TRANSCRIPT OF G. ALAN ROBISON'S VISIT TO THE NEW YORK TIMES DRUG POLICY FORUM

On Tuesday, July 31, the NYTimes Drug Policy forum hosted G. Alan Robison,
Ph.D., founder and Executive Director of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas and
Distinguished Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Texas Health
Science Center. This discussion was part of the speaker series organized by
forum participants.

galan14 - Hi Dean

I got here early so as to skim over all the posts since Tod Mikuriya's ten
point post you told me about on the phone. I've been a fan of Tod's ever
since I read the great collection he edited back in the 70's entitled
"Marijuana: Medical Papers." Thanks for the nice comments about me and the
DPFT. Let me just say for the others that I'm delighted to be here. I
originally agreed to do this a long time ago sort of as a favor to Dean,
although now that I've seen who the other guests have been, and who some of
the future ones are going to be, I now regard it as a significant honor.

Anyhow, let me just say that the only thing I know more about than most
people is pharmacology, since I spent most of my life as a pharmacologist.
But I've actually had a fairly serious interest in drug policy reform since
1972, when I first moved to Texas, and I helped found the DPFT back in
1995. I've been devoting most of my time during the past 5 years or so to
drug policy reform, so I guess I'm willing to express an opinion on most
aspects of the problem. Now I see it's 8:00 pm EDT, so I guess I'm as ready
to go as I'll ever be.

dean_becker - Welcome Al. So glad you are here.

My first question:

How in the world does the DEA justify the laws against marijuana? There is
no evidence in current medical science to support their stance. You have
studied marijuana in depth. Do you see any justification for their vendetta
against pot users?

patient1- As States and Nations make medical Mj available to patients all
the years of lying will be exposed. This makes medical use the important
part of this battle for basic rights. Don't start to celebrate or fight the
next fight till the first one is done. You will lose even the first battle
if you do. That is what has been appening for so long. Itis what the gov
wants. We do it so well.

chieflake0 - Al, in a note posted to various state drug policy email lists
about this forum tonight, I said something about the time that DPFTers got
publicity for bringing a cake to a DEA office for their 50th birthday.
Someone says it couldn't be 50 years unless it included previous agencies.

I could well be wrong about the number of years. Do you recall the event?
Could you tell us something about it - and some of the other fun things
DPFT has done?

Richard

galan14 - I certainly agree with Tom Barrus' point that we lack a clear and
consistently-applied rule in the scheduling of a drug, but i don't know
what to do about it beyone what we're trying to do, which is educate voters
and their representatives about the incredible amount of harm our current
policy is causing.

tbarrus-Hi Alan,

The New York Times says that you are a "Distinguished Professor of
Pharmacology". You say that "the only thing I know more about than most
people is pharmacology, since I spent most of my life as a pharmacologist".

Please tell us what a drug is. That is, what is the definition of a "drug".

In answering this question, please tell us if tobacco and alcohol are drugs
or something else. If tobacco and alcohol are not drugs, then what are they?

patient1- Hi Al, Glad to see youmade it . great forum! now I will be quiet
and read.

galan14 - Al, in a note posted to various state drug policy email lists
about this forum tonight, I said something about the time that DPFTers got
publicity for bringing a cake to a DEA office for their 50th birthday.
Someone says it couldn't be 50 years unless it included previous agencies.

I could well be wrong about the number of years. Do you recall the event?
Could you tell us something about it - and some of the other fun things
DPFT has done?

Richard, I do remember that. It was the first publicity stunt pulled off by
our Dallas chapter, and as I recall it was Bob Ramsey's idea. I think it
was the first time they ever got their picture in the paper. It was
definitely an anniversary, since even the DEA was celebrating the damn
thing, but I can't remember which anniversary it was. Bob is something of
an authority on history, so I'm hoping he might be here tonight and remind
us about that.

dean_becker - Al, I hear estimates of 5 million, 10, 20 or 60 million drug
users in the US.

