I am going to a fundraiser for the Marijuana Policy Project tomorrow night at the Playboy Mansion. It should be interesting. In thinking tonight about the more serious issues surrounding marijuana prohibition, it occurred to me that there’s one rather proactive medical recommendation that (I assume) anyone ought to qualify for. Here’s my attempt at a first draft:
“I, Doctor Whomever X. Wherever, have thoroughly evaluated and assessed Patient Doe. In light of this assessment, and my solemn duty to protect the privacy, dignity, and best interests of my patients, I hereby affirm that, in my best professional judgment, my patient’s physical and psychological health are best served by her never spending a single day in prison.”
Michael Phelps has nothing to apologize for. I understand the reality he faces, however, and why he has to say what he said. But let’s go beyond the breathless theatrics and think about the core issue. “He broke the law,” the pundits are saying, as if that is necessarily the end of the conversation. Sorry, but Phelps was not wrong; our marijuana laws are wrong. Really wrong.
Does anybody alive even remember why it was outlawed? No, of course you don’t – but you’ll do yourself well to look over the historical – and hysterical – record.
“Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”
[1934 newspaper editorial in favor of criminalization]
“All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy.” [Texas legislator arguing for criminalization]
Growing up, there was a book that first got me excited about computers. I’d never really forgotten it, but over the years it had faded deep into memory. And fond memories they were – the book was whimsical, full of strange artwork and far-out metaphors. It really helped me – a middle-school kid in the middle of nowhere trying desperately to think big – to see outside my small world and into a universe of infinite technological possibility. I was probably 12 or 13, just starting to tinker with TRS-80s and early Apples and really having my mind opened up by these strange little boxes.
A few months ago – for some reason – that book popped back into my mind. Who was that guy? What was that book? And off I went to figure it out.
“a third of the participants in the study described the psilocybin experience as the single most significant experience of their lives and about three-quarters ranked it in the top 5″.
Pretty remarkable stuff. Even more remarkable is that a year later, the experience has “stuck:”
“Even at the 14-month follow-up, 58 percent of 36 volunteers rated the experience on the psilocybin session as among the five most personally meaningful experiences of their lives and 67 percent rated it among the five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives..”
And I’m again pleased to see the mainstream press giving it fair, non-hysterical coverage here and here. [Thanks, Chris.]
This is an issue that affects all of us. We spend billions of dollars enforcing marijuana laws, and distract good cops from enforcing real crimes. Almost a million people are arrested for marijuana possession each year. Many of them end up with permanent criminal records and are barred forever from receiving federal student aid. People don’t just have their lives ruined; some have even died as a result of marijuana law enforcement (e.g. shot to death in paramilitary style raids – yes, it happens.)
The criminalization of marijuana was pure foolishness driven by racism, hysteria and corporate special interests.
Years ago, I read Pinchbeck’s Breaking Open the Head, and found it to be a good and interesting book, even if somewhat inconclusive.
Somehow I missed Rolling Stone’s profile of him over a year ago. It’s a really interesting story – his influences and where they took him. I saw Pinchbeck on the Colbert Report a few months ago talking about his new book, 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl and I was quite confused.
The lead writers for HBO’s show The Wire wrote a great piece in TIME this week railing against the War on Drugs. Their suggested approach: jury nullification. They say,
“If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun’s manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
Article in LA Daily News about David and Jean Fleming and the War on Some Drugs. While I hate the sycophantic tone about what a “big shot” he is – clearly Brent Hopkins felt he wasn’t worthy – it’s obvious that Fleming has had a great deal of time to reflect on the issue.
The Washington Post’s Tom Shroder wrote a beautiful piece about MDMA trials that have been underway since the FDA approved my friend Rick Doblin’s research protocol in 2004. This is the first time a journalist was permitted to interview a participant in this groundbreaking study.
What remaining chance there might have been of me supporting Hillary Clinton has evaporated in the last 48 hours. Going after a guy for being honest is about as low as you can go. Today they rolled out their “no surprises” attack line, and it makes me sick to my stomach. So let me get this straight – since we already know what your issues are (and boy, do you have issues) the Dems should be less afraid of you? This, despite the fact that Obama is more honest and authentic, on the right side of the Iraq issue, much more likable, and probably far more likely to win in the general?
First of all, there will be surprises. Believe it or not, there are Clinton stones yet unturned, too. While I don’t think it’s necessarily relevant to compare Obama’s honesty to President Clinton’s, I do think it’s now fair to ask Hillary about her own recreational drug use. It’s hard to imagine she got through the sixties – and Wellesley – without LSD, marijuana, and who knows what else. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s OK – it’s an issue we are still far too hysterical about – but the media cannot responsibly play ride-along with this double-standard.
Based on two sources I spoke with today, the word inside the Clinton camp is that Mark Penn is increasingly seen as too “politically mechanical” and there is a serious internal sense that Iowa is going to be lost if Penn’s old-time strategy is followed to the end. Apparently [as reported by Glenn Thrush in Newsday this morning] Penn is poll and focus group-driven and is watering down what little authenticity she has left at a time when Obama is surging. This, while Penn and his team are simultaneously doing back-channel dirty work – such as the drug-hit Shaheen came out with yesterday – that some staffers feel is doing them more harm than good by making them look desperate.
![This Product Contains Cannabis [by me]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/291409410_d2111e1387_m.jpg "This Product Contains Cannabis")
