1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.

Rep. Steve Cohen Is My New Hero

Discussion in 'Cannabis News and Activism' started by Crohnie, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. Crohnie

    Crohnie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    832
    Location:
    Chicago
    I don't think I've ever seen ANY member of Congress get so passionate about marijuana reform. Ladies and gentleman: Rep. Steve Cohen from Tennessee. :clap:
     
    arf777, charliedontsurf, GSH and 13 others like this.
  2. stickstones

    stickstones Wasted Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,146
    Why was the room empty?
     
  3. Madcap79

    Madcap79 Jack of all trades, master of none.

    Messages:
    1,089
    Location:
    STLish
    How has the pro drug war guy never heard of Anslinger? That's baffling.
     
  4. lovinlivinlife

    lovinlivinlife I'm Sexy... I'm a Scholar... People Like Me...

    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    Right near da beach. Boy-eeee!
    I thought the same thing Madcap. The Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy doesn't know who created his Job. That's like Obama not knowing who George Washington is. Unreal.
     
  5. Silver420Surfer

    Silver420Surfer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,275
    Location:
    FL
    :clap: Rep. Steve Cohen!!
     
  6. 420time

    420time Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    535
    Location:
    ny
    yea i heard bout this a few days ago, real glad hes such a stand up guy.
     
    Crohnie likes this.
  7. Egzoset

    Egzoset 1SipAToke/Blender Vaporist (v3.1)

    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Shawinigan/Qc, Canada
    Salutations,

    Cohen isn't the only one who impressed me, those were good moments in any case!


    According to Botticelli 1 out of 9 individuals will experience cannabis dependency and he didn't even care to explain what type of dependency that actually is. That's pitiful at best!

    :peace:
     
    deadheadbill likes this.
  8. Egzoset

    Egzoset 1SipAToke/Blender Vaporist (v3.1)

    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Shawinigan/Qc, Canada
    ADDENDUM



    Well, i've been trying to watch TV for an hour while i kept zapping... Though i can't quit recalling Earl Blumenauer and Steve Cohen giving me some lasting impression as i heard them confronting Michael Botticelli who's clearly on the wrong side of the fence!

    This guy's attempt to avoid providing straight direct answers to the most basic questions just felt pathetic, almost offensive IMO! Maybe he can display a fairly sympathetic smile but that still fails to account for other realities systematically kept under silence because of individuals just like him.

    Since i'm confident a man worth of that sort of powerful position in a governmental organisation has got to be fit for the job, somehow, i searched around for details and found a picture which tells me he effectively has his own way of making people smile:

    [​IMG]

    Yet it doesn't mean he'd make many of US smile too because i very much suspect Eddie here (who's posing as a budy on this photograph) happens to be from the staff of the "Washington Heights CORNER Project" (WHCP) or he's more likely to be among its beneficiaries... Now, lets peek into Google's memory a little bit further, as an attempt to see what the project is all about exactly:




    Oh. ... Oh my goodness! How does a "joint" of "pot" even compare to needles?... :bang:

    Of course the parents he deals with would invest all their energy to fight addictive substances this dangerous!

    :rant:

    Really, relatively to his job as "Deputy director of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy", euh... Wouldn't the reader expect this man to put honesty on top of his official priotities???

    :goon:

    M'yeah, cannabis should be controlled i guess but not by creating corporative/industrial monopolies through a judicial system which totally excludes their consumers from production with a touch of arrogance!

    :2c:

    As i replay it i hear Michael Botticelli expressing his obvious obcession with what he chose to tag as banalisation. I mean, it's quite true cannabis ain't nothing like the rest: it's safe because our human body likes it, generally speaking - end of story!! So, from his point of view what sounds like banalisation easily translates as institutionalized bigotry to me!

    As a matter of fact it doesn't matter if this moron claims being in favour of a so-called "balanced" approach to drug laws because i'm not even sure cannabis should be classified through the same decisional filter as other drugs, alcohol and tobacco, etc.

    We all noticed how reluctant he was to compare cannabis to "physiologically" addictive habits such as alcohol, right?...

    In the real world our brains have a self-defensive mechanism to limit intoxication, effectively preventing "overdose" since the amount of THC required to reach this level is absolutely ludicrous; well, there are multiple known & tested methods much more practical to commit suicide, in any case!...

    :horse:

    Ah! Ah!

    No, really!! I do mean it: this is a farce with tragic consequences.