What might be the catalyst to get these folks off their butts and to the
polls, that might encourage them to write their legislators and to
encourage their neighbors families and friends to do the same. Is there
some magic bullet or is it more likely that we must wait for the death of
the "Patriot Generation" that served in world war II, that we will achieve
real and valid reform.

syone- Aloha Al,

It is my strong impression that the drug war on people is an intentional
scam used by the ruling class to maintain its grip on ..uh.. reality.

Your thoughts?

aahpat- Dr.

Thanks for coming by the forum.

The most difficult question that I can think of concerning drug policy
reform regards how drugs with abuse potential would be regulated in an open
decriminalized marketplace.

First, I would like to see the US adopt a harm reduction based approach to
the current addict population of America similar to the prescription clinic
models that are growing in Europe.

From that model I envision long term prescription programs for personal,
casual use, non addictive quantities of any FDA regulated drug. Something
like a person can go to their doctor or to a wing of the addictions clinic
where they would get a physical and be educated about use, abuse and
personal responsibility. Once each 6-12 months they would get a script
renewal with a physical. The doctors would have regulated re-write
standards and practices to adhere to that the public would work within.

Cannabis of course is a waste of time and money to do anything with but
legalize it and get the police out of it. Period.

Thanks.

Pat

galan14 - My first question:

How in the world does the DEA justify the laws against marijuana? There is
no evidence in current medical science to support their stance. You have
studied marijuana in depth. Do you see any justification for their vendetta
against pot users?

Dean, of course it can't be justified on the basis of current medical
science. I would say it's based on the same things prohibition laws have
always been based on, mainly fear and ignorance. Prohibition always
requires demonization because the dishonesty that's required to catch
perpetrators of victimless crimes goes against everything most of us were
taught starting from when we were little kids (honesty is the best policy,
etc), so you have to show that the people who are guilty of committing
these crimes are bad people who deserve whatever it is we're trying to do
to them. Often the easiest way to do that is associate the crime with
unpopular people, which for most of our history meant minorities. Nixon
also used the Vietnam war protesters (the hippies) for that purpose when he
went about demonizing marijuana even more than it had already been
demonized by associating its use with Mexicans.

aahpat- jerry;

You might write "reality" with a question mark in that context.

jfeier- Hey Al, that was MY "clear and consistently-applied rule." But
that's OK, I've given credit to the wrong perosn several times. So I
shouldn't talk (he he).

galan14 - Yes, in response to Geo McMahon, I think I've finally got it
straight that we have to take care of med mj first. But it has to be seen
as only a step on the way to ending drug prohibition altogether, since
that's what is really responsible for most of the harm being caused by our
current policy. Actually it's responsible for ALL the harm we're inflicting
down in Latin America

zooneedles.- Hi Al!

Sorry I said hello and ran the last time you dropped in the forum for a
sneak peak. I was in a big rush to do something else. I think TJ or
Burnzred introduced you to me. Anyway...

I understand you attempted unsuccessfully to find the LD50 for cannabis.
Have you done any studies on the LD50 for some of the various herbicides we
are currently using in Central and South America?

Zoo patient1- Thanks Al. we see it the same. This is no time to rest for
sure. One battle in the war is near , butnthere will be more before we are
through.

galan14 - In answering this question, please tell us if tobacco and alcohol
are drugs or something else. If tobacco and alcohol are not drugs, then
what are they?

Tom, of course nicotine and alcohol are drugs. But I hope no one imagines
that there is anything rational about our drug laws. That's what first
caught my attention about them, how utterly irrational they were. There is
absolutely no relation to what drugs do or are capable of doing, on the one
hand, and the laws we make about them, on the other. But I soon became even
more concerned about the incredible amount of harm they were causing. To
deal with it, i think we have to do a better job of appealing to people's
emotions rather than their inellect or sense of logic. Ideally i guees we'd
do both. I think "Traffic" is a pretty good example of what a good story
can do when it's also well told.

maryjaneflores- Hi Al,

Glad I didn't miss you! A lot of politicians are talking treatment instead
of incarceration. That's good if a drug user needs treatment but many times
they don't. And what about marijuana users. All this talk about forced
treatment doesn't sit well with all us recreational marijuana only users.
Do you think they will eventually realize that not every drug user needs
treatment - and really shouldn't be incarcerated either?

jfeier- "But I hope no one imagines that there is anything rational about
our drug laws." - Galan

I happen to view the ability to alter one's own consciousness as a
fundamental human right, with the difference being that the government gets
to decide what chemical we should alter with.

