UPDATE: The End of the World? But I've got summer school.

My first post about this 1995ish-style website said the end of the world was gonna happen starting in JUNE 09.. Well, since June is upon us, they've changed their website to "AUGUST 09" and in one "open letter" from a visitor asking people to "email him if nothing happens in June" has been changed to "if nothing happens by August" - comical....

I truly hope these guys don't end up doing something like McVeigh, the racist holocast museum killer, or the abortionist killer - (wow I've already added two more people to that list this year alone.)

Sorry guys, but I've got an old sock drawer to sort out. I'll catch you at the next rapture.


--

Formula for Legality

The federal government categorizes substances like alcohol, nicotine and heroine into what it calls "schedules" and each schedule has a set of criteria. For instance marijuana is in the same schedule as heroine. Which meets the following guidelines:

1. The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Without mentioning the obvious, almost laughable categorization of marijuana into this schedule, I'd like to propose a whole different way to look at substances, certain acts and items. Now the disclaimer here is that the below spew has yet to be thoroughly thought out, so pardon the mess.

THE FORMULA FOR LEGALITY:
“The level of physical or mental harm that an act, substance, or item causes to an adult individual or their community, and if any benefit to self or community may be gained by its legalization, in which the benefit of legalization must clearly outweigh the reasons for illegality.”

Criteria involved in deciphering physical and mental harm:
Harm Rule #1: No immediate or irreversible harm to self or community.
Harm Rule #2: No level of the substance, item or act can be properly regulated in order to comply with Rule #1.

For substances, items or acts that would break the Harm Rules only at increased or improper levels of use must be further regulated.
Inform Rule #1: No encouragement of overuse, long-term use and other abuses.
Inform Rule #2: Clear warnings, regulations with possible need for licensing, training or other tactics to ensure public safety and that a citizen can make a well-informed decision.

Note:
Spiritually cannot play a role in this debate as it cannot be measured in the physical world. What effects these acts, items or substances have on spiritual things such as the soul, are invalid to the physical, measurable world. Religion can certainly set its own rules and give its flock the choice to abide by those rules, and if not, well then the rule-breakers are not part of that religion anymore. And since there are so many religions and non-religions, the Formula for Legality must be a physical declaration, not a spiritual one.

Note 2:
The idea of community can be taken many ways. Some may say, “What’s best for the community is not to have a bunch of drug addicts roaming the streets”. And I couldn’t agree more. My disagreements are mainly with the current methods we use to reduce the abuse, long-term and over use. And propose this “Formula of Legality”, not to condone, but to safely inform and protect citizens from organized crime, unsupportive jail time, and long-term addiction. Morality based laws do little to enlighten the public to the ill effect of their choices and offers little support the addict in their time of need. I say, in many circumstances it makes the problem worse.

Examples:

Crystal meth, heroine, PCP, & nitrous cause too much harm to an individual or its community, mentally or physically (usually do to a prevalence of addiction, even from one or two uses) and it cannot be safely regulated or legal at any level. It remains illegal to protect the individual or others from immediate or irreversible harm, especially citizens that have no such knowledge of its ill effects. It does not fit the Formula for Legality and remains illegal.

Guns can cause immediate and irreversible harm to self or others, but only at improper levels of use. So they must be further regulated by the Inform Rules, which include proper training, licensing and no encouragement of abuse. These steps ensure that under proper regulations, guns can be used recreationally or in defense of one right of the Harm Rules. The Formula for Legality is true.

Alcohol at proper levels of consumption does not break the Harm Rules. But must also abide by the Inform Rules, to ensure the public is aware of ill effects caused by overuse or long-term use. However, the Harm Rules are broken if the person gets behind the wheel of a car, operates heavy machinery, etc. Even so, the Formula for Legality remains true.

Nuclear weapons at any level are harmful to self or others. They cannot be properly regulated to exist at any level, for any citizen to try and make themselves, anywhere. The Formula for Legality is false.

