal route of how the media and/or politicians respond to controversial topics, which is normally very slowly and with much bias. Play smart. Leverage the LIARS with direct but polite confrontations (CONSTANTLY) and publicize their lies (exactly like Scott publicized the Economist's less-than-flattering term, "stoner", but with graphs and charts).

tx for listening. i really love this blog and the fact that I can throw ideas out like this, no matter how far-fetched, and smart people like "Access & Money" will see them and might respond.

My local congressman?

My "local" congressman,(Mike Ross, D Ar.) sent me a reply after I asked him to support the bill put foreward by Congressman Frank (D) Ma. Now my Congressman was formerly a druggest in Hope Ar. What was his answer you ask? He actually sited the lies from DEA and ONDCP. So on Nov 4, I voted for the Green party candidate. Did he win? No, but I refuse to vote for another liar as long as I live. I think its time to take a stand, the hell with what they call us.

MIKE ROSS IS A DUNCE

mike ross is a dunce, but I wouldn't suggest telling him that.

send him the American College of Physicians' position paper on medical marijuana, to help him "catch up", and then politely follow-up to see if he actually looked at it & what does he think.

http://www.acponline.org/acp_news/medmarinews.htm

BUT DO LET THE WORLD KNOW THAT MIKE ROSS MINDLESSLY PARROTS PROPAGANDA, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ITS VERACITY!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <blockquote> <p> <address> <pre> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <br> <b>

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, 2015 Drug War Killings, 2016 Drug War Killings, 2017 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, Vaping, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Pill Testing, Safer Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Kratom, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psilocybin / Magic Mushrooms, Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School