What standard must a chemical meet in order to be legal?

tbarrus- galan14

Thank you for stating that tobacco and alcohol are drugs.

The US government (a continuing criminal enterprise) defines drugs as follows:

US Code : Title 21, Section 321

(g) (1) The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official
United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the
United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of
them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C)
articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function
of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a
component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). Is this a
political definition of drugs, or is it a scientific definition of drugs?

Can you, as a "Distinguished Professor of Pharmacology" support this
definition of "drugs"?

Would you state under oath that this "definition" of drugs is true and
accurate?

galan14 - Al, I hear estimates of 5 million, 10, 20 or 60 million drug
users in the US.

What might be the catalyst to get these folks off their butts?

Dean, I hope we don't have to wait until a bunch of older people actually
die. In fact i sometimes think of retired people as the equivalent of the
Republican women who finally got upset enough to end alcohol prohibition.
They're similar in that they're intelligent and well-educated people who
have more time than younger people who are often caught up in the rat race
of getting ahead career-wise.

Religious leaders are another category we have to do a better job of
reaching. Some of the fiery sermons we heard at the Never Again Rally last
week in Tulia would have made your hair stand on end. If we could have a
few sermons like preched in more churches around the country on Sunday
morning, it would probably have quite an impact. In other words, we have to
regain the moral high ground in this fight. Instead of skulking around like
we're ashamed of what we stand for, we need to make the drug warriors feel
ashamed of all the harm they are causing.

zooneedles.- Al

We're probably flooding you with questions like a bunch of excited kids (I
know I'm excited that you're here), but did you say somewhere that you are
a libertarian?

Zoo

patient1- Another problem we run into is Marijuana is a bunch of
substances, not a single one. The gov is trying to synthesize one of them,
and tell us because they can make one,! it is a drug, the rest do not
matter? It is a plant not a drug, as such, falls in the herbal category.

syone- al --

there have been some significant battles won via med mj. otoh we have seen
how the powerful thug warriors have successfully used dirty disinformation
tactics to somewhat neutralize us.

I say it's time to go for the total legalization of the righteous herb.
your opinion, mon?!

jfeier- ". Instead of skulking around like we're ashamed of what we stand
for, we need to make the drug warriors feel ashamed of all the harm they
are causing. "

But that does not require morality.

All that this reuirres is self-esteem. I used to hang my head low when I
got high. But now I jog right down main street, feeling good about myself.

aahpat- The AARP is the most powerful lobby in the US. If reform were to
convince them of the postives of drug policy reform we would have a
formidable ally.

Dr. Al;

I am going to inject an opinion here about the pot first issue. It is only
my personal opinion.

First, I understand the need of med/mari patients and it is the imperative
nature of their need that impelled me to look beyond all that is obvious
for solutions that could be faster than the efforts of today for reform.

Dr. Al. is right when he leads off by saying that the prohibition is
motivated by fear. So long as the fear is ingrained in the mindset of
America there can be little major change. We can continue to win issue by
issue state by state but we are nibbling around the edges.

It is the US congress that directs the prohibition and they are empowered
by the fear of the people.

The heart of that fear is the fear of addiction and addict related crime,
insanity, disease and violence. They fear the misunderstood economic crime
that is at their doors and windows today.

America does not really fear pot too much. But it associates pot with the
fear of addiction and that stops many people dead when you try to talk
reform in any way. The fear of addiction os the heart and soul of the
prohibition. Fear of addiction is the Mount Everest to opening minds about
any and all drug policy reform.

