Congress Demands DEA to Allow Private Marijuana Cultivation

Fourty-five members of Congress have wirtten a non-binding letter (warning PDF) to the DEA urging them to comply with the February 12,2007 opinion and recommended ruling that private production of marijuana is "in the interest of the public". These members of Congress are lobbying for the University of Massachusetts to cultivate their own supply of marijuana for "federally-approved researchers." The PDF goes futher on into detail about how the National Institute on Drug Abuse has a current monopoly on the production of medicinal marijuana used for clinical trials, and a great quote by former DEA Administrator Robert Bonner.

Is this good or bad?

Seeing as this is a bipartisan letter that has the backing of John Olver (D-MA), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX), and evidently even John Kerry this makes me extremely happy. My only concern is that I can't find much information on Professor Lyle Craker from UMass, and I am wondering if there are ulterior motives behind all of this. I'm am real skeptical to see any results that may come from any federally approved research.

Ron Paul for President

Join a Ron Paul meetup group ronpaul.meetup.com and help get Ron Paul elected.

This man will be the best thing that ever happened to our country. My husband said he also wants to pardon all non violent drug offenders in prison.

Proabition didn't work, and neither is the so called war on drugs.

 

How do I get to become a

How do I get to become a "federally approved" researcher?

Mike Gravel, the only sane,

Mike Gravel, the only sane, normal down to earth, straight talking politician. He's the only candidate to not only oppose the war on drugs but admitted to using cannabis, i.e. the only honest guy with any guts left.

Did you ever notice how all laws passed regarding so called drugs are passed by people who have no personal experience with it?

FREEDOM WHAT IS IT? WHERE

FREEDOM WHAT IS IT? WHERE CAN IT BE FOUND? AND WHY DO WE CLAIM TO HAVE IT IN THE USA? USA THE ONLY FREEDOM WE HAVE IS TO PAY OUTRAGOUS TAXES AND DO AS YOUR TOLD (FREEDOM IS A HYPOCRITICAL STATEMENT). THE COAST GUARD SAYS THEY ARE THE SHIELD OF FREEDOM, WHAT FREEDOM? THE USA HAS TRIED PROHIBITION ALREADY, THEY FOUND A WAY TO TAX ALCOHOL JUST LIKE THEY TRIED TO TAX MARIJUANA IN 1933. THE USA IS BECOMING THE MOST OPPRESSIVE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT JUST LOOK AT PRISON POPULATIONS AROUND THE WORLD USA IS THE LEADER THERE. SOME STATES HAVE HARSHER PUNISHMENTS FOR POSSESION OF POT THAN IF YOU RAPED A CHILD..WHAT UP THERE?

Professor Lyle Craker

Professor Lyle Cracker is a respected botanist at UMass who studies the medicinal use of a variety of plants. There is a brief interivew with him posted here.

this is good because its at

this is good because its at my school

Our Congress should not

Our Congress should not be stealing our earnings and transferring our wealth to pubic institutions, no matter how noble the cause. If the cause is so noble it will fund itself. And if not enough investors are willing to risk their money in the pursuit of a particular research or invention then it must not be a promising technology anyway.

For the federal government to tell anybody what they can or cannot grow, smoke, snort, inject, possess, etc. in the manner of doing to themselves at no initiation of force or fraud on others is not in the government's, any government's purview.

Heck, the professor can brew up a batch of meth to keep his students awake for all I care.

Ron Paul is a wackjob,

Ron Paul is a wackjob, sorry. He wants to pardon all non-violent drug offenders because he doesn't think drug abuse should be a federal crime, not because he thinks drugs should be legal. He supports a state's right to make basically anything it wants illegal, including all drugs, gay marriage, gun ownership, abortions, you name it.

He has also had some really racist and ignorant things printed in his newsletter over the years. Not to mention he wants to go back to the gold standard. You want to talk about insane ideas...

I'm not saying he's a bad guy and I appreciate that he's talking about a lot of the right things in this election and sticking it to a lot of people with their heads in the sand, but he could be completely disastrous to the country if many of his ideas actually got implemented.

I find it amazing...

