Welcome Martin A. Lee (SmokeSignals.com) and Host Keith Stroup (NORML)

Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana – Medical, Recreational and Scientific

Martin A. Lee is an author and investigative journalist who has written three previous books: Acid Dreams: the CIA, LSD and the Sixties Rebellions (co-authored by Bruce Shlain)(1986); Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media (co-authored with Norman Solomon) (1990); and The Beast Reawakens (2000). In 1994 he was the recipient of the Pope Foundation Award for Investigative Journalism. Lee was a co-founder of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a group formed in 1986 to combat corporate and establishment media bias.

His latest book, Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana – Medical Recreational and Scientific reflects his skills as a researcher, especially in the historical sections and his analysis of scientific and medical research. The copy is dense and packed with detail, frequently footnoted for those readers who may be skeptical of his scientific claims. If most Americans would take the time to read this book – which is a bit of a challenge to plow through — it would certainly put the topic of legalizing marijuana in some helpful historical context, and it might help convince those who oppose marijuana legalization that they should reconsider their opposition.

Lee comes down clearly on the side of legalization, making a thoughtful case for ending marijuana prohibition. There are no new arguments here (over the last 75 years all of the arguments to be made have been made), but the details about how prohibition came to be are eye-opening to those who may not have studied the subject, and he leaves the reader persuaded that prohibition was the result of ignorance, racial prejudice, outrageous government propaganda, and fear of the unknown. Following so closely on the heels of the repeal of alcohol prohibition, when the public determined prohibition was more harmful than alcohol itself, it seems amazing that no one of significant stature spoke up to challenge the pre-World War II campaign led by Bureau of Narcotics head Harry Anslinger. Marijuana was a drug used by “other people,” not mainstream Americans, so there was no one to stop what started out as, and to a large degree continues today, a jobs program for law enforcement.

Lee appropriately spends a lot of attention on Prop. 215, the voter initiative that legalized medical use in California in 1996, a true turning point in the broader legalization movement. The adoption of medical use laws around the country has established a political climate that permits a far more rational discussion about marijuana policy overall, including full legalization.

I wish he had spent more time talking about the full legalization of marijuana. While he does cover Prop. 19, the losing campaign (46.7% of the vote) to legalize marijuana in CA in 2010, generally the change of focus from medical use to full legalization is given little attention. This is a missed opportunity, since the vast majority of marijuana smokers are recreational users, not patients, and until the responsible use of marijuana is legalized for all adults, we will continue to arrest more than 800,000 Americans each year on mostly minor marijuana offenses.

I especially enjoyed Lee’s version of the history of marijuana use around the world, and his description of the spread of marijuana smoking from Mexico into the United States, from the New Orleans jazz culture to the Beat Generation, and then to the rebellious middle class youth in the 1960s, when marijuana smoking became synonymous with opposition to the Vietnam war.

Lee also captures accurately the flavor of the Nixon years and the original “war on drugs”, and the Reagan years with the “Just Say No” campaign led by Nancy Reagan, when marijuana arrests skyrocketed in this country. He also nicely covers the growth of the “grow-America” movement at the end of the Vietnam war, largely spurred by returning vets who brought with them the habit they had picked-up in Vietnam, along with some high-quality marijuana seeds, when they returned to the US.

His discussion of the importance of the discovery of the endocannabinoid system and the presence of cannabinoid receptors throughout the human body is very well done, which is crucial to understanding how marijuana works: both how it gets you high, and why it is so effective for a wide-range of serious medical conditions. And perhaps most importantly, why it may well provide a key to finding a cure for cancer, Alzheimers, Multiple Sclerosis, Crohn’s, and a number of other serious diseases. Marijuana is proving to be more than something to effectively deal with symptoms; it now appears to help cure many underlying diseases.

The weakness in this book is when the author covers modern domestic politics, where his perspective is clearly San Francisco-centric, which exaggerates some of the narrative and sometimes misses more important national trends. His primary focus is on those grass-roots activists who initially drafted the medical marijuana initiative in CA, and he largely ignores the the more mainstream individuals and organizations whose support was crucial to the effort, and without whose support the initiative would have never passed. Similarly, when the author covers politics on the east coast, he does so primarily by focusing on the activities of a few Yippies who were living in the District of Columbia, (some of whom would later turn up running medical use dispensaries in CA), but who were at the time largely irrelevant to the legalization movement, other than as an entertaining and colorful group of stoners.

Additionally, he attributes far more influence to Jack Herer, a fascinating activist who authored the cult-favorite, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, but who had little influence on actual marijuana policy. Jack was a cultural phenomenon, but his work was simply not taken seriously by elected officials.

Even with those limitations, the book is an interesting read and a valuable resource for students of legalization. Overall I enjoyed the book, and would recommend it to anyone for the historical sections, and for the medical and scientific sections spread throughout the book.

 

[As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book and be respectful of dissenting opinions.  Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]

120 Responses to “FDL Book Salon Welcomes Martin A. Lee, Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana – Medical, Recreational and Scientific”

dakine01 September 1st, 2012 at 1:51 pm

Martin and Keith, Welcome to the Lake this afternoon.

Keith, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

For our new readers/commenters:

To follow along, you will have to refresh your browser:
PC = F5 key, MAC = Command+R keys

If you want to ask a question – just type it in the Leave Your Response box & Submit Comment.


If you are responding to a comment – use the Reply button under the number, then type your response in the box, Submit Comment.

And with apologies, Bev has an emergency this afternoon and won’t be able to join us

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Martin: I have never done one of these before, so I presume we just get started by asking a questions or two and then seeing what questions they might stimulate among any folks who have joined us. So here goes.

