This video pretty much says it all , and is funny as hell to boot. As stated above though not work or children safe secondary to vulgar language.


www.illwillpress.com/drugs.html

I always get a kick out of that damn squirrel.

- BG

scrumtrulescent
I love his characterization of the guys who run the NORML type groups.

"...some fucking beady eyed, hackey sack playing hippie, with red eyes who giggles the whole interview..."

Hilarious!

Now that's funny I don't care who you are.   I didn't understand one word he said.

Quoted: Hilarious!

+10

Woefully ignorant.

Well, that about sums up every thought I've had about pot, crack, doctors, ADHD, and anti-depressants.  That video should be required viewing, everywhere.

Quoted: Well, that about sums up every thought I've had about pot, crack, doctors, ADHD, and anti-depressants.  That video should be required viewing, everywhere.

I guess you hadn't heard that your tax dollars are being used to distribute medical marijuana by the Federal Government.

"try haveing a bullet removed from your head........... thats a stresfull day!"

Thanks for that! HA HA AH HA!!!! Oho man even my wife got out of bed for that one.....

Quoted: Quoted: Well, that about sums up every thought I've had about pot, crack, doctors, ADHD, and anti-depressants.  That video should be required viewing, everywhere. I guess you hadn't heard that your tax dollars are being used to distribute medical marijuana by the Federal Government.

Are you kidding?  I live in Oregon.  My pathetic state is one of the "pioneers" of medical marijuana.  The way I figure, every pot-head should be kissing my ass daily and thanking me for working hard to earn enough tax money so they can lay back and get high.

I mean, I smoked pot up until I was about 19, but then I grew the fuck up.  You want "Death with dignity"?  Face your problems.  That's what they used to call "dignity".  

Quoted: It's sooo much funnier when your stoned....

hehehhe Everything is better when stoned.

funny.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, that about sums up every thought I've had about pot, crack, doctors, ADHD, and anti-depressants.  That video should be required viewing, everywhere. I guess you hadn't heard that your tax dollars are being used to distribute medical marijuana by the Federal Government. Are you kidding?  I live in Oregon.  My pathetic state is one of the "pioneers" of medical marijuana.  The way I figure, every pot-head should be kissing my ass daily and thanking me for working hard to earn enough tax money so they can lay back and get high. I mean, I smoked pot up until I was about 19, but then I grew the fuck up.  You want "Death with dignity"?  Face your problems.  That's what they used to call "dignity".

Dumbest shit I've heard in a long while. I'll bet you're half in the bag on alcohol when you post this shit.

Quoted: Are you kidding?  I live in Oregon.  My pathetic state is one of the "pioneers" of medical marijuana.  The way I figure, every pot-head should be kissing my ass daily and thanking me for working hard to earn enough tax money so they can lay back and get high.

Then I guess you haven't heard that the Oregon program has so far produced a profit for the state. It isn't costing you anything in taxes.

I mean, I smoked pot up until I was about 19, but then I grew the fuck up.  You want "Death with dignity"?  Face your problems.  That's what they used to call "dignity".

I don't have any of those problems, thanks. But I guess you hadn't heard that the Institute of Medicine agreed that marijuana is a legitimate medicine.

Smoked medical mj is a scam. There are derivitaves that do the same thing for longer term(marinol). the facts by the dea in medical mara:


Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.8


Advocates have promoted the use of marijuana to treat medical conditions such as glaucoma. However, this is a good example of more effective medicines already available. According to the Institute of Medicine, there are six classes of drugs and multiple surgical techniques that are available to treat glaucoma that effectively slow the progression of this disease by reducing high intraocular pressure.


In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate. Furthermore, marijuana can affect the immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections, demonstrating that marijuana can do more harm than good in people with already compromised immune systems.9


In addition, in a recent study by the Mayo Clinic, THC was shown to be less effective than standard treatments in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.10


The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance.


The DEA supports research into the safety and efficacy of THC (the major psychoactive component of marijuana), and such studies are ongoing, supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.


As a result of such research, a synthetic THC drug, Marinol, has been available to the public since 1985. The Food and Drug Administration has determined that Marinol is safe, effective, and has therapeutic benefits for use as a treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and as a treatment of weight loss in patients with AIDS. However, it does not produce the harmful health effects associated with smoking marijuana.


Furthermore, the DEA recently approved the University of California San Diego to undertake rigorous scientific studies to assess the safety and efficacy of cannabis compounds for treating certain debilitating medical conditions.


It's also important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs. Pro-legalization groups have transformed the debate from decriminalizing drug use to one of compassion and care for people with serious diseases. The New York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelman, Director of the Lindesmith Center, in January 2000. Responding to criticism from former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey that the medical marijuana issue is a stalking-horse for drug legalization, Mr. Nadelman did not contradict General McCaffrey. "Will it help lead toward marijuana legaization?" Mr. Nadelman said: "I hope so."

I am not completely against leagalization and regulation of marahuana. let's just be honest about it and quit the medical b.s.

Quoted: Smoked medical mj is a scam. There are derivitaves that do the same thing for longer term(marinol). the facts by the dea in medical mara:

I guess you hadn't heard that:

1) The US Federal Government distributes medical marijuana to a number of patients. The reason they do it is because some of them went to court and proved to a legal certainty that marijuana is a medicine, and it is the only medicine suitable for their needs.

2) The US Institute of Medicine was commissioned by the Drug Czar to research medical marijuana. They concluded that there was no current good alternative to marijuana for some patients and they included guidelines on its use.

3) The fact that a prescription drug is made from the primary active ingredient in the plant proves that the plant itself has medicinal qualities. Telling someone they have to use the pill instead is like saying that it is legal to eat Vitamin C tablets but illegal to eat oranges.

4) The people who are part of the Feds medical marijuana program report uniformly that the pill doesn't do as good a job. That's why they still get big tin cans full of 300 joints from the Feds each month. They report that it is harder to regulate the dosage with the pill and it just isn't as effective -- probably because there are a number of compounds in marijuana that have been found to have medicinal qualities.

5) People with nausea can't hold pills down long enough for them to be effective. Inhaled medicine gives them relief almost immediately. Add to that the fact that it is pretty depressing to puke up pills that cost about fifteen bucks each.

Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.8

In short, they are lying. Here is what the report said:

Until a non-smoked, rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.

They went on to give guidelines on its use.

Advocates have promoted the use of marijuana to treat medical conditions such as glaucoma. However, this is a good example of more effective medicines already available. According to the Institute of Medicine, there are six classes of drugs and multiple surgical techniques that are available to treat glaucoma that effectively slow the progression of this disease by reducing high intraocular pressure.

No medicine is equally effective for everyone. It is pretty damned stupid to punish anyone simply because they chose a medicine that you disagree with.

In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer,

Dr. Donald Tashkin, considered to be the world's leading authority on this topic just completed some research that shows a negative correlation between marijuana and cancer. That is, strangely enough, the rates of cancer among marijuana smokers are actually slighter lower than the control groups.

respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate.

Look in the Physician's Desk Reference. You will find that nearly all medicines have a long list of hazards and contraindications. By any standard of measurement, the list for marijuana is significantly shorter than most drugs. Indeed, marijuana is one of the few drugs for which the lethal dose is so large that it would be physically impossible to consume it.

Furthermore, marijuana can affect the immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections, demonstrating that marijuana can do more harm than good in people with already compromised immune systems.9

No, that crap was thrown out a long time ago and the doctor who did it -- Gabriel Nahas -- had his privileges to do any research for the NSF revoked entirely because his research was so bad.

In addition, in a recent study by the Mayo Clinic, THC was shown to be less effective than standard treatments in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.10

So does that mean that we can use it for the minority of patients who find it more effective?

The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance.

When the Marihuana Tax Act was first passed the American Medical Association testified that they knew of no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and, therefore, there was no reason for the law. In response, they were basically told to stop interfering and shut up.

Currently, their calls for more research into medical marijuana have been ignored. Here is their letter calling for more resesarch:

American Medical Association
Physicians dedicated to the health of America
Statement


December 30, 1996



AMA URGES RESEARCH ON EFFICACY OF MARIJUANA

Statement attributable to: Daniel H. Johnson, Jr., MD
President
American Medical Association



"The American Medical Association (AMA) has worked closely with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services to combat the use of illicit drugs.  We will continue to do so."

"We urge federal funding of research to determine the validity of marijuana as an effective medical treatment."

"Right now the California and Arizona initiatives are in direct conflict with federal law.  The AMA urges physicians to prescribe effective, legal medications available to compassionately treat disease and relieve pain."

#

For more information, please contact: James Stacey 202/789-7419
Brenda Craine 202/789-7447



 1101 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
202 789-7400

The DEA supports research into the safety and efficacy of THC (the major psychoactive component of marijuana), and such studies are ongoing, supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Bullshit. They have stonewalled requests for marijuana research for years. They will only allow research into hazards, not benefits. There is an ongoing lawsuit by a number of doctors about just this issue right now.

As a result of such research, a synthetic THC drug, Marinol, has been available to the public since 1985. The Food and Drug Administration has determined that Marinol is safe, effective, and has therapeutic benefits for use as a treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and as a treatment of weight loss in patients with AIDS. However, it does not produce the harmful health effects associated with smoking marijuana.

They fast-tracked Marinol and got it approved in record time simply because they knew they were losing the fight on medical marijuana. Their own Chief Administrative Law Judge said the DEA's stance was capricious, unreasonable, and arbitrary.

Furthermore, the DEA recently approved the University of California San Diego to undertake rigorous scientific studies to assess the safety and efficacy of cannabis compounds for treating certain debilitating medical conditions.

The only reason they did that is because the state of California created its own research program because the Feds were stalling.

It's also important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs. Pro-legalization groups have transformed the debate from decriminalizing drug use to one of compassion and care for people with serious diseases. The New York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelman, Director of the Lindesmith Center, in January 2000. Responding to criticism from former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey that the medical marijuana issue is a stalking-horse for drug legalization, Mr. Nadelman did not contradict General McCaffrey. "Will it help lead toward marijuana legaization?" Mr. Nadelman said: "I hope so."

Well, duh. The medical issue is just the best example of how stupid the marijuana laws are. When you get down to jailing sick people for simply trying to relieve their own suffering, it becomes clear that about 80 percent of the US public starts to recognize the stupidity.

Just FYI, every major government commission around the world that has studied the issue in the last 100 years has concluded that the marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance, and nonsense, and should have been repealed long ago because they do more harm than good. And they weren't even talking about the medical use. If you don't believe me, you can read them yourself at www.druglibrary.net/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

I am not completely against leagalization and regulation of marahuana. let's just be honest about it and quit the medical b.s.

You need to do more reading and understand that it has been official US Government policy to lie about marijuana since at least 1937. When the law was passed, Harry Anslinger, then head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, related how he walked out on a bridge over the Potomac River and saw before him a field of cannabis that stretched as far as the eye could see. He realized then that he could never hope to enforce the laws with his meager budget so he reasoned that the only way to have any hope was to use the Big Lie. It has been official US Government policy ever since.

