Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
RainDog
RainDog's Journal
RainDog's Journal
May 10, 2014
Cannabis was long used as a balm - while calamus was chiefly used for fragrance (it's related to iris - i.e. orris root, used in perfumes, but not medicinally.)
ANYWAY...
via wiki - Semitic etymologist Sula Benet, of the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw, has indicated the origin to be the Hebrew word קַנַּבּוֹס (qannabbôs) kaneh bosm. Benet, (also known as Sara Benetowa) is quoted saying:
ANYWAY...
Greeks referred to the tribe as Scythians but Semites referred to them as Ashkenaz. They traded with one another. Herodutus first noted, for the western world, the use of cannabis for Scythians in religious ceremonies where they would throw cannabis on a fire in a tent and inhale the smoke, in honor of the goddess Tabiti-Hestia. Their burial rites included bags of cannabis seeds for the afterlife - these have been found as far north as Berlin, dated to 500 bce.
God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush... funny if that turned out to be cannabis...
Exodus 33
: As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses. - a scene that would've been familiar to Scythinans because this is how they employed cannabis for religious purposes - and Zoraster (Zarathustra), whose religious views/religion is traced to the 6th century bce, said all of life is a struggle between truth and lie. He used cannabis to bring him religious visions - so cannabis was part of truth-seeking (while current prohibition and right wing distortions of Christianity, we know, is part of the world of lies.) But, the important thing for all of these uses was respect for the power of the earthy herb, not dissolution as part of its use...something for moderns to ponder too, maybe.
ANYWAY...
Raphael Mechoulam and co-workers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem suggest an alternative etymology for cannabis: Greek cannabis < Arabic kunnab < Syriac qunnappa < Hebrew pannag (= bhanga in Sanskrit and bang in Persian). They explain that in Hebrew, only the consonants form the basis of a word and the letters p and b are frequently interchangeable. The authors think it probable that 'pannag', mentioned in the Bible by the prophet Ezekiel (27:17), is in fact Cannabis.[11]
The Biblical Hebrew term qěnēh bośem, literally "aromatic reed", (qěnēh-"reed", bośem-"aromatic"
, probably[12] refers to cannabis according to some etymologists,[9] but is more commonly thought to be lemon grass, calamus, or even sweet cane, due to widespread translation issues.[13] The Hebrew Bible mentions it in Exodus 30:23 where God commands Moses to make a holy oil of myrrh, cinnamon, qěnēh bośem and cassia to anoint the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle (and thus God's Temple in Jerusalem).[14] Notably, this anointing oil is a special herbal formula that functions as a kind of polish and fragrance for the Ark and Tabernacle, and the Bible forbids its manufacture and use to anoint people (Exodus 30:31-33) with the exception of the Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 30:30).
Elsewhere, the Hebrew Bible simply uses "reed" qānēh as the name of a plant in four places whose context seems to mean "reed of balm" as a fragrant resin, Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20, Ezekiel 27:19 and Song of Songs 4:14. The Hebrew name "reed of balm" comes from qěnēh (the noun construct form of qāneh) means a "reed" or "cane" and bośem means "balm" or "aromatic" resin. Hebrew may have adapted the name qannabbôs from "reed of balm" qěnēh bośem as a substitute for the ambiguous name "reed".
The Hebrew word qaneh, sometimes translated as cannabis, appears in the Bible 62 times...
(the above is also from wiki about the etymology of the word "cannabis."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4079668.stm
One linguist said cannabis is kaneh bosm in the OT
For Moses in his talks with God, and as part of the recipe for Jewish priests in their preparation of incense and holy oil ...but was mistranslated as callamus. Both callamus and cannabis are aromatic, but only cannabis figured into religious rites in an of itself in the west (thousands of years prior to any written explanations.)
Whether true or not, the claim has much more logic behind it than Klingenschmitt's... tho, actually, I think the right wing's irrational fear of cannabis makes sense in a round about way because the female plant of the (sexed) cannabis species is the most potent and is the source of buds that are now the gold standard of finely grown herb.
iow, it's female-sexed power that intoxicates and liberates from petty concerns the most. cannabis is also known as an aphrodisiac for some because it relaxes and allows people to disregard their anxieties and annoyances of the day, as well as helping people cope with aches and pains. it also heightens the senses, so touch feels more sensual, the tastes of kissing are amplified, and time is ignored - so doing something pleasant is something someone just wants to keep doing...
Right wingers love to state that women are supposed to suffer in childbirth... which, btw, offers another interesting aside - our own bodies produce anandimide when we are born - anandimide is the endogenous chemical that is the sister of THC - so we "forget" our passage from gestation to birth and produce a chemical to give us pleasure upon birth, as well as a way to mitigate any pain from the birth process itself - for the baby.
Cannabis was never referred to as a weed until it was vilified by capitalist society in the U.S., fwiw. Early uses were sacred and loving. If it's the kaneh referenced in the Song of Solomon... it's used to talk about his beloved...
Who is this coming up from the wilderness like a column of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and incense made from all the spices of the merchant?...Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates With choice fruits, henna with nard plants, Nard and saffron, calamus/cannabis (kaneh) and cinnamon, With all the trees of frankincense, Myrrh and aloes, along with all the finest spices.
Cannabis was long used as a balm - while calamus was chiefly used for fragrance (it's related to iris - i.e. orris root, used in perfumes, but not medicinally.)
