Hell

It's a good thing that Johnny Appleseed is not alive today to see what is happening with Mark "Potseed" Emery. The spreading of seeds has become a crime. At last the seed of another God given plant. I don't know who counted the seeds, but the claim is that Mark Potseed has spread more than 5 million of his seeds around the world with the majority of 3 million finding their way into the USA right under the Drug Czar's nose.

Mark Emery

The "Long arm of the law" is now trying to pull Emery out of Canada so he can be tried and executed in the USA. The man described by the American Drug Enforcement Agency as Canada's biggest trafficker and self-styled 'Prince of Pot', will face the death penalty if convicted in the US even though no one in Canada has ever been arrested for selling seeds.

Will the Drug Czar get his way or will Mark live to see drug prohibition repealed?

But what does Mark have to say for himself. He must have an excuse. Damn, 5 million seeds is a whole lot of pot.

Here is a nice quote I came across in The Observer:

'I guess I've spent the last few years undermining the DEA and mocking their war on drugs. They are the ones with the guns; the only thing we had on our side was the plant. The only thing we could do to win was to spread the plant.

'I wanted to increase the number of people growing it, lower the price and spread it throughout the world. I wanted to start a self-financed capitalist revolution. A revolution through retail.'

That is what I call a "Grass" roots movement!

Posted by Susan at 04:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (238)

US radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been charged with fraudulently obtaining prescription drugs or "doctor shopping" to put it nicely. Of course he wormed his way out by making a deal with the prosecutors, who said that the charges would be dropped if he continues the drug rehab program and pays a chunk of money to off set the costs.

Now, what I am wondering is, will he have to pee in a jar in front of a witness while he is in rehab, and if so, will he suffer from "shy blander" syndrome and will he try to use his shyness to get around that pee test?
We can only hope he enjoys his treatment. He deserves it and worse.

Here is just an example of what he had to say on his radio show last week:

"The FDA says there's no -- zilch, zero, nada -- shred of medicinal value to the evil weed marijuana. This is going to be a setback to the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd." (Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, April 21, 2006).

So, no pot for AIDS and cancer patients but it is fine to go "doctor shopping" for highly addictive drugs like OxyContin also called "hillbilly heroin" to treat back pain.

With the FDA being staffed by Bush "The "Decider" with people of the same sort as Limbaugh, it is not surprising that more and more prohibition is being dealt out. However, I can't help but smile when I see someone like Rush getting caught in a trap that he helped set. Rush, being well connected and wealthy got away with what most others don't.

If you believe a woman named Wilma Cline, the nationally syndicated radio personality Rush Limbaugh would drive three miles from his $23 million Palm Beach, Fla., estate to a Denny's parking lot so that she could hand over a cigar box concealing dozens of tiny prescription painkillers. The loquacious Limbaugh, his housekeeper says, was often high on "hillbilly heroin."

If Rush didn't have such a sick and distorted view on marijuana users, he could have used the good weed to curb his back pain and not had to commit fraud to attain his addictive pain killers. He could grow a nice plant, pick and dry the flowers and brew himself a fine drink for his pain. No withdrawal. So why not?
You know the answer. The New York Times calls it the "politics of pot."
Here is a nice item from the NY Times:

Editorial
The Politics of Pot

Published: April 22, 2006

The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief, poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to counteract state efforts to legalize the practice.

Ordinarily, when the F.D.A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use. This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement asserting that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana.

That assertion is based on an evaluation by federal agencies in 2001 that justified the government's decision to tightly regulate marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. But it appears to flout the spirit of a 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, a unit of the National Academy of Sciences.

The institute was appropriately cautious in its endorsement of marijuana. It said the active ingredients of marijuana appeared useful for treating pain, nausea and the severe weight loss associated with AIDS. It warned that these potential benefits were undermined by inhaling smoke that is more toxic than tobacco smoke. So marijuana smoking should be limited, it said, to those who are terminally ill or don't respond to other therapies.

Yet the F.D.A. statement, which was drafted with the help of other federal agencies that focus on drug abuse, does not allow even that much leeway. It argues that state laws permitting the smoking of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation are inconsistent with ensuring that all medications undergo rigorous scrutiny in the drug approval process.