You can read an excellent short history of the marijuana laws -- by the guy who wrote the legal history for the largest US Government study of the subject in history -- at www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm It is quite funny at times -- like when the US Official Expert on marijuana testified in court, under oath, that marijuana would make your incisors grow six inches long and drip with blood.  I am certain that it is a piece of history that you never heard about.

I am an l.e.o and my personal opinion is that marahuana (if legalized) could be regulated and taxed much like alcohol.  All i'm saying is that many of the people who want medical m.j. (not all) want it for b.s. reasons. lets just be honest with the motives.

Well, duh. The medical issue is just the best example of how stupid the marijuana laws are. When you get down to jailing sick people for simply trying to relieve their own suffering, it becomes clear that about 80 percent of the US public starts to recognize the stupidity.

not one person i have ever seen arrested for m.j. was'sick' the just wanted to get high (recreational use)

Quoted: Woefully ignorant.

What the hell are you talking about?
You are not one of those "Medical Marijuana" people are you?

Quoted: Smoked medical mj is a scam. There are derivitaves that do the same thing for longer term(marinol). the facts by the dea in medical mara: -snip-.

First off, don't get advice from the agency that is there to keep pot illegal.

Quoted: Quoted: Smoked medical mj is a scam. There are derivitaves that do the same thing for longer term(marinol). the facts by the dea in medical mara: I guess you hadn't heard that: 1) The US Federal Government distributes medical marijuana to a number of patients. The reason they do it is because some of them went to court and proved to a legal certainty that marijuana is a medicine, and it is the only medicine suitable for their needs. I am guessing the Judge was stoned. 2) The US Institute of Medicine was commissioned by the Drug Czar to research medical marijuana. They concluded that there was no current good alternative to marijuana for some patients and they included guidelines on its use. Never heard of them, probably some Clinton Hippy idiots. 3) The fact that a prescription drug is made from the primary active ingredient in the plant proves that the plant itself has medicinal qualities. Telling someone they have to use the pill instead is like saying that it is legal to eat Vitamin C tablets but illegal to eat oranges. No it isn't.  They can shove marijuana up thier ass and it still won't help them medically. 4) The people who are part of the Feds medical marijuana program report uniformly that the pill doesn't do as good a job. That's why they still get big tin cans full of 300 joints from the Feds each month. They report that it is harder to regulate the dosage with the pill and it just isn't as effective -- probably because there are a number of compounds in marijuana that have been found to have medicinal qualities. 5) People with nausea can't hold pills down long enough for them to be effective. Inhaled medicine gives them relief almost immediately. Add to that the fact that it is pretty depressing to puke up pills that cost about fifteen bucks each. Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.8 In short, they are lying. Here is what the report said: Until a non-smoked, rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting. They went on to give guidelines on its use. Advocates have promoted the use of marijuana to treat medical conditions such as glaucoma. However, this is a good example of more effective medicines already available. According to the Institute of Medicine, there are six classes of drugs and multiple surgical techniques that are available to treat glaucoma that effectively slow the progression of this disease by reducing high intraocular pressure. No medicine is equally effective for everyone. It is pretty damned stupid to punish anyone simply because they chose a medicine that you disagree with. In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer, Dr. Donald Tashkin, considered to be the world's leading authority on this topic just completed some research that shows a negative correlation between marijuana and cancer. That is, strangely enough, the rates of cancer among marijuana smokers are actually slighter lower than the control groups. respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate. Look in the Physician's Desk Reference. You will find that nearly all medicines have a long list of hazards and contraindications. By any standard of measurement, the list for marijuana is significantly shorter than most drugs. Indeed, marijuana is one of the few drugs for which the lethal dose is so large that it would be physically impossible to consume it. Furthermore, marijuana can affect the immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections, demonstrating that marijuana can do more harm than good in people with already compromised immune systems.9 No, that crap was thrown out a long time ago and the doctor who did it -- Gabriel Nahas -- had his privileges to do any research for the NSF revoked entirely because his research was so bad. In addition, in a recent study by the Mayo Clinic, THC was shown to be less effective than standard treatments in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.10 So does that mean that we can use it for the minority of patients who find it more effective? The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance. When the Marihuana Tax Act was first passed the American Medical Association testified that they knew of no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and, therefore, there was no reason for the law. In response, they were basically told to stop interfering and shut up. Currently, their calls for more research into medical marijuana have been ignored. Here is their letter calling for more resesarch: American Medical Association Physicians dedicated to the health of America Statement December 30, 1996 AMA URGES RESEARCH ON EFFICACY OF MARIJUANA Statement attributable to: Daniel H. Johnson, Jr., MD President American Medical Association "The American Medical Association (AMA) has worked closely with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services to combat the use of illicit drugs.  We will continue to do so." "We urge federal funding of research to determine the validity of marijuana as an effective medical treatment." "Right now the California and Arizona initiatives are in direct conflict with federal law.  The AMA urges physicians to prescribe effective, legal medications available to compassionately treat disease and relieve pain." # For more information, please contact: James Stacey 202/789-7419 Brenda Craine 202/789-7447  1101 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 202 789-7400 The DEA supports research into the safety and efficacy of THC (the major psychoactive component of marijuana), and such studies are ongoing, supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Bullshit. They have stonewalled requests for marijuana research for years. They will only allow research into hazards, not benefits. There is an ongoing lawsuit by a number of doctors about just this issue right now. As a result of such research, a synthetic THC drug, Marinol, has been available to the public since 1985. The Food and Drug Administration has determined that Marinol is safe, effective, and has therapeutic benefits for use as a treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and as a treatment of weight loss in patients with AIDS. However, it does not produce the harmful health effects associated with smoking marijuana. They fast-tracked Marinol and got it approved in record time simply because they knew they were losing the fight on medical marijuana. Their own Chief Administrative Law Judge said the DEA's stance was capricious, unreasonable, and arbitrary. Furthermore, the DEA recently approved the University of California San Diego to undertake rigorous scientific studies to assess the safety and efficacy of cannabis compounds for treating certain debilitating medical conditions. The only reason they did that is because the state of California created its own research program because the Feds were stalling. It's also important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs. Pro-legalization groups have transformed the debate from decriminalizing drug use to one of compassion and care for people with serious diseases. The New York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelman, Director of the Lindesmith Center, in January 2000. Responding to criticism from former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey that the medical marijuana issue is a stalking-horse for drug legalization, Mr. Nadelman did not contradict General McCaffrey. "Will it help lead toward marijuana legaization?" Mr. Nadelman said: "I hope so." Well, duh. The medical issue is just the best example of how stupid the marijuana laws are. When you get down to jailing sick people for simply trying to relieve their own suffering, it becomes clear that about 80 percent of the US public starts to recognize the stupidity. Just FYI, every major government commission around the world that has studied the issue in the last 100 years has concluded that the marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance, and nonsense, and should have been repealed long ago because they do more harm than good. And they weren't even talking about the medical use. If you don't believe me, you can read them yourself at www.druglibrary.net/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. I am not completely against leagalization and regulation of marahuana. let's just be honest about it and quit the medical b.s. You need to do more reading and understand that it has been official US Government policy to lie about marijuana since at least 1937. When the law was passed, Harry Anslinger, then head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, related how he walked out on a bridge over the Potomac River and saw before him a field of cannabis that stretched as far as the eye could see. He realized then that he could never hope to enforce the laws with his meager budget so he reasoned that the only way to have any hope was to use the Big Lie. It has been official US Government policy ever since. You can read an excellent short history of the marijuana laws -- by the guy who wrote the legal history for the largest US Government study of the subject in history -- at www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm It is quite funny at times -- like when the US Official Expert on marijuana testified in court, under oath, that marijuana would make your incisors grow six inches long and drip with blood.  I am certain that it is a piece of history that you never heard about.

Quoted: Well, that about sums up every thought I've had about pot, crack, doctors, ADHD, and anti-depressants.  That video should be required viewing, everywhere.

+1

Quoted: I am an l.e.o and my personal opinion is that marahuana (if legalized) could be regulated and taxed much like alcohol.  All i'm saying is that many of the people who want medical m.j. (not all) want it for b.s. reasons. lets just be honest with the motives. Well, duh. The medical issue is just the best example of how stupid the marijuana laws are. When you get down to jailing sick people for simply trying to relieve their own suffering, it becomes clear that about 80 percent of the US public starts to recognize the stupidity. not one person i have ever seen arrested for m.j. was'sick' the just wanted to get high (recreational use)

That's in Oklahoma, right? That would be the same place that they sentenced a guy to life (later reduced to ten years) for two ounces of pot.  He had one of those bogus medical claims. He even went so far as to have his spine shot out in Vietnam and spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair just so he could smoke pot. They claimed that two ounces of pot (about the size of two packs of cigarettes) proved that he was a major dealer.

I would suggest you meet some of the people I know. Of course, just because they were diagnosed with MS, cancer, or something similar doesn't mean it is medical, right?

During 2003,    17,013 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 40% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2004a).
Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths.

-CDC

Quoted: Quoted: Woefully ignorant. What the hell are you talking about? You are not one of those "Medical Marijuana" people are you?

I have distributed more copies of the major research on the drug laws than anyone else in history, including the US Federal Government. You could read the research yourself, if you were actually interested.

Wow, that described a friend that I have who is a pot head....right down to her ADHD child!

Quoted: During 2003,    17,013 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 40% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2004a). Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. -CDC

There is some question about how much of that 18 percent is "involved in" versus "caused". With marijuana, for example, there is no real evidence that it materially impairs the driving skills of experienced users. Marijuana also stays in the blood a long time so if it is found in someone's dead body, that simply means that they smoked marijuana some time in the last two weeks to a month. It is not like alcohol where having the stuff in the blood really is a fair indicator of impairment.

Quoted: Wow, that described a friend that I have who is a pot head....right down to her ADHD child!

Pot is being used by some doctors in California to treat ADHD. I have met a few of their patients and it really does seem to work, for some of them at least.

Thanks for that link, that is funny as hell

tag

Quoted: Woefully ignorant.

i'd argue against that, but i think already the link did it for me.

Most of you info is anecdotal. what about the able bodied person who I arrested from ca. who had no health problems. claimed medical marajuana. no documentation or anything. could'nt see the "big deal" in having a 1/2 ounce on him?  Marinol in most cases has been shown more effective but thats not good enough for some people because they cannot get high off it. It has been on the market for 20 years.

That would be the same place that they sentenced a guy to life (later reduced to ten years) for two ounces of pot. He had one of those bogus medical claims. He even went so far as to have his spine shot out in Vietnam and spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair just so he could smoke pot. They claimed that two ounces of pot (about the size of two packs of cigarettes) proved that he was a major dealer.

can you cite the case on this? date etc.

Quoted: Most of you info is anecdotal.