    ...

    Remove the monetary value created through prohibition and a new era might arise where intoxicated people no longer endure the faith of those who effectively depended on other drugs before them - physically - e.g. alcohol and tobacco among a few.

    Back to 1932 (for Cannada) a most regrettable mistake caused a situation which culminated into a profoundly distorted system of values which reminds us our respective countries may have won WW2 but we've got to wonder if some hateful dimensions of humanity didn't just get shifted around: against US.

    ...

    Taxation would make sense if the cost of commercially produced cannabis were realistic and reasonable, but the truth is our cannabic communities should be in charge of cooperative cultivation to compete against profit-oriented cultivators, to say the least!

    Imagine renting cannabis plants with a preferential buyer option when it's ready for havest, for example... At least the consumers wouldn't be rendered captive of a potentially abusive system where revenues from taxation are proportional to its tag price: they'd be the ones who can set the price.

    :peace:
     
    CarolKing and RUDE BOY like this.
  9. Egzoset

    Egzoset 1SipAToke/Blender Vaporist (v3.1)

    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Shawinigan/Qc, Canada
    Salutations everyone,

    Here's a reading which i found to explain the overall situation (in USA) quite nicely. I wish an integral quote could be imported into FC's database but that's a long text so i'll only provide a few exerpts instead:


    Page 1 of 2

    ...

    « Schedule III, which is supposed to be for medically useful drugs that can be taken safely and have a lower abuse potential than drugs on Schedules I and II, arguably is appropriate for marijuana because that is where the DEA put Marinol (a.k.a. dronabinol), a synthetic version of THC, marijuana’s main active ingredient. The DEA also has said naturally occurring THC used in generic versions of Marinol belongs on Schedule III. »

    ...​

    « In truth, as Lester Grinspoon observes, marijuana does not fit any of the schedules very well. It is not the sort of medicine the FDA is used to approving. But it clearly can be used safely, as Obama conceded when he noted that it is less dangerous than alcohol. Back in 1988, when he urged the DEA to reschedule marijuana, Administrative Law Judge Francis Young called it “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” And while marijuana surely can be abused (what can’t?), its potential for abuse seems lower than that of many pharmaceuticals, not to mention alcohol and tobacco, which the CSA specifically excludes from its schedules. »

    Page 2 of 2

    « In light of these inconsistencies, could the DEA take marijuana off of the CSA’s schedules altogether? Probably not. “I think it is very unlikely that the attorney general could remove marijuana from the schedules entirely,” Kreit says. Although the CSA gives the attorney general the power to “remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules,” it also says that “if control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate.” »

    ...

    « Regardless of the practical consequences, there is something to be said for telling the truth. “When Obama took office,” Riffle notes, “he said that decisions in his administration would be guided by science, not by politics and ideology. It’s very clear that marijuana’s continued classification as a Schedule I drug violates that mandate.”

    Since Congress banned marijuana in 1937, says Houston, “we have seen extremely cynical efforts to overblow the danger of marijuana and to demonize it. A move to reschedule or unschedule would be the first time since 1937 that our government started to roll back some of that reefer madness.”
    »

    :peace:
     
    Madcap79, grokit, SSVUN~YAH and 2 others like this.
  10. CarolKing

    CarolKing Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    left coast
    Obama needs to get rid of Michael Botticelli. He looked like a deer in the head lights. Not very knowledgable or professional for that matter. He admitted 1 person dies every 19 min from prescription drugs. Also admitted no one has died from marijuana use. Steve Cohen is also my hero. He's got some big brass balls in my opinion.

    Hopefully the Feds will get their act together with the cannabis issue. States rights rule!
     
    SSVUN~YAH, grokit and Crohnie like this.
  11. Egzoset

    Egzoset 1SipAToke/Blender Vaporist (v3.1)

    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Shawinigan/Qc, Canada
    Salutations Pinnacle Pro,

    Re-reading the article linked above i found this possible explanation as to why Michael Botticelli seemed so determined to mislead his fellow American citizens:

    « ...even moving marijuana down one level, from Schedule I to Schedule II, could have an important impact on the drug policy debate. For one thing, it would free the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which is required by law to oppose the legalization of any Schedule I substance... »

    Though this still doesn't make him look any better as i gather he wasn't forced to take the job.