That seems disingenuous. The government is actively discouraging relevant research, according to scientists quoted by Gardiner Harris in yesterday's Times. It's obviously easier and safer to issue a brief, dismissive statement than to back research that might undermine the administration's inflexible opposition to the medical use of marijuana.

Posted by Susan at 04:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (717)

Michael Bloomberg and other like minded mayors have held a summit and signed a resolution to combat gun violence.

Great! I am all for combating violence of all types, including psychiatric mind altering drugs, propaganda and other forms of "shock and awe" that cause emotional stress. What amazes me is that guns are determined to be the cause of the violence. That is like saying that pens cause spelling mistakes and matches cause arson.

American as apple pie

When I was a child growing up in the Far West, we all had access to guns. My father had a closet full of guns and all of his five children, girls and boys, were taught how to shoot them and care for them in a responsible manner. We didn't have any violent crime committed with those guns and the idea of using one for violence, apart from shooting up an old beer can, never crossed our minds.

Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland

than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.

The real problem of violent crime seems to be an increasingly violent mentality brought on by the use of mind altering psychiatric drugs.

Anyone investigating the cause of the most violent crimes in America can not help but find that all the persons involved where subjects of mind altering psychiatric drugs. Read the report "The rise in senseless violence in America" and see if it does not shine some light as to the real cause of violent gun crimes.

It seems to me that as long as we are not addressing the real cause of our problems, but allowing "authority" to point us in the wrong direction, we will never be able to solve important social problems.

Here are some little known facts regarding gun control over the last 100 years. I think that it will clarify what really is behind taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who Do YOU want to round up and exterminate?"

With guns, we are citizens.
Without them, we are subjects.

Posted by Susan at 03:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (202)

There is no doubt that the US Christian Conservatives movement put Bush in the White House. Now they want him to behave as they see fit. They, the US Christian Conservatives don't want the bi-partisan measure that Kennedy crafted largely with Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Rio Grande

No, the Conservative Right wants to keep those "wet backs" swimming back and forth across the Rio Grande to work as slave laborers for little money and not be entitled to the same rights as citizens such as health insurance and overtime pay. This “disposable workforce” which is estimated at 53% of all farm workers is often migratory, uneducated and living at, or well below, the poverty line.

You would think that the poor farmer who hires an illegal alien is the one who will suffer but not so. That is a load of propaganda. I was quite sickened hearing Bush speak of the poor farmer who will loose his farm because he can't find workers to work his land - unless, of course, the "slave" is controlled.
Those farms are held by powerful corporations. Between 1978 and 2002, the number of corporate-owned farms in the US increased by more than 46 percent.

American taxpayers spent a staggering $143.8 billion on farm subsidies over the past ten years, more than $104 billion of which 72 percent went to the top 10 percent of recipients--some 312,000 large farming operations, cooperatives, partnerships and corporations that collected, on average, more than $33,000 every year. No, it is not the poor farmer that Bush and his Conservative Right are worried about.

Not only does Bush tell lies but he also does not keep his promises to his supporters. He, as Kennedy urges, should settle for the bi-partisan solution. In that way he does not even have to throw in the towel.

I personally would like to see the free flow of people and goods with no restrictions but as long as we allow corporate avarice, we will have this form of prohibition. Illegal aliens made into felons for wishing to better their lot.

Posted by Susan at 05:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (407)

The F.D.A has yet again favored the pharmaceutical cartel by declaring that Marijuana can not be used as a medicine, that there are no scientific studies that support its medical properties.

	Marinol, a synthetic version of a marijuana component, is approved to treat anorexia associated with AIDS and the nausea and vomiting associated with cancer drug therapy. Well, that is all fine and good but let's look behind the sheep's clothing and see what is under there. The maker of Marinol is Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Which is directly connected to the Bush administration.
The real thing

The patented, registered and approved synthetic drug is approved but the natural form of marijuana must be kept off the market as it has no scientifically proven benefit. That means that the The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency.

Dr. John Benson, co-chair of the Institute of Medicine panel that examined the research into marijuana's effects, said that the FDA statement and the combined review by other agencies were wrong. The government "loves to ignore our report," said Benson. "They would rather it never happened."

A natural occurring substance can not be patented and therefore the pharmaceutical racket works to keep natural products off the market by criminalizing their use while their patented synthetic drug is approved though less effective than the natural substance and at a price that is even higher than if it were procured on the black market.

Posted by Susan at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (370)