On this fall's ballot, Amendment 64 would legalize marijuana use for Colorado adults. Most Americans are confused about drug laws, believing they're in place to protect public health, children's in particular. We need a paradigm shift in our understanding: the main purpose of our drug laws is the persecution of minorities. America's first drug-prohibition laws, against opium, were enacted to persecute Chinese in America. The history of marijuana prohibition tells the same tale: the victims have been, among others, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Filipino-Americans, Native-Americans and Punjabi-Americans. Further, America's drug warriors have been vehement bigots. Harry J. Anslinger, the longtime head of the Bureau of Narcotics, infamously said, "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. . . . the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races." [continues 531 words]
The University of Colorado's plan to squelch 4/20 is undemocratic, un-American and unnecessary. First, 4/20 is a form of public protest and free speech: if participants wished, they could smoke marijuana in the privacy of their homes, but they choose to do so en masse in public as a form of civil disobedience and protest against repressive marijuana laws. In a democratic society, such protests must be allowed -- "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" reads the First Amendment, in part. [continues 170 words]
It's become a truism that the war on marijuana is a "failure"; this error stems from a failure to understand the true cause of pot prohibition: racial and ethnic repression. Many believe marijuana laws are a mere misunderstanding, a silly mindset based on misinformation and hysteria. OK, so where do the misinformation and hysteria originate? Others believe pot remains illegal because a few powerful business -- say, pharmaceuticals -- feel threatened by legal marijuana. But powerful businesses -- say, tobacco -- could profit handsomely off legal marijuana. Why assume the threatened businesses have any more clout than potential profiteers do? [continues 246 words]
Ari Armstrong's "Plant War Update" was informative (Liberty Beat, March 1). Generally, Boulder Weekly's coverage of the war on drugs is excellent. One point Armstrong makes, however, is as wrong as it is commonplace: that marijuana prohibition has been a failure. Granted the multi-million-dollar campaign to persecute marijuana has failed to curtail production or consumption. But marijuana prohibition isn't there to do either, nor is it there to protect the public health. Those are the pretexts. [continues 207 words]
Roughly 10 percent of America is now "countercultural," that strange euphemism for the hippie culture which started in the mid-'60s. That is, we now have a people culturally distinct in all the ways that ethnic groups are distinct. If some of these people aren't comfortable calling themselves "hippie," it's because they've been told hippies died with the '60s; therefore, they often don't quite know how to express their cultural identity, referring to themselves as "kind of an ex-hippie" or something. Also, for the last 40 years, young people have been joining this counterculture, and hippie parents usually produce hippie kids-ever seen tie-dyed baby clothes? Look around you at those who are overtly hippie; you'll soon realize most hadn't been born when the '60s ended. Further, journalists now report vast areas of America are heavily hippie-Vermont and parts of California and Colorado, among many others. [continues 256 words]
Possession of an ounce of marijuana by adults will be legal if Colorado's Amendment 44 wins. On one side are legalization activists fresh from a victory in Denver; on the other is the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, mobilizing Coloradoans to resist. The voters stand between in what may be the most important issue on this fall's ballot. Amendment 44 is about more than marijuana: It's about civil rights and America's future. "Yeah, the '60s are over with," the man growls, "but they forgot to tell them that up in Boulder." Or, apparently, in a good portion of Colorado. Today, hippies aren't supposed to exist; yet, look around, and there they are, the majority of whom had yet to be born when the '60s ended. I'd estimate that nationally, hippies comprise about 10 percent of the population; in Colorado, that figure is probably higher. [continues 559 words]
Re: "Amendment 44: The Marijuana Initiative," Oct. 1 pro-con Perspective articles. Mason Tvert's pro-Amendment 44 column trumped Thomas Gorman's scare tactics. Tvert is right that the opposition can't explain why there should be a double-standard between pot and alcohol. Gorman's response that there are more alcohol users proves nothing. I'd suggest a deeper reason for the double-standard: It's about who is using a particular substance. Gorman makes it pretty clear he has a low opinion of marijuana users, that these people are destroying "Colorado's future leaders." That's prejudice in that it stereotypes marijuana users as unmotivated losers. And when he argues Amendment 44 will "attract drug users as a new tourist base or residents," that's bigotry. Broomfield [end]
The Drug War Is A War Against Counter Culture Apparently, it's OK to have more arsenic in water than it is to have hemp in cereal," comments U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., about a new Drug Enforcement Agency ban. The ban, which prohibits hemp food products containing even trace elements of THC, took effect on Feb. 6. The crackdown on hemp foods is, according to the Washington Post, the result of lobbying by the religious right's Family Research Council, which believes "hemp has become a stalking horse for the drug legalization movement." The ban, then, is part of a political agenda. [continues 688 words]
Regarding former Coloradan Craig Davenport's alleged attempted rape and murder of a Kansas girl ( "Attack on teen has angered Kansas town," Oct. 9), many will decide the incident underscores the need to "get tougher on crime." The problem is that we often use "crime" in a general way which groups all illegal acts together; thus, voter sentiment to "get tougher on crime" as often as not results in jailing more and more victimless criminals, such as those caught selling marijuana or LSD. [continues 179 words]
In his May 26-28 letter, Democratic Congressman Mark Udall's chief of staff, Alan Salazar, asserts that Udall advocates "progressive policies across the board." So, what exactly is Udall's "progressive" policy on the war on drugs, particularly the war on marijuana users? The war on drugs has become America's new McCarthyism, a cancer on the Bill of Rights. While some "drugs" are physically dangerous and a menace to society, it's clear marijuana is relatively harmless and for certain medical purposes, highly beneficial. Yet, Washington officially groups marijuana with heroin and employs the silly gateway argument. [continues 277 words]