Three states currently have full legalization voter initiatives on the state ballot in November: Colorado, Washington and Oregon. Two questions: Do you personally support these proposals? And, what response do you anticipate by the federal government, should one or more of these pass,? Will it be similar to their crackdown in medical use states?

dakine01 September 1st, 2012 at 2:02 pm

Martin, I have not had a chance to read your book but have to say that back in the ’70s, I and many of my friends thought at the time that marijuana would have long since been legal in the US (often thanks to the work of today’s host).

We would watch Reefer Madness at our favorite watering hole on a continuous loop a lot of Monday evenings and listen to A Child’s Garden of Grass

Is all this a case of we were fooling ourselves or more of a two steps forward, 1 1/2 steps back?

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:06 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 3

Maybe both at once — fooling ourselves and not fooling ourselves at all. Cannabis has a way of embodying opposites. Back in the late 60s and early 70s, there was little conscious appreciation of the medical benefits of marijuana, but obviously millions of people liked the herb so they were getting something out of it, call it therapeutic or recreational, or perhaps both at the same time.

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:09 pm

Martin:

Three states currently have full legalization voter initiatives on the state ballot in November. Two questions: Do you personally support these proposals? And, what response do you anticipate by the federal government, should one or more of these pass,? Will it be similar to their crackdown in medical use states?

dakine01 September 1st, 2012 at 2:09 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 4

As someone who “experimented” with various substances, it quickly became clear to me that it is far and away the most innocuous of the substances, legal or otherwise

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:12 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 2

It’s difficult to predict what the federal government will do if one of the states legalize the herb in November. In part it depends on which measure passes, as there are different nuances to each measure. If what happened in California after passage of Prop 215 is any indication of how the feds will respond to across the board legalization, then we can expect significant opposition, raids, legal maneuvering — anything to thwart the state ballot measure. But it won’t be easy for the government to stop this. One state legalizing could open the floodgates.

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:13 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 4

In the 1960s and 70s we had the wind behind our backs and presumed that would always be the case. In fact, public opinion turned against us by the early 80s and we did not win another statewide reform proposal for 18 years, when CA approved Prop. 216 in 1996. So the effort has taken a lot longer than any of us would have thought back in the early years of the legalization movement.

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:16 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 7

Of course, one of the purposes of these state initiatives is to confront the federal government; to create a conflict so serious that the federal government will have to take a fresh look at marijuana policy. It is quite similar to what we saw by various states, led by NY, at the end of alcohol prohibition.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:16 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 6

Not only the most innocuous of substances, legal and illegal — but actually very healthy in many way (whether or not people use it explicitly for health enhancement.) Marijuana is the only plant with compounds that activate both cannabinoid (CB) receptors in the brain and body — there are two — CB1 mainly in the brain and central nervous system, CB2 in the peripheral nervous system and immune system. These receptors play a crucial role in disease prevention, neuroprotection, and restoring physiological balance in response to stress.

dakine01 September 1st, 2012 at 2:16 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 8

I remember how I and my friends all cheered when Oregon and Ohio had decrim down to “tokin’ tickets”

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:19 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 9

In general I support all the stste initiative, despite some drawbacks. Above and beyond reforming drug policy legislation, should any state legalize it could have a huge ripple effect that alters the dominant cultural mythos in profound ways. Long overdue.

dakine01 September 1st, 2012 at 2:19 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 10

I was in the USAF stationed in Hawai’i for 4 years. I won “First Term Airman of the Quarter” not long after I got over there in ’78. I had met 3 different boards of senior NCOs and had a mild buzz each time, just enough to relax me.

Also finished a computer science degree while over there, smoking the world’s finest

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Martin:

As we get closer to actually ackieving what we have said is our common goal for four decades — legalizing marijuana — some of our strongest opposition is now coming from within the pro-legalization movement. We are seeing it in Washington state especially, but also somewhat in CO and certainly it was a factor in our defeat with Prop. 19 in CA in 2010. It appears that some who are doing well under the current versions of Medical Marijuana in their state do not wish to move forward to full legalization for all adults. Can you comment on that phenomenon?

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:23 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 10

I thought your coverage of CBD and the endocannabinoid systems was quite good in the book, reflecting your work with the CBD Project, I think you call it. Could you tell us a little more about the focus of your project.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:24 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 11

It’s been a long haul. Change often happens incrementally and slowly on a cultural level. And political change typically follow cultural change. There’s been a significant cultural shift with respect to cannabis. Medical marijuana, in particular, has prevailed on the cultural landscape with 75 percent of the country favoring the idea that marijuana should be a medical option for those who need it. Support for legalization now polls over 50 percent. Political change will follow, perhaps quickly and dramatically. Perhaps not. I feel it’s inevitable no matter what the federal government wants.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:25 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 13

Sounds like what’s called a good day on the job.

bluewombat September 1st, 2012 at 2:26 pm

Martin, I seem to recall the name Harry Anslinger as sort of an Eliot Ness of marijuana from the ancien regime. I could look him up on a search engine, of course, but as long as an expert is in the house, can you remind me who he was?

dakine01 September 1st, 2012 at 2:27 pm
In response to bluewombat @ 18
matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 2:27 pm

Keith and Martin, let’s assume for the sake of discussion that at least one, maybe 2 or 3 of the state initiatives is successful, possibly even by a significant margin. Do either of you have any guesses as to the national ripple-effects? Do you believe we will see more successful state initiatives as we did with medical marijuana? Also, any guesses as to the likelihood or timeline for eventual rescheduling of cannabis or repeal of federal prohibition (possibly leaving the issue to the states as was the case with alcohol)?

Suzanne September 1st, 2012 at 2:28 pm

welcome martin – thanks keith for hosting. do you think that big pharma is also behind the fed crackdown — trying to delay until big pharma has patented or otherwise controls marijuana profits?

dakine01 September 1st, 2012 at 2:30 pm

Martin and Keith, I know there have been moves and support for “Industrial Hemp.” Does this hurt or help the MMJ and over-all legalization efforts or is this two separate issues?

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 2:31 pm
In response to Suzanne @ 21

Suzanne, thanks for bringing up pharma. Of course the related industries are tobacco and alcohol. In other words corporate interests. A larger question is when we eventually reach national legalization / regulation will it be done in such a way that allows corporate control or will their be a role for personal grows and small businesses (analogous to micro-breweries, etc). I think this is an important question and one that is related to some of the opposition from within the pro-cannabis community.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:32 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 15

Fred Gardner, editor of O’Shaughnessy’s, and I launched Project CBD in 2010 as an educational service that reports on developments in cannabinoid science research (it’s happening all over the world at universities) so that doctors, patients and the general public could learn about the latest science that goes a long way toward validating the experience of many medical marijuana patients. (And we wanted to inform the scientists about the great grassroots medical experiment that’s ongoing in California and other states. Within the medical science research community, the most exciting development I learned about while researching Smoke Signals was about CBD. Cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive component of the cannabis plant that has jaw-dropping healing properties — CBD shrinks tumors, protects the brain against alcohol poisoning, stimulates the growth of new brain cells in adult mammals. But there was little CBD present in the strains of marijuana typically available in dispensaries and on the street. Thanks to the emergence of the analytical lab testing industry, we learned of a few strains that were high in CBD. When medical patients heard about this, there was genuine excitement about the possibility of using a different kid of cannabis for healing purposes, one that was less psychoactive but in some cases more effective therapeutically. Project CBD has been reporting on patients’ experience with CBD-rich strains, while keeping tabs on the latest research reports from the scientific community.

bluewombat September 1st, 2012 at 2:35 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 19

Ah, yes, that’s the one.

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:36 pm
In response to matthewj @ 20

I expect we will win with I-502 in Washington and with A-64 in Colorado. Both are showing good leads in the polling. I am less optimistic about Oregon, as we have no current polling to guage the support around the state.

I think this will revolutionize the marijuana legalization movement like nothing in at least 40 years, at least since the Marijuana Commission Report in 1972. It will send a political shock heard round the country — and really round the world — that we are at a tipping point for full legalization, and it is now only a matter of how we do it, not whether we do it.

Elliott September 1st, 2012 at 2:39 pm
In response to Suzanne @ 21

I wondered the same thing – sure seems fishy

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:39 pm
In response to Suzanne @ 21

I think law enforcement is the biggest obstacle in terms of legalization. Booze Inc and Big Pharma have profgite3d from marijuana prohibition, but I think that both can cooexist with legal cannabis. A lot of evidence shows that the more people smoke pot, the less they drink alcohol. But a lot of people prefer booze over bud — and that’s their business. Booze won’t go away if pot is legal. And there will always be a need a market for high-tech pharmaceutical products tyo help with difficult diseases, even if people tend to use less pharmaceuticals if they use marijuana. But law enforcement as it currently is configured cannot survive without marijuana prohibition. There’s too much money on the line — from seized assets that pad police budgets, etc. I don’t think Big Pharma is the main enemy in this case, though I could be wrong. Big Pharma is trying to develop profitable drugs by mineuing the pot plant for medicinal material and leads. But the single molucule focus of Big Pharma is inherently limiting, given that THC, CBD and other components of the plant act synergistically to greate effect.

Elliott September 1st, 2012 at 2:40 pm

How long till we do get sensible legalization?

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 2:41 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 26

Keith, thanks for answering and I am glad to hear you are optimistic! This is the sense I have as well in terms of what I have been able to follow.

To rephrase my question though, let’s assume that happens. Do you believe the next 10 years will be a continuation of a slow process similar to the 10 years after prop 215 passed, but in the realm of regulated legalization rather than medical use, or do you believe we will reach a tipping point leading to much quicker change over the next 10 years?

Part of my concern is that I live in Minnesota which is a state with no initiative process. I believe we won’t see significant change here until there is significant change at the federal level first (rescheduling at a minimum). The medical bill that was passed by our legislature and vetoed by Pawlenty was pretty restricted. I am concerned that it could be 10-20 years before the situation changes for us here…

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:42 pm
In response to dakine01 @ 22

I think it can only help, although since almost no one gets arrested for industrial hemp, it has less of a priority in my mind.

But it is terribly unfair and economically silly to permit us to import products made out of hemp from Canada and western Europe, but refuse to permit our farmers to grow it as an alternative crop. It could help many family farmers stay on the farm, and has been a subject of great interest to our friend and supporter, Willie Nelson.

mzchief September 1st, 2012 at 2:44 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 10

This is for real:

mz chief ‏@mz_chief
Lactating Women Obliterate “War On Drugs”: #Cannabinoids Endogenous 2 Human Breast Milk http://ow.ly/coaDQ #Marijuana #CDNpoli #AUSpol
12:55 PM – 21 Jul 12 · Details

The money quote:

[E]ndocannabinoids have been detected in maternal milk and activation of CB1 (cannabinoid receptor type 1) receptors appears to be critical for milk sucking … apparently activating oral-motor musculature,” says the abstract of a 2004 study on the endocannabinoid receptor system that was published in the European Journal of Pharmacology.

Babies don’t even come with a fully formed organs (biochemical perspective) and an immune system so mother’s milk helpfully assists (e.g. provides antibodies). Beats me why no one’s picked up on this meme and gone to town with it. Makes me wonder about prior multinational corporate initiatives to stop women from breastfeeding and substitute formulas. Obviously women will also have less contact/bonding with their children. Revealing social policy, eh?