ANYWAY...
via wiki - Semitic etymologist Sula Benet, of the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw, has indicated the origin to be the Hebrew word קַנַּבּוֹס (qannabbôs) kaneh bosm. Benet, (also known as Sara Benetowa) is quoted saying:
The astonishing resemblance between the Semitic kanbos and the Scythian cannabis lead me to suppose that the Scythian word was of Semitic origin. These etymological discussions run parallel to arguments drawn from history. The Iranian Scythians were probably related to the Medes, who were neighbors of the Semites and could easily have assimilated the word for hemp. The Semites could also have spread the word during their migrations through Asia Minor.
ANYWAY...
Greeks referred to the tribe as Scythians but Semites referred to them as Ashkenaz. They traded with one another. Herodutus first noted, for the western world, the use of cannabis for Scythians in religious ceremonies where they would throw cannabis on a fire in a tent and inhale the smoke, in honor of the goddess Tabiti-Hestia. Their burial rites included bags of cannabis seeds for the afterlife - these have been found as far north as Berlin, dated to 500 bce.
God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush... funny if that turned out to be cannabis...
Exodus 33
: As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses. - a scene that would've been familiar to Scythinans because this is how they employed cannabis for religious purposes - and Zoraster (Zarathustra), whose religious views/religion is traced to the 6th century bce, said all of life is a struggle between truth and lie. He used cannabis to bring him religious visions - so cannabis was part of truth-seeking (while current prohibition and right wing distortions of Christianity, we know, is part of the world of lies.) But, the important thing for all of these uses was respect for the power of the earthy herb, not dissolution as part of its use...something for moderns to ponder too, maybe.
ANYWAY...
Raphael Mechoulam and co-workers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem suggest an alternative etymology for cannabis: Greek cannabis < Arabic kunnab < Syriac qunnappa < Hebrew pannag (= bhanga in Sanskrit and bang in Persian). They explain that in Hebrew, only the consonants form the basis of a word and the letters p and b are frequently interchangeable. The authors think it probable that 'pannag', mentioned in the Bible by the prophet Ezekiel (27:17), is in fact Cannabis.[11]
The Biblical Hebrew term qěnēh bośem, literally "aromatic reed", (qěnēh-"reed", bośem-"aromatic"
, probably[12] refers to cannabis according to some etymologists,[9] but is more commonly thought to be lemon grass, calamus, or even sweet cane, due to widespread translation issues.[13] The Hebrew Bible mentions it in Exodus 30:23 where God commands Moses to make a holy oil of myrrh, cinnamon, qěnēh bośem and cassia to anoint the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle (and thus God's Temple in Jerusalem).[14] Notably, this anointing oil is a special herbal formula that functions as a kind of polish and fragrance for the Ark and Tabernacle, and the Bible forbids its manufacture and use to anoint people (Exodus 30:31-33) with the exception of the Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 30:30).
Elsewhere, the Hebrew Bible simply uses "reed" qānēh as the name of a plant in four places whose context seems to mean "reed of balm" as a fragrant resin, Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20, Ezekiel 27:19 and Song of Songs 4:14. The Hebrew name "reed of balm" comes from qěnēh (the noun construct form of qāneh) means a "reed" or "cane" and bośem means "balm" or "aromatic" resin. Hebrew may have adapted the name qannabbôs from "reed of balm" qěnēh bośem as a substitute for the ambiguous name "reed".
The Hebrew word qaneh, sometimes translated as cannabis, appears in the Bible 62 times...
(the above is also from wiki about the etymology of the word "cannabis."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4079668.stm
May 9, 2014
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/16/minnesota-lawmakers-approve-limited-legalization-of-medical-marijuana/
---
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/minnesota-poised-legalize-medical-marijuana-while-banning-pot-smoking
May9th
I guess vaporizers will show increased sales in Minnesota...
UPDATE: Minnesota Legalizes Medical Marijuana
update:
Minnesota lawmakers on Friday approved legalizing medical marijuana in pill or liquid form for a limited number of patients suffering from severe or fatal illnesses.
Minnesota senators voted 46-16 and representatives 89-40 to approve the measure with bipartisan support and send it to Governor Mark Dayton, who has said he will sign it into law.
More than 20 U.S. states have approved medical marijuana and cannabis programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Conditions covered include cancer that is causing severe or chronic pain, severe vomiting or wasting; seizures including epilepsy; glaucoma; multiple sclerosis and other disorders that cause severe muscle spasms; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; HIV; AIDS; and Crohn’s disease.
Minnesota senators voted 46-16 and representatives 89-40 to approve the measure with bipartisan support and send it to Governor Mark Dayton, who has said he will sign it into law.
More than 20 U.S. states have approved medical marijuana and cannabis programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Conditions covered include cancer that is causing severe or chronic pain, severe vomiting or wasting; seizures including epilepsy; glaucoma; multiple sclerosis and other disorders that cause severe muscle spasms; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; HIV; AIDS; and Crohn’s disease.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/16/minnesota-lawmakers-approve-limited-legalization-of-medical-marijuana/
---
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/minnesota-poised-legalize-medical-marijuana-while-banning-pot-smoking
May9th
An ambitious medical marijuana bill with veto-proof bipartisan support was passed by the Minnesota Senate, but the same bill bans pot smoking.
With a 48-18 vote, the state's upper chamber sent a message to Gov. Mark Dayton. The Senate indicated that it prefers more ambitious legislation than what the governor and state law enforcement officials wanted.
Should the bill become law, the bill will allow patients take marijuana supplements in the form of pills, oil and vapor, but they would not be allow to smoke the drug. No other state that allows the use of medical marijuana bans the smoking of it.
It is widely expected that the Minnesota House will pass their version of the marijuana measure in the next few days. However, the House version of the bill does not allow for the possession of “crude” marijuana, only marijuana that is highly processed for medical use. The Senate bill allows patients to possess 2.5 ounces of marijuana. Neither allow for the smoking of marijuana.
With a 48-18 vote, the state's upper chamber sent a message to Gov. Mark Dayton. The Senate indicated that it prefers more ambitious legislation than what the governor and state law enforcement officials wanted.
Should the bill become law, the bill will allow patients take marijuana supplements in the form of pills, oil and vapor, but they would not be allow to smoke the drug. No other state that allows the use of medical marijuana bans the smoking of it.
It is widely expected that the Minnesota House will pass their version of the marijuana measure in the next few days. However, the House version of the bill does not allow for the possession of “crude” marijuana, only marijuana that is highly processed for medical use. The Senate bill allows patients to possess 2.5 ounces of marijuana. Neither allow for the smoking of marijuana.
I guess vaporizers will show increased sales in Minnesota...
May 9, 2014
Feeling the heat of public disgust, perhaps?
DEA announces: Increase in marijuana produced by govt. for research
http://norml.org/news/2014/05/08/federal-government-to-increase-its-supply-of-marijuana-for-clinical-research
Last week, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced in the Federal Register that it is increasing its marijuana production quota from 21 kilograms to 650 kilograms (about 1,443 pounds) in order to meet increasing demand for the plant from clinical investigators.
Federal regulations permit a farm at the University of Mississippi to cultivate set quantities of cannabis for use in federally approved clinical trials. Regulators at the DEA, the US Food and Drug Administration, PHS (Public Health Service), and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse must approve any clinical protocol seeking to study the plant's effects in human subjects.
On various occasions, marijuana reform advocates and researchers have publicly criticized NIDA for focusing on protocols designed to find harms associated with marijuana while simultaneously stonewalling proposed trials seeking to assess the plant's therapeutic benefits. However, in March, federal regulators finally signed off on a long-delayed clinical protocol from researchers at the University of Arizona College of Medicine to evaluate the use of cannabis in war veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress. Also this spring, lawmakers in several states, including Alabama, Kentucky, and Wisconsin, passed legislation encouraging state-sponsored clinical trials to assess the therapeutic potential of cannabidiol - a nonpsychotropic organic component of cannabis - in the treatment of intractable epilepsy.
"The additional supply [of cannabis] to be manufactured in 2014 is designed to meet the current and anticipated research efforts involving marijuana," a NIDA spokesperson told TheHill.com. "[T]his projection of increased demand is due in part to the recent increased interest in the possible therapeutic uses of marijuana."
Last week, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced in the Federal Register that it is increasing its marijuana production quota from 21 kilograms to 650 kilograms (about 1,443 pounds) in order to meet increasing demand for the plant from clinical investigators.
Federal regulations permit a farm at the University of Mississippi to cultivate set quantities of cannabis for use in federally approved clinical trials. Regulators at the DEA, the US Food and Drug Administration, PHS (Public Health Service), and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse must approve any clinical protocol seeking to study the plant's effects in human subjects.
On various occasions, marijuana reform advocates and researchers have publicly criticized NIDA for focusing on protocols designed to find harms associated with marijuana while simultaneously stonewalling proposed trials seeking to assess the plant's therapeutic benefits. However, in March, federal regulators finally signed off on a long-delayed clinical protocol from researchers at the University of Arizona College of Medicine to evaluate the use of cannabis in war veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress. Also this spring, lawmakers in several states, including Alabama, Kentucky, and Wisconsin, passed legislation encouraging state-sponsored clinical trials to assess the therapeutic potential of cannabidiol - a nonpsychotropic organic component of cannabis - in the treatment of intractable epilepsy.
"The additional supply [of cannabis] to be manufactured in 2014 is designed to meet the current and anticipated research efforts involving marijuana," a NIDA spokesperson told TheHill.com. "[T]his projection of increased demand is due in part to the recent increased interest in the possible therapeutic uses of marijuana."
Feeling the heat of public disgust, perhaps?
May 9, 2014
Federal: NEW Measure Introduced To Reschedule Marijuana
Virginia Republican Morgan Griffin has introduced legislation, HR 4498, in Congress to reclassify cannabis under federal law from a schedule I to a schedule II controlled substance.
The Act seeks to prohibit the federal government from interfering in the possession and distribution of marijuana in states where physicians are permitted to authorized cannabis therapy.
The measure awaits action from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
HR 4498 falls short of the ultimate goal of removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act altogether. However, it is one of a growing number of legislative measures pending in Congress to significantly amend federal marijuana laws, including:
HR 499: the Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act
HR 689: the States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act
HR 1523: Respect State Marijuana Laws Act
The links, above, go to petitions in support of those acts.
This one goes to a petition to sign in support of this newest legislation: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/51046/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=13949
May 9, 2014
via wiki -
"The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade, usually shortened to Marat/Sade, is a 1967 British film adaptation of Peter Weiss' play Marat/Sade. The screen adaptation is directed by Peter Brook, and originated in his theatre production for the Royal Shakespeare Company. The English version was written by Adrian Mitchell from a translation by Geoffrey Skelton.
The cast included Ian Richardson, Patrick Magee, Glenda Jackson, Clifford Rose, and Freddie Jones. It was filmed at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire and released by United Artists on February 22, 1967 in the United States, and 8 March 1967 in the United Kingdom. The film's score comprised Richard Peaslee's compositions. David Watkin was the cinematographer.[2] The film uses the full title in the opening credits, though most of the publicity materials uses the shortened form."
The film has a 100% rating from Rotten Tomatoes...but it is not for the squeamish. It is a devastating look into revolution, power, and human frailty.
Marat/Sade (1967)
via wiki -
"The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade, usually shortened to Marat/Sade, is a 1967 British film adaptation of Peter Weiss' play Marat/Sade. The screen adaptation is directed by Peter Brook, and originated in his theatre production for the Royal Shakespeare Company. The English version was written by Adrian Mitchell from a translation by Geoffrey Skelton.
The cast included Ian Richardson, Patrick Magee, Glenda Jackson, Clifford Rose, and Freddie Jones. It was filmed at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire and released by United Artists on February 22, 1967 in the United States, and 8 March 1967 in the United Kingdom. The film's score comprised Richard Peaslee's compositions. David Watkin was the cinematographer.[2] The film uses the full title in the opening credits, though most of the publicity materials uses the shortened form."
The film has a 100% rating from Rotten Tomatoes...but it is not for the squeamish. It is a devastating look into revolution, power, and human frailty.
During the 19th century, fashionable theatergoers would attend ostensibly therapeutic stage performances by mental asylum inmates. The film opens on July 19, 1809, with Monsieur Coubnier (Clifford Rose), the officious head of the Charenton asylum, introducing that night's show -- a drama about the assassination of French Revolutionary War firebrand Jean-Paul Marat, written by that institution's most notorious resident, the Marquis de Sade (Patrick Magee). The play begins conventionally enough , considering that the lead actress (Glenda Jackson) is a narcoleptic, the actor playing Marat (Ian Richardson) is a paranoiac, and another actor, a sex maniac with very pressing urges, is kept in chains.
But the work soon evolves into a dialogue between Marat and De Sade. Though both men were early supporters of the Revolution, their ideas of the shape of the movement took very different courses. Espousing a form of proto-Marxism, Marat is at first presented as the sort of tyrannical idealist that became depressingly familiar in the 20th century, a la Lenin and Pol Pot. But then later, Marat seems haunted by the terror he has unleashed and unable to understand where he went wrong.
De Sade, on the other hand, preached his own unusual brand of Nietzschean existentialism. Unlike Marat, he not only recognizes the inherent weakness of the human character, but he revels in it. Murder as an act of individual passion should be celebrated, De Sade at first argues; murder as an anonymous act of statecraft should be deplored. The individual is not given meaning though politics but through acts of spontaneous passion and desire. As the play progresses, the revolution depicted in the play soon develops into an outright revolution on the stage. ~ Jonathan Crow, Rovi
But the work soon evolves into a dialogue between Marat and De Sade. Though both men were early supporters of the Revolution, their ideas of the shape of the movement took very different courses. Espousing a form of proto-Marxism, Marat is at first presented as the sort of tyrannical idealist that became depressingly familiar in the 20th century, a la Lenin and Pol Pot. But then later, Marat seems haunted by the terror he has unleashed and unable to understand where he went wrong.
De Sade, on the other hand, preached his own unusual brand of Nietzschean existentialism. Unlike Marat, he not only recognizes the inherent weakness of the human character, but he revels in it. Murder as an act of individual passion should be celebrated, De Sade at first argues; murder as an anonymous act of statecraft should be deplored. The individual is not given meaning though politics but through acts of spontaneous passion and desire. As the play progresses, the revolution depicted in the play soon develops into an outright revolution on the stage. ~ Jonathan Crow, Rovi
May 8, 2014
This, Democratic Rep. Jonathan Singer noted - was the final piece of legalese to make marijuana businesses sustainable.
oh darn. I was ready to go to CO and open my COCASH biz.... script that could be used in Colorado for purchases, no matter what the biz... not that I had the capital... but I did have the thought.
But then I thought... I'll have to wear big sunglasses and fat gold rings on my pinky fingers - so it's probably all for the best.
CO Senate OKs Co-op Banking for Marijuana Bizzes
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/07/colorado-senate-oks-co-op-banking-option-for-marijuana-sellers/The Colorado state Senate passed a bill on Wednesday to create the nation’s first state-run marijuana financial cooperative, with the ultimate aim of opening newly legalized cannabis retail outlets to key banking services through the Federal Reserve.
The 24-11 vote approving the so-called “cannabis credit co-ops” came days after the state House of Representatives cleared its own version of the bill, which seeks to address problems marijuana retailers face in having to operate on a cash-only basis.
House-Senate negotiators must now reconcile differences between the two versions in hopes of sending a compromise bill back for final floor votes in both chambers before the Democratic-controlled General Assembly session ends at midnight.
If they meet the deadline, the legislation will then head to Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, who is expected to sign the bill into law.
The 24-11 vote approving the so-called “cannabis credit co-ops” came days after the state House of Representatives cleared its own version of the bill, which seeks to address problems marijuana retailers face in having to operate on a cash-only basis.
House-Senate negotiators must now reconcile differences between the two versions in hopes of sending a compromise bill back for final floor votes in both chambers before the Democratic-controlled General Assembly session ends at midnight.
If they meet the deadline, the legislation will then head to Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, who is expected to sign the bill into law.
This, Democratic Rep. Jonathan Singer noted - was the final piece of legalese to make marijuana businesses sustainable.
oh darn. I was ready to go to CO and open my COCASH biz.... script that could be used in Colorado for purchases, no matter what the biz... not that I had the capital... but I did have the thought.
But then I thought... I'll have to wear big sunglasses and fat gold rings on my pinky fingers - so it's probably all for the best.
May 6, 2014
The UN will hold a session to decide its drug policy in 2016. In meetings concerning this same issue, there was an unprecedented leak in 2013, revealing the lack of consensus and the unwillingness of nations in South and Central America, as well as Europe, to be forced to adhere to outdated policy related to drug use.
Bolivia has already claimed an exemption for coca leaves as part of indigenous culture in that nation. Uruquay has already nationalized/legalized cannabis (and has been in talks with Canada and Israel to grow marijuana for medical use in those nations.)