Marijuana has been shown to be addictive with long-term usage, mostly do to routine or psychological need, but not a chemical one. Yet no more addictive than alcohol and in terms of the health effects of marijuana, they are along the same lines as cigarettes. But the drug is not immediately, nor irreversibly harmful to self or others (unless used improperly like alcohol, while driving, etc). It does not break the Harm Rules, but still must abide by the Inform Rules, as heavy or chronic use is not encouraged. And since the benefits of legalization, in terms of monetary savings, proper regulations and a well-informed public outweighs the reasons why it’s illegal AND since illegality actually cause more problems, then the Formula for Legality is true.

Cocaine is probably one of the more difficult substances to apply this formula and rules to. At low levels of potency, the effects are mild and almost identical to caffeine, simply crush up and snort a couple NoDoz and you’re there. And if low levels are similar to caffeine usage, then Harm Rule #2 applies, which states that if levels of a substance can properly be regulated to ensure no immediate or irreversible harm then it should be legal. I’m still not convinced though. It certainly must follow the Inform Rules, as overuse, long-term use or other types of abuse causes harm to self or others. But in terms of immediate or irreversible harm to self or others at recreational levels is debatable. But remember the Formula for Legality also asks the question of "benefit" to self or community over the effects of illegality and like with "instant reply" in sports, there must be clear evidence and reasons to overturn a current "on the field" call. And with cocaine, the current "on the field" call that it is illegal. And for now, it should probably stay that way, until further research and discussion can be made.

Lets throw this formula some curveballs:

Sex. The act of sex under proper safety guidelines and protection isn't immediately harmful to self or community. Furthermore, at recreational levels, it does not break the Harm Rules and fits within the Formula for Legality. But using sex improperly, just like with guns, can break the Harm Rules. As such, regulations on sex like in the act of rape, incest or pedophilia is strictly prohibited. But sex, in general, is still legal if used properly.

Free Speech. The act of Free speech does not break the Harm Rules. But yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire) does. Therefore Free Speech is still protected under the Formula for Legality, but using it improperly isn’t.

Skydiving can cause immediate and irreversible physical harm to others, but only if used improperly used or abused. Not following strict safely guidelines or following current regulations on safety and training can lead to irreversible effects. Additionally, if only measured on a recreational level, the rush of skydiving is said to meet or exceed the effects of certain illegal drugs. And since the entire point in all of this is to show the parallels between material things like skydiving and snorting cocaine, I’ll get to my final point.

If the legality of substances, acts and items are only measured and quantified in ways they can be misused or abused, than I expect skydiving, sex, driving cars and the internet to become illegal soon as well.

-

The Great Regulators

Imagine a world where nothing is illegal, equality reigns over freedom and justice is more important than order. A humanity where people can do or say whatever they please, as long as it does not impede on the liberty and choices of others. People are treated with dignity and respect and the only laws are a set of guidelines to maintain equity: the freedom to posses, the freedom of choice, the freedom of expression and the freedom to survive. This may sound familiar—it is our past. A citizen of today can only be free in their minds and even that is adjustable by a few hours in a dark cell, force fed distortions of the law and inequality of punishment. Ignorance’s medicine, in the guise of abuse, solitude and confinement, is shoved down our throats and forced into our unconscious mind in the feeble attempt to heal the “evildoer”. But a proper democracy is not one bloated with incredible laws of oppression, but one where a society, created by the people, can flourish and live in harmony free from the armed tormenters whom act as defenders of our great civilization. Those freedom fighters are only here to elicit fear and alter our minds to be obedient of the corrupted elite that govern our nation.


In a game played by money and greed, humans are merely pawns. The great regulators reign supreme, uneducated with guns at their sides, carelessly moving the pieces around the board, unaware of the chaos they create with every move. As the money pours in and the uncontested power charges their egos, society cracks and turns on itself, cannibalizing the freedoms they once could not live without. The oppressors view human culture as something to control, like a puppet at a show or a careless ship captain navigating iceberg-infested waters. “If not manipulated,” say the regulators, “humans will create an anarchist, immoral state and the Gods will surely hold us and the world responsible and wreck havoc on our souls”. The oppressors certainly know of an end and act in haste to sacrifice the evildoers to their Gods, in order to prove their allegiance and to set aside a place in the utopian afterlife. They have no concern of the present chaos, nor worry about the current fate of freedom.