That the federal govenment still denies that marijuana has no medicinal value. I had the worse migrane becuase my f****** wisdom teath, but pot saved the day. Tylenol was completly useless and with out health insurance I cant afford a visit to the doc unless Im dying. Maybe if this bill passes we can get some accurate information to back the millions of personal testimonies. For those of you who werent aware prior federal testing of the medicinal value of marijuana has been extremly inaccurate due to low quality herb involved.

The gold standard kept

The gold standard kept governments honest for thousands of years. So, what's wrong with that. Governments want to be counterfeiters, and you think that is good? Just look at all the inflation we've had since we went off the gold standard.

 

If a state makes something illegal, you can move out of the state. I'd be for drug legalization everywhere but I'd start by getting the feds out of it. When the feds make it illegal, you have to leave the country.

 Just saying he has had racist statements is  quite unfair. Suppose I say you are racist, but provide no details. I find it rather difficult to believe that Dr Paul's principles allow for racism (with force). And it's force that is the problem. The races have only suffered from, e.g. Klan, etc. because the Klan had used political power. If the races had been able to shoot back, the klan wouldn't have been much of a problem. It was the government segregation, by force that was the trouble. So, what exactly are you saying anyway?

All these fears. Gays getting married. Who cares? Ah, I see, it's because you want to give special priviledges (subsidise for example) to married people, at the expense of single people. Well would you be afraid of gay marriage if married and single people were treated equally? Or are you afraid of gay people for some reason? If they are getting too much government power, then it's because we have too much government power for sale. Shrink down government, and you have nothing to fear from gays, religions, etc.

 

So, believing that drug

So, believing that drug abuse should not be a federal crime makes one a wackjob? I guess I'm a wackjob too.

He also supports a state's right to make anything it wants legal, including all drugs, gay marriage, gun ownership, abortions, you name it. I don't see the problem here. Are you implying that we need some type of federal oversight or buraeaucracy to mandate state laws?

I'm interested in the racist and ignorant things over the years. Can we get cited examples? Ya, a gold standad could be disastrous, maybe our currency would become so worthless, Canadian dollars will surpass us. Oh wait, that was last week, or is it next week. (let's not forget their currency is in a downward spiral too, just not freefall like ours)

I was gonna write a long

I was gonna write a long winded response on how off your comment was but decided your not worth it. That newsletter was from a long time ago and ron paul doesnt let his personal decions effect his politics. all non violent drug offenders should be released b.c they made no crime agaisnt a person or property. He also see the constitution as the supreme law of the land, states cant pass laws over the constitution. DUHHHH. go read somemore before you make ignorant comments. ‰

Yeah. Ron Paul REALLY is a

Yeah. Ron Paul REALLY is a whackjob. Did you hear what he said about wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade, a Supreme Court decision over the Constitution of the United States? That would be like repealing the first amendment!

 

I'll take Ron Paul over any of those other 'Pubs any day of the week, the Damn globalist New World Order idiots.

 

And most of the Democrats.

Ron paul = wackjob..... ok

Ron paul = wackjob..... ok ill bite

you say he is insane, racist, and whatever.

now lets look at who is currently in power

Bush is a nazi bastard, commiting illegal wars, genocide, and has basicly made the constitution obsolete.

and you say ron paul will be disatrous,  LOL

all the politicans will be disasterus to america and the world, dont matter who u vote in.

 

The funny part isn't that

The funny part isn't that they don't admit it, it's that they did admit it a few years back and now refuse to say anything about it. That's their dirty little secret. There was a program a while back where they said it had medicinal value and actually grew it and gave it to patients. In fact, I believe there are some surviving people that were a part of this program still around and still get marijuana legally from the government.

What do you fear from a gold

What do you fear from a gold standard? OUr currency is already becomming worthless, because it is not backed up by anything and the FED can create as much as it wants - just like a counterfeiter. All a gold standard would do is to keep the amount of currency nearly constant.

 

Read Rothbards "what has government done to our money" to see why not being tied to gold is ruining our currency.

 

If you follow the money and

If you follow the money and power, you'll see that it makes perfect sense for the government to deny marijuana.

 

Look at how it became illegal in 1937. It was competition for newspaper giants in the use as paper. It was not made illegal, it just required a stamp. But they refused to sell the stamps. This is the same tactic to circumvent the constitution that worked to outlaw machine guns (legal, but no stamps were available).

Well, Timothy leary took that to the supreme court who overturned the marijuana stamp act (in the 60's or so). Congress by then no longer bothered with the constituion and so simply made marijuana illegal the next day. IN 1937, they at least made some effort to keep within the constitution, at least compared to how it is totally ignored today.

 

The Canadian dollar is not

The Canadian dollar is not on a downward spirial, in fact, our economy is still growing strong. I know you guys don't get our media, but it's actually a very talked about thing right now. Our dollar is rising, our markets are strong, and we are just waiting for whatever is going to happen in the US, however, most economists predict (Government and independent, on all sides...) that we have a strong enough economy to withstand the slowing US economy. Most currencies are on the rise (The Euro, Pound, etc), but Canada has gained the highest percent over the past few weeks.

A lot of the problems our economy is facing right now is actually due to our "Free Trade" with the US, and Mr. Stephen "Bush's Bitch" Harper's poor leadership. However, your "FDA" just opened the boarder again to beef import, so our farmers will see a lot of benefit from that, and rightly so. (After that 1 isolated mad-cow case in Alberta... Seriously, just 1... And it was the first one in a long time) They closed down the boarder for quite a number of years, which caused some real hard times for the beef industry.

Plus, with the upcoming Olympics and our high dollar, we should be fine for the next few years atleast. Once you get that monkey out of power (Although, Clinton or Obama will probably replace him, and neither of them have a fucking clue), hopefully the US economy will start to rebound and with that, so will the Canadian economy. But in short, we're doing good up here... Even with our "evil Socialist healthcare"

The racist and anti-semetic

The racist and anti-semetic comments that have seen Ron Paul attacked on come from a 15 year old article in Dr. Paul's newsletter. This article was actually written by a staffer of his, and Dr. Paul apologized for the comments within one day.

 

I can't find the pdf where I found it before, and don't really feel the need to dig around for it now. For those wondering the comments were along the lines that african americans are "crime prone" and "fleet footed," and that the Israeli lobby is one of the most powerful lobbies "of the bad sort" in Washington, as the goal of the Zionist mvoement is to stifle criticism.

Tell me what is inherently

Tell me what is inherently more valuable about gold as opposed to the American dollar. Would the rest of the civilized world rather have a bank account with $100,000 USD in it or a hunk of gold in their basement? You're implying the price of gold hasn't changed in the years since we've been off the gold standard. The dollar is plenty stable and switching to gold-backed currency is only going to limit our options and strangle our power in a global economy. What happens if someone finds a huge gold-mine in another country, why should our dollar suffer? And how do we make that transition without collapsing our domestic economy right now? What other first-world countries are using gold-backed currency successfully right now? If a state makes something illegal you can move out of the state? Yea that sounds like where I want to live. Where in my hometown I can do as I wish but when I travel for business my rights and status can change every time I land in an airport. It would be almost like I was traveling country to country, right? You say now we have to leave the country if we disagree, I say what's the difference if all of your freedoms appear and disappear from state to state? Saying that there were racist statements published in his official newsletter is not unfair. It is true. I never said he actually wrote them, but to pretend he isn't accountable for what is printed there is laughable. That staff is made up of the people he chose to operate it and the people he chooses to surround himself with are telling. from http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index1.html "This is not the first time Paul has veered into potentially insensitive territory. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." I don't fear gay marriage, Ron Paul does. Ron Paul personally doesn't think gays should get married and whether that effects his political leanings or not, Ron Paul supports a position where you could get married in California but if you're hospitalized or filing taxes in Texas they would be under no obligation to honor that marriage. That's ridiculous. You're confusing the possibility of more freedom with actual freedom. Just as it opens doors for states to be more progressive, it also opens doors for them to be much more conservative and discriminatory. I do not fear abortion, Ron Paul does. He sees it as an act of aggression that all Libertarians should oppose politically because a fetus is a human being and has rights (which is basically a religious belief effecting his politics). He also thinks the radical left is waging a war on Christmas and that their goal is to "transform America into a completely secular nation," which if I understand the Constitution is what we were supposed to be in the first place. Like I said, I respect Ron Paul for what he does to the political forum in general and for what he brings to the table with his point of view. He's an intelligent guy and he does stick to his guns. Unfortunately his view of a perfect America does not appeal to me at all and I feel like idealogical basis of many of his ideas that I do like (like releasing drug offenders) undermines the good that they would do.