This is an important moment. All laws regarding drug policy in various nations are designed to meet the UN Single Conventions on Drugs (tho every nation has the discretion to schedule substances apart from this convention, and there is no real penalty for refusal to follow such conventions for any major nation - but it's time for a worldwide change in drug policy - to move from a punishment model to a rehabilitation/harm reduction model.
5 Nobel Prize economists call for an end to the drug war
http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2014/05/EndWarOnDrugsReport.aspx
Five Nobel Prize economists call for an end to the 'war on drugs' in a new report from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
Ending the Drug Wars: Report of the LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy outlines the enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage from the ‘war on drugs’ and includes a call on governments from five Nobel Prize economists to redirect resources away from an enforcement-led and prohibition-focused strategy, toward effective, evidence-based policies underpinned by rigorous economic analysis.
First, resources should be drastically reallocated away from law enforcement and repressive policies towards proven public health policies of harm reduction and treatment, with governments ensuring that these services are fully resourced to meet requirements.
Second, rigorously monitored policy and regulatory experimentation should be encouraged. States should be allowed to pursue new initiatives, the report argues, in order to determine which policies work and which don't. The places that legalise cannabis first will provide an external benefit to the rest of the world in the form of knowledge regardless of how the experiments turn out. As a result, pioneering jurisdictions should be accepted as long as they take adequate measures to prevent ‘exports’.
Five Nobel Prize economists call for an end to the 'war on drugs' in a new report from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
Ending the Drug Wars: Report of the LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy outlines the enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage from the ‘war on drugs’ and includes a call on governments from five Nobel Prize economists to redirect resources away from an enforcement-led and prohibition-focused strategy, toward effective, evidence-based policies underpinned by rigorous economic analysis.
First, resources should be drastically reallocated away from law enforcement and repressive policies towards proven public health policies of harm reduction and treatment, with governments ensuring that these services are fully resourced to meet requirements.
Second, rigorously monitored policy and regulatory experimentation should be encouraged. States should be allowed to pursue new initiatives, the report argues, in order to determine which policies work and which don't. The places that legalise cannabis first will provide an external benefit to the rest of the world in the form of knowledge regardless of how the experiments turn out. As a result, pioneering jurisdictions should be accepted as long as they take adequate measures to prevent ‘exports’.
h/t http://www.alternet.org/drugs/5-nobel-prize-economists-call-end-failed-war-drugs
Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina announced the report, titled “Ending the Drug Wars: Report of the LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy,” during a live event at the London School of Economics, which published the paper.
In addition to the Nobel Prize economists (Kenneth Arrow, Sir Christopher Pissarides, Thomas Schelling, Vernon Smith, and Oliver Williamson), international players such as former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Nick Clegg signed the report’s forward—signaling the level of attention that may be awarded to this report and, perhaps, a shift in policy to be expected on the horizon.
The report mounts a hefty case based on economic analysis, highlighting a variety of consequences suffered globally as a result of the War on Drugs. Among the examples, the report points to correlations between Colombia’s growing illegal drug trade (which increased 200 percent between 1994 and 2008) and its homicide rate. Around 3,8000 homicides occur each year “that are associated with illegal drug markets and the War on Drugs,” it says. Farther north, Mexico has experienced a tripling of its homicide rate in a four-year span from 2006 to 2010.
The document’s Nobel Prize-winning authors turn their attention to the War on Drugs’ relationship to overflowing prisons, explaining that an estimated 40 percent of the world’s 9 million incarcerated individuals are behind bars for drug offences. In U.S. federal prisons, this figure went from 25 to 59 percent from 1980 to 1998.
Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina announced the report, titled “Ending the Drug Wars: Report of the LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy,” during a live event at the London School of Economics, which published the paper.
In addition to the Nobel Prize economists (Kenneth Arrow, Sir Christopher Pissarides, Thomas Schelling, Vernon Smith, and Oliver Williamson), international players such as former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Nick Clegg signed the report’s forward—signaling the level of attention that may be awarded to this report and, perhaps, a shift in policy to be expected on the horizon.
The report mounts a hefty case based on economic analysis, highlighting a variety of consequences suffered globally as a result of the War on Drugs. Among the examples, the report points to correlations between Colombia’s growing illegal drug trade (which increased 200 percent between 1994 and 2008) and its homicide rate. Around 3,8000 homicides occur each year “that are associated with illegal drug markets and the War on Drugs,” it says. Farther north, Mexico has experienced a tripling of its homicide rate in a four-year span from 2006 to 2010.
The document’s Nobel Prize-winning authors turn their attention to the War on Drugs’ relationship to overflowing prisons, explaining that an estimated 40 percent of the world’s 9 million incarcerated individuals are behind bars for drug offences. In U.S. federal prisons, this figure went from 25 to 59 percent from 1980 to 1998.
The UN will hold a session to decide its drug policy in 2016. In meetings concerning this same issue, there was an unprecedented leak in 2013, revealing the lack of consensus and the unwillingness of nations in South and Central America, as well as Europe, to be forced to adhere to outdated policy related to drug use.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/12/more-un-states-quietly-say-no-to-drug-war/
The document, first publicised by the Guardian and obtained by IPS, contains over 100 specific policy recommendations and proposals from member states, many at odds with the status quo on illicit drug eradication and prohibition.
...Under U.S. law, the Department of State must every year publish a report that includes evaluating whether foreign aid recipients meet the “goals and objectives” of the 1988 agreement.
Most UNODC funding comes from member states, which can attach strings to “special-purpose funds.”