Our history speaks of legality and morality not prevention or treatment. Marijuana has been used as far back as 3000BC, mostly in religious ceremonies but also for medicinal treatment of such ailments as glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, and influenza. The Virginia assembly in 1619 required every household to grow it and even some states allowed hemp to be used as legal tender. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp at their homes. Cocaine was also used for thousands of years as an aesthesia in dentistry, an ingredient in wine and in the original formula for Coca-Cola. Cocaine was also sold in neighborhood drugstores for five or ten cents. Nicotine was viewed as non-addictive, harmless and smoking was advertised as “good for digestion”[1]. The 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act changed many drug laws, but even after that law was passed, it was still legal for registered companies and individuals.


As our ethical leaders became increasingly frightened by the influx of immigrants as well as the liberties gained by African-Americans, thus began the first “war on drugs” and they focused their attention squarely on marijuana. The so-called marijuana-induced “sex-crazed teenager” and the “violent” culture played a huge role in the creation of new laws, as the poorer society tends to lean on drugs more than the upper-class. FBI director J. Edward Hoover and certain lawmakers attributed all sinful acts of the youth to the effects of drugs and marijuana and wanted to purge the country of this “immoral behavior”. They dismissed treatment clinics as “barrooms for addicts” and said the only proper response to illegal drug use was to “jail offenders, then throw away the key”. Amid the prejudices, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937[2] criminalized marijuana for the first time. Businesses and casual smokers of previous years were lectured and sentenced to long prison terms. Our Great Regulators even dismissed a study in 1944 by the New York Academy of Medicine which concluded: “marijuana did not cause violent behavior, provoke insanity, lead to addiction, or promote opiate use”. But they could not deny the useful nature of the hemp plant, as showcased by the 1943 video “Hemp for Victory” created by the U.S. government during WWII, in which farmers were encouraged to grow hemp for the war effort. (Hemp was used in rope, cloth and other products). Hemp also outgrows most plants and thrives in almost any climate, it’s good for the environment, and was used as fuel, paper, fiber, and medicine. But after World War II and near the height of anti-communism furor in the 1950’s, The Boggs Act and our ethical leaders raised marijuana penalties to the same level as heroin.


The inconsistency of our laws did not stop with the Boggs Act. By 1962 in Louisiana, a simple drug possession conviction ranged from five to ninety-nine years in prison. In Missouri, a second drug offense could result in a life sentence. And in Georgia, a second conviction for selling marijuana to a minor could bring the death penalty. But in the late 1960s as marijuana usage grew within the white middle-class, there was a re-evaluation of laws that for decades had imprisoned poor immigrants and African Americans. In 1970, the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act set apart marijuana from other narcotics and reduced federal penalties for possession. In the same year, President Richard Nixon chose a bipartisan commission to study the health effects, legal status and social impact of marijuana. Two years later, the 1972 National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse arrived at a conclusion: “marijuana should be decriminalized under state and federal law. Possessing small amounts of marijuana in the home should no longer be a crime, growing or selling marijuana for profit, using it in public, or driving under the influence would remain strictly forbidden and society should strongly discourage marijuana use while devoting more resources to preventing and treating heavy use.” Led by these findings, eleven states decriminalized marijuana and most other states weakened their laws against it. But President Nixon rejected the findings and privately blamed “the Jews” for the new drug law reorganizations.


However, decriminalization was still supported in the late 1970’s by The American Medical Association, National Council of Churches, President Jimmy Carter and other lawmakers. The 1974 case of Ravin v. State of Alaska, led the Alaska Supreme Court to rule that “growing and smoking Cannabis was protected in home and yard by the State Constitution’s right to privacy”. But in the 1979 case National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Gain, which argued for the right to have marijuana in a private location such as a home, the California Supreme Court decided “not to guarantee adult Californians the privilege of smoking a possibly harmful drug, even in the privacy of their homes”. Less than twenty years later, a portion of the Violence against Women Act of 1994 was declared unconstitutional, “Because the federal government has no right to regulate a private act, such as rape, that is neither part of interstate commerce nor caused by state officials.” In other words, a citizen can send the police into their neighbor’s home to bust down the door and haul away the non-violent over-user under full protection of the law, but if the same neighbor was raped, police have no right to enter the premises. Even though the federal government and the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) approved decriminalization of marijuana, individual battles of consistency and equality raged on.