After years of thinking about this I realized that, for me, the way to end
the prohibition fastest is to attack the fear of addiction first and most
vociferously. Fear is the weapon that the congress hides behind. when the
fear of addiction is addressed the ignorance about pot is exposed. The one
most directly leads to the other.

galan14 - It is my strong impression that the drug war on people is an
intentional scam used by the ruling class to maintain its grip on ..uh..
reality.

No, I really think it's based more on fear, especially the fear that their
kids might get hooked on one of these terrible drugs.

The sad thing, of course, is that prohibition makes drugs easier for their
kids to get. Without prohibition, sellers wouldn't have any incentive to
push drugs onto young kids.

That's one way we often state our position: We need to end prohibition and
replace it with an effective regulatory system that would at the very least
make dangerous addicting drugs harder for kids to get. I agree with Gov
Johnson that selling drugs to minors should always be a crime.

jfeier- We don't need to confront authority as long as the "proof is in the
pudding."

As long as they can see for themselves that marijuana has no effect on my
or my self esteem, then how can they argue against it? What better way to
demonstrate this than to be physically active, and proactive with your chin
up high?

chieflake0 - Should have known that the Dallas Morning News article was in
the MAP archives (must be that short term memory loss us old folks get).

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n517/a10.html

PEACEFUL PROTEST CRITICIZES DRUG WAR

U.S. Policies Fuel Profits For Dealers, Says Group Outside DEA's Office

As protests go, it was more jovial than most.

Seven members of a group that opposes drug laws "celebrated" the 25th
anniversary of the Drug Enforcement Administration on Wednesday by
declaring war against the war on drugs.

Members of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas arrived shortly after 8 a.m. and
set up on the median in front of the DEA's Dallas field division on Regal
Row between Stemmons Freeway and Harry Hines.

Armed with placards -- including "Stop the Drug War" and "War is Bad
Domestic Policy" -- the small band of protesters spent 90 minutes catching
the eye of motorists, a few of whom honked in support and most of whom
slowed in confusion.

"We're trying to generate awareness that what we're doing with drugs is not
working," said Bob Ramsey of Irving, an executive board member of the
Houston-based Drug Policy Forum. "We're just trying to open the debate."

Forum members say state and federal governments are wasting their time
trying to stop the flow of drugs. They see the DEA -- created by executive
order July 1, 1973 -- as the embodiment of all that is wrong about the war
on drugs.

"In the early '70s, we had a lot less drug use," said Rolf Ernst of Frisco,
another Forum member. "Criminalization creates a profit motive for criminals."

The protestors mocked drug policies by serving Coke -- as in cola -- and
poppy-seed cake at the "party". As Dallas police cars cruised by and a DEA
security guard tugged on a cigar and kept a watchful eye, the protest
remained peaceful, with only a handful of people stopping to see what the
signs were about.

The cake was barely touched.

Despite what anyone may think, Drup Policy Forum members say their stand
should not be confused with condoning drug use.

"We discourage the use of drugs by controlling the supply," said Robert F.
"Colonel" Mason, a Lewisville writer. "We have to make drugs legal to do
that."

About 9:30 a.m., the group strolled past the security guard to present the
card and cake. For the occasion, Mr. Mason penned a poem, which concludes:
"They'll toast 25 years with booze, cigs and mirth, while the rest of us
mourn at the DEA's birth."

DEA officials courteously accepted the gifts, and the protesters left
quietly. As soon as they were out of earshot, DEA employees erupted in
laughter.

"What are you going to do? You can't get excited over this," said Hulio
Machado, special agent in charge of the Dallas office. "They're good people
. . . What you had is people voicing their opinions."

jfeier- I know, Zoo! Try to hold your chin up with your eyes occasionally
looking at the ground.

tbarrus- galan14

Are you aware that recreational tobacco drug users on the supreme Court
have ruled that the words of the law do not mean what they say?

These recreational drug users say that tobacco is not "articles (other than
food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man
or other animals" {Case #98-1152 FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.}.

What do you say? Isn't it true that under existing law of the United States
of America that tobacco is a drug as defined in the law?

In fact, isn't it the case that tobacco meets the definition of a schedule
I controlled substance and alcohol meets the definition of a schedule II
controlled substance?

US Code : Title 21, Section 812

(1) Schedule I. - (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for
abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical
use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted
safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

(2) Schedule II. - (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for
abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use
in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with
severe restrictions. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to
severe psychological or physical dependence.

So why are the two most deadly and dangerous of ALL drugs specifically
exempt from the Controlled Substances Act?

US Code : Title 21, Section 802

(6) The term "controlled substance" means a drug or other substance, or
immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of
this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt
beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

galan14 - The most difficult question that I can think of concerning drug
policy reform regards how drugs with abuse potential would be regulated in
an open decriminalized marketplace.

First, I would like to see the US adopt a harm reduction based approach to
the current addict population of America similar to the prescription clinic
models that are growing in Europe.

>From that model I envision long term prescription programs for personal,
casual use, non addictive quantities of any FDA regulated drug. Something
like a person can go to their doctor or to a wing of the addictions clinic
where they would get a physical and be educated about use, abuse and
personal responsibility. Once each 6-12 months they would get a script
renewal with a physical. The doctors would have regulated re-write
standards and practices to adhere to that the public would work within.

Cannabis of course is a waste of time and money to do anything with but
legalize it and get the police out of it.

Jeez, I'm starting to realize how hard this is to keep up with the Q's.
Wish I could still remember how to type properly.

Pat, I agree with you in broad general terms. A rational drug policy in my
view would start with a realistic assessment of how much harm any given
drug was capable of causing. Tea and coffee, the most common sources of the
most widely used drug, caffeine, could pretty well be sold the way they
are, along with coca tea, in my opinion.

But I would regulate cannabis a lot more like we currently do with alcohol
and tobacco, and restrict its sale to minors. It'd be fine with me if
parents wanted to teach their kids how to use these drug wisely, but i
don't like the idea of people actually making money by selling them to
underage kids. After all even mj isnt' completely harmless to a kid who
uses it to get high before class.

The hard drugs are tougher to deal with, no doubt about it, but the
Europeans are doing a lot better job with them than we are, so we should
learn from them (as Mike Gray pointed out in "Drug Crazy," when he came to
the part about how we're going to get out of the mess we've got ourselves
into.

zooneedles.- Whoops, sorry Jfeier. Can I undelete a post I deleted? LOL.
(I'm trying to behave myself and I didn't want to be cluttering things up).

Zoo

dean_becker - jfeier

As long as they can see for themselves that marijuana has no effect on my
or my self esteem, then how can they argue against it? What better way to
demonstrate this than to be physically active, and proactive with your chin
up high?

..strong point. With Al's help, I will go totally "public" tomorrow with
newspaper and TV "exposure" of my MJ use. Wish me luck.

zooneedles.- Dean

"..strong point. With Al's help, I will go totally 'public' tomorrow with
newspaper and TV 'exposure' of my MJ use. Wish me luck."

May the Lord have mercy on all of us!!! :3)

Zoo

dean_becker - Al,

Please describe for us the difference in the drug reform movement. How it
was when you started, where we are now and your best guess as to how and
why the changes came about.

I have a theory of the slogan that will win the day. What is your opinion?:
VOTE FOR WEED!

galan14 - After years of thinking about this I realized that, for me, the
way to end the prohibition fastest is to attack the fear of addiction first
and most vociferously. Fear is the weapon that the congress hides behind.
when the fear of addiction is addressed the ignorance about pot is exposed.
The one most directly leads to the other.

Gang --- I'm sorry I couldn't get back to where I was because of heavy
traffic, so I'll start with this one by Pat, realizing that there are a
whole pile of Q's I haven'y even seen yet. Pat, I sort of agree with you. I
think we should be putting a lot more effort into edicating the public
along these lines. But the point has been made that since a lot more people
have tried pot than have tried heroin or cocaine, it'll be easier to
convince them that the government has been lying to them. Then afer we
succeed in decriminalizing pot, at least at the federal level, we'd at
least be back to where we were in 1937. Then we could start with all the
harm that was caused by the Harrison Act in 1914, and especially with the
supreme court decision circa 1924 that it should be illegal for a physician
to treat a drug addict as someone needing help rather than punishment.