This means countries can maintain both private and public stances on drug policy. Switzerland, which began offering heroin-assisted treatment for addicts in 2008, backtracked this week in a press statement that stressed the leaked document was part of a “brainstorming” session and that it “does in no way support any efforts or attempts of changing the three U.N. Drug Conventions as they are today.”
The document, first publicised by the Guardian and obtained by IPS, contains over 100 specific policy recommendations and proposals from member states, many at odds with the status quo on illicit drug eradication and prohibition.
...Under U.S. law, the Department of State must every year publish a report that includes evaluating whether foreign aid recipients meet the “goals and objectives” of the 1988 agreement.
Most UNODC funding comes from member states, which can attach strings to “special-purpose funds.”
This means countries can maintain both private and public stances on drug policy. Switzerland, which began offering heroin-assisted treatment for addicts in 2008, backtracked this week in a press statement that stressed the leaked document was part of a “brainstorming” session and that it “does in no way support any efforts or attempts of changing the three U.N. Drug Conventions as they are today.”
Bolivia has already claimed an exemption for coca leaves as part of indigenous culture in that nation. Uruquay has already nationalized/legalized cannabis (and has been in talks with Canada and Israel to grow marijuana for medical use in those nations.)
This is an important moment. All laws regarding drug policy in various nations are designed to meet the UN Single Conventions on Drugs (tho every nation has the discretion to schedule substances apart from this convention, and there is no real penalty for refusal to follow such conventions for any major nation - but it's time for a worldwide change in drug policy - to move from a punishment model to a rehabilitation/harm reduction model.
May 5, 2014
iow - it's lack of employment opportunities, NOT MARIJUANA that creates the lack of opportunity and the stress this implies.
Once young adults reach age 21, the gateway effect subsides entirely.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-a-gateway-drug-scientists-call-theory-half-baked/
Scientists say "gateway theory is bunk
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html
This study demonstrated that arrest, lack of education, and employment put someone on a path to more involvement with illicit drugs - iow - the underground economy - with the proximity of other drugs as part of that economy - was the greatest predictive factor, while supportive social structure, education and opportunity were deterrents.
Those who came of age in the 1990s did so when medical marijuana was made legal - a trend that continues. Previous studies in CA indicate that marijuana use leveled off when marijuana became "normalized" rather than stigmatized - and when it was available in markets that would exclude other illegal substances.
"Marijuana culture" in places like CA also stigmatize pharmaceutical drug use because such substances are not herbal/organic.
On the other hand, Golub and Johnson found:
The "gateway" myth debunked
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/marijuana-is-gateway-drug-theory-debunked-again
For decades, prohibitionists have claimed that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that inevitably leads to use of harder substances like heroin and cocaine — despite the fact that every objective study ever done on the gateway theory has determined that it’s absolute crap.
Last week, researchers at the University of New Hampshire released yet another study discrediting the gateway theory. Their findings, based on survey data from more than 1,200 students in Florida public schools, showed that a person’s likelihood to use harder drugs has more to do with social and environmental factors than whether or not they’ve ever tried marijuana.
edit to correct: The researchers found that the strongest predictor of other illicit drug use appears to be race-ethnicity, not prior use of marijuana. Non-Hispanic whites show the greatest odds of other illicit substance use, followed by Hispanics, and then by African Americans.
For decades, prohibitionists have claimed that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that inevitably leads to use of harder substances like heroin and cocaine — despite the fact that every objective study ever done on the gateway theory has determined that it’s absolute crap.
Last week, researchers at the University of New Hampshire released yet another study discrediting the gateway theory. Their findings, based on survey data from more than 1,200 students in Florida public schools, showed that a person’s likelihood to use harder drugs has more to do with social and environmental factors than whether or not they’ve ever tried marijuana.
edit to correct: The researchers found that the strongest predictor of other illicit drug use appears to be race-ethnicity, not prior use of marijuana. Non-Hispanic whites show the greatest odds of other illicit substance use, followed by Hispanics, and then by African Americans.
New Hampshire study: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/uonh-rom083110.php
Whether teenagers who smoked pot will use other illicit drugs as young adults has more to do with life factors such as employment status and stress, according to the new research. In fact, the strongest predictor of whether someone will use other illicit drugs is their race/ethnicity, not whether they ever used marijuana.
Whether teenagers who smoked pot will use other illicit drugs as young adults has more to do with life factors such as employment status and stress, according to the new research. In fact, the strongest predictor of whether someone will use other illicit drugs is their race/ethnicity, not whether they ever used marijuana.
iow - it's lack of employment opportunities, NOT MARIJUANA that creates the lack of opportunity and the stress this implies.
Conducted by UNH associate professors of sociology Karen Van Gundy and Cesar Rebellon, the research appears in the September 2010, issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior in the article, "A Life-course Perspective on the 'Gateway Hypothesis.' "
"In light of these findings, we urge U.S. drug control policymakers to consider stress and life-course approaches in their pursuit of solutions to the 'drug problem,' " Van Gundy and Rebellon say.
The researchers used survey data from 1,286 young adults who attended Miami-Dade public schools in the 1990s. Within the final sample, 26 percent of the respondents are African American, 44 percent are Hispanic, and 30 percent are non-Hispanic white.
"In light of these findings, we urge U.S. drug control policymakers to consider stress and life-course approaches in their pursuit of solutions to the 'drug problem,' " Van Gundy and Rebellon say.
The researchers used survey data from 1,286 young adults who attended Miami-Dade public schools in the 1990s. Within the final sample, 26 percent of the respondents are African American, 44 percent are Hispanic, and 30 percent are non-Hispanic white.