Only a few years after the DEA proposed decriminalization, an entirely new administration, led by Ronald Regan, called marijuana “the most urgent drug problem facing the U.S.” In 1982, President Reagan created a drug czar—Carton Turner, a chemist who disregarded any previous research, believed marijuana linked youth to anti-military, anti-nuclear power, anti-big business, and thought smoking it could turn young men into homosexuals. Under President Reagan, the U.S. started the second “war on drugs” by increasing federal penalties with three new acts: The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Marijuana was now (and still is) classified as a Schedule I drug, which requires the following findings[3]:
1. The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.


President Regan considered marijuana as “the most dangerous drug in America” and placed it on the same level as heroin, LSD and peyote. Yet almost all previous scientific research suggested that marijuana is less addictive than heroin, cocaine, nicotine, alcohol and caffeine and can also be used in numerous medical treatments. Cocaine and PCP were (and still are) on a “lower” level, Schedule II, which allowed doctors to prescribe them to citizens. Once again drug use was depicted as a moral problem not a medical one.


President Bush Sr. continued Regan’s moral push and raised drug enforcement spending by 83 percent and under President Clinton, not to be outdone by the republicans, also increased federal spending on drug enforcement with little or no increase on prevention or treatment. Under Clinton, drug possession arrests hit a record high and jails became increasingly overcrowded. To ring in the new millennium, President Bush Jr., along with the USA Patriot Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, made drugs “more” illegal than ever before.


This—was yesterday.


We are conditioned to trust our moral regulators. But these leaders simply place their friends and others, sympathetic to their message, in power to create the laws for the “Great Moral Society” without consideration to science, research and other accepted studies. One such study by the accredited British Journal of Psychiatry states: "The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."[4] But we again ignore clear information gained by observation, experience, science and experiment for the sensationalized rhetoric of the moral majority. Our leaders continue to spew their message of protectionism for the Great Society as noted in the complete blockade of scientific research due to marijuana’s drug classification.


Our “Great Moral Society” is one where four billion dollars a year of tax money is spent combating mostly addicts and non-violent criminals. An addict defined by the FDA is: “any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.” This is a good definition for someone who needs rehab, not a jail cell.

Alcoholics, for instance, go through an intense sobering process that requires the efforts of family, friends, the government and their community. But most of them endure this detoxification within the safety of loved ones, not near the violent criminals of the prison system. The treatment of alcoholism without jail time is viewed as normal in American society. Also with other addictions, like prescription drugs, no jail time is required for overuse. As a matter of fact, citizens can overuse alcohol, prescription drugs, food, nicotine, and sex and not receive one day of jail time as long as they stay within the boundaries of regulation. The mere use or overuse of a certain drug is not cause for imprisonment.


But the 400,000 police officers specifically assigned to the drug war, ensure that over-users and drugs possessors have a long stay behind bars. Federal law states: possession for any amount of cocaine is a felony, punishable by a year or longer in prison. In fact, most first time offenders of federal possession laws spend a minimum of one-to-three years in prison and in California, three possessions of cocaine (with similar chemical reactions of another psychoactive but legal drug, caffeine) can lead to a lifetime behind bars. Actually, caffeine has no regulations by the federal government at all and has no limits to the amount placed in soda, Excedrin, chocolate, coffee, tea, and so-called “energy drinks”. If caffeine could be snorted or injected directly into the blood stream and involve the same sensations of cocaine, would caffeine become illegal? Caffeine has proven to be as addictive as cocaine but for now, caffeine has no limits to its use and the 400,000 armed tormentors are ready for the next drug over-user to place into the revolving door of the prison system.


Marijuana laws are even worse with broad, inconsistent “deterrents” ranging from state to state. In New York State for instance, an ounce of marijuana brings a fine of $100, whereas the same amount in Louisiana could lead to twenty years-to-life. In Idaho, selling water pipes is nine years behind bars. In Kentucky, products made from hemp fibers are illegal. Certain counties in Ohio hand out a fine for the possession of three ounces of marijuana but a drive to Indiana one hour away can lead to three years in prison. Indiana laws are particularly inconsistent and offenses range from armed robbery at six years, rape at eight years, murder at twenty-five and selling marijuana—a life sentence (as in the case of Mark Young, a marijuana “activist”). Federal law also states that convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters can get welfare payments, but those with marijuana felonies cannot. Twenty states have laws that say: if a citizen is caught smoking marijuana, even in a private location like a home, can lead to a harsher punishment than being arrested for driving drunk. And in one of the most restrictive states, Oklahoma, any amount of marijuana including paraphernalia, is a mandatory one year behind bars, every subsequent offense is two-to-ten years and the sale of marijuana is two years-to-life behind bars. Lawmakers continue to make drugs “more” illegal everyday and the irregularity of past mistakes, with little attention to treatment, is still echoed today.


California’s recent proposition 5 stated: “California’s corrections system does not provide meaningful rehabilitation services to most inmates and parolees. Nonviolent offenders can languish for years behind bars without education, vocational training, or rehabilitation programs of any kind.”[5] So even though we house these non-violent criminals in prison, the system does not provide enough alternatives to their addiction besides jail time. Non-violent criminals get the same jail time as violent offenders and according to the laws, a casual user is no different than an addict. Very little rehabilitation is used; it’s currently a policy of: “It’s the users fault for doing it, so they must be punished and shoved into jail for treatment.” The ineffective laws of today that focus on possession need to change to protect the drug user from the drug dealer and to protect the addict from gaining a foothold in the underground of the American black market. A non-violent drug user is not the same as a brutal drug kingpin and the laws should be changed to reflect that.


Most of the non-violent addicts in prison gain an extraordinary study on how to truly become an elite drug user or worse: a drug dealer. This is good news for the addicts as about seventy-seven billion dollars a year is made in the illegal drug trade, most of which fuels terrorism and kingpins from foreign countries. Imagine what seventy-seven billion dollars and 400,000 workers could do to rebuild New Orleans or rid our country of foreign oil dependency. We believe more in the values of the moral majority and their message of global security with a heavenly afterlife than in society’s duty to listen and respond to rational science and practical research.


This—is today.


Organized crime runs the illegal drug culture, instead of what it should be: the taxpayer. California’s NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) estimates that the state could net some 1.5 to 2.5 billion dollars per year by legalizing marijuana for general adult use, as well as accumulate a savings of over 160 million in taxpayer dollars per year that is currently spent on arrests, prosecutions and imprisonment of drug users. As the Journal of Public Health stated in 1989 (counter to the message by the moral leaders of “abstinence” and prohibition): "The available evidence indicates that the decriminalization of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system."[6] Imagine that savings going back to the taxpayer.


The taxpayers should focus on treatment centers, twelve step programs, and prisons should focus on drug abuse management. "Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption. ... Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users, but there is no evidence, as of yet, to support this conjecture."[7] Deterrents like long prison sentences do little to discourage drug users and these laws end up hurting the addict by using punishment as treatment. Rehabilitation and treatment centers actually saves society money as stated by the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) from the Center from Substance Abuse Treatment[8], and every dollar spent on treatment saves society three dollars in crime-related costs, increased earnings and reduced health costs.