The interesting that is that no matter how we do it, we'll never really
know if we couldn't have done it faster had we tried it the other other way.

That's something I'm realizing that I never fully appreciated back when I
was a scientist, how extremely hard it is to get legislation passed,
especially reform legislation.

burnzred- Hello Al, this is polo, dean's friend. I didn't get a chance to
thank you for taking the heat in the kitchen of the Libertarian Conference
in Houston last month. The hardliners grilled you, Jerry, and Rick pretty
good and I was impressed the way you three handled the pressure and
maintained composure in light of a political conference. Thank you for the
work you do and please let me know what I can do here in Austin to help you
out. Dean has my e-mail address if you need to contact me.

donaldway- Hi Al, welcome to the Forum,

In other words, we have to regain the moral high ground in this fight.
Instead of skulking around like we're ashamed of what we stand for, we need
to make the drug warriors feel ashamed of all the harm they are causing.

Many people don't want to acknowledge the harm that is being caused though.
A recent story details how the U.S. Government terminated research into
marijuana's negative effects on humans when it was discovered that
marijuana may actually cure cancer (they then later banned all subsequent
research on this, then tried to destroy all evidence of any research thus
far completed.

Do you think this story is true? And if so, what will it take to make more
people aware of it and/or appropriately outraged over this?

donaldway- I should say, for the benefit of the transcript being prepared,
that my previous message references this url:
http://www.projectcensored.org/c2001stories/22.html

galan14 Please describe for us the difference in the drug reform movement.
How it was when you started, where we are now and your best guess as to how
and why the changes came about.

Well, an important thing that happened in Texas shortly after I got here
was that possession of small quantities of mj was turned into a misdemeanor
instead of a felony. But I've often said that that may have have been one
of the last rational things ever done in the world of drug policy, either
in Texas or anywhere else in the country.

By 1995, when the DPFT got started, it had become so bad that you couldn't
even discuss drug policy. It wasn't so long before that that Surgeon
General Joycelyn Elders got fired basically for suggesting that we ought to
at least think about decriminalizing drugs as a way of getting a better
handle on them.

I'm actually encouraged by the progress that's been made since then. For
damn sure people are starting to talk about drug policy and about what a
disaster our current policy has been. I remember seeing a note before 8:00
PM calling attention to some of the great things that were published just
in the last week along. Besides the Rolling Stone piece and the great
series in The Economist, I meant to call your attention to the fine series
that's been running in the St. Petersburg Times, starting with an
especially fine article on the front page of Sunday's edition. I'm sorry I
don't have the URL handy, but I'll bet Richard can find it for us before
9:00 gets here.

galan14 - Do you think this story is true? And if so, what will it take to
make more people aware of it and/or appropriately outraged over this?

Sorry I accidentally got kicked off the forum when I clicked on that story.
There's an element of truth to it, in the sense that the government would
rather support research designed to show how dangerous mj is rather than
how beneficial it might be, in which regard NIDA has become more a
propaganda machine than the real supporter of research it used to be (when
they gave me all the THC I could use, for example, back in the 60's when
they were genuinely interested in what it did.

But I think the press also has a lot to answer for. They've done a truly
horrible job of educating the public, and I guess I'm referring to the
media in general here, including especially TV. But even there I think
things are slowly but surely starting to get better instaed of worse.

To get back to your q about that Spanish research showing the positive
effect of cannabis on a rat tumor, there was also another positive report
that came out that week, but the story that got all the headlines was the
one that subsequently had to be retracted about how mj tended to cause
heart attacks, or make them more likely. All three reports were sent out
over the AP wire, but it was the poorly designed negative one that
attracted all the attention. The two positive ones were both published in
respected peer-reviewed journals.

But we can't just complain about these things. Instead we have to do a
better job of getting the truth out.

donaldway- Thanks.

Perhaps are you talking about
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1728.57309 that shows that marijuana is
unlikely to cause head, neck and lung cancer.

This story was so underreported not even mapinc seems to have it on file.

chieflake0- The Rolling Stone article - America's War on Drugs is at
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n1387.a04.html and includes written
comments from Dan Rather, Orrin Hatch, Bernard C. Parks, Asa Hutchinson,
Barney Frank, Gary Johnson, Loretta Sanchez, Henry A. Waxman, Dave
Matthews, Carl Hiaasen, Scott Weiland, Norm Stamper, Eric Sterling, David
Crosby, Richard Branson, Bob Barr, Paul Wellstone, William E. Kirwan, Jerry
A. Oliver, John Gilmore, Bill O'Reilly, Woody Harrelson, Tommy Lee, Peter
Singer, Scott Turow, Tobias Wolff, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Nelly, Bob Weir,
Kay Redfield Jamison, Joe Arpaio, Peter Jennings, Paul Greengard AND Robert
A. Iger

Series Index for Illegal Drugs from The Economist is at
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1363/a01.html

The St. Petersburg Times series has not been indexed yet, but you can see
what is already posted using this link
http://www.mapinc.org/source/Petersburg+Times

delbertl0 - As a former AR state employee, I personally observed the
shambles left in AR health and human services agencies by people like Dr.
Elders and Bill Clinton. I realize she has conned her way onto the Board of
drug refrorm organizations but you should realize she was let go because of
her incompetence, now just because of her view on drug research.

galan14 - So why are the two most deadly and dangerous of ALL drugs
specifically exempt from the Controlled Substances Act?

Tom, I imagine it's because lots of legislators like to use those
particular drugs themselves. Prohibition has always been like that. It's
always "us" that make the laws, and "them" who have to suffer the
consequences of the laws we make that especially affect them and the drugs
they use. Making opium smoking illegal didn't affect many white people in
California in 1900 because it was really only the Chines laborers who like
to use it anyhow. Similarly when gin was illegal in London England while
Scotch has never been illegal there.

That's incidentally another reason for starting with cannabis, because a
lot more important influential people have used it, whereas the hard drugs
are still more associated with the lower classes.

tbarrus- Consider this

The US Congress has exempted by name the two most deadly and dangerous of
ALL drugs, tobacco and alcohol, from the law (Controlled Substances Act -
CSA) enacted to regulate deadly and dangerous drugs.

What could possibly be the reason for this apparently irrational,
hypocritical, dishonest, immoral, unworkable, inconsistent, and
unconstitutional act?

Let us take this "logic" to its conclusion.

Congress has enacted into law that deadly and dangerous drugs may be exempt
from the drug laws because of their value as recreational drugs. It is
important to recognize that deadly drugs may be exempt from the drug laws
because they are valued as recreational drugs, not medicinal agent such as
cannabis.

Here is our course!

Congress has shown us the way!

All we need to do is add the name of a recreational drug to the list of the
top two recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol, in the list of
recreational drugs that are exempt from the CSA.

We don't need to focus on whether the drug has medicinal use or not. All we
need to do is show that the drug is a recreational drug like tobacco and
alcohol. Then the drug can be exempted from the CSA for the same reason(s)
that tobacco and alcohol are exempt.

All that is necessary is to add the following word to existing law
"cannabis" as in:

(6) The term "controlled substance" means a drug or other substance, or
immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of
this subchapter. The term does not include cannabis, distilled spirits,
wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in
subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

dean_becker - Al,

I see the time is winding down for your visit. I hope you will answer
another question or two before you go.

Mostly, I want to publicly thank you for helping to turn an anarchist/rebel
into a beligerant advocate for drug reform. ;)

Please give us your recollections of the Tulia vigil, how did the town folk
treat the marchers?

tbarrus- IRC of 1986

The IRC will need to be updated to define how cannabis and other
recreational drugs to be exempt from the CSA will be taxed like tobacco and
alcohol.