    :peace:
     
  12. grokit

    grokit power cosmic

    Messages:
    4,925
    Location:
    the north
  13. Madcap79

    Madcap79 Jack of all trades, master of none.

    Messages:
    1,089
    Location:
    STLish
    They have know since 1944. LaGuardia did a study then that showed that it wasn't 'the devil weed' as Anslinger wanted it to be. My favorite quote:
    • Prohibition cannot be enforced for the simple reason that the majority of American people do not want it enforced and are resisting its enforcement.
      Fiorello LaGuardia

    Some more food for thought.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Guardia_Committee
     
  14. Egzoset

    Egzoset 1SipAToke/Blender Vaporist (v3.1)

    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Shawinigan/Qc, Canada
  15. arf777

    arf777 No longer dogless

    Messages:
    646
    Location:
    In the Shadow of the Beast
    "People who smoke marijuana, they mostly drive slower and look for the cops". YES. I drive so fucking slow when I'm vaped. Old-school paranoia.

    And fuck, Botticelli didn't know who Ainslinger was??????

    "1 in 9 people who try marijuana develop a dependency", says Botticelli, but with NO CITATION.

    I have a sister who is a psychotic Narco Anonymous member, convinced if she ever smokes herb again she'll instantly become a pill-head again, and SHE doesn't cite a stat like that. She claims it's one in a hundred. [NOTE: She always neglects to remember that I used to use smack, and only got off it with the help of herb, but that's a separate issue]

    The data I've seen makes it far less than 1%. Raphael Mechoulam, the Israeli discoverer of THC and an early vape pioneer, says he has seen no data indicating dependency, when you control for the society it is used in. That is, he only finds dependency, and at less than 1% at that, in cultures that believe it causes dependency. In hard science he is still considered THE dude on these issues, disputing him on this is like taking on Einstein on relativity.

    This is not a new discovery with drugs in general and especially herb- for instance, studies going back to the 70s show that people from cultures without the "munchies" concept simply did not have increased hunger from herb. In fact, in much of southern Africa, it is considered a weight loss aid (Fuck do I wish I was from there, at least for this one thing, as I am a serious muncher and have to lose weight).
     
    EveryDayAmnesiac, Madcap79 and grokit like this.
  16. grokit

    grokit power cosmic

    Messages:
    4,925
    Location:
    the north
    Raphael Mechoulam, my new hero... but this Steve guy is up there!
    I'm thinking that we get the munchies more because our processed food is made to be addictive.
     
  17. Crohnie

    Crohnie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    832
    Location:
    Chicago
    Madcap79 and grokit like this.
  18. arf777

    arf777 No longer dogless

    Messages:
    646
    Location:
    In the Shadow of the Beast
    Yeah, but only Raphael looks and sounds so much like altacocker from New York he could be my grandpa. Cohen is an altacocker (hey, another pro-herb MOT!!), but he doesn't sound right. I know, there are plenty of my peeps in the south (shit, I lived in NC for a decade) but I will never get used to a Jewish Steve Cohen with a Southern accent.

    Our crappy and addictive food definitely don't help things, and neither does the general sleep deprivation in the US, now found to be a major contributor to lack of appetite control.

    But as visitors to the Virtual Banquet Thread know, I do serious cooking with high quality ingredients, and they make the munchies worse, not better, IMHO - it's all just so damn tasty. I have eaten soooo much organic cream, organic pork and chicken, rendered duck fat and European butter in the past two months....not to mention a couple hundred dollars in Perigord truffles. Not exactly processed or fast food. (Got my palate back recently after getting off all pain meds after over a decade [now off all meds 'cept mj, period, with no change in pain and only improvements in outlook]).

    One of the most pro-mj professors I had in undergrad (both a former student of Mechoulam and, now that I think back, a possible clone of dickhead Israeli PM Netanyahu) a social and neuropsychologist, loved listing the measurable effects of herb that are found cross-culturally and trying to get folks to guess what he was describing the symptoms or effects of. People'd guess anything from indigestion to mild heart attack to any popular designer drug of the moment. I know of only three people who got it as herb in the four years I studied with the dude.
     
    EveryDayAmnesiac and Madcap79 like this.
  19. grokit

    grokit power cosmic

    Messages:
    4,925
    Location:
    the north
    Well then perhaps it's the same thing, more about a preoccupation with food than about the type of it. You are preoccupied with fine food because of your culinary passion, while the masses are preoccupied with processed food because they are constantly inundated with media messages proclaiming their greatness.
     