Once young adults reach age 21, the gateway effect subsides entirely.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-a-gateway-drug-scientists-call-theory-half-baked/
Scientists say "gateway theory is bunk
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html
...A study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research in London, researchers found no gateway effect for marijuana. Surveying 17,000 drug users over a 10-year period, they reported that marijuana use typically began between the ages of 18 and 20, and cocaine use began between 20 and 25. Moreover, they found that there was not much variance among those who used cocaine in comparison to if they had previously used marijuana. There were substantial individuals who had used “soft and hard drugs”, but the association was related to personal characteristics and a tendency to partake in experimentation (Golub & Johnson, 2001).
This study demonstrated that arrest, lack of education, and employment put someone on a path to more involvement with illicit drugs - iow - the underground economy - with the proximity of other drugs as part of that economy - was the greatest predictive factor, while supportive social structure, education and opportunity were deterrents.
The Institute of Medicine’s 1999 report - "Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana—usually before they are of legal age.
In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a "gateway" drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, "gateway" to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs. An important caution is that data on drug use progression cannot be assumed to apply to the use of drugs for medical purposes. It does not follow from those data that if marijuana were available by prescription for medical use, the pattern of drug use would remain the same as seen in illicit use" (Joy et al. 1999)
A more recent study based on national survey data also does not support the hypothesis that increases in marijuana use lead to increased use of more dangerous drugs among the general public. In the American Journal of Public Health, Andrew Golub and Bruce Johnson of the National Development and Research Institute in New York wrote that young people who smoked marijuana in the generations before and after the baby boomers do not appear to be likely to move on to harder drugs. The researchers said that these findings suggest that the gateway phenomenon reflects norms prevailing among youths at a specific place and time.
In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a "gateway" drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, "gateway" to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs. An important caution is that data on drug use progression cannot be assumed to apply to the use of drugs for medical purposes. It does not follow from those data that if marijuana were available by prescription for medical use, the pattern of drug use would remain the same as seen in illicit use" (Joy et al. 1999)
A more recent study based on national survey data also does not support the hypothesis that increases in marijuana use lead to increased use of more dangerous drugs among the general public. In the American Journal of Public Health, Andrew Golub and Bruce Johnson of the National Development and Research Institute in New York wrote that young people who smoked marijuana in the generations before and after the baby boomers do not appear to be likely to move on to harder drugs. The researchers said that these findings suggest that the gateway phenomenon reflects norms prevailing among youths at a specific place and time.
Those who came of age in the 1990s did so when medical marijuana was made legal - a trend that continues. Previous studies in CA indicate that marijuana use leveled off when marijuana became "normalized" rather than stigmatized - and when it was available in markets that would exclude other illegal substances.
"Marijuana culture" in places like CA also stigmatize pharmaceutical drug use because such substances are not herbal/organic.
On the other hand, Golub and Johnson found:
Research also suggests that the “gateway theory” does not describe the behavior of serious drug users:
“The serious drug users were substantially different from high school samples in their progression of drug use. The serious drug users were less likely to follow the typical sequence identified in previous studies (alcohol, then marijuana, followed by other illicit drugs). They were more likely to have used marijuana before using alcohol, and more likely to have used other illicit drugs before using marijuana. We also found that atypical sequencing was associated with earlier initiation of the use of illicit drugs other than marijuana and greater lifetime drug involvement. These findings suggest that for a large number of serious drug users, marijuana does not play the role of a 'gateway drug'. We conclude that prevention efforts which focus on alcohol and marijuana may be of limited effectiveness for youth who are at risk for serious drug abuse” (Mackesy-Amiti et al. 1997)
“The serious drug users were substantially different from high school samples in their progression of drug use. The serious drug users were less likely to follow the typical sequence identified in previous studies (alcohol, then marijuana, followed by other illicit drugs). They were more likely to have used marijuana before using alcohol, and more likely to have used other illicit drugs before using marijuana. We also found that atypical sequencing was associated with earlier initiation of the use of illicit drugs other than marijuana and greater lifetime drug involvement. These findings suggest that for a large number of serious drug users, marijuana does not play the role of a 'gateway drug'. We conclude that prevention efforts which focus on alcohol and marijuana may be of limited effectiveness for youth who are at risk for serious drug abuse” (Mackesy-Amiti et al. 1997)
May 5, 2014
Issa is also one of the Republicans who crafted a bill to tell Obama to enforce federal law in states that have legalized marijuana - AND want to be able to sue President Obama for the same.
Isn't it interesting that Republicans are only interested in states' rights when they can take freedom away from Americans - but any time a grass roots campaign seeks to make America less of of right wing authoritarian paradise - they're suddenly in favor of federal law - and a lawsuit against a President who is, in fact, following the law?
Prosecutorial discretion allows the Attn. Gen. to decide which situations require the greatest oversight - even tho, within the constitution, the Supremacy Clause places federal law above state law.
However, the federal govt. cannot compel state law enforcement to implement federal law. Therefore, in order to overturn the will of the people in states with legal marijuana, federal agents would have to go to those states to enforce the law.
THIS is why it is so important for numerous states to create changes in their laws - to overwhelm the federal capacity to enforce unwanted law.
When various states passed decriminalization laws in the 70s and 80s in response to Nixon's refusal to follow the DEA judge's recommendation to decriminalize - this issue of paying for enforcement was a primary reason those laws remained intact.
When state after state passed laws making medical mj legal - this issue of paying for enforcement was a primary reason those laws have remained intact (but it's also the reason why the DEA raids state-legal medical mj providers from time to time and prosecutes some in "show trials" to create an environment of uncertainty regarding laws the majority of the population favors. Since the late 1990s, more than 70% of the American public has favored legal medical mj. Since CO and WA's votes to fully legalize, more than 50% (Gallup had one poll at 58%) want to end the war on marijuana. This number is growing as more Americans see the tax revenues from legal, regulated marijuana - and see that legal marijuana does not destroy civilization as we know it.)