Society also needs a wake-up call that a world in which drugs are decriminalized does not mean a world full of drug addicts and pushers. A study by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine stated: "In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."[9] Another study by the Journal of Public Health states: "The available data indicate that decriminalization measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use in the United States. In the South Australian community, none of the studies have found an impact in cannabis use which is attributable to the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Scheme [decriminalization.]"[10] And in the same spirit, Dr. Charles Schuster, head of the National Institute of Drug Abuse during the 1980s, said “To the best of my knowledge, no one has died because they’ve smoke too much marijuana.” According to a recent study published in the Journal of Substance Use, adolescent drug use is tied more to “sensation seeking”, rather than impulsive decision making[11]. Skydiving, which can cause similar euphoric sensations to certain illegal drugs, causes more deaths than marijuana, yet jumping out of a plane remains completely legal and we certainly do not live in a world overrun by skydivers.


Society tends to blame marijuana as well when addicts upgrade to harsher drugs. In fact, more cocaine users smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol before using cocaine than used marijuana, so the so-called "gateway" argument applies more to beer, whiskey and cigarettes than it does to marijuana. When marijuana usage increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined rapidly and when cocaine use increased in the 1980s, marijuana use declined. There is no correlation between a cocaine user and a marijuana user; they are like wine drinkers versus beer drinkers, but our society continues to trust their moral leaders over statistics and data.


Addiction to any drug is a very serious issue which should not be taken lightly but it shouldn’t be treated as an immoral choice that only elicits jail time. Problematic drug use should be dealt with like any other addiction—with treatment. We should not spend billions of dollars on prisons to simply accommodate addicts. Governmental licensing practices and regulations used currently for alcohol and prescription drugs should be used on narcotics as well. Alcohol has many regulations: the legal age to drink is 21, citizens cannot drive while drunk, citizens cannot be in public places while intoxicated and citizens cannot operate heavy machinery, to name a few. To sell alcohol, a business must meet certain preconditions before applying for a license and must renew their license every year to ensure compliance with any new regulations. Prescription drugs have similar regulations and so do cigarettes. The “legalize-it” portion of the world will also be faced with the sad truth that drugs are addictive and harmful when overused, but the fight is not legality—the fight is regulation.


The ultimate goal of the Great Regulators should not be on personal economic gains or other egotistical, selfish possessions but equality for all humans. The freedom to posses will guide humanity towards a safer, more humane world, not one led by confinement and punishment. Better education can lead to an improved perception of addiction and its problems, lending an ear to the addict and their freedom of choice. Humans must also rise out of the shadows of the moral oppressors and use the freedom of expression to take back the civil liberties society once held so dear. And the ultimate freedom, the freedom to survive, will be a right born into every citizen regardless of background. The Great Regulators of the future will pass laws based on science while providing safer alternatives to the expensive, violent and corrupted, valued-based system currently in use.


This is tomorrow—and I imagine that next week will look even better.

------------------------------------------------------
[1] Nolan, Hamilton. “Five Way Camel Cigarettes Are Good For You.” Gawker.com. 19 Jun. 2008. Gawker Media. 7 Dec. 2008
[2] Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937)
[3] “Schedules of Controlled Substances.” Title 21 U.S. Code, Sec. 812 Chapter 13. Subchapter I. Part B. Sec. 812
[4] R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. “Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes.” British Journal of Psychiatry 178 (2001): 123-128.
[5] Abrahamson, Daniel. “Request for Title and Summary from Propsed Initiative” 7 Dec. 2008
[6] E. Single. “The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update.” Journal of Public Health 10 (1989): 456-466.
[7] D. Weatherburn and C. Jones. 2001. “Does prohibition deter cannabis use?” New South Wales (Australia) Bureau of Crime Statistics: Sydney.
[8] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, National Evaluation Data Services, The Cost and Benefits of Substance Abuse Treatment: Findings From the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study, August 1999.
[9] National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.” National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.
[10] E. Single et al. “The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. “ Journal of Public Health Policy 21 (2000): 157-186.
[11] Z. Xiao. “Addiction & Treatment” Journal of Substance Use 13.6 (2008): 415-33


-

Velodrome Field in 1994

Here's a summary I wrote for an English class about my Lollapollaza trip in 1994. Please keep in mind that I was under strict guidelines on what "style" the piece had to be. So this summary is a bit over-the-top and dramatic.