Roe V Wade was a terrible

Roe V Wade was a terrible decision that everyone agrees was incorrect based on the law. Norma McCorvey (Roe) who won the initial landmark decision has since filed suit to have it overturned.

I have yet to find legal scholars who say that Roe v. Wade was a solid legal decision. Quiet the oppositite. That's not a statement of morally what is right and what is wrong. I'm talking about strictly in terms of legal interpretation, R v W should not have happened.

Another thing that is always interesting to do is to find someone who feels strongly about Roe v. Wade who is extremely argumentative and convinced that their opinion is right. Then ask them A) who Roe was, and B, which side was Roe on..

Most can't tell you that.. I mean if you are going to argue something with passion, at least know the fundementals of what you are arguing.

 

"He also thinks the radical

"He also thinks the radical left is waging a war on Christmas and that their goal is to "transform America into a completely secular nation," which if I understand the Constitution is what we were supposed to be in the first place."

Wrong!!! Go back and read the Constitution.  It doesn't say we are supposed to be a secular nation.  It only says we are supposed to have a secular government and a nation free to practice any religion we wish to practice.  It's the liberal media and a few crackpot lawyers who pervert the meaning and of the Constitutional Ammendments who are trying to subvert our freedoms in the name of the Constitution.  We need to go back and restore States Rights and get the Federal Government off our backs.  The Constitution should be used to limit the rights of State Governments to subvert our rights, not subvert our rights at the Federal level.

Funnier than that is that

Funnier than that is that Plaintiffs are always listed to the left of the "v". A lot of people that argue legal terms don't know that either. Even if you never heard of Roe v Wade, you should know that Roe would be the Plaintiff and Wade would be the defendant, otherwise it would be listed as Wade v Roe.

Ask them which side won in Roe v Wade as well, a lot of people don't know that either, but they will sure as heck tell you how it should or should not be overturned.

 

 

You have yet to find legal

You have yet to find legal scholars who think it was a sound decision? Do the judges who voted on it count? Because they're the foremost experts on the Constitution in the country and 7/9 of them thought it was pretty sound. And seeing how it hasn't been overturned yet even with the ridiculously conservative Supreme Court we have now, you are pretty much talking completely out of your ass.

Are you saying most legal experts agree that there is no right to privacy in America?
----------------------------------
TTYL TBSM 

I'll tell you what makes

I'll tell you what makes gold better than the dollar, the dollar is backed by nothing!!! A gold backed currency cannot simply be printed at the discretion of government, they would have to directly tax us if they wanted to fight this war for example.  The dollar is not stable, its reached an all-time low against the pound and the euro within the last 2 months and is now worth less than the canadian dollar.  Not to mention that we are borrowing 3 billion a day from China and Japan to fund all this overspending.  When the bills come due and they will soon the dollar will be in serious trouble.  Read Alan Greenspan's opinion on the gold standard in 1967, before he sold out.

http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

 If someone found gold, prices prices would increase, but gold is tangible their is a limited quantity. There is no limit to what the government can print for corporate bailouts, needless wars, and aid for corrupt governments when you have the fiat money we have now.  No other countries are using gold, thats not the point, the entire world has put the power of controlling their money in the hands of a few unelected burecrats that run the privately owned federal reserve and bank of england etc.  The founders knew gold or silver was the only legal tender, thats why it's written in the constitution.  Here watch this for a better understanding.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531&q=fiat+empire&total=53&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."   Thomas Jefferson.

I did read the Constitution.

I did read the Constitution. A secular nation is a nation whose government has nothing to say about religion, not one where nobody is allowed to practice religion. If the people of a community don't want required Christmas plays in schools they take them to court and it is ruled on based on federal and state laws. There is no left-wing political agenda forcing people to hide the fact that they are Christians. If stores want to stop using the word Christmas in their advertising that's their own choice, there has been no ruling that it can't happen. Even thinking that is an issue is ridiculous in the first place. Give me an example of Christians who aren't allowed to celebrate Christmas. The fact that a lot of people don't care about Christmas is not a war on Christians.