Republicans Weigh D.C. Residents' Vote to Decriminalize MJ
Washington D.C. legislators recently voted to decriminalize marijuana in the nation's capital. Because of the set up for D.C. representation, their laws must be approved by the federal Congress before they are enacted. In these cases, Congress has 60 days to weigh the law before it is passed.
That 60 day period is coming nigh.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Friday that the Government Operations subpanel, led by Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), will examine the new law when Congress returns from its two-week spring recess.
Although D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) signed the measure on Monday, the unique rules governing the nation's capitol grant Congress 60 days to review – and possibly block – the proposal before it takes effect.
Such a rejection is highly unusual, as it would require action by both the House and Senate. But a public hearing would offer critics – including a number of conservatives on the Oversight panel – a forum to air their concerns in an election year.
He suggested the examination would focus on the enforcement questions created by the discrepancies between federal marijuana laws and those enacted by state and local governments – an issue even more complicated in the case of D.C., which falls under partial control of Congress.
“The will of a city versus the will of the nation is always going to be a bit of a challenge, and we're seeing this unfold [with the marijuana law]," Issa told The Hill Friday. “This is an area in transition where The District neither should lead nor be held unreasonably not to be able to follow. And so how it gets reviewed in light of the federal enforcement and so on I think remains to be seen.”
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/202720-house-gop-to-examine-dc-bill-to-legalize-marijuana#ixzz30snAbWM0
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Although D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) signed the measure on Monday, the unique rules governing the nation's capitol grant Congress 60 days to review – and possibly block – the proposal before it takes effect.
Such a rejection is highly unusual, as it would require action by both the House and Senate. But a public hearing would offer critics – including a number of conservatives on the Oversight panel – a forum to air their concerns in an election year.
He suggested the examination would focus on the enforcement questions created by the discrepancies between federal marijuana laws and those enacted by state and local governments – an issue even more complicated in the case of D.C., which falls under partial control of Congress.
“The will of a city versus the will of the nation is always going to be a bit of a challenge, and we're seeing this unfold [with the marijuana law]," Issa told The Hill Friday. “This is an area in transition where The District neither should lead nor be held unreasonably not to be able to follow. And so how it gets reviewed in light of the federal enforcement and so on I think remains to be seen.”
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/202720-house-gop-to-examine-dc-bill-to-legalize-marijuana#ixzz30snAbWM0
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Issa is also one of the Republicans who crafted a bill to tell Obama to enforce federal law in states that have legalized marijuana - AND want to be able to sue President Obama for the same.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/13/house-gop-passes-bill-to-force-obama-to-crack-down-on-legal-weed-in-states-that-allow-it/
Legislation approved by House Republicans would seek to force President Barack Obama to crack down on marijuana in states that have made the drug legal for medical or recreational use.
The House passed the Enforce the Law Act by a vote of 233-181 on Wednesday, March 12th. The bill was introduced by Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) to allow Congress to sue the president for failing to faithfully execute laws.
“The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to write the laws and the Executive to enforce them,” Gowdy said Wednesday in a statement. “We don’t pass suggestions. We don’t pass ideas. We pass laws. Regardless of our politics, I hope my colleagues have enough regard for our work to expect those laws would be faithfully executed.”
A committee report submitted by Goodlatte cited the Obama administration’s decision to not intervene with marijuana legalization efforts in various states as an example of executive overreach.
Legislation approved by House Republicans would seek to force President Barack Obama to crack down on marijuana in states that have made the drug legal for medical or recreational use.
The House passed the Enforce the Law Act by a vote of 233-181 on Wednesday, March 12th. The bill was introduced by Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) to allow Congress to sue the president for failing to faithfully execute laws.
“The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to write the laws and the Executive to enforce them,” Gowdy said Wednesday in a statement. “We don’t pass suggestions. We don’t pass ideas. We pass laws. Regardless of our politics, I hope my colleagues have enough regard for our work to expect those laws would be faithfully executed.”
A committee report submitted by Goodlatte cited the Obama administration’s decision to not intervene with marijuana legalization efforts in various states as an example of executive overreach.
Isn't it interesting that Republicans are only interested in states' rights when they can take freedom away from Americans - but any time a grass roots campaign seeks to make America less of of right wing authoritarian paradise - they're suddenly in favor of federal law - and a lawsuit against a President who is, in fact, following the law?
Prosecutorial discretion allows the Attn. Gen. to decide which situations require the greatest oversight - even tho, within the constitution, the Supremacy Clause places federal law above state law.
However, the federal govt. cannot compel state law enforcement to implement federal law. Therefore, in order to overturn the will of the people in states with legal marijuana, federal agents would have to go to those states to enforce the law.
THIS is why it is so important for numerous states to create changes in their laws - to overwhelm the federal capacity to enforce unwanted law.
When various states passed decriminalization laws in the 70s and 80s in response to Nixon's refusal to follow the DEA judge's recommendation to decriminalize - this issue of paying for enforcement was a primary reason those laws remained intact.
When state after state passed laws making medical mj legal - this issue of paying for enforcement was a primary reason those laws have remained intact (but it's also the reason why the DEA raids state-legal medical mj providers from time to time and prosecutes some in "show trials" to create an environment of uncertainty regarding laws the majority of the population favors. Since the late 1990s, more than 70% of the American public has favored legal medical mj. Since CO and WA's votes to fully legalize, more than 50% (Gallup had one poll at 58%) want to end the war on marijuana. This number is growing as more Americans see the tax revenues from legal, regulated marijuana - and see that legal marijuana does not destroy civilization as we know it.)
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 28,784