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:45 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 26

The main argument being made for legalization is economic — and it’s a compelling argument. The counter-argument will be that pot is bad for kids and bad for society in general. The constant drumbeat of Reefer-Madness-lite propaganda still has a lot of pull among much of the population. (Did you hear the latest one this week — pot lowers of the IQ of heavy users? More BS.) I feel it’s important to argument that cannabis prohibition should be ended not just because there’s taxable money to be made but because it’s a terrible policy that harms society in general and many people directly — above and beyond the economic factor.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 2:47 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 33

Martin, I agree. The economic argument is important and powerful, but the argument of the harms and fundamental injustice of prohibition are more important and even more powerful.

marcospinelli September 1st, 2012 at 2:48 pm

I suspect that the method for legalizing marijuana will be the same way that prohibition was overturned – The need for tax revenue (remember that there were no income taxes back then).

Siun September 1st, 2012 at 2:48 pm

Welcome Keith and Martin,

I remain so surprised at the vehemence with which the Obama administration is enforcing pot laws. Any ideas why?

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:48 pm
In response to mzchief @ 32

These are important studies that your reference. (I cite them in Smoke SIgnals.) Mauro Maccarrone, an Italian scientists, has called the endocannabinoid system the “guardian angel of mammalian reproduction” because it governs the entire reproductive process — from the formation of sperm and egg to the sucking of a newborns.

Siun September 1st, 2012 at 2:50 pm

One other question – is there a way to move to legalization without corporatizing the process? Certainly in CA, the big winners were clearly going to be folks like Oaksterdam rather than the family farmers growing more ecologically and preserving a more “green” green product.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 2:50 pm
In response to Siun @ 36

Good question Siun! I am also interested in their answers to this…

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:50 pm
In response to matthewj @ 30

Martin:

I found in the late 70s that once a number of states began to decriminalize marijuana (or at least minor marijuana offenses), the speed of change picked-up rather quickly and almost took your breath away.

And I would anticipate the same political phenomena regarding full legalization. Once it becomes acceptable to actually debate legalization, change will come more quickly than now seems possible. But you are right that those states with the option of a voter initiative will surely be the first to go full legalization. Elected officials are by definition timid and primarily focused on getting re-elected, which means avoiding possibly contentious issues.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 2:51 pm
In response to Siun @ 38

Siun, don’t you think it’s ok to allow businesses to participate as long as there is also room for individuals (home grows) and smaller business (sort of like micro-breweries) to be involved as well?

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:54 pm
In response to Siun @ 36

I suggested in a recent article that the Obama Justice Department’s escalation of attacks on the medical marijuana industry is tied to the Fast and Furious scandal, involving a botched surveillance operation that sent guns to Mexican drug gangs. On Oct 7, 2011, e four federal prosecutors in CA held a press conference announcing a stepped-up campaign against the industry. On the same day, Holder submitted detailed written responses to questions from a House Judiciary subcommittee investing the F & F scandal. AT the time, Atty Gen Holder was losing support among law enforcement rank and file. In order to shore up support among law enforcement, he threw the drug war dogs the perfect bone. The cops had been aching to go after medical marijuana dispensaries in VC for a long time. I believe this was an effort on the part of Holder to preserve his bureaucratic position.

marcospinelli September 1st, 2012 at 2:55 pm

Martin:

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, NIH was studying the effects of marijuana in residential programs run out of universities. They were using marijuana grown on government farms in Mississippi (joints that looked like Camel cigarettes, unfiltered and untwisted ends with a bright red ‘M’ stamped on one end). Do you know if the government is still running any programs and still growing marijuana?

bigbrother September 1st, 2012 at 2:56 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 31

Sarah Stillman’s article in the New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/03/120903fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=9 describes the horrors of law enforcements manipulations of persons charged with drug offenses. To get lighter sentences deals are made to go under cover and snitch on friends and acquaintances. Often with fatal results in sting operations. The cost to the public in larger jails and the staffing, court and legal fees caused by “The War on Drugs” is mind boggling shifting those resources to the treatment side is more effective. The Mexican cartels are murdering tens of thousands. These outcomes are insane. As far as Big Pharma’s turf it is white collar crime syndicated.

Siun September 1st, 2012 at 2:56 pm
In response to matthewj @ 41

I’ll preface this by saying that I have no relationship to the business and in fact stopped smoking many years ago – the modern clones and varieties are just a bit more intoxicating than I enjoy. I do have a good friend in the business and I was disturbed during the fight in CA to see how dominant a big business model was and the degree to which the proposed laws seemed to favor big business. Given how hard many of us are working nowadays to revive and support local, small family farms and build a more sustainable infrastructure, it seemed unfortunate to see us giving up a chance to get it right this time with marijuana farming.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 2:57 pm
In response to Siun @ 38

It’s a real concern that ought not to be minimized. Rather than simply open up the flood gates, why not craft a ballot initiative that reflects the interests of the small farmer, the mom and pop entrepreneur? It’s not the American way, but cannabis is’;t your typically AMerican crop.

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 2:58 pm
In response to Siun @ 36

I think we are all shocked and dismayed, but no one seems to really understand how such a stupid policy could come out of a former pot-smoking president. I saw an interesting theory proposed by Martina few days ago, that he may want to explain.

My sense is that some US Attorneys were permitted to run wild by the DOJ, and they had built up some anger and resentment against the medical marijuana industry that had become so open and obvious in some states, in defiance of federal law. Once their fellow US Attorneys in other medical use states saw they could get tough and they would not be stopped by DOJ, it quickly spread to most all medical use states (although, for the moment at least, not all)

Siun September 1st, 2012 at 2:58 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 42

Hmmm … interesting idea but enforcement was ramping up before that iirc?

