Our blogs about
America's Wars
War on Iraq
War on Drugs
War on Afghanistan
War on Columbia
War on Philippines
War on Venezuela

More
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World Events
US News
Science & Health
Earth News
Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Matrix Masters'
SUPPORTERS

Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

 

Pill Sham
(Jacob Sullum, Reason, April 23, 2004)
Here's a bit of legal information that may interest Rush Limbaugh: Under Florida law, illegally obtaining more than 28 grams of painkillers containing the narcotic oxycodone — a threshold exceeded by a single 60-pill Percocet prescription — automatically makes you the worst sort of drug trafficker, even if you never sold a single pill. Even if, like Richard Paey, you were using the drugs to relieve severe chronic pain. Although prosecutors admitted Paey was not a drug trafficker, on April 16 he received a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for drug trafficking. That jaw-dropping outcome illustrates two sadly familiar side effects of the war on drugs: the injustice caused by mandatory minimum sentences and the suffering caused by the government's interference with pain treatment. A juror later told the St. Petersburg Times he did not really think Paey was guilty of trafficking, since the prosecution made it clear from the outset that he didn't sell any pills. The juror said he voted guilty to avoid being the lone holdout. He suggested that other jurors might have voted differently if the foreman had not assured them Paey would get probation. The prosecutors, who finally obtained the draconian sentence that even they concede Paey does not deserve, say it's his fault for insisting on his innocence. "It's unfortunate that anyone has to go to prison, but he's got no one to blame but Richard Paey," Assistant State Attorney Mike Halkitis told the St. Petersburg Times. "All we wanted to do was get him help."

******Kind of takes your beath away. But, seeing as this is Floriduh and Gubnor JEB continues to hold the citizens of the state somewhere back in the 1940's, it should hardly surprise anyone. Think about it - if the prosecutors admit that he did not traffic, how can a judicial system that is WORKING convict himof trafficing? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE????? Oh, and you can probably take it to the bank that Limbaugh will never see the inside of a courtroom over his doctor shopping - but you probably already knew that...*****

. . . Read more!


posted by A Curmudgeon 9:08 AM

 

Cannabis is safer than asprin
Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death) Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports.

- TOBACCO 340,000 to 450,000
- ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders) 150,000+
- ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose) 180 to 1,000+
- CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc.) 1,000 to 10,000
- "LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from legal, prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol - e.g. Valium/alcohol 14,000 to 27,000
- ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal drugs. 3,800 to 5,200
- MARIJUANA 0

(Marijuana users also have the same or lower incidence of murders and highway deaths and accidents than the general non-marijuana using population as a whole. . . . LOWEST TOXICITY 100% of the studies done at dozens of American universities and research facilities show pot toxicity does not exist. Medical history does not record anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana (UCLA, Harvard, Temple, etc.).

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Section 8 of Judge Young's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision."

3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:15 PM

 

Bad News in the War on Drugs, LSD Use Down
(Ryan Grim, Slate, April 1, 2004)
MTF has documented the rise and decline of many drugs, but lead researcher Dr. Lloyd Johnston says the group has never seen such a dramatic drop in the use of an established illicit drug as they're seeing now with LSD. In both the 2000 and 2001 surveys, 6.6 percent of high-school seniors reported that they'd used LSD in the previous year. In 2002, the figure dropped to 3.5 percent. And in the most recent survey, from 2003, only 1.9 percent of high-school seniors claim to have dropped acid. . . . In major cities and college towns where LSD was once plentiful, it can't be had at all. . . . DAWN Project Director Dr. Judy Ball says what's unique about the LSD findings is that they show a consistent decline in every metropolitan area measured, not just common regional fluctuations. . . . Nobody collects national arrest data for LSD cases, but federal arrests for LSD trafficking and possession have tumbled in recent years. The Drug Enforcement Administration recorded 203 arrests in FY2000, 95 in FY2001, 41 in FY2002, and 19 in FY2003. In the first quarter of 2004, the feds have arrested only three people on LSD charges. In the LSD haven of San Francisco, the DEA recorded 20 arrests in 2000 versus zero in 2002, according to DEA Special Agent Richard Meyer of the agency's San Francisco office. . . . How permanent is the acid drought? The history of drug prohibition indicates that the government can upset supply and demand at the margins. It can drive one drug into scarcity only to see users substitute it with another. But it never eliminates the market for drugs altogether. As the drug war enters its second century, LSD appears to be in retreat. But never bet against a comeback.

[COMMENT: This is truly sad news. In times like these we need a significant increase in the number of LSD users, particularly among young people. It may be the only way they will be able to break the choke hold on consciousness that the conservitive religious right seems to have on this nation.]

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 2:57 PM

 

Bolivian President Suspends Drug War Base: Blockades Lifted
(Alex Contreras Baspineiro, The Narco News Bulletin, April 8, 2004)
The coca growers – known in Spanish as cocaleros – of the Yungas region mobilized from April 5 to 7, blocking the highway that connects La Paz to the east. Starting today, they have declared a state of emergency in response to the construction of new military infrastructure and the attempts to forcibly eradicate their crops. . . . In June of 2003, confidential reports leaked from the Ministry of Defense demonstrated that the government had agreed to demands from the US for the construction of two new military bases inside Bolivian territory. One would be in the Yungas region, the other in the Chapare – the country’s two major coca cultivation zones. . . . The documents also revealed that the US Embassy was to finance the establishment of the “Tricolor” radio station (a reference to the three colors of the Bolivian flag) in the town of Chimoré, to be run by the Bolivian armed forces. Broadcasting at up to 15 kilowatts the station will reach all across the country, disseminating discouraging messages to the coca growers about the supposed war on drugs and terrorism. . . . In the Rinconada region, construction has begun on new police/military barracks. There are also rumors circulating about the installation of the “Tricolor” radio station in the Chapare. . . . Yesterday, after three days of conflict, the government and the coca growers signed an accord, which indefinitely suspends the construction of the Rinconada base. It also requires that the existing installations not be used as barracks, and that no forced eradication take place in the three provinces of the Yungas region. . . . Having achieved their goal of shutting down the military base construction indefinitely and preventing the eradication of their crops, the coca growers lifted the highway blockades and returned to their communities. . . . The latest satellite data from the US government, produced this February, show 28,100 hectares (69,500 acres) of coca fields in Bolivia. Of these, 23,550 hectares are located in the Yungas region, and 4,600 hectares in the Chapare. . . . On Tuesday, April 6, US Ambassador David Greenlee reminded President Carlos Mesa of the existence of 11,000 hectares of surplus coca in the Yungas. . . . “According to the satellite readings,” said Greenlee, “there are surplus coca plantations in the Yungas that must be eradicated through integrated alternative development.” . . . In a conversation with Narco News, congressman and cocalero Roberto Calle rejected US interference in internal affairs, and called Greenlee’s words manipulative. . . . “It is an embarrassment that the Mesa government accepts so much interference from the United States,” said Calle. “We will not permit them to touch even one coca leaf in the Yungas, and we emphatically reject the ambassador’s words when he proposes an integrated alternative development. That is a new lie, and nothing but a distraction in this low-intensity war.” . . . Calle added that the coca growers’ demands include the immediate withdrawal of Joint Task Force troops (the Bolivian forces charged with coca eradication) from the area; the abandonment of a plan to separate the coca marketing association in the Yungas into two or more organization, thus dividing the coca growers along provincial lines . . . What is clear, dear readers, is that the United States feels that the Chapare region has now left the coca-cocaine circuit, and that the violent intervention should now be realized in the Yungas. . . . The administration of Carlos Mesa now finds itself at a crossroads: it can continue to passively obey the impositions of the US government, or it can begin to hear the demands of the Bolivian people.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 7:22 PM

 

Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dogs in Traffic Stops
(David Stout, New York Times, April 5, 2004)
So now the case of Illinois v. Caballes, 03-923, will go before the United States Supreme Court. It is yet another in a series of cases weighing police officers' power to look for wrongdoing against the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . . In a Michigan case from more than a decade ago, the justices upheld sobriety checkpoints as a means of protecting public safety by getting drunken drivers off the road. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a sniff by a drug-detecting dog, which is commonly used at airports, is so minimally intrusive as not to constitute a search. . . . But in a 2000 case from Indianapolis, the justices ruled that roadblocks aimed at discovering drugs violate the Fourth Amendment. The majority held that "the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime" was insufficient justification for wholesale stops. . . . An Illinois appeals court rejected Mr. Caballes's argument, finding that the sniff by the dog was justified. But the Illinois Supreme Court sided with the defendant, ruling 4 to 3 that the sniff was conducted without "specific and articulable facts" and throwing out the conviction. . . . The Illinois justices said the fact that the aroma of air-freshener was obvious in the defendant's car and his apparent nervousness even after being told he was being given only a warning for speeding could account for "nothing more than a vague hunch" on the part of the troopers, not a sufficient basis to let the dog sniff. . . . In any event, the Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, has appealed the Illinois Supreme Court ruling. So within the next several months, the United States Supreme Court will rule on Mr. Caballes's fate, and perhaps clarify when a sniff is a search, and when it is just a sniff.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 12:19 PM

 

A Minor Victory for the Good Guys!
I hope you all caught last night's ABC special about MDMA (Ecstasy) by Peter Jennings. To be honest, I was astounded that Jennings was able to get such a balanced piece of reporting about MDMA on network television. After polling several members of the psychedelic community, I have concluded that this Special Report was very well received. Here are a couple of the comments I received about this program:

After seeing the program, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It was not at all a hatchet job, and the government came off looking pretty bad.

I especially liked the fellow who talked about the millions of doses done yearly, but lead to only two genuine cases of harm which could be traced to sole usage of Ecstasy. And making the point that very few pharmaceuticals are anywhere near this safe, even when used in an informed, supervised manner.

I was quite pleased with the way it was presented...the government was unable to articulate any sane and reasonable justification for shutting down what was essentially a whole lot of people having a good time and not having any problems about it on the one hand and a whole lot of people being healed and made whole again on the other.

I wonder if ABC will be boycotted and by what alternate lifeforms...the anguished/angry response from the nattering nabobs of neoconeheadevangelicalknuckleheadism and their ilk.

I'm going to send an email to ABC with a tip of my hat.

The comments I see from the entheo community are almost overwhelmingly positive. But there is also the sobering realization that a victory such as this will not have any dramatic impact. The Rave Act is already law. 90% of the minds out there are already set in stone on this issue. And only a small minority of people watched the program. Sigh...

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 2:45 PM