If you take a look at

If you take a look at history I think you'll find that the gold standard never stopped a war from happening. Even when it was popular governments just suspended the ability to convert your dollars to gold during wartime.

Which is the whole problem. Even if we convert to gold, we can convert right back off, and we did several times in this century alone. Therefore your currency isn't really as good as gold, it's as good as your word that you will always be gold-backed. And frankly there are very few people in this world who think the gold standard is a good idea, and probably even fewer of them think that if somehow we did go back to it that we would stay on it.

We can also arbitrarily set prices on gold for particular purposes even under the gold standard, as was done to bail out banks earlier in the 20th century. The US decided that between banks gold was worth one thing, but to the public it was worth another, which resulted in spiking the price of gold artificially. And as I recall, the reason the gold standard was finally dropped in the US was because inflation was happening and we were losing ground to all of the currencies in the world that were not backed by gold. You can spin that all you want, but the fact is we were on the gold standard and inflation was a problem so it's not the savior you Ron Paul nuts think it is. When shit hits the fan in any country with a gold standard, the government doesn't say "oh damn, we don't have the money for that" they say "oh damn, I guess we'll have to stop converting currency to gold for a while." Thus the death of the gold standard.

For every time you say "we just need leaders who are committed to it" I'll just ask why leaders committed to stopping inflation with fiat currency can't do it just as well. I repeat, there is nothing inherent to the gold standard in practice that stops inflation. In practice governments just suspend the conversion when they need money.

Also, you're really stretching it if you think the one line in the Constitution limiting states powers to only take gold or silver in the repayment of debts is proof the writers wanted the country on the gold standard forever. They could have been much more explicit if they were intending a concrete connection between US currency and gold.
----------------------------------
TTYL TBSM 

Even though our government

Even though our government may have temporarily suspended the gold standard in times of war they would try to go back on it after the war was over. Habeaus Corpus has been suspended 4 times in our history too I suppose you'd just rather cancel it altogether? No thanks, Mr. Gonzalez.

Saying we could just go back off the gold standard after going on it is like saying there's no reason we should have repealed the 18th Amendment because someday they might try and ban alcohol again. This is a nihilistic argument that I reject.

During most of the 20th Century we've had a Federal Reserve which can basically print money at will. Before 1970 gold was fixed to a price of $35.00 an ounce which meant it wasn't a true measure of inflation. Other countries started to get nervous about our ability to pay back our dollars in gold. Once they started demanding gold we had to cancel convertibility. This is like defaulting where we simply say we can no longer pay the bills. The consequence was a gold price that went to $800 in 9 years which required %20 interest rates to restore confidence in the dollar. The fact that none of this bothers you baffles me.

Fiat currency is not inherently bad its been tried and worked but it needs to be an open system that cannot be abused. Thats why the founders wanted Congress to have the power to Coin money because they can be voted out of office. The system we have now is a secretive means for attaining power and wealth to a select few unelected bankers.

"Saying we could just go

"Saying we could just go back off the gold standard after going on it is like saying there's no reason we should have repealed the 18th Amendment because someday they might try and ban alcohol again. This is a nihilistic argument that I reject."

You can reject it as nihilism all you want, and that's very convenient for your position. The truth is prohibition and habeas corpus are not analogous to the gold standard. Every 'benefit' you are touting with respect to the gold standard relies on governments never wavering from its enforcement. If they do, inflation, wars, corporate/bank bailouts and everything else you said couldn't happen could happen. If I were arguing that having habeas corpus on the books makes sure no one is ever jailed unjustly and you pointed out that we suspend it when we want to, my argument would be defeated. Just as yours is when you argue all the benefits of the gold standard and I point out that historically it doesn't assure any of those benefits because governments jump off and on it as it's convenient.

If North Korea adopted a gold standard tomorrow, would you have more faith in their currency than in the current US dollar? What about China? If your answer is yes you're drinking too much Kool-Aid and I'll be happy to laugh at you if you invest in their currency and get screwed over in a year or 2. If your answer is no then you're agreeing with my point. In the modern era a gold standard is only as good as a country's word that they will stick to it, just like fiat currency is only as good as a government's word that they won't abuse it. Therefore I see very few benefits to tying our hands fiscally by relying on gold reserves for our country's economy.
----------------------------------
TTYL TBSM