That's because the government hasn't allowed research. But there is quite a bit of research to indicate that marijuana has medicinal properties -- and lots of research to show that it has a bunch of other possibilities, too. Whole marijuana is already approved as a medicine in Canada, and the US Government distributes it as medicine. The DEA's own Chief Administrative Law Judge ruled that it met the legal definition of a medicine under Federal law.

what about the able bodied person who I arrested from ca. who had no health problems. claimed medical marajuana. no documentation or anything. could'nt see the "big deal" in having a 1/2 ounce on him?

There are, no doubt, some people who will use the claim that aren't as sick as you would like them to be. At the same time, there are a pretty fair number of people for whom the medicinal effects make a significant difference in their lives. For every such person you could show me, I could show you one who is so obviously ill that they can't get out of their wheelchairs.

Marinol in most cases has been shown more effective

No, it really hasn't. And, "in most cases", still leaves a significant number of people who get better relief from natural marijuana. That's why the US Government itself ships medical mj to a number of patients each month.

but thats not good enough for some people because they cannot get high off it.

No, that's wrong, too. As the Federal Government's own officially approved medical marijuana patients say, it is much harder to regulate the dosage with the pill -- because it is only two sizes, and takes one half hour to take effect. They say they don't like the pill because it gives them (to quote one Federal patient) a "debilitating high". She says it is much easier to get a medicinal dose without the "debilitating high" by puffing on a marijuana cigarette. This is because she can take light puffs to increase the dosage in small steps, and because the effect happens immediately.

It has been on the market for 20 years.

Which means that for 20 years there has been conclusive proof that marijuana does have medicinal properties.

can you cite the case on this? date etc..

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=1774

Jimmy Montgomery

Spinal Cord Injury - Parapalegic
Sentenced to Life, Reduced to 10 Years; On Parole

Confined to a wheelchair for over twenty years due to an injury, paraplegic Jimmy Montgomery used marijuana to control the muscle spasms typical of spinal cord injuries and to stimulate his appetite.

Based on the testimony of an acquaintance who had been arrested for cocaine (and who received a lighter sentence for testifying against him), Jimmy was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute the marijuana found in the back of his wheelchair.

Montgomery was carrying two ounces of marijuana in the pouch of his wheelchair, an amount he wold use himself in a fairly short time. The only evidence of intent to distribute was the testimony of a sheriff’s deputy named Lawless who claimed he had never seen anyone with two ounces who was not a major dealer. The deputy has since been convicted on three counts of embezzlement of drug seized property in Sayer, Oklahoma and embezzlement of seized drug money.

The police attempted to seize the home in which Jimmy lived. Since the house he lived in belonged to his 62-year-old mother, Thelma Farris, she was also charged. At his trial, his mother testified that doctors recommended marijuana to Jimmy to relieve his severe muscles spasms. "When Jimmy smoked marijuana, he didn't have to stay belted to his chair," she reported. .After serving almost a year of his sentence and nearly dying twice because of the failure of the state of Oklahoma to provide adequate treatment, Jimmy was released on an appeals bond in 1993.

On April 4, 1995, Jimmy was re-imprisoned. Rather than allow him to use medical marijuana, the government provided muscle relaxants, opiates and tranquilizers. He was in and out of solitary confinement, and handcuffed to a prison bed in Oklahoma without adequate medical treatment for the antibiotic-resistant infections in his lower body. Friends watched his condition deteriorate as the prosecutor blocked his release. After considerable public pressure, Jimmy was released on a medical parole.

Since leaving prison, Jimmy lost a leg from an ulcerated bed sore he got there, which his doctors were unable to cure. He is back working at the same business he had prior to his incarceration, a special engine mechanic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- what about the able bodied person who I arrested from ca. who had no health problems. claimed medical marajuana. no documentation or anything. could'nt see the "big deal" in having a 1/2 ounce on him? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just FYI, for any doctors or others who may have a serious interest in the subject ----

I am acquainted with a doctor here in California who, by his own estimate, has written thousands of recommendations for medical marijuana. He has done quite a bit of research into who uses marijuana "medically" and why.

In a great number of his patients, he found particular consistent life patterns. Typically there was an absent or distant father during childhood, and various other disturbances from the "normal" family home life. They had a very high frequency of use of other drugs during their youth but most did not use any non-prescribed drugs except marijuana currently. Their income and profession were all over the map. Very successful to more lazy types. Types of illness were all over the map. People in wheelchairs who are so sick it is hard to even look at them to people who don't have any obvious physical problem. Lots of them had used marijuana prior to the onset of their current illness.

The major conclusion he got from his research was that it is possible that a great deal of regular drug use by adults (including alcohol and tobacco) is really a self-medicating response to psychological symptoms. It is just the same, he says, as getting a prescription for Valium because someone is excessively nervous, or Tylenol III because they are in pain. If a doctor gives Valium or Tylenol III, then society tends to approve of it as "medical". If the patient discovers on their own that a couple of beers or a joint do a better job for them -- that is not generally approved as "medical".  (I know just such a person, too. He was prescribed Valium for real problems, but never took them because he preferred beer.)

What's the real difference? Not much except that the person has paid the money to go to the doctor and get a piece of paper. The typical doctor-patient visit is about five minutes and the doctor relies primarily on the patient's word that such-and-such a drug provides the best relief. There is often little for the doctor to verify beyond the patient's word. There is no test that will instantly tell a doctor how much pain a person feels, either mental or physical.

I have interviewed other doctors who have individually written thousands of recommendations and they don't necessarily agree with his conclusions. They haven't compiled the detailed research that this doctor has done, but their impression is that their typical patient is pretty much the same kind of person you would meet in any other doctor's office or clinic.

you mean the govt has'nt PAID for the research. Contrary to popular belief we do NOT live in stalinist russia. As far as the story goes I don't think that we are getting the story from an unbiased source    http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=1774 You seem to agree that marinol can be effective. Why not do that and delete smoking it? Beacuse it is not as fun

How do you feel about the regulation and taxation of marahuana?
How much tax
limit on purchase?
license to sell etc.

Like I said lets not b.s. ourselves if you want legal mj lobby for it as that

btw i look up mr. montgomery's record on the oklahoma dep of corrections website(public access)
real nice poster boy you got there

here it is:90-148 BECK Illegal Poss Of Controlled Substances 04/09/1992 10Y 0M 0D  INC 04/04/1995 02/01/2005
90-148 BECK Illegal Poss Of Controlled Substances 04/09/1992 999Y 99M 93D  PROB 04/09/1992 10/09/3009
90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 1Y 10M PROB 04/04/1995 02/08/1997
90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 2Y 0M 0D  INC 04/09/1992 05/11/1993
90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 0Y 0M 60D  PROB 04/09/1992 06/07/1994
90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 2Y 0M 0D  INC 04/04/1995 02/01/1997
90-148 BECK Illegal Poss Of Controlled Substances 04/09/1992 9Y 10M PROB 04/04/1995 02/09/2005
90-148 BECK Illegal Dist Of Controlled Substances 04/09/1992 10Y 0M 0D  INC 04/09/1992 01/29/1998
90-148 BECK Maintain Place Resorted By Users Controlled Drugs 04/09/1992 3Y 0M 0D  INC 04/09/1992 05/11/1994
90-148 BECK Unlawful Possession Of Paraphernalia 04/09/1992 2Y 10M PROB 04/04/1995 02/08/1998
90-148 BECK Unlawful Possession Of Paraphernalia 04/09/1992 0Y 0M 20D  PROB 04/09/1992 04/28/1995
90-148 BECK Unlawful Possession Of Paraphernalia 04/09/1992 3Y 0M 0D  INC 04/04/1995 02/01/1998

Quoted: you mean the govt has'nt PAID for the research.

No, none of the research that has been proposed was to be paid for by the government.

Contrary to popular belief we do NOT live in stalinist russia.

Yeah, I know. Which makes it pretty hard to understand why the government would have any interest at all in interfering with the decisions of sick people.

As far as the story goes I don't think that we are getting the story from an unbiased source    http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=1774

If you are all that interested, you can look it up yourself. It was in the Oklahoma newspapers at the time.

You seem to agree that marinol can be effective. Why not do that and delete smoking it? Beacuse it is not as fun

No, we covered that already. Because
1) it is not as effective for all people - no medicine is effective for everyone;
2) It is useless for nausea -- inhaled medicines are better
3) it is harder to regulate the dose taken to get a medicinal dose without a big high
4) the high is more severe than marijuana for many people
5) it is fifteen dollars a pill, There is no reason to make someone pay fifteen dollars a pill when they can grow the equivalent drug in their garden. That is, unless you really like Stalinist Russia.

etc., etc.,  

How do you feel about the regulation and taxation of marahuana? How much tax limit on purchase? license to sell etc.

It obviously isn't going to go away and every major study in history has said that law enforcement really has no impact on usage. Since it isn't going to go away, there are only three basic choices for who will distribute it:

1) Government, with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems

2) Private businesses, with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems

3) Organized crime, with no regulations or taxes to address social problems.

Whatever the details may be, it appears clear that either of the first two options is going to give us more control than handing it to organized crime.

I would suggest laws similar to those on alcohol. That allows for some state and local experimentation into the control methods that they find best.

Like I said lets not b.s. ourselves if you want legal mj lobby for it as that

I have asked every US Drug Czar we have had if they can name any significant study of the drug laws that supports what we are currently doing in any respect. They all replied and not one of them knew any. The reason our current drug prohibition laws survive is the ignorance of our public officials who have never bothered to read the most basic research on the subject. That was what Nixon's own hand-picked blue-ribbon commission on the subject said.

btw i look up mr. montgomery's record on the oklahoma dep of corrections website(public access) real nice poster boy you got there here it is:90-148 BECK Illegal Poss Of Controlled Substances 04/09/1992 10Y 0M 0D  INC 04/04/1995 02/01/2005 90-148 BECK Illegal Poss Of Controlled Substances 04/09/1992 999Y 99M 93D  PROB 04/09/1992 10/09/3009 90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 1Y 10M PROB 04/04/1995 02/08/1997 90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 2Y 0M 0D  INC 04/09/1992 05/11/1993 90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 0Y 0M 60D  PROB 04/09/1992 06/07/1994 90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 2Y 0M 0D  INC 04/04/1995 02/01/1997 90-148 BECK Illegal Poss Of Controlled Substances 04/09/1992 9Y 10M PROB 04/04/1995 02/09/2005 90-148 BECK Illegal Dist Of Controlled Substances 04/09/1992 10Y 0M 0D  INC 04/09/1992 01/29/1998 90-148 BECK Maintain Place Resorted By Users Controlled Drugs 04/09/1992 3Y 0M 0D  INC 04/09/1992 05/11/1994 90-148 BECK Unlawful Possession Of Paraphernalia 04/09/1992 2Y 10M PROB 04/04/1995 02/08/1998 90-148 BECK Unlawful Possession Of Paraphernalia 04/09/1992 0Y 0M 20D  PROB 04/09/1992 04/28/1995 90-148 BECK Unlawful Possession Of Paraphernalia 04/09/1992 3Y 0M 0D  INC 04/04/1995 02/01/1998

Yeah, he was arrested for marijuana a bunch of times. The wheelchair is real though, isn't it?

I'm not doubting the wheelchair the doc wbsite does not mention it though.  as far as the cost 15.00 per pill the drug companies regularly charge that much for other medications. the thing i have a problem with mr. montgomery is this:

90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 1Y 10M PROB 04/04/1995 02/08/1997
90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 2Y 0M 0D INC 04/09/1992 05/11/1993
90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 0Y 0M 60D PROB 04/09/1992 06/07/1994
90-148 BECK Using Firearms To Commit Felony 04/09/1992 2Y 0M 0D INC 04/04/1995 02/01/1997

this makes him a violent felon in Oklahoma not just a simple possessor of mj. I don't disagree with you on a number nof points.

as far as this  goes

No, we covered that already. Because 1) it is not as effective for all people - no medicine is effective for everyone; 2) It is useless for nausea -- inhaled medicines are better 3) it is harder to regulate the dose taken to get a medicinal dose without a big high 4) the high is more severe than marijuana for many people 5) it is fifteen dollars a pill, There is no reason to make someone pay fifteen dollars a pill when they can grow the equivalent drug in their garden. That is, unless you really like Stalinist Russia. etc., etc.,

you stated that we lack research but you can come to conclusions on this???

I do not doubt that some people can gain relief with marajuana. but, you cannot tell me that the goal of the movement isn't to legalize mj for everyone to be able to have. As you saw in the doc document i posted that story on mr. montgomery was not the entire story here.  People with an agenda will tend to spin the facts in their favor such as in the article you posted. There was more to it than simple mj possession.

the rhetoric will continue until both sides admit they are full of b.s. (.gov and med mj people)


the med mara people do themselves a disservice by not being completely honest therby turning themselves into the equivelent of the brady campaign.    

Be honest with yourself, why do most people who support medical mj support it.....In hopes of legalizing it for everyone.

Quoted: as far as this  goes No, we covered that already. Because 1) it is not as effective for all people - no medicine is effective for everyone; 2) It is useless for nausea -- inhaled medicines are better 3) it is harder to regulate the dose taken to get a medicinal dose without a big high 4) the high is more severe than marijuana for many people 5) it is fifteen dollars a pill, There is no reason to make someone pay fifteen dollars a pill when they can grow the equivalent drug in their garden. That is, unless you really like Stalinist Russia. etc., etc., you stated that we lack research but you can come to conclusions on this???

Yes. The first is a general rule of all medicines. No medicine works for everyone. Lots of them work for only 20 percent or so of the patients.

The second point is obvious. If you are puking, then pills aren't much good. Inhaled medicines that don't get vomited up are better.

3 and 4 are the direct reports of the patients currently enrolled in the Federal medical marijuana program. It stands to reason just because of the method in which they are taken.

The last one you can look up yourself and get your own figures. It varies but that seems to be a good floor figure from what I have heard.

I do not doubt that some people can gain relief with marajuana. but, you cannot tell me that the goal of the movement isn't to legalize mj for everyone to be able to have. As you saw in the doc document i posted that story on mr. montgomery was not the entire story here.  People with an agenda will tend to spin the facts in their favor such as in the article you posted. There was more to it than simple mj possession.

If the laws are completely stupid, useless, and counterproductive, what would be wrong with legalizing medical mj and then mj as a whole later? This is just the most obvious issue where the laws are stupid.

the rhetoric will continue until both sides admit they are full of b.s. (.gov and med mj people)

Read the research. Anyone who actually reads the available research changes their opinion. I suggest you start with the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm It is probably the best single overall review of the subject ever written and will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the major government commission reports.

the med mara people do themselves a disservice by not being completely honest therby turning themselves into the equivelent of the brady campaign.

As opposed to the government's claims that marijuana would make your incisors grow six inches long and drip with blood.  Well, you know, every side tends to see things their way but if you compare the two sides, there is simply no comparison.

Be honest with yourself, why do most people who support medical mj support it.....In hopes of legalizing it for everyone.

Be honest with yourself. most people oppose the assault weapons ban because they think all guns should be legal.  Is there something wrong with recognizing that some laws are pretty stupid in every regard and campaigning for a repeal of all parts of it?

The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States
by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School


A Speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference



Links to Related Documents

This speech is derived from The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition by Professor Richard J. Bonnie & Professor Charles H. Whitebread, II

In this speech, Professor Whitebread refers to the following documents which are online in this library, either in whole or in part.

The Hearings of the Marihuana Tax Act and related documents.

Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding, by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

This session is going to be about the history of the non-medical use of drugs. Let me say that, because this is going to be a story, that I think it will interest you quite a bit. The topic is the history of the non-medical use of drugs and I think you ought to know what my credentials are for talking about this topic. As you may know, before I taught at the University of Southern California, I taught at the University of Virginia for fifteen years, from 1968 to 1981. In that time period, the very first major piece that I wrote was a piece entitled, "The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge - The Legal History of Marihuana in the United States". I wrote it with Professor Richard Bonnie, still of the faculty of the University of Virginia. It was published in the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970 and I must say that our piece was the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970. The piece was 450 pages long. It got a ton of national attention because no one had ever done the legal history of marijuana before. As a result of that, Professor Bonnie was named the Deputy Director of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse and I was a consultant to that commission.

As a result of Richard's two year executive directorship of the National Commission in 1971 and 1972 he and I were given access to both the open and the closed files of what was then called the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, what had historically been called the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and what today is called the Drug Enforcement Agency. Based upon our access to those files, both open and closed, we wrote a book called "The Marihuana Conviction- The Legal History of Drugs in the United States" and that book went through six printings at the University of Virginia press before being sold out primarily in sales to my friends at the FBI over the years. It is based upon that work that I bring you this story.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Situation in 1900

If you are interested in the non-medical use of drugs in this country, the time to go back to is 1900, and in some ways the most important thing I am going to say to you guys I will say first. That is, that in 1900 there were far more people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today. Depending upon whose judgment, or whose assessment, you accept there were between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States addicted to drugs in 1900.

Now, there were two principal causes of this dramatic level of drug addiction at the turn of the century. The first cause was the use of morphine and its various derivatives in legitimate medical operations. You know as late as 1900, particularly in areas where medical resources were scarce it was not at all uncommon for you to say, let's say you would have appendicitis, you would go into the hospital, and you would get morphine as a pain killer during the operation, you would be given morphine further after the operation and you would come out of the hospital with no appendix but addicted to morphine.

The use of morphine in battlefield operations during the Civil War was so extensive that, by 1880, so many Union veterans were addicted to morphine that the popular press referred to morphinism as the "soldier's disease". Now I will say, being from Virginia as I am, that the Confederate veterans didn't have any problems about being addicted to morphine because the South was too poor to have any, and therefore battlefield operations on the Confederate Army were simply done by chopping off the relevant limb while they drank a little whiskey. But the Northern troops heavily found themselves, as the result of battlefield operations and the use of morphine, addicted to morphine.

Now, the other fact that I think that is so interesting about drug addiction at the turn of the century, as opposed to today is who the addicts were, because they were the exact opposite of who you would think most likely to be an addict today. If I were to ask you in terms of statistical groups who is most likely to be involved with drugs today, you would say a young person, a male, who lives in the city and who may be a minority group member. That is the exact opposite of who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century.

In terms of statistical groups, who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century? A rural living, middle-aged white woman. The use of morphine in medical operations does not explain the much higher incidence of drug addiction among women. What does is the second cause of the high level of addiction at the turn of the century -- the growth and development of what we now call the "patent medicine" industry.

I think some of you, maybe from watching Westerns on TV if nothing else are aware that, again, as late as 1900, in areas, particularly rural areas where medical resources were scarce, it was typical for itinerant salesmen, not themselves doctors, to cruise around the countryside offering potions and elixirs of all sorts advertised in the most flamboyant kinds of terms. "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for What Ails You", or "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for Man or Beast."

Well, what the purveyors of these medicines did not tell their purchasers, was that later, when these patent medicines were tested, many of them proved to be up to fifty percent morphine by volume.

Now, what that meant, as I have always thought, was the most significant thing about the high morphine content in patent medicines was it meant they tended to live up to their advertising. Because no matter what is wrong with you, or your beast, you are going to feel a whole lot better after a couple of slugs of an elixir that is fifty percent morphine. So there was this tendency to think "Wow! This stuff works." Down you could go to the general store and get more of it and it could be sold to you directly over the counter.

Now, for reasons that we weren't able to full research, but for reasons, I think, probably associated with the role of women rural societies then patent medicines were much more appealing to women than to men and account for the much higher incidence of drug addiction in 1900 among women than among men.

If you want to see a relatively current portrayal of a woman addicted to patent medicine you might think of Eugene O'Neil's play "A Long Day's Journey Into Night". The mother figure there, the one that was played by Katherine Hepburn in the movies was addicted to patent medicines.

In any event, the use of morphine in medical operations and the sale of patent medicines accounted for a dramatic level of addiction. Again, between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States was addicted to drugs as late as 1900.

Now if my first point is that there was a lot more addiction in 1900 than there is today and that the people who were addicted are quite a different group than the group we would be thinking of today, my next point would be that if you look at drug addiction in 1900, what's the number one way in which it is different than drug addiction today? Answer: Almost all addiction at the turn of the century was accidental.

People became involved with drugs they did not know that they were taking, that they did not know the impact of. The first point, then, is that there was more drug addiction than there is now and most of it was accidental.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Pure Food and Drug Act

Then the single law which has done the most in this country to reduce the level of drug addiction is none of the criminal laws we have ever passed. The single law that reduced drug addiction the most was the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did three things:

1). It created the Food and Drug Administration in Washington that must approve all foods and drugs meant for human consumption. The very first impact of that was that the patent medicines were not approved for human consumption once they were tested.

2) The Pure Food and Drug Act said that certain drugs could only be sold on prescription.

3) The Pure Food and Drug Act, (and you know, this is still true today, go look in your medicine chest) requires that any drug that can be potentially habit-forming say so on it's label. "Warning -- May be habit forming."

The labeling requirements, the prescription requirements, and the refusal to approve the patent medicines basically put the patent medicine business out of business and reduced that dramatic source of accidental addiction. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, not a criminal law, did more to reduce the level of addiction than any other single statute we have passed in all of the times from then to now.

(continued)

The Harrison Act

The very first criminal law at the Federal level in this country to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs came in 1914. It was called the Harrison Act and there are only three things about the Harrison Act that we need to focus on today.

Number one is the date. Did you hear the date, 1914? Some of you may have come this morning thinking that we have used the criminal law to deal with the non-medical use of drugs since the beginning of the Republic or something. That is not true. The entire experiment of using the criminal sanction to deal with the non-medical use of drugs really began in this country in 1914 with the Harrison Act.

The second interesting thing about the Harrison Act was the drugs to which it applied, because it applied to almost none of the drugs we would be concerned about today. The Harrison Act applied to opium, morphine and its various derivatives, and the derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. No mention anywhere there of amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, hashish, hallucinogenic drugs of any kind. The Harrison Act applied only to opium, morphine and its various derivatives and derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine.

The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969. And what was that model?

It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date -- 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call "states' rights" and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That's why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.

In the face of possible Constitutional opposition to what they wanted to do, the people in Congress who supported the Harrison Act came up with a novel idea. That is, they would masquerade this whole thing as though it were a tax. To show you how it worked, can I use some hypothetical figures to show you how this alleged tax worked?

There were two taxes. The first (and again, these figures aren't accurate but they will do to show the idea) tax was paid by doctors. It was a dollar a year and the doctors, in exchange for paying that one dollar tax, got a stamp from the Government that allowed them to prescribe these drugs for their patients so long as they followed the regulations in the statute. Do you see that by the payment of that one dollar tax, we have the doctors regulated? The doctors have to follow the regulations in the statute.

And there was a second tax. (and again, these are hypothetical figures but they will show you how it worked.) was a tax of a thousand dollars of every single non-medical exchange of every one of these drugs. Well, since nobody was going to pay a thousand dollars in tax to exchange something which, in 1914, even in large quantities was worth about five dollars, the second tax wasn't a tax either, it was a criminal prohibition. Now just to be sure you guys understand this, and I am sure you do, but just to make sure, let's say that in 1915 somebody was found, let's say, in possession of an ounce of cocaine out here on the street. What would be the Federal crime? Not possession of cocaine, or possession of a controlled substance. What was the crime? Tax evasion.

And do you see what a wicked web that is going to be? As a quick preview, where then are we going to put the law enforcement arm for the criminalization of drugs for over forty years -- in what department? The Treasury Department. Why, we are just out there collecting taxes and I will show you how that works in a minute.

If you understand that taxing scheme then you understand why the national marijuana prohibition of 1937 was called the Marihuana Tax Act.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Early State Marijuana Laws

But before we get to that next big piece of Federal legislation, the marihuana prohibition of 1937, I would like to take a little detour, if I may, into an analysis of the early state marijuana laws passed in this country from 1915 to 1937.

Let me pause to tell you this. When Professor Bonnie and I set out to try to track the legal history of marijuana in this country, we were shocked that nobody had ever done that work before. And, secondly, the few people who had even conjectured about it went back to the 1937 Federal Act and said "Well, there's the beginning of it." No. If you go back to 1937, that fails to take account of the fact that, in the period from 1915 to 1937, some 27 states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What Professor Bonnie and I did was, unique to our work, to go back to the legislative records in those states and back to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed to try to find out what motivated these 27 states to enact criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What we found was that the 27 states divided into three groups by explanation.

The first group of states to have marijuana laws in that part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I mean Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had brought marijuana.

Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to the legislative records themselves. Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona."

Well, there it was, you didn't have to look another foot as you went from state to state right on the floor of the state legislature. And so what was the genesis for the early state marijuana laws in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern areas of this country? It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it.


A second group of states that had criminal laws against the use of marijuana were in the Northeast, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York -- had one and then repealed it and then had one again -- New Jersey. Well, clearly no hypothesis about Mexican immigration will explain the genesis of those laws because, as you know, the Northeast has never had, still doesn't really, any substantial Mexican-American population. So we had to dig a little deeper to find the genesis of those laws. We had to go not only to the legislative records but to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed and what we found, in the early marijuana laws in the Northeast, we labeled the "fear of substitution." If I may, let me paraphrase an editorial from the New York Times in 1919 so we will get exactly the flavor of this fear of substitution.

The New York Times in an editorial in 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest," and here comes the substitution. "But," said the New York Times, "we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise" -- here's the substitution concept -- "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."

Well, from state to state, on the theory that this newly encountered drug marijuana would be substituted by the hard narcotics addicts or by the alcohol drinkers for their previous drug that had been prohibited, state to state this fear of substitution carried, and that accounted for 26 of the 27 states -- that is, either the anti-Mexican sentiment in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain areas or fear of substitution in the Northeast. That accounted for 26 of the 27 states, and there was only one state left over. It was the most important state for us because it was the first state ever to enact a criminal law against the use of marijuana and it was the state of Utah.

Now, if you have been hearing this story and you have been playing along with me, you think "Oh, wait a minute, Whitebread, Utah fits exactly with Colorado, Montana, -- it must have been the Mexicans."

Well, that's what I thought at first. But we went and did a careful study of the actual immigration pattern and found, to our surprise, that Utah didn't have then, and doesn't have now, a really substantial Mexican-American population. So it had to be something else.

Come on folks, if it had to be something else, what do you think it might have been? Are you thinking what I was thinking -- that it must have had something to do with the single thing which makes Utah unique in American history -- its association with the Mormon church.


With help from some people in Salt Lake City, associated with the Mormon Church and the Mormon National Tabernacle in Washington -- with their help and a lot of work we found out what the genesis was of the first marihuana law in this country. Yes, it was directly connected to the history of Utah and Mormonism and it went like this.


I think that a lot of you know that, in its earliest days, the Mormon church permitted its male members to have more than one wife -- polygamy. Do you all know that in 1876, in a case called Reynolds against the United States, the United States Supreme Court said that Mormons were free to believe what they wanted, but they were not free to practice polygamy in this country. Well, who do you think enforced that ruling of the Supreme Court in 1876? At the end of the line, who enforces all rulings of the Supreme Court? Answer: the state and local police. And who were they in Utah then? All Mormons, and so nothing happened for many years. Those who wanted to live polygamously continued to do so.

In 1910, the Mormon Church in synod in Salt Lake City decreed polygamy to be a religious mistake and it was banned as a matter of the Mormon religion. Once that happened, there was a crackdown on people who wanted to live in what they called "the traditional way". So, just after 1910, a fairly large number of Mormons left the state of Utah, and indeed left the United States altogether and moved into northwest Mexico. They wrote a lot about what they wanted to accomplish in Mexico. They wanted to set up communities where they were basically going to convert the Indians, the Mexicans, and what they referred to as "the heathen" in the neighborhood to Mormonism.

By 1914, they had had very little luck with the heathen, but our research shows now beyond question that the heathen had a little luck with them. What happened apparently -- now some of you who may be members of the church, you know that there are still substantial Mormon communities in northwest Mexico -- was that, by and large most of the Mormons were not happy there, the religion had not done well there, they didn't feel comfortable there, they wanted to go back to Utah where there friends were and after 1914 did.

And with them, the Indians had given them marijuana. Now once you get somebody back in Utah with the marijuana it all becomes very easy, doesn't it? You know that the Mormon Church has always been opposed to the use of euphoriants of any kind. So, somebody saw them with the marijuana, and in August of 1915 the Church, meeting again in synod in Salt Lake City decreed the use of marijuana contrary to the Mormon religion and then -- and this is how things were in Utah in those days -- in October of 1915, the state legislature met and enacted every religious prohibition as a criminal law and we had the first criminal law in this country's history against the use of marijuana.

That digression into the early state marijuana laws aside, we will now get back on the Federal track, the year is 1937 and we get the national marijuana prohibition -- the Marihuana Tax Act

(continued)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

Now, first again, does everybody see the date, 1937? You may have thought that we have had a national marijuana prohibition for a very long time. Frankly, we haven't.

The marijuana prohibition is part and parcel of that era which is now being rejected rather generally -- the New Deal era in Washington in the late 30s.


Number two, you know, don't you, that whenever Congress is going to pass a law, they hold hearings. And you have seen these hearings. The hearings can be extremely voluminous, they go on and on, they have days and days of hearings. Well, may I say, that the hearings on the national marijuana prohibition were very brief indeed. The hearings on the national marijuana prohibition lasted one hour, on each of two mornings and since the hearings were so brief I can tell you almost exactly what was said to support the national marijuana prohibition.

Now, in doing this one at the FBI Academy, I didn't tell them this story, but I am going to tell you this story. You want to know how brief the hearings were on the national marijuana prohibition?


When we asked at the Library of Congress for a copy of the hearings, to the shock of the Library of Congress, none could be found. We went "What?" It took them four months to finally honor our request because -- are you ready for this? -- the hearings were so brief that the volume had slid down inside the side shelf of the bookcase and was so thin it had slid right down to the bottom inside the bookshelf. That's how brief they were. Are you ready for this? They had to break the bookshelf open because it had slid down inside.

There were three bodies of testimony at the hearings on the national marijuana prohibition.


The first testimony came from Commissioner Harry Anslinger, the newly named Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Now, I think some of you know that in the late 20s and early 30s in this country there were two Federal police agencies created, the FBI and the FBN -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.


In our book, I talk at great length about how different the history of these two organizations really are. But, the two organizations, the FBI and the FBN had some surface similarities and one of them was that a single individual headed each of them for a very long time. In the case of the FBI, it was J. Edgar Hoover, and in the case of the FBN it was Harry Anslinger, who was the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 until 1962.


Commissioner Anslinger gave the Government testimony and I will quote him directly. By the way, he was not working from a text that he had written. He was working from a text that had been written for him by a District Attorney in New Orleans, a guy named Stanley. Reading directly from Mr. Stanley's work, Commissioner Anslinger told the Congressmen at the hearings, and I quote, "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." That was the Government testimony to support the marijuana prohibition from the Commissioner.

The next body of testimony -- remember all of this took a total of two hours -- uh .. You understand what the idea was, don't you? The idea was to prohibit the cultivation of hemp in America. You all know, because there has been some initiative here in California, that hemp has other uses than its euphoriant use. For one, hemp has always been used to make rope. Number two, the resins of the hemp plant are used as bases for paints and varnishes. And, finally, the seeds of the hemp plant are widely used in bird seed. Since these industries were going to be affected the next body of testimony came from the industrial spokesmen who represented these industries.

The first person was the rope guy. The rope guy told a fascinating story -- it really is fascinating -- the growth of a hemp to make rope was a principle cash crop right where I am from, Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland at the time of the Revolutionary War. But, said the rope guy, by about 1820 it got cheaper to import the hemp we needed to make rope from the Far East and so now in 1937 we don't grow any more hemp to make rope in this country -- it isn't needed anymore.

If you heard that story, there are two things about it that I found fascinating. Number one, it explains the long-standing rumor that our forefathers had something to do with marijuana. Yes, they did -- they grew it. Hemp was the principal crop at Mount Vernon. It was a secondary crop at Monticello. Now, of course, in our research we did not find any evidence that any of our forefathers had used the hemp plant for euphoriant purposes, but they did grow it.

The second part of that story that, to me is even more interesting is -- did you see the date again - 1937? What did the rope guy say? We can get all the hemp we need to make rope from the Far East, we don't grow it hear anymore because we don't need to.

Five years later, 1942, we are cut off from our sources of hemp in the Far East. We need a lot of hemp to outfit our ships for World War II, rope for the ships, and therefore, the Federal Government, as some of you know, went into the business of growing hemp on gigantic farms throughout the Midwest and the South to make rope to outfit the ships for World War II.

So, even to this day, if you are from the Midwest you will always meet the people who say, "Gosh, hemp grows all along the railroad tracks." Well, it does. Why? Because these huge farms existed all during World War II.

But, the rope people didn't care. The paint and varnish people said "We can use something else." And, of the industrial spokesmen, only the birdseed people balked. The birdseed people were the ones who balked and the birdseed person was asked, "Couldn't you use some other seed?"

These are all, by the way, direct quotes from the hearings. The answer the birdseed guy gave was, "No, Congressman, we couldn't. We have never found another seed that makes a birds coat so lustrous or makes them sing so much."

So, on the ground that the birdseed people needed it -- did you know that the birdseed people both got and kept an exemption from the Marihuana Tax Act right through this very day for so-called "denatured seeds"?

In any event, there was Anslinger's testimony, there was the industrial testimony -- there was only one body of testimony left at these brief hearings and it was medical. There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition.


The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, and I quote, "Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?" The answer of the pharmacologist was, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist."


Well, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs we will never know, but it almost certainly was not the active ingredient in marijuana.


The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."

What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"


That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."

Now, the interesting question for us is not about the medical evidence. The most fascinating question is: why was this legal counsel to the most prestigious group of doctors in the United States treated in such a high-handed way? And the answer makes a principle thesis of my work -- and that is -- you've seen it, you've been living it the last ten years. The history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country.

So look at the date -- 1937 -- what's going on in this country? Well, a lot of things, but the number one thing was that, in 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in the largest landslide election in this country's history till then. He brought with him two Democrats for every Republican, all, or almost all of them pledged to that package of economic and social reform legislation we today call the New Deal.

And, did you know that the American Medical Association, from 1932, straight through 1937, had systematically opposed every single piece of New Deal legislation. So that, by 1937, this committee, heavily made up of New Deal Democrats is simply sick of hearing them: "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"


So, over the objection of the American Medical Association, the bill passed out of committee and on to the floor of Congress. Now, some of you may think that the debate on the floor of Congress was more extensive on the marijuana prohibition. It wasn't. It lasted one minute and thirty-two seconds by my count and, as such, I will give it to you verbatim.


The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows -- and, by the way, if you had grown up in Washington, DC as I had you would appreciate this date. Are you ready? The bill was brought on to the floor of the House of Representatives -- there never was any Senate debate on it not one word -- 5:45 Friday afternoon, August 20. Now, in pre-air-conditioning Washington, who was on the floor of the House? Who was on the floor of the House? Not very many people.

Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition.

"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.

In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition.

(continued)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1938 to 1951

Now, the next step in our story is the period from 1938 to 1951. I have three stories to tell you about 1938 to 1951.

The first of them. Immediately after the passage of the national marijuana prohibition, Commissioner Anslinger decided to hold a conference of all the people who knew something about marijuana -- a big national conference. He invited forty-two people to this conference. As part our research for the book, we found the exact transcript of this conference. Ready?

The first morning of the conference of the forty-two people that Commissioner Anslinger invited to talk about marijuana, 39 of them got up and said some version of "Gee, Commissioner Anslinger, I don't know why you asked me to this conference, I don't know anything about marijuana."

That left three people. Dr. Woodward and his assistant -- you know what they thought.

That left one person -- the pharmacologist from Temple University -- the guy with the dogs.

And what do you think happened as a result of that conference? Commissioner Anslinger named the pharmacologist from Temple University the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics about marijuana, a position the guy held until 1962. Now, the irony of trying to find out what the drug did after it had been prohibited -- finding out that only one person agrees with you -- and naming him the Official Expert, speaks for itself.

The next story from this time period was a particular favorite of the police groups to whom I spoke at the FBI Academy, because it is a law enforcement story.

After national marijuana prohibition was passed, Commissioner Anslinger found out, or got reports, that certain people were violating the national marijuana prohibition and using marijuana and, unfortunately for them, they fell into an identifiable occupational group. Who were flouting the marijuana prohibition? Jazz musicians. And so, in 1947, Commissioner Anslinger sent out a letter, I quote it verbatim, "Dear Agent So-and-so, Please prepare all cases in your jurisdiction involving musicians in violation of the marijuana laws. We will have a great national round-up arrest of all such persons on a single day. I will let you know what day."

That letter went out on, I think, October 24, 1947. The responses by the resident agents were all in the file. My favorite -- at the bottom line, there wasn't a single resident agent who didn't have reservations about this idea -- came from the Hollywood agent. This is the exact letter of the FBN agent in charge in Hollywood.

"Dear Commissioner Anslinger,

I have your letter of October 24. Please be advised that the musical community here in Hollywood are unionized and very tight we have been unable to get an informant inside it. So, at the present time, we have no cases involving musicians in violation of the marihuana laws."

For the next year and a half, Commissioner Anslinger got those kinds of letters. He never acknowledged any of the problems that the agents said they were having with this idea and always wrote them back the same letter.

"Dear Agent so-and-so,

Glad to hear you are working hard to give effect to my directive of October 24, 1947. We will (and he always underlined the word 'will') have a great national round-up arrest of musicians in violation of the marijuana laws all on a single day. Don't worry, I will let you know what day."


This went on -- and, of course, you know that some jazz musicians were, in fact, arrested in the late 40's -- this all went on until it ended just the way it began -- with something that Anslinger said. I don't see anybody in here really old enough to appreciate this point, but Commissioner Anslinger was testifying before a Senate Committee in 1948. He was saying, "I need more agents." And, of course, the Senators asked him why.

"Because there are people out there violating the marijuana laws."

Well, you know what the Senators asked -- "Who?"

And in a moment that every Government employee should avoid like the plague, Anslinger first said, "Musicians." But then he looked up at that Senate committee and he gave them a little piece of his heart and said the single line which provoked the most response in this country's history about the non-medical use of drugs. Anslinger said, "And I don't mean good musicians, I mean jazz musicians."

Friends, there is no way to tell you what a torrent ensued. Within 24 hours, 76 newspaper editorials slammed him, including special editions the then booming trade press of the jazz music industry. With three days, the Department of the Treasury had received fifteen thousand letters. bunches of them were still in bags when I got there -- never been opened at all. I opened a few. Here was a typical one, and it was darling.

"Dear Commissioner Anslinger,

I applaud your efforts to rid America of the scourge of narcotics addiction. If you are as ill-informed about that as you are about music, however, you will never succeed."

One of the things that we had access to that really was fun was the Commissioner's own appointment book for all of his years. And, five days after he says "I don't mean good musicians, I mean jazz musicians." there is a notation: 10 AM -- appointment with the Secretary of the Treasury." Well, I don't know what happened at that appointment, but from that appointment on, no mention is ever made again of the great national round-up arrest of musicians in violation of the marijuana laws all on a single day, much to the delight of the agents who never had any heart for it in the first place.


The final story from this period is my favorite story from this period, by far, and, again, there is simply nobody here who is really old enough to appreciate this story. You know, if you talk to your parents -- that's the generation we really need to talk to -- people who were adults during the late 30's and 40's. And you talk to them about marijuana in particular you would be amazed at the amazing reputation that marijuana has among the generation ahead of you as to what it does to its users.

In the late 30's and early 40's marihuana was routinely referred to as "the killer drug", "the assassin of youth". You all know "reefer madness", right? Where did these extraordinary stories that circulated in this country about what marijuana would do to its users come from?

The conventional wisdom is that Anslinger put them over on Americans in his effort to compete with Hoover for empire-building, etc. I have to say, in some fairness, that one of the things that our research did, in some sense, was to rehabilitate Commissioner Anslinger. Yes, there was some of that but, basically, it wasn't just that Anslinger was trying to dupe people.

The terrific reputation that marijuana got in the late 30s and early 40s stemmed from something Anslinger had said. Does everybody remember what Anslinger said about the drug? "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

Well, this time the magic word -- come along lawyers out there, where's the magic word? -- Insanity. Marihuana use, said the Government, would produce insanity.

And, sure enough, in the late 30s and early 40s, in five really flamboyant murder trials, the defendant's sole defense was that he -- or, in the most famous of them, she -- was not guilty by reason of insanity for having used marijuana prior to the commission of the crime.

All right, it's time to take you guys back to class here. If you are going to put on an insanity defense, what do you need? You need two things, don't you? Number one, you need an Expert Witness.

Where, oh where, in this story, are we going to find an expert witness? Here it comes -- sure enough -- the guy from Temple University -- the guy with the dogs. I promise you, you are not going to believe this.

In the most famous of these trials, what happened was two women jumped on a Newark, New Jersey bus and shot and killed and robbed the bus driver. They put on the marijuana insanity defense. The defense called the pharmacologist, and of course, you know how to do this now, you put the expert on, you say "Doctor, did you do all of this experimentation and so on?" You qualify your expert. "Did you write all about it?" "Yes, and I did the dogs" and now he is an expert. Now you ask him what? You ask the doctor "What have you done with the drug?" And he said, and I quote, "I've experimented with the dogs, I have written something about it and" -- are you ready -- "I have used the drug myself."

What do you ask him next? "Doctor, when you used the drug, what happened?"

With all the press present at this flamboyant murder trial in Newark New Jersey, in 1938, the pharmacologist said, and I quote, in response to the question "When you used the drug, what happened?", his exact response was: "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat."

He wasn't done yet. He testified that he flew around the room for fifteen minutes and then found himself at the bottom of a two-hundred-foot high ink well

Well, friends, that sells a lot of papers. What do you think the Newark Star Ledger headlines the next day, October 12, 1938? "Killer Drug Turns Doctor to Bat!"

What else do we need to put on an insanity defense? We need the defendant's testimony -- himself or herself. OK, you put defendant on the stand, what do you ask? "What happened on the night of . ."

"Oh, I used marijuana."

"And then what happened?"

And, if the defendant wants to get off, what is he or she going to say? "It made me crazy."

You know what the women testified? In Newark they testified, and I quote, "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette my incisor teeth grew six inches long and dripped with blood."

This was the craziest business you ever saw. Every one of these so-called marijuana insanity defenses were successful.

The one in New York was just outlandish. Two police officers were shot and killed in cold blood. The defendant puts on the marijuana insanity defense and, in that case, there was never even any testimony that the defendant had even used marijuana. The testimony in the New York case was that, from the time the bag of marijuana came into his room it gave off "homicidal vibrations", so he started killing dogs, cats, and ultimately two police officers.

Commissioner Anslinger, sitting in Washington, seeing these marijuana insanity defenses, one after another successful, he writes to the pharmacologist from Temple University and says, "If you don't stop testifying for the defense in these matters, we are going to revoke your status as the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics." He didn't want to lose his status, so he stopped testifying, nobody else would testify that marijuana had turned them into a bat, and so these insanity defenses were over but not before marijuana had gotten quite a reputation, indeed.

The next step -- and now we are going to move very quickly here -- in 1951. We get a whole new drug law called the Boggs Act and it is important to us for only two reasons.

Number one, it reflects what I am going to call the formula for drug legislation in this country. Here is the formula. The formula really is always the same, think about it in our lifetime.

The formula is that someone, and by the way, that someone is usually the media, perceive an increase in drug use. What's the answer? The answer in the history of this country is always the same -- a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every single offense category.

Where did the perception come from this time? Well, if you have ever seen movies from this time period like High School Confidential, the perception was that kids in high school were starting to use drugs. What's the answer? The answer is always the same. The Boggs Act of 1951 quadrupled the penalties in every single offense category and, by the way, the Boggs Act had a whole new rationale for the marijuana prohibition.

Do you remember the old rationale -- that marijuana was an addictive drug which caused in its users insanity, criminality, and death? Just before Anslinger was to testify on the Boggs Act, the doctor who ran for the Government the Lexington, Kentucky narcotics rehabilitation clinic testified ahead of Anslinger and testified that the medical community knew that marijuana wasn't an addictive drug,. It doesn't produce death, or insanity, and instead of producing criminality, it probably produces passivity, said the doctor.

Who was the next witness? Anslinger. And, if you see, that the rug had been pulled out from under everything he had said in the 1937 hearings to support the marijuana prohibition. In what I call a really slick Federal shuffle -- Anslinger, you know, had been bitten bad enough by what he said, he didn't want that again -- he said, the doctor is right, marijuana -- he always believed, by the way, that there was something in marijuana which produced criminality -- is not an addictive drug, it doesn't produce insanity or death but it is "the certain first step on the road to heroin addiction." And the notion that marijuana was the stepping stone to heroin became, in 1951, the sole rationale for the national marijuana prohibition. It was the first time that marijuana was lumped with all the other drugs and not treated separately, and we multiply the penalties in every offense category.

By the way, I told you that the history of drug legislation reflects the history of the country. 1951, what's going on? The Korean War, the Cold War. It didn't take the press a minute to see this perceived use in drug use among high school kids as our "foreign enemies", using drugs to subvert the American young. In our book, we have ten or fifteen great political cartoons. My favorite is a guy with a big Fu Man Chu (mustache) labeled "Oriental Communism." He has a big needle marked "Dope" and he has the American kids lying down -- "Free World" it is marked. There it was -- that our foreign enemies were going to use drugs to subvert the American young. What did we do? We passed a new law that increased the penalties in every offense category by a factor of four.

Well, now once you buy it, the ball is going to roll like crazy.

(continued)

1956 and the Daniel Act

1956, we get another new drug law, called the Daniel Act, named for Senator Price Daniel of Texas. It is important to us for only two reasons. One, it perfectly reflects the formula again. What is the formula? Somebody perceives an increase in drug use in this country and the answer is always a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every offense category.

Where did the perception in 1956 come from that there was an increase in drug use? Answer: Anybody remember 1956? In 1956, we had the first set ever of televised Senate hearings. And whose hearings were they? They were the hearings of Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee about organized crime in America.

These hearings, which everybody watched on their little sets showed two things that we all know today, but it sure made their socks roll up and down then. Number one, there is organized crime in America and number two, it makes all its money selling drugs. There it was, that was all the perception we needed. We passed the Daniel Act which increased the penalties in every offense category, that had just been increased times four -- times eight.

With the passage of each of these acts, the states passed little Boggs acts, and little Daniel acts, so that in the period 1958 to 1969, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Virginia was typical, the most heavily penalized crime in the Commonwealth was possession of marijuana, or any other drug.

It led to a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years, no part of which you were eligible for parole or probation, and as to no part of it were you eligible for a suspended sentence.

Just to show you where it was, in the same time period first degree murder in Virginia had a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years. Rape, a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Possession of marijuana -- not to mention sales of marijuana with its mandatory minimum of forty years -- mandatory minimum of twenty years.

That is the situation in 1969 when we have a new drug law, the first one in this country's history that does not follow the formula. It is the 1969 Dangerous Substances Act. For he first time in this country's history, we have a perception of an increase in drug use during the Sixties, but instead of raising the penalties, we lower them. And, further, in the Dangerous Substances Act of 1969, for the first time we finally abandon the so-called "taxing" mythology.

In the 1969 Act, what the Federal law does is, it takes all the drugs we know -- if you can't fill in this next blank, you are in trouble -- except two -- which two? Which two are never going to be mentioned? Nicotine and alcohol. But, other than nicotine and alcohol -- every other drug.

By the way, I tried this with the FBI for twenty years and they wouldn't listen, and you won't listen either but, I am going to try. If you are going to go out and talk about drugs and whatever you are going to do with drugs, will you please discard the entirely antiquated and erroneous word "narcotics." Narcotics are drugs that put people to sleep. Almost all of the drugs that we are interested in today don't do that.

So, in 1969, the Dangerous Substances Act gave up the effort to define what are narcotic drugs. What the 1969 act did, and what most state laws still do, is to classify all drugs except nicotine and alcohol by two criteria. What is the drug's medical use? And, what is the drug's potential for abuse?

We put all the drugs, by those two criteria, in schedules, and then we tie the penalties for possession, possession with intent to sell, sale, and sale to a minor to the schedule of the drug in question. Now, again, I am no good at this anymore, I have not kept up with the drug laws, I don't know who is in what schedule, and many states have abandoned the schedule but, to give you a flavor of it: The first schedule, Schedule One Drugs were drugs that had little or no medical use and a high potential for abuse. What's going to go in there? LSD, marijuana, hashish, they are all in Schedule One -- little or no medical use and a high potential for abuse.

Then you get some medical use, high potential for abuse -- what do you want there? Barbiturates, amphetamines,.

Then we are going to get what? High medical use and high potential for abuse. Morphine, codeine. Codeine is the best one because codeine is in almost every single prescription cough medicine and it is addictive as can be.

Then you go on down and get the antibiotics -- high medical use, almost no potential for abuse, and there you are.

Once you schedule your drugs, you then tie the penalties for the drugs to the schedule and then, because in 1969 they wanted to reduce the marijuana penalties they had to deal with marijuana separately and did so.

But the 1969 act important for two reasons again: One, we abandoned the taxing mythology and; two, it was the first law in this country's history that, instead of raising the penalties in every offense category, lowered them.

Well, then you know what happened. We get the War on Drugs. You know how it all went down. We got perceptions in the 80s that there was an increase in drug use, a great dramatic decision to declare war on drugs and, predominantly, war on drug users.

What I want to say to you is this, and this is where I think some of you are going to be a little surprised. You know as much about that process as I do. You watched it. You saw how we had one law after another, raising the penalties so that as late as 1990, thirty percent of the minority group population of the City of Baltimore who are male and between 20 and 29 are under court supervision for drugs. Thirty percent, that's the number you are looking for.

The War on Drugs, a very interesting war, because why? It was cheap to fight. It was cheap to fight at first -- why? You heard me in the "Recent Decisions" talk. What was last year's big moment, and the year before? The change in cheap and easy forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture was used to make this a costless war. That is, easy forfeiture from those who were caught allowed us to pay for the war in that way. I think we are going to have some real questions about whether people want to pay for the war on drugs through their taxes because now the Court has made forfeiture much, much more difficult in their overall concern for property rights.

But here is what I think may surprise some of you. You guys know as much about the War on Drugs as I do. I didn't come hear to talk, or to harangue, or to give you any opinions on that point. I think it speaks for itself. It is a failure and I think it will be judged as a failure. What I wanted to bring you instead was, instead of talking about that that everybody is talking about -- and you guys will ultimately resolve it and you guys are the ones who are seeing all the drug cases, day in and day out, and always will, until this changes. But, what I thought I could bring you was the part of the story you hadn't heard -- how we got to where we were when the War on Drugs was declared.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion - The Issue of Prohibition

And one other thing I want to do with you this morning, and that's this -- I want to say one thing. To tell you the real truth, my interest isn't in drugs, or in the criminalization of drugs although I think we should abolish the criminal penalties for drugs, and deal with it as the Europeans do in a medical way, but who cares? That's an opinion.


What interests me though, isn't drugs. What interests me is that larger issue, and the reason that I wrote the piece, and the reason they were my tenure pieces, I am interested in a much larger issue, and that is the idea of Prohibition -- the use of criminal law to criminalize conduct that a large number of us seem to want to engage in.


And, for my purposes, -- now, Professor Bonnie went on to be associated with NIDA and with all kinds of drug-related organizations and continues to be interested in the drug laws -- I am not. My interest is in criminal prohibitions and, for my purposes, as a criminal law scholar, we could have used any prohibition -- alcohol prohibition, the prohibition against gambling that exists still in many states. How about the prohibition in England from 1840 to 1880 against the drinking of gin? Not drinking, just gin -- got it? We could have used any of these prohibitions. We didn't. We chose the marijuana prohibition because the story had never been told -- and it is an amazing story.


We could have used any of these prohibitions. We could have used the alcohol prohibition. The reason we didn't is because so much good stuff has been written about it. And are you aware of this? That every single -- you know how fashionable it is to think that scholars can never agree? -- Don't you believe that -- Every single person who has ever written seriously about the national alcohol prohibition agrees on why it collapsed. Why?

Because it violated that iron law of Prohibitions. What is the iron law of Prohibitions? Prohibitions are always enacted by US, to govern the conduct of THEM. Do you have me? Take the alcohol prohibition. Every single person who has ever written about it agrees on why it collapsed.

Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Do you have me? What? The right answer to that one is Huh? Want to hear it again?

Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Want to see it?

Let me give you an example, 1919. You are a Republican in upstate New York. Whether you drink, or you don't, you are for the alcohol prohibition because it will close the licensed saloons in the City of New York which you view to be the corrupt patronage and power base of the Democratic Party in New York. So almost every Republican in New York was in favor of national alcohol prohibition. And, as soon as it passed, what do you think they said? "Well, what do you know? Success. Let's have a drink." That's what they thought, "let's have a drink." "Let's drink to this." A great success, you see.

Do you understand me? Huge numbers of people in this country were in favor of national alcohol prohibition who were not themselves opposed to drinking.

I just want to go back to the prohibition against the drinking of gin. How could a country prohibit just the drinking of gin, not the drinking of anything else for forty years? Answer: The rich people drank whiskey and the poor people drank what? -- gin. Do you see it?

Let's try the gambling prohibition. You know when I came to Virginia, this was a very lively issue, the gambling prohibition. By the way, I think it's a lively issue in California. Are you ready for it?


Have you ever seen the rhetoric that goes around the gambling prohibition? You know what it is. Look, we have had a good time. We have been together yesterday, we have been together today, I have known a lot of you guys for ages. How about after the talk, we have a minute or two, let's go on up to your room and we will play a little nickel, dime, quarter poker. Want to play some poker this afternoon? Why not? It's a nice thing to do.


Would we be outraged if the California State Police came barreling through the door and arrested us for violation of California's prohibition on gambling? Of course we would. Because, who is not supposed to gamble? Oh, you know who is not supposed to gamble -- them poor people, that's who. My God, they will spend the milk money. They don't know how to control it. They can't handle it. But us? We know what we are doing.


