anjeleyes77proud pagan's blog: "MJ and Legalization #2"

From: BIG POPPA PUFF Date: September 01, 2007 2:17 PM Body: By , High Times Posted on September 1, 2007, Printed on September 1, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/60959/ Editor's note: There are millions of regular pot smokers in America and millions more infrequent smokers. Smoking pot clearly has far fewer dangerous and hazardous effects on society than legal drugs such as alcohol. Here is High Times's top 10 reasons marijuana should be legal, part of its 420 Campaign legalization strategy. 10. Prohibition has failed to control the use and domestic production of marijuana. The government has tried to use criminal penalties to prevent marijuana use for over 75 years and yet: marijuana is now used by over 25 million people annually, cannabis is currently the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet. Claims that marijuana prohibition is a successful policy are ludicrous and unsupported by the facts, and the idea that marijuana will soon be eliminated from America and the rest of the world is a ridiculous fantasy. 9. Arrests for marijuana possession disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics and reinforce the perception that law enforcement is biased and prejudiced against minorities. African-Americans account for approximately 13% of the population of the United States and about 13.5% of annual marijuana users, however, blacks also account for 26% of all marijuana arrests. Recent studies have demonstrated that blacks and Hispanics account for the majority of marijuana possession arrests in New York City, primarily for smoking marijuana in public view. Law enforcement has failed to demonstrate that marijuana laws can be enforced fairly without regard to race; far too often minorities are arrested for marijuana use while white/non-Hispanic Americans face a much lower risk of arrest. 8. A regulated, legal market in marijuana would reduce marijuana sales and use among teenagers, as well as reduce their exposure to other drugs in the illegal market. The illegality of marijuana makes it more valuable than if it were legal, providing opportunities for teenagers to make easy money selling it to their friends. If the excessive profits for marijuana sales were ended through legalization there would be less incentive for teens to sell it to one another. Teenage use of alcohol and tobacco remain serious public health problems even though those drugs are legal for adults, however, the availability of alcohol and tobacco is not made even more widespread by providing kids with economic incentives to sell either one to their friends and peers. 7. Legalized marijuana would reduce the flow of money from the American economy to international criminal gangs. Marijuana's illegality makes foreign cultivation and smuggling to the United States extremely profitable, sending billions of dollars overseas in an underground economy while diverting funds from productive economic development. 6. Marijuana's legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. Canada and European countries have managed to support legal hemp cultivation without legalizing marijuana, but in the United States opposition to legal marijuana remains the biggest obstacle to development of industrial hemp as a valuable agricultural commodity. As US energy policy continues to embrace and promote the development of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil dependency and a way to reduce carbon emissions, it is all the more important to develop industrial hemp as a bio-fuel source - especially since use of hemp stalks as a fuel source will not increase demand and prices for food, such as corn. Legalization of marijuana will greatly simplify the regulatory burden on prospective hemp cultivation in the United States. 5. Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana's illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana's danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana's dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society. 4. Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco. 3. Marijuana is too expensive for our justice system and should instead be taxed to support beneficial government programs. Law enforcement has more important responsibilities than arresting 750,000 individuals a year for marijuana possession, especially given the additional justice costs of disposing of each of these cases. Marijuana arrests make justice more expensive and less efficient in the United States, wasting jail space, clogging up court systems, and diverting time of police, attorneys, judges, and corrections officials away from violent crime, the sexual abuse of children, and terrorism. Furthermore, taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs. 2. Marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects. Many people use marijuana because they have made an informed decision that it is good for them, especially Americans suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. Many American adults prefer marijuana to the use of alcohol as a mild and moderate way to relax. Americans use marijuana because they choose to, and one of the reasons for that choice is their personal observation that the drug has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects. Most marijuana users develop tolerance to many of marijuana's side effects, and those who do not, choose to stop using the drug. Marijuana use is the result of informed consent in which individuals have decided that the benefits of use outweigh the risks, especially since, for most Americans, the greatest risk of using marijuana is the relatively low risk of arrest. 