At Velodrome Field in Los Angeles, a vast open space in California’s Dominguez Hills, at the height of the grunge rock movement in music in 1994 was held a concert featuring a plethora of alternative rock bands.

Cars and people packed the parking lot. Groups of fans wandered through the dirt and grass lot, smoked cigarettes and chatted about which bands they were exited to see and what events they wanted to attend. Most people dressed in ripped jeans with flannel shirts wrapped around their waists and most people proudly wore dirty T-shirts with the name of their favorite band on the front.

We arrived to Velodrome Field in the early morning of a very hot, sunny day and walked to the entrance. While we waited in line near the gated entrance, a security guard asked everyone to unload and throw out any weapons, opened alcohol containers, illegal drugs and water bottles. We had no choice and threw out all of our water.

We then entered Velodrome Field. Hundreds of fans walked around the field, looking at the different booths filled with artwork, stickers, tobacco pipes, and food. The aroma of burnt animal flesh was intense. Chicken, beef, and pork were all cooked in small smoky huts, served and consumed by the hungry masses. As we entered the main stage area, people played hacky-sack, smoked cigarettes and waited for the music to start. We settled in about a hundred yards from the main stage in the middle of the field. Everyone laid or sat on the field, some came prepared with towels to protect their exposed skin from the prickly grass.

We waited anxiously for the show to start. On the main stage a few people checked the equipment and mumbled into the microphones checking sound levels. The sun beat down on the crowd of thousands for hours. Many people, frustrated at the delays, threw beer cans on the stage and other fans smoked marijuana or drank alcohol they smuggled in their clothes to help pass the time.

As we continued to talk amongst ourselves, the first band arrived on stage and the crowd erupted. Fans hurriedly rose off the grass and rushed the stage, ran through groups of people still gathering their items and knocked over coolers, food and children as they hurried to the front. I just barely let go hold of my friends arm and I found myself in the middle of a body slamming violent mosh-pit. I was pushed and slammed in every way and thrown towards people, even young children. I tried desperately to escape but the louder the band played the more violent and aggressive the crowd became.

As the crowd screamed and roared along with the band, I was a helpless ragdoll being pummeled by the crowd. As I hit the ground face first into a pile of dust and dirt, I saw children being dragged away from the roaring masses, through the legs of the raucous crowd, screaming and yelling for the mayhem to cease long enough so they could escape. Mothers clutched their children tightly in their arms; heads protected and ran towards the back of the field for safety.

I finally found an open grass area and escaped from the crazy mob. I couldn’t see my friends anymore; I lost her in the crowd. I searched for my friends for hours. As each band rose to the stage I became more and more dehydrated. I found a place to rest on a covered bench next to a free water station and napped. I awoke to the sound of loud fans whizzing by me at lightning speed as the headline band of the night loaded the stage. After the show, I headed toward the entrance of the field and waited for my friends to show. Finally my group of friends emerged from out of the crowd, angry that I “left” them in the morning.

They had a completely different experience than I did. They enjoyed the entire concert, bellies full of water and food as I struggled to survive the heat, of the grunge rock movement.

-

And now random thoughts...

• Instead of stating falsities about gay marriage, the Republican chief wants to change the message to: "Gay marriage would burden small businesses with extra insurance, health care costs." Even though I think whatever burden it may cause is worth the freedom it gains, I like this type of speech better than any others I've heard.
• "People don't elect Presidents who tell them to sacrifice, they elect Presidents who solve problems so they don't have to sacrifice." - Newt Gingrich, soon-be-front runner for a republican congressional seat. -- Since when did Republicans think government, especially a President, is the answer (savior, if you will) for all citizens? I thought they wanted personal individual responsibility and a communal effort?
• Here's a list of the top ten movie misquotes that we all continue to say. I've got a friend with the name Luke, and I wonder if the Darth Vader misquote ever gets to him.
• People who say "lighten up" to ones that are offended by racial comments need to shut up. Certainly some take "offense" too far, but little is solved if you don't atleast engage in a conversation. The Washington "RedSkins" has always bothered American Indians, but people just told them to shut up and they had no majority backing to properly handle their complaints (yes, bigots are mostly in the majority). Now some in the majority are starting to realize that we wouldn't have a Washington "Blackskins" or a Washington "Brownskins" team would we? And the term "brave" or "warrior" or "Chief" to an American Indian is similar to using terms like "deacon", "priest" or "pope"... So here's to the next Los Angeles football team: "The L.A. Blackskin Priests"
• The "freedom" that our men and women are fighting will mostly go to the corporations. The individual gets the scraps of freedom that are left.
• U.S. defense chief lauds soldier in pink boxers. Cue every gay-in-the-military joke possible. Jay Leno will have many and all of them will suck.
• I worship principles not people.

-

In summary... T. rex and the Crater of Doom

These days I spend most my time studying, reading and writing. I am far from a scientist, but occassionaly get to write summaries about scientists. Here's one I summarized that covers the destruction of the Dinosaurs:

In T. rex and the Crater of Doom, author Walter Alvarez describes the impact and aftermath of the comet that forever changed Earth as we know it.

An object taller than Mount Everest and about 10km in diameter slammed into the Earth at a velocity of perhaps 30 km per second. The comet vaporized on impact in about 1 second and left a crater 150-200km across at a depth of perhaps 40km. The comet left a crater pattern resembling a bull’s eye imprinted on the Yucatán Peninsula, the comet’s impact point. The impact essentially ended the Cretaceous period and was equivalent to the explosion of 10,000 times the entire nuclear arsenal of the world.

The comet entered the Earth’s atmosphere around 65 million years ago, and upon entry heated the air around it to a temperature 4 or 5 times that of the Sun. In the zone where bedrock was melted or vaporized, no living thing could have survived. The earth’s surface itself became an enormous broiler—cooking, charring, igniting, immolating all tress and all animals which were not sheltered under rocks or in holes. Even as the forests were set ablaze, another horror was approaching the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico.

The result was a gigantic tsunami a kilometer high. Within hours of the impact, most of Mexico and the United States must have been reduced to a desolate wasteland of the most appalling, agonizing destruction. Farther away from the Yucatan the effects were less dramatic.

But tragedy would unfold more slowly in these remote areas through the secondary effects of the impact. An enormous mass extinction followed. The Earth was turning cold and dark. The dust was settling through the upper atmosphere around the world, blocking the sunlight. Carbon dioxide can only be removed slowly from the air, and now it trapped the heat from the Sun, raising temperatures to sweltering levels, plus caused acid rain. A world first dark and frozen, then deadly hot, now a world poisoned by acid and soot.

Half of all living things, at the moment of the impact, perished. The biggest victims were the Dinosaurs. The loss of the dinosaurs is probably related to their position in the food chain. During the months of cold and darkness the herbivores would starve. Large animals are never abundant, especially top carnivores, so they would have been particularly vulnerable to extinction. The birds were nearly wiped out as well. Land plants, single-celled plants and animals also suffered nearly complete extinction. Marine animal losses were devastated but a few species survived and left descendants which abound in the oceans today. But many smaller land animals survived, including mammals and reptiles.

It marked the end of a world, yet the darkness eventually faded, the heat died down, and the acids were neutralized. Survivors found themselves in a new world. For 150 million years, dinosaurs had been the large land animals of the planet while mammals were confined, but with the disappearance of the dinosaurs there were new opportunities for mammals and evolution did not waste any time producing larger ones.

Because of this catastrophe, evolution embarked on a course which, 65 million years later, led to us. We are the beneficiaries of Armageddon.

-

Innovation U.S.A

Cool technology right here in the U.S.A. Transparent solar panels that can be infused into windows, perhaps even car windshields? Indeed, this technology basically sucks right now, but by failure we learn success, yes?

Also, as ethanol and other bio fuels are becoming less of a viable option (they end up doing more harm than good unfortunately) - biomass is making some gains. Do a google search for biomass if you want to know more about it and keep an ear out in the political world.

We can become the leader again in innovation and research, just make sure your politicians stay on message.

-