That's it. Every criminal prohibition has that same touch to it, doesn't it? It is enacted by US and it always regulates the conduct of THEM. And so, if you understand that is the name of the game, you don't have to ask me, or any of the other people which prohibitions will be abolished and which ones won't because you will always know. The iron law of prohibitions -- all of them -- is that they are passed by an identifiable US to control the conduct of an identifiable THEM.


And a prohibition is absolutely done for when it does what? Comes back and bothers US. If, at any time, in any way, that prohibition comes back and bothers us, we will get rid of it for sure, every doggone time. Look at the alcohol prohibition if you want a quick example. As long as it is only THEM --- you know, them criminals, them crazy people, them young people, them minority group members --- we are fine. But any prohibition that comes back and bothers US is done for.


Let's just try the marijuana prohibition as a quick one. Who do you think was arrested 650,000 strong two years ago for violation of the marijuana laws? Do you think it was all minority group members? Nope. It was not. It was some very identifiable children of US -- children of the middle class. You don't have to answer my opinion. No prohibition will stand -- ever-- when it comes back and penalizes our children -- the children of US who enacted it. And in fact, do you have any real doubt about that? Do you know what a fabulous sociological study we will be if we become the first society in the history of the world to penalize the sons and daughters of the wealthy class? Unheard of.

And so, yeah, we will continue the War on Drugs for a while until everybody sees its patent bankruptcy. But, let me say that I am not confident that good sense will prevail. Why? Because we love this idea of prohibition. We really do. We love it in this country. And so I will tell you what I predict. You will always know which ones are going out and which ones are coming in. And, can't you see the one coming right over the hill? Well, folks, we are going to have a new prohibition because we love this idea that we can solve difficult medical, economic, and social problems by the simple enactment of a criminal law. We adore this, and of course, you judges work it out, we have solved our problem. Do you have it? Our problem is over with the enactment of the law. You and the cops work it out, but we have solved our problem.

Here comes the new one? What's it going to be? No, it won't be guns, this one starts easy. This one is the Surgeon General has what? --Determined -- not "we want a little more checking it out", not "we need a few more studies", not "reasonable people disagree" -- "The Surgeon General has determined that the smoking of cigarettes will kill you."

Now, all you need, and here is my formula, for a new prohibition every time is what? We need an intractable, difficult, social, economic, or medical problem. But that is not enough. There has to be another thing. It has to divide by class --- by social or economic class, between US and THEM.

And so, here it comes. '

You know the Federal Government has been spending a lot of money since 1968 trying to persuade us not to smoke. And, indeed, the absolute numbers on smoking have declined very little. But, you know who has quit smoking, don't you? In gigantic numbers? The college-educated, that's who. The college-educated, that's who doesn't smoke. Who are they? Tomorrow's what? Movers and kickers, that's who. Tomorrow's movers and kickers don't smoke. Who does smoke? Oh, you know who smokes out of all proportion to their numbers in the society -- it is the people standing in your criminal courtrooms, that's who. Who are they? Tomorrow's moved and kicked, that's who.

And, there it is friends, once it divides between the movers and kickers and the moved and kicked it is all over and it will be all over very shortly.

It starts with "You know, they shouldn't smoke, they are killing themselves." Then it turns, as it has -- you see the ads out here -- "They shouldn't smoke, they are killing us." And pretty soon, that class division will happen, we will have the legislatures full of tomorrow's movers and kickers and they are going to say just what they are going to say any time now. "You know, this has just gotta stop, and we got an answer for it." We are going to have a criminal statute that forbids the manufacture, sale, or possession of tobacco cigarettes, or tobacco products period.

You know that the cigarette companies are expecting it. What have they been doing? They have been shifting all of their operations out of the United States and diversifying like crazy. Where are they going to sell their cigarettes? In China, that's where. And they are already moving, because they see it and I see it.

Ready? What are we going to have? You know what we are going to have. One day -- when's it gonna happen, ten years, fifteen? -- some legislator will get up and, just as though it had never been said before, "You know we gotta solve this smoking problem and I got a solution -- a criminal prohibition against the manufacture, sale, or possession of tobacco cigarettes." And then you know what happens. Then everybody who did want a cigarette here today, if there is anyone here who smokes, you are going to have to hide in the bathroom. And cigarettes are no longer going to be three dollars a pack, they are going to be three dollars a piece. And who's going to sell them to you? Who will always sell them to you? The people who will sell you anything -- organized crime. You got the concept, we will go through the whole darn thing again because I am telling you this country is hooked on the notion of prohibition.

Let me conclude, and again this is my prediction -- I will tell you I don't think it is subject to opinion. Just look at it. Just take a look at what has happened now and what will happen. I will tell you how inexorable it is. If we get together here in the year 2005, I will bet you that it is as likely as not that the possession of marijuana may not be criminal in this state. But the manufacture, sale, and possession of tobacco will be, and why? Because we love this idea of prohibitions, we can't live without them. They are our very favorite thing because we know how to solve difficult, social, economic, and medical problems -- a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every category for everybody.

Thanks for the link. It's hilarious.

I agree with you that there are some stupid laws. I have never said there was a thing wrong with campaigning to change the law. That is what this great country is founded on.  

As opposed to the government's claims that marijuana would make your incisors grow six inches long and drip with blood. Well, you know, every side tends to see things their way but if you compare the two sides, there is simply no comparison.

that is your opinion, not empirically based fact. there is just as much rhetoric on the other side.

Let me conclude, and again this is my prediction -- I will tell you I don't think it is subject to opinion. Just look at it. Just take a look at what has happened now and what will happen. I will tell you how inexorable it is. If we get together here in the year 2005, I will bet you that it is as likely as not that the possession of marijuana may not be criminal in this state. But the manufacture, sale, and possession of tobacco will be, and why? Because we love this idea of prohibitions, we can't live without them. They are our very favorite thing because we know how to solve difficult, social, economic, and medical problems -- a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every category for everybody

I don't disagree with that statement at all. but, if society as a whole decides something is bad/wrong or immoral. It is up to us to follow the rules that as a society we have set for ourselves.
even the ones we don't agree with.

As far as the legalization of m.j. goes. bring me a petition to legalize it not cloaked in the medical m.j. guise and I will be the first to sign it.


I am well aware about how the various prohibitions have come to pass in this country. I won't bore the reader with lengthy examples at this time though.


I for one am not for any abridgement of personal freedom in this country. You would actually make my life easier if m.j. were legal. I would'nt have to chase the mj. trafficers on the highway anymore.


politicians want to solve the problems of this country with easy fix legislation. weather it be drugs, illegal immigration(close the boarder) or other types of "feel good things" We as citizens must be ever vigilant and active to prevent the abuses of government and the political system.

btw; i really am enjoying our civil discussion here.

Quoted: that is your opinion, not empirically based fact. there is just as much rhetoric on the other side.

Nope. The only explanation for that opinion is that someone has not read the major research on the subject. That's why I put the full text of all the major studies I could find -- pro, con, or indifferent -- on the web where everyone could read the full text. Many of those major commission reports were actively suppressed by the government, or had their publication severely limited.  For example, Nixon commissioned the biggest study in history -- the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse -- and then staffed it with his own hand-picked law-and-order friends. After two years of study they came to the inescapable conclusion that there simply was no credible evidence to support our current policy.

In response, Nixon refused to read his own report and limited the publication to something like 1,000 copies. The same thing happened when the California State Advisory commission on drugs recommended that marijuana be legalized (after about 20 years of research). In response to that, the California AG stopped the publication of the report. The only reason I have a copy is because the members of the commission published it privately with their own money.

If you talk to enough people who support the drug war you will find a couple of things. The first is that they really don't know anything about the subject. I have proven this time and again. On one TV show I faced off against the DEA's top spokesman in Southern California and the head of the California Narcotics Officers Association.

At one point early in the show I turned to the host and said "I think I can demonstrate the real drug problem just by asking a few questions."

The host said, "OK, I'll bite. Go ahead."

I turned to the cops. "Can either one of you tell me when these drugs were originally outlawed?'

They both shook their heads.

"Can you tell me why they were outlawed?"

They shook their heads again.

"Can you tell me what happened immediately before and immediately after they were outlawed?"

They shook their heads again.

"Can you tell me how many people are killed by drugs in the US in a typical year?"

They shook their heads again.

"In the past 100 years there have been at least a dozen major government commissions that have studied the drug laws and made recommendations for changes. Can you name any of them and tell me what they said?"

They shook their heads again.

Then I turned to the host. "In 1973, President Nixon's US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse completed the largest study of the drug laws ever done. At the end of their study they said that the real drug problem was not marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine. The real drug problem, they said, was the ignorance of our public officials who had never bothered to read the most basic research on the subject.  You can see the real problem sitting right here in front of you. These guys came down here to tell us what the drug laws ought to be and neither one can answer the most basic factual questions about the subject."

Now, you might ask how I had the confidence to start that little routine, knowing how it would end up. It is because I have been through the same situation many, many times before, and it always comes out the same.

The second characteristic of these people is that they will refuse to read anything on the subject -- even after they have been publicly embarrassed like that. Those two guys never did read anything. You will see the same refusal to read from someone every time the subject comes up on one of these boards.

Bottom line -- people who support prohibition don't know anything about the subject, and lots of them don't want to know. It is deliberate ignorance.

I don't disagree with that statement at all. but, if society as a whole decides something is bad/wrong or immoral. It is up to us to follow the rules that as a society we have set for ourselves. even the ones we don't agree with.

If only there had been an ounce of good sense behind the laws in the first place. Yeah, you and I should follow the rules. At the same time, it is pretty obvious that not everyone is going to follow our good example. So we have to base our laws on the reality that there will be all those other folks out there.

As far as the legalization of m.j. goes. bring me a petition to legalize it not cloaked in the medical m.j. guise and I will be the first to sign it.

You can join Law Enforcement Against Prohibition www.leap.cc I am sure that they would love to have your support. You would find lots of cops, judges, and others from the law enforcement community.

I am well aware about how the various prohibitions have come to pass in this country. I won't bore the reader with lengthy examples at this time though.

I wouldn't have posted all that here but experience has taught me that a lot of people won't click on a link to read anything.

I for one am not for any abridgement of personal freedom in this country. You would actually make my life easier if m.j. were legal. I would'nt have to chase the mj. trafficers on the highway anymore.

I would like it, too, if your time was put toward more productive pursuits.

politicians want to solve the problems of this country with easy fix legislation. weather it be drugs, illegal immigration(close the boarder) or other types of "feel good things" We as citizens must be ever vigilant and active to prevent the abuses of government and the political system. btw; i really am enjoying our civil discussion here.

Ditto. Would that there were more LEOs with your thoughtful approach.

I will definately look into that site you posted.

You can join Law Enforcement Against Prohibition www.leap.cc I am sure that they would love to have your support. You would find lots of cops, judges, and others from the law enforcement community.

FWIW in my 10 years in l.e I have probably seen 50x times more problems from alcohol than m.j.



let me leave you on this for now with a joke:

q:what do you call a lawyer who has gone bad?
a:senator