  20. arf777

    arf777 No longer dogless

    Messages:
    646
    Location:
    In the Shadow of the Beast
    Yeah, unfortunately those of us who get culinary training do tend to be food obsessives. Only reason so many young chefs aren't fat is exercise. One of my French master's favorite quotes was 'Never trust a skinny chef'.
     
  21. Egzoset

    Egzoset 1SipAToke/Blender Vaporist (v3.1)

    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Shawinigan/Qc, Canada
    Madcap79 and Seek like this.
  22. Seek

    Seek Apprentice Daydreamer

    Messages:
    1,447
    I love to see the shift beginning even on a federal level. Maybe the change could come sooner than I thought. That would be sooo great.

    When that happens, the DEA probably bankrupts. Unless they find something else that is even more widely used and as safe as cannabis to prohibit...
    Oh, all psychedelics are already listed in Shedule I and the truth about them got buried even deeper underground.
    They pretty much meet all these criteria except being widely used (probably because of that even crazier propaganda than reefer madness targeting them, well and because they're not that recreational).
    Fo a start, DMT can be detected in every person in small ammounts and is a Shedule I substance.
    So when there is no Shedule I cannabis, maybe they could still arrest everybody.

    Shedule I is a cruel joke. It seems like it's there only to hide the best substances in the world forever.
    I don't think there is a single substance, even potential, which meets all the criteria of Shedule I.
    These criteria only make it impossible to research, educate, and legalize substances listed in this Shedule. Because "they are too dangerous to be even researched". Fuck, even Plutonium is not THAT dangerous.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2014
  23. aesthyrian

    aesthyrian Blaaaaah

    Messages:
    1,176
    Location:
    IL
    haha oh man his opening jab at the Republican party, basically calling them schizophrenic is more than enough for him to be my hero!

    You guys might enjoy this interview of Rep. Cohen by Lawrence O'Donnell


    For reference here is Lawrence laying down his personal opinion.
     
  24. Crohnie

    Crohnie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    832
    Location:
    Chicago
    Another copy of the video since the one at the beginning of the thread no longer works.


     
  25. Egzoset

    Egzoset 1SipAToke/Blender Vaporist (v3.1)

    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Shawinigan/Qc, Canada
    Salutations Aesthyrian,
    Salutations Crohnie,

    I concur: that's something good to see all right!! Tough i regret having to admit it's a shame for USA's northern neighbours not to hear those same interviews, here in Harper land!...

    Anyone has got a hint what prevents Justin MiniPET Trudeau from jumping on this rare opportunity???

    [​IMG]

    Why not make these efforts have an echo at Ottawa, in the House of Commons?...

    Hummm... Maybe Justin still has no clue about the fact that there's no prohibition on alcohol/tobacco and this doesn't cause the corresponding addicted population to explode at the same rate that was observed relatively to an anti-cannabic buget as enormous as that of USA, for example. But here in Canada we've got a political descendant of Bennett who was on the wrong side too (as i attribute him the merit for starting such collective madness on our side of the border-line), as an anti-cannabic war resulted from the 1932 UN treaty where i'm not sure "marijuana" was included initially but yet this certainly paved the way for more injustice aimed at a loving plant and its fans.

    I'm ready to bet that's one set of video records which won't be lost in human history! Well, until human history is forgotten, that is...

    :tup:

    Anyway, imagine if ~5,000,000,000 $ could be spent on care and prevention for real addicts anually, instead of an insane and offensive anti-cannabic budget justifying the salaries of guys with objectionable attitudes. Actually even the idea of taxing cannabis should seem couter-productive to the masses as all i know of cannabis tells me it would be the most favourite so-called "addiction" in a world where it has a legal status no worse than alcohol and/or tobacco, theoretically! Those who've been physiologically hooked on crack (or even booze/blunts for that matter!) might be tempted to quit their damaging depencies and prefer "marijuana" over those, on the long run.

    So, the actual danger may very well be that all future addicts will switch to cannabis altogether, being aware of its positive balance in terms of benefits vs costs, including all of them.

    :nod:

    The anti-cannabic war is a smoke-screen hiding something worst: an instutionalized form of bigotry which infested many of the developped countries and beyond, unfortunately. To me that's not unlike something despised almost universally since WW2...

    :peace:
     
    grokit and aesthyrian like this.

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors