Back to Map

MAPTalk-Digest Friday, December 26 2003 Volume 03 : Number 289

001 Kucinich qualifies for matching funds
    From: "kim hanna" <>
002 Have a happy, holy, healthy Christmas
    From: Herb <>
003 The Spoof!
    From: Herb <>
004 Re: MAP: RE: Count the lies in this press release. Nobody will print it
    From: Thomas J Hillgardner <>


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

Subj: 001 Kucinich qualifies for matching funds
From: "kim hanna" <>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:51:32 -0500

This should keep the marijuana issue going in the Presidential canmpaign for 
a while. I read that he will stick with the campaign as far as he can (VP)

Kucinich qualifies for matching funds
12/25/2003

Kucinich qualifies for matching funds

The Federal Election Commission has declared US Representative Dennis J. 
Kucinich of Ohio qualified to receive federal matching funds, making the 
Ohio congressman eligible for up to $18.6 million, the FEC said yesterday. 
Candidates must meet FEC requirements to qualify, including raising a 
threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in 
amounts no greater than $250. They also must agree, among other things, to 
an overall spending limit and abide by spending limits in each state. (AP)

Worried about inbox overload? Get MSN Extra Storage now!  
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

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

Subj: 002 Have a happy, holy, healthy Christmas
From: Herb <>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:51:10 -0800

Have a happy, holy, healthy Christmas!

a message for Christmas...

Let us declare war on the kingdom of darkness! Let us declare war on university professors and Senators who wish to legalise
marijuana. These prominent citizens do not believe that we have enough young people who are being prepared for a long stay at our
hospitals, prisons and rehabilitation centres. They want more youth to use these gateway drugs so more could get hooked on the
"harder" stuff. But even this concept of harder stuff is proving to be one big fat lie.
Why?

Based on current research, which UWI is apparently avoiding, marijuana is not so soft at all. We knew about bronchitis, emphysema,
and there were the unconfirmed reports about the carcinogens: cancer-producing ingredients in the marijuana.

Now, the reports have been confirmed. There is overwhelming evidence that there is a greater proportion of benzopyrene in marijuana
smoke than in tobacco. Smokers are paying a higher price for the temporary euphoria. You see, benzopyrene is a dangerous,
carcinogenic compound.

- - It's war on kingdom of darkness

http://www.guardian.co.tt/pastor-dottin.html

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

Subj: 003 The Spoof!
From: Herb <>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:30:10 -0800

I don't think you can spoof Rush. His life is a spoof already. But...

Rush Off The Deep End

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i1486

Limbaugh A Drug Lord, Dental Records Show

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i1488

Florida Judge Orders Limbaugh Dental Records Unsealed

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i1483

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

Subj: 004 Re: MAP: RE: Count the lies in this press release. Nobody will print it anyway!
From: Thomas J Hillgardner <>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:04:49 -0800


In the academic discipline known as symbolic logic, the "medical
marijuana is a stalking horse for legalization" argument is the fallacy
of the slippery slope.  The purpose of the assertion of this argument is
to avoid debating the completely valid point made by the advocates of
medical marijuana that inhalation marijuana therapies have been found to
be efficacious for treatment of a number of maladies where oral
administration of pharmaceutical dosages of THC have not.  WE EAT THEM
FOR LUNCH ON THIS ISSUE!  The come back argument should focus on the
following: Assuming arguendo that medical marijuana IS a stalking horse
for legalization, does that mean that persons who experience relief from
pain, spasticity, nausea, etc. should be compelled to needlessly suffer
because of YOUR fear that someone else seeks improper or unacceptable
political ends?  Is not the right thing to do is to give people who enjoy
relief from sickness provided by marijuana access to marijuana while
continuing to proscribe its so-called recreational use?  Isn't it immoral
and wrong to punish those who experience legitimate relief through
marijuana inhalation therapies merely because others have a political
agenda with which YOU do not agree? 

Thomas J. Hillgardner, Esq.
82-63 170th Street
Jamaica, New York 11432-2035
(718) 657-0606


On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:19:21 -0500 "Jim White"
<> writes:
> 
> 
> We've all seen the "medical *excuse* marijuana" argument, but note 
> that it
> isn't even proper grammar.
> 
> These people employ masters of marketing and their thoughts *must* 
> be to
> introduce the word "excuse" and as many negative connotations as 
> possible
> into the debate. (What they're doing now is even worse, see below)
> 
> It's these damn subtleties we need to pay more attention to and 
> address them
> as they arise.  Take this line from the PFDFA's release;
> 
> " This agenda is pursued through decriminalization efforts and under 
> the
> guise of medical excuse marijuana, even while there has been no 
> acceptance
> or approval of smoked marijuana by any major American medical 
> association."
> 
> Note;  Agenda, Guise, Excuse, Smoked and No acceptance ,
> Then at the end they infer that these negative responses came from a 
> trusted
> source with; "Major American Medical Association."
> 
> Five negatives and the implication that it came from a reliable 
> trusted
> source in one sentence. And when they get free reign in (as in paid 
> for by
>.gov) the editorial sections.... 
> 
> What are they doing now?
> 
> The whole premise of marketing is to influence people, without 
> their
> knowledge - propaganda is the same thing only worse. 
> 
> Why are they going after the pot ads on busses?
> 
> It's the same tool they use to propagandize. Its not about opening 
> up debate
> - they're used to debate, its not about public transit or the 
> children, its
> about the power to influence the perception of the mass market and 
> they know
> it. You can call it a free speech issue, it is, it's the ultimate 
> control of
> the market they're worried about.
> 
> Take for example the CASA survey. Did the ONDCP's recent media 
> campaign
> intentionally target *only* the demographic group surveyed by CASA, 
> ignoring
> other demographic groups in the process?
> 
> Knowing where when and whom (as in specific demographic areas) will 
> be
> surveyed, one could easily influence that small group and achieve 
> the
> desired results. Broaden the demographic range and the results 
> differ,
> sometimes drastically, which is why more comprehensive surveys and 
> studies
> are in direct conflict with CASA's results. 
> 
> Bush gets credit for an 11% decrease in drug use while it actually
> increases, and the drug warriors, well they get bragging rights and 
> another
> go at the gravy train, the kids, well, we all know what they get.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that these guys are deliberately
> manipulating the markets with mass media to produce the desired 
> results. 
> The current administration are masters of spin, but they are also 
> masters of
> manipulation, subterfuge and deception. 
> 
> And what about those recent Afghanistan drug busts? Remember those 
> "drugs
> equal terrorism" Ads? Remember when Donald Rumsfield didn't want to 
> involve
> US forces in anti-drug activities back when the crops first 
> sprouted?
> (Except now that they need the busts to boost black box ratings at 
> home.)
> Remember how the US cut off all outside economical influences 
> *accept* the
> drug trade?
> 
> Then, what'dya know...? All of a sudden the terrorists *are* 
> involved in the
> drug trade!!  *What* drug trade? The Marijuana, Hashish and oh 
> yeah,
> methamphetamine trade.  (But where did they get the precursor 
> chemicals for
> the METH?) 
> 
> Coincidence? 
> 
> Did they *let* 9/11 happen, or did they *plan* 9/11?  How many 
> people with
> executive (and economic) power does it *really* take to manipulate 
> events
> like these?
> 
> What better way to launder billions of dollars than to have a few
> corporations *fold* because of accounting schemes?
> 
> I think I'll stop and have a look around, the fog is beginning to 
> clear a
> bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Holidaze everyone!
> 
> Peace.
> Jim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:  
> > [] On Behalf Of Richard Lake
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 2:25 PM
> > To: ; ; 
> > ; 
> > Subject: MAP: Count the lies in this press release. Nobody 
> > will print it anyway!
> > 
> > 
> > Press Release
> > Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003
> > 
> > December 24, 2003 12:23 PM US Eastern Timezone
> > 
> > DRUG FREE AMERICA FOUNDATION APPLAUDS CANADIAN HIGH COURT 
> > DECISION TO KEEP 
> > MARIJUANA ILLEGAL
> > 
> > ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 24, 2003--Drug Free
> > America Foundation commends and supports Canada's court decision. 
> This
> > decision enforces the correct perception that illegal drugs are
> > harmful, which is precisely the message that we need to be sending 
> to
> > our children. The drug policy reform movement has been working
> > throughout the United States and internationally to tear down 
> drug
> > laws and ultimately legalize drugs. This agenda is pursued 
> through
> > decriminalization efforts and under the guise of medical excuse
> > marijuana, even while there has been no acceptance or approval of
> > smoked marijuana by any major American medical association.
> > 
> > "The legalization movement has suffered a major setback with the
> > Canadian court decision. However, we are very concerned over the
> > proposed bill by Prime Minister Martin that would soften penalties 
> for
> > pot possession," says Calvina Fay, executive director of Drug 
> Free
> > America Foundation, Inc. "Canada's proposed decriminalization, as 
> well
> > as the legalization movement's desensitization of marijuana use,
> > creates the illusion that marijuana is not harmful." A Schedule I 
> drug
> > with addictive tendencies cannot be considered harmless.
> > 
> > According to Dr. Eric Voth, chair of the Institute on Global Drug
> > Policy, a brain trust of the world's leading experts in drug
> > prevention, "Softening drug policy increases drug use and the
> > associated harm to society." History has shown us that when the
> > perception of the harms of drugs increased, drug use went down, 
> and
> > when the perception of the harms of drug use decreased, use rose.
> > Hopefully, Prime Minister Martin and other Canadian policy makers 
> will
> > apply this same logic.
> > 
> > Contacts
> > 
> > Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., St. Petersburg
> > Lana Beck, 727-828-0211
> > 
> 
> 
> 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment: http://www.mapinc.org/temp/part10196.html

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

End of MAPTalk-Digest V03 #289
******************************

Mark Greer ()         ___ ___     _ _  _ _
Media Awareness Project              /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651                        | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258                (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759                                         | |
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/                      (_)

HomeBulletin BoardChat RoomsDrug LinksDrug NewsFeedback
Guest BookMailing ListsMedia EmailMedia LinksLettersSearch