I haven't seen a good movie in the theatre in AGES. I know I've missed quite a few. What have you guys seen lately that was good? And by lately I mean the last 3 months, hehe.
Right now I wanna see:
Tron
Tangled
The Fighter
Narnia
True Grit
The Tourist
Black Swan
The Social Network
The Town
Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded. -Unknown
The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this. -Albert Einstein
I finished my final paper on cannabis and will be posting it soon. Copy/pasting makes it look like shit so I'll have to do some formatting and I'm too lazy to do it right now, but eventually I will for those of you who asked that I share it.
Every major music festival in the country could be shut down by law enforcement whose motive is not to make Americans safer through the protection of their rights, but the profit that police can make by taking property from citizens.
The seizure of the 352-acre Camp Zoe property in Southeast Missouri has so far garnered substantial attention both in America and internationally. That’s because this is no ordinary seizure; without (so far) being charged with a crime, the property owner, musician Jimmy Tebeau, is having his land taken from him in a process that strips him of his rights under both the US and Missouri constitutions.
The DEA has filed a claim for seizure and forfeiture of the property on the grounds that for years, concert-goers have engaged in consumption and transaction of illegal drugs. Under this theory, every major music festival in the country could be shut down by law enforcement whose motive is not to make Americans safer through the protection of their rights, but the profit that police can make by taking property from citizens.
Rest is in the spoiler, but for better formatting follow the link above + Show Spoiler +
From today’s St. Louis Riverfront Times:
Only later did Goebel learn that the raid was the culmination of a four-year-long investigation by the DEA and the Missouri State Highway Patrol into alleged drug use and sales by Camp Zoe concertgoers. No one — including Camp Zoe owner Jimmy Tebeau — has been charged with a crime, but the eastern Missouri U.S. Attorney’s Office isattempting to confiscate the 352-acre property using a controversial process called asset forfeiture.
It’s not just alarming to festival attendees like Goebel. The situation has other music festival organizers worried that they, too, might be held accountable for any illegal activity that happens to take place at their event.
Advertisement
“It has gotten our attention,” says Brian Cohen, the organizer of St. Louis’ LouFest. “All festivals take on some degree of liability. That’s why we hire security, medical personnel, etc. But the potential penalties in this case seem to put it in a different category. LouFest and Schwagstock are two very different animals, so it’s hard to know what impact this could have on us. But we’re definitely watching it.”
Dave Roland, an attorney with the for the non-profit advocacy group Freedom Center of Missouri, calls the Camp Zoe seizure “a shot across the bow” for individuals who host music festivals or popular events on private land.
“My home state is Tennessee,” Roland says. “What about Bonnaroo? The folks who own that property need to be very aware and very concerned. With any large gathering of young people, there’s probably going to be some illegal activity, and if that’s taking place, it appears that property could be subject to forfeiture.”
Yesterday’s RFT story on the Camp Zoe seizure implicates the motive for the seizure: keeping money flowing to law enforcement despite the existence of Missouri law directing forfeitures to education:
Eapen Thampy, a policy analyst for the Kansas City-based non-profit group Americans For Forfeiture Reform, obtained records of each Missouri county’s deposits into the state’s “School Building Revolving Fund” via a Sunshine request. Thampy then compared the records to state audits of the forfeiture activity. After crunching the numbers, he concludes that “90 percent of counties in Missouri are non-compliant” with the state law that requires forfeiture proceeds be used to fund public education.
“We’re talking $60 to $80 million that has been misappropriated,” he says. “‘State law enforcement has been able to dodge all requirements of the system and keep that money directly for their budgets.”
…
That last part is key. Missouri’s reforms only apply to forfeitures in the state system. But local law enforcement agencies know that they may still keep seizure profits for themselves if they use the federal system.
In federal cases, an agency such as the DEA takes a percentage of the money seized — usually 20 percent — and returns the remaining 80 percent to the local police, an exchange called “equitable sharing.” None of the money goes to the schools.
That $60-$80 million estimate is for the years 2008-2009, when the federal government reported disbursements of roughly $50 million to Missouri law enforcement agencies. This $50 million in disbursements from the Dept. of Justice Equitable Sharing fund represent roughly $60 million in seizures, since the seizing DOJ agency (usually DEA or FBI) keeps 20%.
It is unclear how much of this is reported to the state auditor, but we do know that the Missouri state auditor in 2008-2009 reported roughly $12.7 million in seizures, $5.7 million of which received circuit court rubberstamp approval to proceed in federal court.
And in 2008-2009, deposits to the Missouri School Building Revolving Fund (the statutory vessel where seizure funds are supposed to be deposited) totaled $86,000.
What this means is that most, if not all, of Missouri counties are non-compliant with the statutory requirement that forfeiture money be deposited in a school fund. They are also non-compliant with the requirement that all forfeitures that state agencies participate in, even if the forfeiture ends up in federal hands, must be reported. As per the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 513.605:
(8) “Seizing agency”, the agency which is the primary employer of the officer or agent seizing the property, including any agency in which one or more of the employees acting on behalf of the seizing agency is employed by the state of Missouri or any political subdivision of this state;
(9) “Seizure”, the point at which any law enforcement officer or agent discovers and exercises any control over property that an officer or agent has reason to believe was used or intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through criminal activity. Seizure includes but is not limited to preventing anyone found in possession of the property from leaving the scene of the investigation while in possession of the property;
And RsMO 513.607:
(2) Seizure may be effected by a law enforcement officer authorized to enforce the criminal laws of this state prior to the filing of the petition and without a writ of seizure if the seizure is incident to a lawful arrest, search, or inspection and the officer has probable cause to believe the property is subject to forfeiture and will be lost or destroyed if not seized. Within four days of the date of seizure, such seizure shall be reported by said officer to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the seizure is effected or the attorney general; and if in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney or attorney general forfeiture is warranted, the prosecuting attorney or attorney general shall, within ten days after receiving notice of seizure, file a petition for forfeiture. [...]
8. The prosecuting attorney or attorney general to whom the seizure is reported shall report annually by January thirty-first for the previous calendar year all seizures.
10. Intentional or knowing failure to comply with any reporting requirement contained in this section shall be a class A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars.
And as I wrote in the Columbia Tribune this September, not only is this Missouri law, but these directives are enshrined in the Missouri Constitution and a couple Missouri Supreme Court decisions:
In 1990, the Odessa School District won a landmark victory in the Missouri Supreme Court with a verdict that held the Missouri Constitution directed money seized from criminals to Missouri’s schools. The victory was short-lived. Almost immediately, Jean Paul Bradshaw, the U.S. attorney for western Missouri, contacted Missouri’s law enforcement agencies with news that they could keep the money through a federal forfeiture provision managed by the Department of Justice.
The program, called Equitable Sharing, allows state and local law enforcement agencies to take property seized in the course of an investigation to the Department of Justice for liquidation rather than to state courts. Ultimately, the Department of Justice cuts the local law enforcement agency a check for up to 80 percent of the property’s value, dodging Missouri’s requirement that the money must go to education.
In 2001, Gov. Bob Holden signed a bill aimed at reforming this system. The bill contained a number of protections, including a mandate that all forfeitures to federal agencies receive Missouri circuit court approval and that all forfeitures be attached to a felony conviction.
Nine years after these reforms, a number of problems have re-emerged. First, the transfer of forfeitures to the federal government has continued unabated as circuit court judges often rubber-stamp law enforcement requests. Second, the requirement that circuit court approval be granted is unenforceable; often, property goes to federal law enforcement agents who can execute the forfeiture directly without judicial approval. The amount of money that ends up being misappropriated this way is substantial. In 2008 and 2009, state and federal law enforcement retained well more than $50 million in direct circumvention of Missouri law at the expense of Missouri schools.
What do the feds have to say about this?
“It’s another tool in the toolbox,” says Richard Callahan, the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Missouri. “Forfeiting is a key part of the attempt to achieve justice.”
Mr. Callahan, you are a thief, operating under color of law, working for a government agency that has made theft part of its modus operandi. I urge all Americans to hold our elected officials accountable for the behavior of people like Mr. Callahan; if we do not, we have forfeited our liberty, and we have nothing left.
Found this good FAQ about common misconceptions of cannabis while researching on my paper (which is due tomorrow, gah):
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things
that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
principles upon which our government was founded."
-- Abraham Lincoln
December, 1840
1 Q. What is Marijuana?
A. "Marijuana" refers to the dried leaves and flowers of the cannabis
plant [1], which contain the non-narcotic chemical THC at various
potencies. It is smoked or eaten to produce the feeling of being
"high." The different strains of this herb produce different sensual
effects, ranging from sedative to stimulant.
2 Q. Who Uses Marijuana?
A. There is no simple profile of a typical marijuana user. It has been
used for 1000s of years for medical, social, and religious reasons
and for relaxation [2]. Several of our Presidents [3] are believed
to have smoked it. One out of every five Americans say they have
tried it. And it is still popular among artists, writers, musicians,
activists, lawyers, inventors, working people, etc.
3 Q. How Long Have People Been Using Marijuana?
A. Marijuana has been used since ancient times [4]. While field hands
and working people have often smoked the raw plant, aristocrats
historically prefer hashish [5] made from the cured flowers of the
plant. It was not seen as a problem until a calculated disinformation
[sic] campaign was launched in the 1930s [6], and the first American
laws against using it were passed [7].
4 Q. Is Marijuana Addictive?
A. No, it is not [8]. Most users are moderate consumers who smoke it
socially to relax. We now know that 10% of our population have
"addictive personalities" and they are neither more nor less
likely to overindulge in cannabis than in anything else. On a
relative scale, marijuana is less habit forming than either sugar
or chocolate but more so than anchovies. Sociologists report a general
pattern of marijuana use that peaks in the early adult years, followed
by a period of levelling off and then a gradual reduction in use [9].
5 Q. Has Anyone Ever Died From Smoking Marijuana?
A. No; not one single case, not ever. THC is one of the few chemicals for
which there is no known toxic amount [10]. The federal agency NIDA says
that autopsies reveal that 75 people per year are high on marijuana
when they die: this does not mean that marijuana caused or was even a
factor in their deaths. The chart below compares the number of deaths
attributable to selected substances in a typical year:
Tobacco...............................340,000 - 395,000
Alcohol (excluding crime/accidents).............125,000+
Drug Overdose (prescription)............24,000 - 27,000
Drug Overdose (illegal)...................3,800 - 5,200
Marijuana.............................................0
*Source: U.S. Government Bureau of Mortality Statistics, 1987
6 Q. Does Marijuana Lead to Crime and/or Hard Drugs?
A. No [11]. The only crime most marijuana users commit is that they use
marijuana. And, while many people who abuse dangerous drugs also smoke
marijuana, the old "stepping stone" theory is now discredited, since
virtually all of them started out "using" legal drugs like sugar,
coffee, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.
7 Q. Does Marijuana Make People Violent?
A. No. In fact, Federal Bureau of Narcotics director Harry Anslinger once
told Congress just the opposite - that it leads to non-violence and
pacifism [12]. If he was telling the truth (which he and key federal
agencies have not often done regarding marijuana), then re-legalizing
marijuana should be considered as one way to curb violence in our
cities. The simple fact is that marijuana does not change your basic
personality. The government says that over 20 million Americans still
smoke it, probably including some of the nicest people you know.
8 Q. How Does Marijuana Affect Your Health?
A. Smoking anything is not healthy, but marijuana is less dangerous than
tobacco and people smoke less of it at a time. This health risk can
be avoided by eating the plant instead of smoking it [13], or can be
reduced by smoking smaller amounts of stronger marijuana. There is
no proof that marijuana causes serious health or sexual problems [14]
but, like alcohol, its use by children or adolescents is discouraged.
Cannabis is a medicinal herb that has hundreds of proven, valuable
theraputic uses - from stress reduction to glaucoma to asthma to
cancer therapy, etc. [15].
9 Q. What About All Those Scary Statistics and Studies?
A. Most were prepared as scare tactics for the government by Dr. Gabriel
Nahas, and were so biased and unscientific that Nahas was fired by
the National Institute of Health [16] and finally renounced his own
studies as meaningless [17]. For one experiment, he suffocated monkeys
for five minutes at a time, using proportionately more smoke than the
average user inhales in an entire lifetime [18]. The other studies
that claim sensational health risks are also suspect, since they lack
controls and produce results which cannot be replicated or
independently verified [19].
10 Q. What Can I Do About Marijuana?
A. No independent government panel that has studied marijuana has ever
recommended jail for users [20]. Concerned persons should therefore
ask their legislators to re-legalize and tax this plant, subject to
age limits and regulations similar to those on alcohol and tobacco.
For More Information, Write:
Family Coucil on Drug Awareness
P.O. Box 71093, LA CA 90071-0093
1. The same plant, known as hemp, has an estimated 50,000 non-drug
commercial uses including paper, textiles, fuels, food and sealants,
but these uses are also banned by existing laws. Sources: Encyclopedia
Britannica, federal documents and historical records.
2. Coptic Christians, Rhastafarnians [sic], Shintos, Hinus, Buddhists,
Sufis, Essenes, Zoroastrians, Bantus, and many other sects have
traditions that consider the plant to have religious value.
3. Their personal correspondence and records reveal that U.S. Presidents
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and others smoked hashish, as did Benjamin
Franklin and Mary Todd Lincoln. President John F. Kennedy is also
reported to have smoked marijuana to relieve his back pain. Many of
America's greatest leaders and Founding Fathers (including George
Washington) were hemp farmers. Sources: National Archives, published
reports.
4. Archeologists report that cannabis was possibly the first plant
cultivated by humans - about 8000 B.C. - and was used for linen,
paper, and garments. Source: Columbia University, _History of the
World_. It was being smoked in China and India as early as 2700 B.C.
5. Turkish smoking parlors were popular in both Europe and America. as
well as the Middle and Far East, as recently as the turn of the
Century.
6. The exhaustive Indian Hemp "Raj" Commission report (1986) by British
authorities found no reason to restrict its use. But the notorious
yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst fabricated and published
horror stories about marijuana that were eventually investigated and
shown to be lies, but not until long after the marijuana prohibition
was enacted in 1938. Source: Larry Sloman, _Reefer Madness_.
7. Laws against marijuana were passed a year after the invention of a
machine to harvest and process hemp so it could compete commercially
against businesses owned by Hearst, the DuPonts and other powerful
families. Source: Jack Herer, _The Emporor Wears No Clothes_.
8. Marijuana does not lead to physical dependency. Costa Rican Study,
1980; Jamaican Study, 1975; Nixon Blue Ribbon Report, 1972, et. al.
9. Source: Psychology Today, Newsweek, et.al.
10. Source: All univerity medical studies: UCLA, Harvard, Temple, etc.
11. Costa Rican Study, 1980; Jamaican Study, 1975; "The legal drugs for
adults, such as alcohol and tobacco...precede the use of all illicit
drugs." Source: National Academy of Sciences.
12. The FBI reports that 65-75% of criminal violence is alcohol related.
"Pacifist syndrome" testimony was given by Federal Bureau of Narcotics
Director Harry Anslinger before Congress (1948). However, the "Siler"
Study conducted by the U.S in Panama (1931) reported "no impairment"
in military personnel who smoked marijuana while off duty.
13. "The only clinically significant medical problem is that
scientifically linked to marijuana is bronchitis. Like smoking
tobacco, the treatment is the same: stop smoking." Source: Dr. Fred
Oerther, M.D.
14. Coptic study (UCLA), 1981; "There is not yet any conclusive evidence
as to whether prolonged use of marijuana causes permanent changes in
the nervous system or sustained impairment of brain function and
behavior in human beings." Source: National Academy of Sciences.
15. Source: Dr. Tod Mikuriya, _Marijuana Medical Papers_. Marijuana could
replace at least 10-20% of prescribed drugs now in use. Source: Dr.
Raphael Mechoulam. Marijuana was a major active ingredient in 40-50%
of patent medicines before its ban.
16. 1976
17. 1983
18. The U.S. Government reports that the oral dose of cannabis required to
kill a mouse is about 40,000 times the dose required to produce
symptoms of intoxication in man. Source: Lowe, _Journal of
Pharmacological and Experimental Therapeutics_, Oct. 1946.
19. In another famous study, Heath/Tulane (1974), wild monkeys were
brutally captured, then virtually suffocated in marijuana smoke over a
period of 90 days. Source: National Institute of Health.
20. Examples: the "LaGuardia" Committee Report (New York, 1944) and
President Richard Nixon's Blue Ribbon "Shafer" Commission (1972).
I'm writing a paper on... you guessed it, cannabis (marijuana). I need some help from the general public though, which is where you guys come in. I want to know what the general public believes the dangers of marijuana are. So it would help if you could reply to this question:
What are the dangers/risks of using marijuana?
Thanks to anyone who replies, it is much appreciated =)
Prop 19 may have lost, but I intend to keep fighting for the end of Marijuana Prohibition and I look forward to putting it on the ballot here in CO in 2012. I think we can end the prohibition here in our state, especially during a presidential election. Don’t despair, don’t give up, don’t think all is lost. This is just the early stages of what history will talk about as the movement that freed Americans from 75 years of lies and manipulation and finally ended the prohibition on marijuana.
And how does the federal government respond to this news? By continuing to lie to the American people.
Obama's Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske: “Today, Californians recognized that legalizing marijuana will not make our citizens healthier, solve California’s budget crisis, or reduce drug related violence in Mexico,” read the statement. “The Obama administration has been clear in its opposition to marijuana legalization because research shows that marijuana use is associated with voluntary treatment admissions for addiction, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness and emergency room admissions.”
They only put out a 2 sentence statement and managed to fill it with 6 different lies. If I wasn't so disgusted I would be impressed.
The main thing I've learned over these last few months is that our government is much more broken than I ever realized. The fact that such a positive movement aimed at bringing such a good, useful product back into the hands of Americans, has been so thoroughly demonized by our government speaks volumes to how truly fucked up our government is. I'm also extremely disappointed in Obama and all the other politicians who didn't have the guts to stand up for what's right. The fact that the democratic party came out against Prop 19 in California has killed a lot of my support for the dems. Last presidential election I worked my ass off to get Obama elected. Right now I don't foresee spending any of my time campaigning for him in 2012 - I'll be using that time to get Marijuana Legalization on the ballot here in CO where I think we have a great chance to be the first state to end this prohibition.
The exit polls show that American's aren't happy with either party and I'm right there in that group of disgruntled, disappointed, and disillusioned citizens. I'd love to see some new parties and candidates as options in upcoming elections. As that isn't very likely to happen anytime soon, what I would like to see is a primary challenge against Obama. I still like the guy overall and think he's done a better job than McCain would have done, but one of my top reasons for electing him was my belief that he was capable of logically examining issues and coming to rational conclusions that help the people. Specifically in regard to Marijuana he has failed in that arena, which makes me doubt whether I should trust him to come to good decisions on other key areas. And while I do approve of much of his progress, I feel he hasn't done enough. I feel that he and the democrats just flat out suck at getting things done, and if that's all they can achieve with 2 years of a super majority and huge momentum going out of the last election, then I don't have any faith that they can achieve the changes we need in this country to get things back on track.
I think I wanna start the Cannabis Party - the party of common sense.
For those of you who, like me, were hoping prop 19 would pass - don't give up. We'll get marijuana legalized soon enough. Right now polls show that almost 50% of the USA supports legalizing Marijuana, and that support has steadily grown over the last 40 years when it was only 12% who supported legalization. Times are changing, stoners of the 70's are now the 50 and 60 year olds, and thanks to the internet the facts about marijuana are finally able to spread and the information bout weed is no longer dominated by government propaganda. This wasn't the year it happened but it will be soon and you will all be around to see it.
Change comes gradually and as long as we all keep pushing, it will happen. If we despair and give up then we truly lose.
Contact Users: 1034 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 03:12