1. Marijuana users are determined to stand up to the injustice of marijuana probation and accomplish legalization, no matter how long or what it takes to succeed. Despite the threat of arrests and a variety of other punishments and sanctions marijuana users have persisted in their support for legalization for over a generation. They refuse to give up their long quest for justice because they believe in the fundamental values of American society. Prohibition has failed to silence marijuana users despite its best attempts over the last generation. The issue of marijuana's legalization is a persistent issue that, like marijuana, will simply not go away. Marijuana will be legalized because marijuana users will continue to fight for it until they succeed. Learn more about High Times's 420 Campaign marijuana legalization strategy. http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/60959

Will a New Study Force Changes in Drug Law? By Bruce Mirken, AlterNet Posted on March 15, 2007, Printed on May 18, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/49159/ On March 8, a high-powered British commission recommended tossing that country's law on illegal drugs onto the scrap heap and starting over again. Given that the U.S. Controlled Substances Act parallels the British Misuse of Drugs Act in important ways, the suggestion deserves attention in America as well. Indeed, it would be a fine start if Americans could simply begin the sort of rational, thoughtful debate on drug policy that the British seem to be having. If we could manage such a thing, we might start changing illogical and unscientific laws that now lead to more U.S. arrests for marijuana possession than for all violent crimes combined. The RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy, was convened by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, a respected think tank with a 250-year history. After two years of research, this panel of experts and laypeople came to a number of conclusions so sensible and so obvious that it's astonishing how consistently our elected leaders have avoided confronting them. In particular: The notion of a drug-free society is "almost certainly a chimera. ... People have always used substances to change the way they see the world and how they feel, and there is every reason to think they always will." Therefore, "[t]he main aim of public policy should be to reduce the amount of harms that drugs cause." A policy based on total prohibition "is bound to fail." The concept of "drugs" should include tobacco and alcohol. "Indeed, in their different ways, alcohol and tobacco cause far more harm than illegal drugs." These substances should be brought into a unified regulatory framework "capable of treating substances according to the harm they cause." The heart of this new regulatory framework must be an index of substance-related harms. "The index should be based on the best available evidence and should be able to be modified in light of new evidence." We need a new way of evaluating the efficacy of drug policies. "In our view, the success of drugs policy should be measured not in terms of the amounts of drugs seized or in the number of dealers imprisoned, but in terms of the amount of harms reduced." As an example of the sort of harms index they envision, the RSA Commission points to an index developed by a pair of British scientists, David Nutt and Colin Blakemore, and published in a House of Commons report last year. Based on scientific evaluations of physical harms (e.g., acute and chronic toxicity), likelihood of dependence, and social harms (including damage done to others, health care costs, etc.), Nutt and Blakemore ranked 20 different classes of drugs, both legal and illegal. Not surprisingly, heroin was at the top of the harm scale, followed by cocaine and barbiturates. Alcohol and tobacco were rated as significantly more harmful than marijuana and several other illegal substances. While not specifically endorsing the Nutt/Blakemore index, the RSA Commission clearly considered these rankings a good example of what they have in mind, using them as a starting point for illustrations of how such an index might translate into law. Marijuana, they wrote, "should continue to be controlled. But its position on the harms index suggests that the form this control takes might have to correspond far more closely with the way in which alcohol and tobacco are regulated." Both the United States and Britain now have drug laws that rank drugs into a series of classifications. The problem -- well, at least one problem -- is that these classifications have little connection to what the science actually tells us about the dangers (or lack thereof) of different substances. Britain's version, the commission noted, "is driven more by 'moral panic' than a practical desire to reduce harm. ... It sends people to prison who should not be there. It forces people into treatment who do not need it (while, in effect, denying treatment to people who do need it)." And Britain's law is, on at least one key point, far more rational than the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. The