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:00 pm
In response to Siun @ 45

I agree in an ideal sense, but it feels like picking two battles at once and potentially dividing the legalization movement. I feel like it’s going to be difficult enough to succeed in changing this in a reasonable amount of time as it is…

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:01 pm
In response to marcospinelli @ 43

Yes the fed govt still grows pot on a heavily-secured plot at the University of Mississippi. And this pot is still supplied to the four remaining federal patients who were grandfathered in after the Compassionate IND program was terminated in 1992. There are all medical necessity cases who receive 300 pre-rolled joints each month courtesy of Uncle Sam. Yet, federal officials continue to maintain that marijuana has no medical value. Go figure.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:03 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 50

Martin and Keith, I have always been curious as to why this federally supplied medical marijuana isn’t relevant in a legal challenge to the schedule 1 status (or if it is relevant why it hasn’t succeeded). Do either of you have any insight on this?

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:05 pm
In response to Siun @ 48

Yes, law enforcement was never shackled by Obama’s drug policies. Obama retained Michelle Leonhart, a Bush-appointee, as DEA director. But something shifted on Oct 7 last year. The situation in CA seriously escalated. And that, I think, is a reflection of Holder’s need to deflect attention from the Fast and Furious scandal and keep the cops in his corner. On the same day the four fed prosecutors in CA held the press conference announcing that the gloves were coming off — on the same day 12 sheriffs in Arizona held a press conference calling for Holder’s resignation; it got no coverage. The CA press conference was all over the news, deservedly so. Either the dates are just a coincidence — or not. I think not.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:07 pm
In response to matthewj @ 49

Your point is well-taken. It underscores the fact that marijuana legalization is not enough. It’s huge, and I’m all in favor, but social justice entails more than changing the pot laws.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Martin and Keith, do you believe there will be any material difference in the federal response to success in Washington, Colorado, or Oregon this fall depending on whether Obama or Romney wins? It seems like many think Romney would be worse supporting a harder crackdown but my sense is that it won’t make much difference at all. What do you think?

Siun September 1st, 2012 at 3:10 pm
In response to matthewj @ 54

Interesting question – is my sense as well.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:11 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 53

Martin, I agree wholeheartedly. I just question the point at which the perfect becomes the enemy of significant progress. I don’t have a solid position, but I do think it’s a relevant question and has been the source of a lot of the disagreement within the legalization movement.

What I think we need to be careful of is dividing the movement in a way that causes it to lose momentum again as it did in the 80s. It is important to see success happen in a reasonable amount of time. That will provide a better place from which to make further progress.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:12 pm
In response to matthewj @ 54

As craven and disgusting as both major parties are with respect to drug policy and social policy in general, at least Obama has smoked the weed and he’s got to know it’s fairly benign at worst. Would Romney pull a Nixon-goes-to-China re: the weed? I doubt it.

mzchief September 1st, 2012 at 3:12 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 50

Sock puppets for Monsanto but many just aren’t listening to them (the Feds and others wilful captives in and outside of the scientific community):

Seminar on “Moving towards Organic”, its opportunities and challenge for Bhutan, 9 September, 2010

kaatje kabelkrant ‏@kaatje36
@TheRealRoseanne Bhutan decided to go 100% organic this week with help of the legendary Vandana Shiva. #FuckMonsanto
12:53 AM – 29 Aug 12 · Details

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 3:12 pm
In response to matthewj @ 51

Yes. The government carefully labelled it as a Compassionate Use program, in which qualified patients were allowed to use it on compassionate grounds, without any formal admission on their part that marijuana has valuable medical properties.

That program, that was shut by the first President Bush when they received a significant number of applications from AIDS and HIV positive patients, and they decided to close the program rather than deal with the issue of AIDS/HIV positive patients. The individuals who had been fully admitted to the program up to that point were grandfathered in, but over the years, there are only a handful left (4 I think).

The existence of this program and the obvious conflict of allowing the government to give out government grown pot to patients why fighting all efforts to reclassify marijuana so it can be accepted freely as a medicine, as it was for more than 100 years in this country, has been raised by all of the legal attempts to reclassify marijuana under federal law, including the current reclassification effort brought by a coalition of legalization groups. But to date the courts have allowed the feds to continue to list marijuana in schedule I.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:14 pm
In response to matthewj @ 56

The marijuana legalization movement is fascinating in many ways — in part because of its huge mass appeal and the diversity of its supporters — pro-pot liberals who favor states rights on this issue, conservative libertarians who are begging for the taxation and regulation of pot — such strange bedfellows. Cannabis seems to demagnetize everyone’s political compass.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:14 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 57

I agree, but my question is whether that will make a material difference in the policy they adopt. How likely do you think it is that Obama pulls a Nixon-goes-to-China on the issue? I don’t think that’s likely either. I think he knows it’s benign but doesn’t care. He only seems to be concerned with his status in the elite establishment.

marcospinelli September 1st, 2012 at 3:16 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 50

There are all medical necessity cases who receive 300 pre-rolled joints each month courtesy of Uncle Sam. Yet, federal officials continue to maintain that marijuana has no medical value.

“Medical necessity”?

Do you know what they’re being treated for?

Disregard this question; I see that you already answered it. Thanks.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:17 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 60

Martin this is a great comment! I think this is a great thing and would love to see it help foster a stronger issue-based coalition between progressives and libertarians on other issues where there is agreement (i.e. civil liberties and foreign policy).

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 3:18 pm
In response to matthewj @ 61

I think that both presidential candidates are focused on getting elected, and so far neither seems to see how being more supportive might help them politically.

Nonetheless, I would always cast my lot with the one who was a pot head in younger years, hoping that following his re-election, he would finally do the right thing with pot.

Obviously might not happen, but if one or more states do legalize, I would much prefer that it is Obama who has to decide how to respond, and not Romney.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Obama may not have a choice. When the first state legalizes, it will pose significant challenges to federal policymakers. But look at how suddenly things changed in Eastern europe when the Berlin Wall toppled. I never thought that would happen in my lifetime. It seemed like an eternal fixture. The culture is ripe for serious change with respect to marijuana legislation. Once the first domino falls, it could happen sooner than we think. Impossible to say for sure.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:19 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 59

Thanks Keith. That is some interesting background that I think illustrates how the legal system isn’t really concerned with justice. True justice would would never allow such egregious logical contradictions to stand.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:20 pm
In response to marcospinelli @ 62

Glaucoma, MS, Nail Patella syndrome, and an unusual bone disease. Without cannabis, these people would have been dead or completely blind a long time ago.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:20 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 65

Martin, I hope you’re right and I hope the dominoes start falling after the election! It would be quite a wonderful surprise!

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 3:22 pm
In response to matthewj @ 66

I am afraid that justice frequently gets lost in the legal process, especially with administrative law, which is where one has to succeed to reschedule marijuana. And I say this as an attorney, one trained in criminal defense, although I have spent most of my profession life doing public-interest law.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:23 pm

Martin and Keith I want to change the subject a bit if it’s alright. Let’s imagine that cannabis regulation is successful over the next 5-10 years. Do you think that will open the door to regulation of other relatively safe substances such as mushrooms and other shamanic plants? I’m curious about whether you think the cultural shift that is happening is limited to cannabis or is more a fundamental shift in how we think about substances in general…

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:24 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 64

Yes, I have to agree — I would prefer Obama to Romney should a state legalize this fall, even though I find Obama’s policies abhorrent in many respects.

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 3:25 pm
In response to matthewj @ 70

Matthew:

No, I do not anticipate we will see stores that sell other currently illegal drugs. Pot stores, yes. But coke stores, or meth stores, obviously not.

But I do anticipate we will stop treating drug users, even those who use dangerous drugs, as criminals. We will finally learn to treat serious drug abuse as a health concern, not a criminal justice matter.

magilla September 1st, 2012 at 3:27 pm

Obama could reschedule cannabis by executive order. I heard it suggested he might create a new classification of drugs to be regulated by state, with cannabis being the first. What do you think?

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:27 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 71

One of the big issues I have with Obama is that he tends to make those abhorrent policies sound reasonable to many people who would see them as the extreme policies they are under someone like Bush or Romney. It is really frustrating that so many people give him the benefit of the doubt because he seems like a nice guy to them. I think this is extremely dangerous for the country (not so much on the cannabis issue but on many other issues which are much more fundamentally important).

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:28 pm
In response to matthewj @ 70

It’s an interesting question. As you probably know, the federal government has loosened up a tad with respect to psychedelic drug research. A few studies have been approved that are probing the use of LSD and magic mushrooms for medical purposes (to wean one off alcohol — and to help terminally ill individuals come to terms with their impending demise). Ironically, it seems to be easier for a scientist to get approval to study LSD these days than to study therapeutic uses of marijuana. Psychedelic substances have always been part of human culture and always will.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:29 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 72

Keith, I wasn’t thinking of coke, meth or heroin. I was thinking of shamanic plants which have a long history of spiritual use. I also wasn’t necessarily wondering whether there would be stores, but rather whether individuals might gain some freedom in the privacy of their own home or within a spiritual community. Do you think there is any hope for this?

tuezday September 1st, 2012 at 3:30 pm

Keith (or Martin), in the intro you mention pot may be a cure for, among other things, Alzheimer’s, can pot slow the progression of dementia? Could you point me to some research? I have to admit as a, formerly heavy, pot smoker that seems kinda counter-intuitive, although in moderation not so much. I have a friend with early Alzheimer’s and if smoking some weed can help..

marcospinelli September 1st, 2012 at 3:30 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 71

May I suggest that if you read nothing else before the election, read this:

John Cusack Interviews Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War on the Constitution

I think it has relevance to this issue.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:32 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 75

I am aware of the research that is happening and hope it will lead to further changes. My hope is that this research combined with regulated cannabis might lead us to a place where sacramental use of psychedelics will be at least tolerated in our society. How likely do you think this might be?

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:32 pm
In response to matthewj @ 74

The Obama admin could shift gears on this issue. It’s possible. But his track record thus far is not encouraging. If he sees it as a politically expedient move, he might make the kind of changes you suggest. But there are powerful forces arrayed against such an outcome.

marcospinelli September 1st, 2012 at 3:35 pm
In response to matthewj @ 74

One of the big issues I have with Obama is that he tends to make those abhorrent policies sound reasonable to many people who would see them as the extreme policies they are under someone like Bush or Romney. It is really frustrating that so many people give him the benefit of the doubt because he seems like a nice guy to them. I think this is extremely dangerous for the country (not so much on the cannabis issue but on many other issues which are much more fundamentally important).

I agree. You may want to read John Cusack Interviews Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War on the Constitution, too.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:35 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 80

I wonder if political expedience will matter most to him when he will not face any future elections or whether personal expedience of some kind might take precedence. In either case I believe you are right that expedience is what will drive him. Any thoughts on anything more we can do (especially those of use in states with conservative cannabis policy) to create the environment where change is the expedient position for him?

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 3:35 pm
In response to magilla @ 73

In theory he could overrule his DEA and reschedule marijuana by executive order, but it would be a significant political step to ignore his own federal agencies who continue to say marijuana is not a medicine, and he would catch incredible hell from a hostile Congress.

Also, even if marijuana were to be rescheduled, before it could be made available by prescription, it would take probably 10 years and 100 million dollars to conduct the research which is required to win FDA approval and be listed as an available medication for physicians to consider prescribing. And since the big-pharm companies cannot patent whole, natural marijuana, there is no one to put that kind of resources into proving marijuana in its natural form is a valuable medicine. Only when they can change a couple of molecules and patent the change will the drug companies invest in medical marijuana, and it will definitely not be whole smoked marijuana.

bigbrother September 1st, 2012 at 3:37 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 69

My 44 describes some of the horrors of prohibition including using low offenders to trap harder drug dealers. How will legalising for recreational use help? (administrative law, sentencing conditions, plea bargaining etc.)

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:37 pm
In response to tuezday @ 77

Cannabinoids have a neuroproective effect — the federal government confirms this in the 2003 patent that a federal agency secured entitled “Cannabinoids as neuroprotectants and antioxidants.” Scientific research shows that THC inhibits a particular enzyme that is implicated in the build-up of plaque in the brain. Some studiers show that CBD, a nonpsychoactive compenent. of marijuana, inhibits the formation of Alzheimer’s in animal models. In Smoke Signals, I reference several more studies regarding cannabis and neuorogical illnesses that attest to what might seem counter-intuitive: Cannabinoids help preserve memory function as we age. The recent science behind this is very strong and persuasive.

marcospinelli September 1st, 2012 at 3:39 pm

Any thoughts on anything more we can do (especially those of use in states with conservative cannabis policy) to create the environment where change is the expedient position for him?

Do everything you can to make Move To Amend happen.

Until and unless corporations are no longer persons under the law and campaigns are publicly financed, any chance of change on any issue is futile and useless.

tuezday September 1st, 2012 at 3:40 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 85

Very interesting, thank you!!

Where’s my bong.

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 3:41 pm
In response to bigbrother @ 84

Big Brother:

If one is not facing a criminal charge, one does not to even consider turning in your friends and acquaintances, in order to avoid a prison sentence. Legalizing marijuana means that if a cop walks by my window and smells marijuana, that is no longer probable cause to get a search warrant and search my home and invade my privacy.

It is a world changer that will vastly improve the criminal justice system, but of course, there will still be plenty of problems.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:41 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 85

Very interesting Martin! I’m going to have to buy a copy of your book for my parents. I know Alzheimer’s is something they’re starting to be concerned about as we watch my grandfather’s mental function decline…

magilla September 1st, 2012 at 3:44 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 83

Obamas campaign promise to leave MMJ states alone was a sham without rescheduling, and he probably knows that.
However, no politician can make a move without some mandate from the constutuents. That’s why a victory is so important.
This change will come through the initiative process.. provided the factions involved don’t tear each other to shreds..

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:44 pm
In response to matthewj @ 82

I feet that CBD has been underutilized as political tool in our struggle to legalize cannabis — not just medicinal cannabis. As word spreads that there’s more to pot than what get’s you stoned, people will become more appreciative of the plant in its totality. I agree with Dr. Lester Grinspoon that the medical potential of marijuana can’t be fully realized until it’s legal across the board for all uses. And based on what’s happening in CA today with the federal crackdown, I think it’s also true that the medical marijuana industry will never be safe from capricious government attacks until the herb is fully legalized.

mzchief September 1st, 2012 at 3:47 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 85

Hence my theory of the why of sequestering the plants for production and synthesis of the proper biochemical components to control the production and distribution channels of a very exclusive array of cognitive performance enhancement “products.”

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:47 pm
In response to magilla @ 90

Ballot measures are very important — but they are not the only game in town when it comes to advancing social justice and sensible drug policies. There are many ways to contribute in this regard

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Martin:

Let me ask again a question that I posed early.

As we get closer to actually achieving what we have said is our common goal for four decades — legalizing marijuana — some of our strongest opposition is now coming from within the pro-legalization movement. We are seeing it in Washington state especially, but also somewhat in CO and certainly it was a factor in our defeat with Prop. 19 in CA in 2010. It appears that some who are doing well financially under the current medical marijuana regime in their state, do not wish to move forward to full legalization. Can you comment on that phenomenon?

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:49 pm
In response to mzchief @ 92

I’ve been typing so fast and reading so many comments, that I’m not sure if I picked up on the theory you mentioned. In the end I think the plant will outwit corporate predators and greed-heads and cops.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:49 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 91

I think you’re right. I wonder though, is there a hidden danger that people will start to think high CBD, low THC strains are good and should be allowed while high THC, low CBD strains or more mixed strains are bad and should not be allowed? How do we make the case for CBD without exposing ourselves to a counter-argument?

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 3:51 pm
In response to matthewj @ 96

In fact, in New Jersey Gov. Christie has said by regulation that marijuana may not exceed 10% in strength, and they will only offer 3 strains.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:51 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 94

I am also interested in this question as well as whether this “inside the movement” opposition is mostly financially driven as Keith implies or whether it has a substantial element of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and not accepting progress one step at a time.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:53 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 97

Thanks Keith. That is very concerning. We definitely need to figure out how to avoid being cornered into these kinds of illogical restrictions as we move to full legalization / regulation…

dakine01 September 1st, 2012 at 3:54 pm

As we come to the last minutes of this Book Salon discussion,

Martin, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and Marijuana Legalization. Are there any last comments you would like to make?

Keith, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, if you would like more information:

Martin’s book

Thanks all, Have a great week.

If you would like to contact the FDL Book Salon: FiredoglakeBookSalon@gmail.com

marcospinelli September 1st, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Keith:

May I ask why another initiative isn’t put up in California (and put up each election until it’s passed)?

If the Bush years taught us nothing else, it’s that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you’re stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It’s not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless (clumsy and careless many political graybeards would say) in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans: Don’t take no for an answer.

Keith Stroup September 1st, 2012 at 3:55 pm
In response to matthewj @ 98

Matthew:

It clearly has both elements. For many opponents, they are indeed holding out for the “tomato model”, with no limitation on how many plants one can grow or how much one can have in storage. I too would love to see that, but I do not believe it would ever get approved in any state.

To legalize marijuana, we have to win a majority of the voters all across the state, not just stoners.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 3:55 pm

Martin and Keith, thanks very much! This has been a very interesting discussion and a great opportunity. I really appreciate your taking the time to answer our questions! :)

marcospinelli September 1st, 2012 at 3:55 pm

Thank you both (and everyone who participated) for an informative discussion.

And Martin, you’ve made another sale.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 3:56 pm
In response to Keith Stroup @ 94

Yes, it’s bizarre in many ways what’s going on. I also think there’s some truth to both sides of this debate — although, as I said, I feel it;s of overarching importance that a state should legalize. From having research the marijuana scene for several years, I have the distinct sense that there’s tension between grassroots activists and some of the national drug policy reform groups. As for Washington state, it’s a pity that the initiative includes extra punishment for driving under the influence of marijuana. There’s little evidence that stoned drivers are a problem because getting stoned doesn’t necessarily mean that one is impaired. (In some cases it might be.) What’s puzzling to me is why this is included in !-502. Allegedly there are polls showing that this would make a difference. But what polls are these? Who took them? What were people actually asked? And what are the results? Why isn’t this data — if it actually exists — made public? Marijuana smokers have been punished enough — we shouldn’t need additional punishments in order to legalize pot.

magilla September 1st, 2012 at 3:57 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 93

I worked on CMI in 72, OMI in 82 & 84, and participated in 3 Drug Policy Foundation conferences.
There are many people working different angles on this issue.
For me the central issue is not marijuana, it is the complete break with reality our lawmakers have legitimized with this policy. They must be held to a functioning standard of mental processes in making any laws. Letting them just run crazy is, well..crazy.

mzchief September 1st, 2012 at 3:57 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 95

Actually the notion of the ownership of the building blocks of life and the application of this idea— especially with respect to the therapeutic applications of marijuana— have been around for awhile. What I tried to do was blow the cover on such activities via several posts here at The Lake.

Great salon! Thank you everyone!!

marcospinelli September 1st, 2012 at 3:58 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 105

One of the studies funded by NIH in the 1970s was on marijuana’s effects on driving. It was done out of UCLA, by Sid Cohen.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 4:00 pm
In response to matthewj @ 96

Project CBD strongly opposes legal limits on THC content. CBD and THC work best in combination synergistically for therapeutic purposes. CBD-rich cannabis offers people who are not comfortable with THC’s psychoactivity an opportunity to benefit from medical marijuana. CBD-rich cannabis strains should be made available in addition to not instead of high-THC strains. It’s important to draw attention to CBD as a way of highlighting the benefits of whole plant therapeutics.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 4:01 pm
In response to magilla @ 106

Yes!

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 4:02 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 109

Thanks Martin. It sounds like emphasizing the synergy could be an important way to make sure the idea of low THC strains only doesn’t take hold. Does your book go in-depth on this synergy? I’m looking forward to reading it…

bigbrother September 1st, 2012 at 4:02 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 91

There is echinachia and other natural sources of CBD. So is that a basis for beneficial use of Cannabis? What countries have legalized pot? A few countries have decriminalized possession like Mexico but seems globally we are in the front lines of legalizing.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 4:02 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 110

Thanks everyone — Stay in touch through the SMoke Signals facebook page — and Project CBD’s facebook page.

Kurt Sperry September 1st, 2012 at 4:05 pm
In response to matthewj @ 54

Romney is rightly known as a politician with no underlying principles but I’d argue the same could rightly be said of Obama as well. Both seem equally happy to say one thing and say/do the complete opposite if it seems politically expedient at the moment. Obama and Romney with respect to cannabis will do whatever they deem expedient. I doubt either would do the calculation mush differently although it’s worth noting that the legalization argument is far more mainstream within the GOP than it is within the Democratic Party thanks to Ron Paul and the libertarian wing. I think it would therefore be less politically risky for a Republican president to move their position on cannabis. And thus perhaps more likely. The mainstream Democrats have been unapologetically hostile to even discussing the issue.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 4:05 pm
In response to matthewj @ 111

The book cites several preclinical and clinical studies attesting to the synergistic interplay between THC and CBD. In combination, they have a more potent antitumoral effect than either alone, for example.

mzchief September 1st, 2012 at 4:07 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 109

Another point I tried to make relative to the context of the human condition is one that the eugenicists practising the business of medicine and compulsory insurance within the Casino-Gulag don’t want the 99% to know: we are able to provide less expensive, effective and non-surgical medical treatment tailored to the person.

Martin A. Lee September 1st, 2012 at 4:08 pm
In response to bigbrother @ 112

Echinacea activates one set of the cannabinod receptors, but it is not CBD. CBD is unique to the marijuana plant. Several countries have decriminalized marijuana — and several more have legalized medical uses. But we’re waiting for the shoe to drop somewhere for full legalization.

matthewj September 1st, 2012 at 4:09 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 115

Great! I will enjoy reading it and learning more… :)

bigbrother September 1st, 2012 at 4:14 pm
In response to matthewj @ 118

BEV, host and commentors and Author: These objective forums are a breath of democratic discussions that I looks forward to every Saturday and Sunday. Wonderful!

normanb September 1st, 2012 at 4:39 pm
In response to Martin A. Lee @ 91

So, Elizabeth Warren (for example) saying that she would support Medical Marijuana but Not Legalization is putting the cart before the horse, n’est-ce pas?

Sorry but the comments are closed on this post