British classify marijuana in the lowest of three classes of illicit drugs -- still illegal, but treated as less dangerous than cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine. Simple possession, without aggravating circumstances, is generally a "nonarrestable" offense. Our CSA ranks marijuana in Schedule I, the worst class of drugs -- considered not only to be at high risk of abuse but also to be unsafe for use even under medical supervision -- along with heroin and LSD. Amazingly, cocaine and meth are in Schedule II -- considered acceptable for use under medical supervision. That such a ranking is insane should not need to be stated. There are plenty of specifics in the RSA report about which reasonable people can disagree. But the important thing is not what they say about any specific drug -- and indeed, the report is careful not to advocate specific legal changes for particular drugs. What's important is that it suggests a framework that's far more rational than what now exists in the United States, Britain and most other countries: A reality-based approach rooted in sound science, focusing on how to reduce harm. Even more encouraging is the generally level-headed reaction thus far. Some commentators are arguing with parts of the report and disagreeing with some suggestions, but even critics seem to be acknowledging that the RSA has raised important issues that need serious discussion. As a commentary in the March 9 edition of the London paper the Mirror put it, "Hasn't the time now come to hold a public debate on whether our current drug prohibition is working any better than the alcohol prohibition of Al Capone's day? Aren't we now adult enough to discuss whether a legally regulated drug trade would work better than our gangster-run market? We think we are." Sadly, it's hard to imagine such a rational discussion taking place on the national stage in the United States. Meanwhile, in the time it took you to read this, 12 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges. Bruce Mirken is communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. © 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/49159/

Marijuana Gains Wonder Drug Status By Lester Grinspoon, Boston Globe Posted on March 3, 2007, Printed on May 18, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/48749/ A new study in the journal Neurology is being hailed as unassailable proof that marijuana is a valuable medicine. It is a sad commentary on the state of modern medicine -- and US drug policy -- that we still need "proof" of something that medicine has known for 5,000 years. The study, from the University of California at San Francisco, found smoked marijuana to be effective at relieving the extreme pain of a debilitating condition known as peripheral neuropathy. It was a study of HIV patients, but a similar type of pain caused by damage to nerves afflicts people with many other illnesses including diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Neuropathic pain is notoriously resistant to treatment with conventional pain drugs. Even powerful and addictive narcotics like morphine and OxyContin often provide little relief. This study leaves no doubt that marijuana can safely ease this type of pain. As all marijuana research in the United States must be, the new study was conducted with government-supplied marijuana of notoriously poor quality. So it probably underestimated the potential benefit. This is all good news, but it should not be news at all. In the 40-odd years I have been studying the medicinal uses of marijuana, I have learned that the recorded history of this medicine goes back to ancient times and that in the 19th century it became a well-established Western medicine whose versatility and safety were unquestioned. From 1840 to 1900, American and European medical journals published over 100 papers on the therapeutic uses of marijuana, also known as cannabis. Of course, our knowledge has advanced greatly over the years. Scientists have identified over 60 unique constituents in marijuana, called cannabinoids, and we have learned much about how they work. We have also learned that our own bodies produce similar chemicals, called endocannabinoids. The mountain of accumulated anecdotal evidence that pointed the way to the present and other clinical studies also strongly suggests there are a number of other devastating disorders and symptoms for which marijuana has been used for centuries; they deserve the same kind of careful, methodologically sound research. While few such studies have so far been completed, all have lent weight to what medicine already knew but had largely forgotten or ignored: Marijuana is effective at relieving nausea and vomiting, spasticity, appetite loss, certain types of pain, and other debilitating symptoms. And it is extraordinarily safe -- safer than most medicines prescribed every day. If marijuana were a new discovery rather than a well-known substance carrying cultural and political baggage, it would be hailed as a wonder drug. The pharmaceutical industry is scrambling to isolate cannabinoids and synthesize analogs, and to package them in non-smokable forms. In time, companies will almost certainly come up with products and delivery systems that are more useful and less expensive than herbal marijuana. However, the analogs they have produced so far are more expensive than herbal marijuana, and none has shown any improvement over the plant nature gave us to take orally or to smoke. We live in an antismoking environment. But as a method of delivering certain medicinal compounds, smoking marijuana has some real advantages: The effect is almost instantaneous, allowing the patient, who after all is the best judge, to fine-tune his or her dose to get the needed relief without intoxication. Smoked marijuana has never been demonstrated to have serious pulmonary consequences, but in any case the technology to inhale these cannabinoids without smoking marijuana already exists as vaporizers that allow for smoke-free inhalation. Hopefully the UCSF study will add to the pressure on the US government to rethink its irrational ban on the medicinal use of marijuana -- and its destructive attacks on patients and caregivers in states that have chosen to allow such use. Rather than admit they have been mistaken all these years, federal officials can cite "important new data" and start revamping outdated and destructive policies. The new Congress could go far in establishing its bona fides as both reasonable and compassionate by immediately moving on this issue. Such legislation would bring much-needed relief to millions of Americans suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and other debilitating illnesses. Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is the coauthor of "Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine." © 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/48749/

Salem-News.com (May-17-2007 13:56) Medical Marijuana: The Replacement for Very Dangerous Drugs Dr. Phillip Leveque for Salem-News.com Cannabis / marijuana medicines were at one time the “drugs of choice” in the United States, until they were declared illegal. They had been used for 100 specific medical problems through the use of about 30 prescription medicines. Salem-News.com (MOLALLA, Ore.) - When I was ordered before the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners, the first question I was asked by Dr. Spokas, the chairman, from Ontario, Oregon, was “Dr. Leveque don’t you know that marijuana is very addicting and very dangerous?” Frankly, I didn’t know or believe this and all of my experience with fifty years study and 4000 patients told me this was totally false, but when one is facing a “Spanish inquisition” with psychological “thumb screws” or “hanging”, I decided to answer “maybe for some people”. I didn’t believe a word of it. I didn’t dare ask where he got his information but I assumed it came from the U.S. government, which has produced false propaganda for 70 plus years. Marijuana is less addictive and less dangerous than Starbuck’s espresso. The Oregon Medical Marijuana Law allows the use of marijuana for Cancer, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s rage, Glaucoma, chronic pain, chronic nausea, chronic spasms, Multiple Sclerosis and seizures. As a retired Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, I accepted this with a grain of salt but when I started seeing patients, I was astonished and pleased that indeed the above conditions were “miraculously” alleviated by the use of medical marijuana. I was further astonished when I was told by the patients “marijuana is much better than any prescription I have been given". Further questioning of patients indicated it was better that the morphine-like painkillers, such as Oxycontin, Percodan or Demerol. It was also better than the Valium-like tranquilizers, such as Xanax, and Ambien, etc. and even the anti-depressants, such as Elavil, Trazadone, etc. and the really heavy anti-depressants, such as Prozac, Zoloft, etc. Another, almost strange, report was that it was preferred to Aspirin and Tylenol, etc. because it worked faster with no stomach or liver damage. For a retired Professor of Pharmacology, the patient’s reports were really a “blockbuster”. The biggest surprise came really quickly by Viet Nam veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. They had been given every kind of medication, which gave minimal, if any, relief and many suffers simply turned to alcohol stupefaction to blot out PTSD battle stress. The latter had become a tragedy for many as they had discovered in Viet Nam the marijuana was an excellent tranquilizer, better than any standard such drug or alcohol. Literature review for current Marijuana Therapy led me to “O’Shaughnessy, The Journal of Cannabis in Clinical Practice”, a newspaper-like magazine published by a group of California Marijuana Specialists, which are providing the cutting edge for information on the subject. California is the leading marijuana state with about 300,000 legal marijuana patients. I am not / was not surprised to see that the reports of the fifteen doctors in the journal correspond with my own experiences. In fact, Dr. Tod Mikuriya has found that marijuana provides relief for about 200 specific diseases. It seems like marijuana could be / should be the first choice drug rather than the last. Cannabis / marijuana medicines were at one time the “drugs of choice” in the United States, until they were declared illegal. They had been used for 100 specific medical problems through the use of about 30 prescription medicines. Dr. Phillip Leveque is a Combat Infantryman, Physician and Toxicologist. He served with distinction in World War II, at one time taking 26 Nazi officers into custody that he and one other soldier discovered.

Study: Alcohol, Tobacco Worse Than Drugs LONDON -- New "landmark" research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study. In research published Friday in The Lancet magazine, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances. Nutt and colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use. The researchers asked two groups of experts - psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise - to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy, amphetamines, and LSD. Nutt and his colleagues then calculated the drugs' overall rankings. In the end, the experts agreed with each other - but not with the existing British classification of dangerous substances. Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy. According to existing British and U.S. drug policy, alcohol and tobacco are legal, while cannabis and Ecstasy are both illegal. Previous reports, including a study from a parliamentary committee last year, have questioned the scientific rationale for Britain's drug classification system. "The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary," said Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. "The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," write Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet. Tobacco causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms. The substances also harm society in other ways, damaging families and occupying police services. Nutt hopes that the research will provoke debate within the UK and beyond about how drugs - including socially acceptable drugs such as alcohol - should be regulated. While different countries use different markers to classify dangerous drugs, none use a system like the one proposed by Nutt's study, which he hopes could serve as a framework for international authorities. "This is a landmark paper," said Dr. Leslie Iversen, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University. Iversen was not connected to the research. "It is the first real step towards an evidence-based classification of drugs." He added that based on the paper's results, alcohol and tobacco could not reasonably be excluded. "The rankings also suggest the need for better regulation of the more harmful drugs that are currently legal, i.e. tobacco and alcohol," wrote Wayne Hall, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, in an accompanying Lancet commentary. Hall was not involved with Nutt's paper. While experts agreed that criminalizing alcohol and tobacco would be challenging, they said that governments should review the penalties imposed for drug abuse and try to make them more reflective of the actual risks and damages involved. Nutt called for more education so that people were aware of the risks of various drugs. "All drugs are dangerous," he said. "Even the ones people know and love and use every day."

Research recently published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:

http://www.globalmarijuanamarch.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Marijuana_March
http://cannabiscoalition.ca
http://www.legalize.org
http://legaliz.info Legaliz.info Translated
Global Marijuana March info on Girls Gone Weed
RE: Global Marijuana March - May 4th, 5th, 6th - Everywhere! ----------------- Bulletin Message ----------------- From: Jack Herer Date: Feb 5, 2007 5:02 PM

The film is great and really delves into the racist history of the Drug War's roots. Please watch... if the video is not working, one of two things is going on: 1. too many of you are trying to watch it at once, and thus you should save the bulletin and come back later to watch, or 2. it has been removed. So don't email me if this isn't working, as they always work when i try them, before i send them out.

HealthDay By Robert Preidt Tuesday, October 24, 2006 TUESDAY, Oct. 24 (HealthDay News) -- A synthetic form of a chemical component found in marijuana may help relax the colon and reduce stomach cramping after eating, says a Mayo Clinic study. Researchers compared the effects of dronabinol and a placebo on colonic motility and sensation in 52 health adults. Dronabinol is a synthetic version of THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana. The study found that dronabinol relaxes the colon and reduces post-eating contractions and cramping. The effect was most apparent in women. "The potential for cannabinoids to modulate colonic motor function in disease deserves a further look," study leader Dr. Tuba Esfandyari said in a prepared statement. Currently in the United States, dronabinol is used to prevent nausea and vomiting for cancer patients after chemotherapy. But it's used only when other kinds of medicine for nausea and vomiting don't work. It's is also used to increase appetite in AIDS patients. HealthDay

Time to reconsider our war on drugs January 4, 2007 By ROBERT L. SAND The time has come for peace talks in the war on drugs. It’s not time to cut and run or to declare victory and head home. Nor is it time to encourage or tolerate violations of existing law. Instead, it’s time to devise an intelligent exit strategy, one that includes consideration of a regulated public health approach to drugs instead of our current criminal justice model. As a career prosecutor, I see strong indications that our enforcement model may actually be counterproductive to public and personal safety. Violence spawned by the war on drugs continues to plague our communities. Violence exists in the form of assaults and murder by drug sellers as a result of deals gone awry or territorial disputes. We see violence in the form of robberies and burglaries by users stealing money or guns to purchase or trade for drugs. And, to a much lesser extent, we see random violence caused by drug-impaired people unwilling or unable to control their behavior. Drug policy reform, to include regulated access to drugs, could substantially reduce all three types of drug crimes. Any inquiry into drug policy must answer five critical questions: 1) If we are serious about addressing substance abuse, why do we treat addicts as criminals? 2) Given the addictive and dangerous nature of certain drugs, why do we allow criminals to control their distribution — criminals with a financial interest in finding new customers and keeping others addicted? 3) Why does this newspaper (Editorial, Dec. 6, 2006) reject a regulatory approach to drugs yet we regulate alcohol and tobacco, two highly addictive and dangerous substances? 4) If a regulatory approach would increase health care costs, would those costs be more than offset by savings in the criminal justice system? and, 5) If our current approach is working, why have drug use, potency, arrest, and incarceration rates increased and not decreased as enforcement expenditures have gone up? What about young people and access to drugs? Would a regulatory approach result in an increase in use by those most susceptible to the damaging effects of drugs? Maybe, but not necessarily so. Many adolescents will tell you it is easier to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol. This suggests a regulatory approach might contain drug use by minors. Moreover, if we intelligently reallocated criminal justice dollars into education and drug prevention, we might minimize the allure of these “forbidden fruits” and not see an escalation in drug use. Drug policy reform should appeal to a broad political spectrum. Reform would allow us to treat addicts more compassionately and effectively. It would remove government from the private choices of adults. And it could result in substantial savings by reducing criminal justice and correctional expenditures. To suggest that proposing reform is tantamount to “being soft on drugs” is to reduce a highly complex issue into a one-dimensional catch phrase. We can, and must, be more thoughtful than that. There are no easy answers in the drug policy debate. And certainly there are more questions to be asked than those raised above. But we must ask the questions. And we must ask them not only of our state elected officials and policy makers but also of our congressional delegation. The drug problem is both a state and federal issue. With the recent elections, Vermont now has substantial power in the Congress — power that can bring resources to the state but also power that can influence change. Even if Vermonters sought a bold and courageous new approach to drug policy, the federal government might seek to stifle innovation. The states and the federal government must try to work in partnership on these issues. The war on drugs is a war on people. The time has come to discuss a better approach to this vexing problem. I look forward to the discussion. (Robert L. Sand is Windsor County state’s attorney.)

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070104/NEWS/70103011/1039/OPINION03

Excerpted from 'Energy Farming in America', by Lynn Osborne. Biomass conversion to fuel has been proven economically feasible, first in laboratory tests and by continuous operation of pilot plants in field tests since 1973. When the energy crop is growing it takes CO2 from the air, so when it is burned the CO2 is released, creating a balanced system. Biomass is the term used to describe all biologically produced matter. World production of biomass is estimated at 146 billion metric tons a year, mostly wild plant growth. . Some farm crops and trees can produce up to 20 metric tons per acre of biomass a year. Types of algae and grasses may produce 50 metric tons per year. This biomass has a heating value of 5000-8000 BTU/lb, with virtually no ash or sulfur produced during combustion. About 6% of contiguous United States land area put into cultivation for biomass could supply all current demands for oil and gas. The foundation upon which this is achieved is the emerging concept of "energy farming," wherein farmers grow and harvest crops for biomass conversion to fuels. Pyrolysis is the process of applying high heat to organic matter (lignocellulosic materials) in the absence of air or in reduced air. The process can be adjusted to favor charcoal, condensable organic liquids (pyrolitic fuel oil), non-condensable gases, acetic acid, acetone, gas or methanol production with a 95.5% fuel-to-feed efficiency. Pyrolysis has been used since the dawn of civilisation. Ancient Egyptians practices wood distillation by collecting the tars and pyroligneous acid for use in their embalming industry. Methanol-powered automobiles and reduced emissions from coal-fired power plants can be accomplished by biomass conversion to fuel utilizing pyrolysis technology, and at the same time save the American farm while turning the American heartland into a prosperous source of clean energy production. Pyrolysis has the advantage of using the same technology now used to process crude fossil oil and coal. Coal and oil conversion is more efficient in terms of fuel-to-feed ration, but biomass conversion by pyrolysis has many environmental and economic advantages over coal and oil. Pyrolysis facilities will run three shifts a day. Some 65% of the energy from the raw biomass will be contained in the charcoal and fuel oils made at the facility. This charcoal has nearly the same heating value in BTU as coal, with virtually no sulfur. Pyrolitic fuel oil has similar properties to no. 2 and no. 6 fuel oil. The charcoal can be transported economically by rail to all urban area power plants generating electricity. The fuel oil can be transported economically by trucking creating more jobs for Americans. When these plants use charcoal instead of coal, the problems of acid rain will begin to disappear. When this energy system is on line producing a steady supply of fuel for electrical power plants, it will be more feasible to build the complex gasifying systems to produce methanol from cubed biomass, or make synthetic gasoline from the methanol by the addition of the Mobile Co. process equipment to the gasifier. Hemp is the number one biomass producer on planet earth: 10 tons per acre in approximately four months. It is a woody plant containing 77% cellulose. Wood produces 60% cellulose. This energy can be harvested with equipment readily available. It can be 'cubed' by modifying hay cubing equipment. This method condenses the bulk, reducing trucking costs from field to the pyrolysis reactor. And the biomass cubes are ready for conversion with no further treatment." From 'The Report of The FCDA Europe' by Kenn and Joanna d'Oudney, Fourth Edition, ISBN 0 9524421 1 6. "Using the reactor in this 'gasifier' mode, by increasing heat, pressure and adding catalysts, methanol production is maximised at approximately 100 gallons per ton of biomass. Methanol (CH3OH) has always been the cheap and practical alternative to gasoline. After simple modification, the Internal Combustion Engine receives less wear from methanol. Electricity power generating stations can be run off methanol, or Cannabis Biomass Pyrolysis fuel-oil which is similar to home-heating oil, and/or use charcoal directly, in place of fossil fuels." "The Cannabis Biomass Energy Equation (CBEE) demonstrates for the first time on record that fuel-energy sourced from the renewable, pollution-free resource of flora in the form of Cannabis Sativa, achieves uniquely economical replacement of fuels, and has always been so. There has not been this century, a single ecologically-pertinent fact, theory or postulation embodying practicable potentials as beneficial to the planet and the well-being of its people as those of the CBEE, given practical application in the CBRPF [Cannabis Biomass Resource and Pyrolysis Functions]; this formulation resolves Mankind's most crucial predicament in macro-Economics and Ecology to have arisen since the incipience of The Industrial revolution." " Cannabis renders uranium and the dangerous fossil fuel pollutants: A. commercially obsolete / economically redundant, and B. achieves replacement without pollution, while C. the Economy of the entire world thereby vastly benefits from significantly reduced energy prices." "Consideration of the evidence of circumstances unmasks motives which explain the existence of governments' blatantly illegal ban on cannabis. This plant has not been targeted for Prohibition simply because some people like to smoke its resins and flowertops. At the time of writing, in-depth information about cannabis as the economical replacement for fossil-fuels and uranium, as food and raw material resource, remains esoteric - it has been deliberately and widely repressed." "The Relegalisation of Cannabis today will allow a phased, gradual economic transition governed by market forces, from fossil to CBRPF-based techno-industrial civilisation."