It's the money, stupid.

delbertl0 - Thank you Dr. Robison for your insight and professionalism. I
look forward to Arkansas getting more involved in this rightous issue. Good
Luck!

galan14 - Is this a political definition of drugs, or is it a scientific
definition of drugs? Can you, as a "Distinguished Professor of
Pharmacology" support this definition of "drugs"?

Would you state under oath that this "definition" of drugs is true and
accurate?

No, that's a political definition, although it probably includes most of
the drugs that we recognize as pharmacologists, including most of the ones
that people like to use for non-medical or recreational use.

I always used to tell the med students that I thought the most interesting
drugs were the ones produced in our own bodies, and without which we
couldn't exist ("most interesting" I suppose because they were the ones I
specialized in studying myself, the hormones and neurotransmitter agents).
But some of them, such as insulin, are also recognized as drugs according
to that definition, because it's used to treat people who are deficient in
producing insulin.

One of the most interesting of the naturally occurring drugs, ie the ones
we produce isn our own bodies, is of course anandamine, which seems to be
the naturally occuring agonist for the cannabinoid receptors that THC
interacts with. Michael Pollan, in his new booj "The Botany of Desire,"
offers a fascinating speculation about what the purpose of that drug is. He
thinks it's there to help us forgot all the things we learn in a day that
aren't worth storing even in our short term memories, never mind our long
term memories. This is a fascinating book that I can't possibly recommend
too highly.

Sort of apropos of what a drug is.

aahpat- Dr. Al:

If you are still here.

Mother Jones recently did a great series about the prison industrial
complex that, combined with the Economist and now the Rolling Stone piece,
could define the terms of the public dabate into the next election cycle.

tbarrus- the federal government is a continuing criminal enterprise, as is
the United Nations

galan14

Thanks Al for the interesting conversation!

- - Tom Barrus (b4liberty)

galan14 - I see there's no chance of ever getting caught up on all the Q's
I missed, so I'll kjust do the best I can for another 15 min or so.

Geo is of course correct that there are a lot cannabinoids in cannabis
besides THC, and some terrifically interesting research is being done in
this regard in the UK now, as most of you probably know. That's another
benefit of the more rational approach the Europeans are starting to take.

galan14 - Glad I didn't miss you! A lot of politicians are talking
treatment instead of incarceration. That's good if a drug user needs
treatment but many times they don't. And what about marijuana users. All
this talk about forced treatment doesn't sit well with all us recreational
marijuana only users. Do you think they will eventually realize that not
every drug user needs treatment - and really shouldn't be incarcerated either?

I certainly agree that this is one reform we could do without, altho I
guess I might see it differently if the alternative was 20 years in the
slammer. I'm sure they will realize sooner or later that most drug users
don't need treatment. I think Portugal has handled this quite well. I think
they require your own physician's okay before they send yyou to treatment.
otherwise as I understand it you can go home.

zooneedles.- In case I don't get a chance to tell you before you leave,
thank you for being here, Alan. Hope to see you around in the forums.

Zoo

galan14 - I happen to view the ability to alter one's own consciousness as
a fundamental human right, with the difference being that the government
gets to decide what chemical we should alter with.

What standard must a chemical meet in order to be legal?

I would agree that that should be our long-term goal, to make it a
universally recognized right to have sovergnity over what you put into your
own mind and body. But convincing people that you should have that right
might be something else

galan14 - there have been some significant battles won via med mj. otoh we
have seen how the powerful thug warriors have successfully used dirty
disinformation tactics to somewhat neutralize us.

I say it's time to go for the total legalization of the righteous herb.
your opinion, mon?!

I think decriminalization of mj in the U.S. will be feasible within the
next few years. We're going to do our best to get it done in Texas in 2003,
but it will require a major educational effort between now and then. That
will in turn require a lot of money, but at least it's no longer something
we can't even imagine doing. A majority of the public is still against it
is the problem.

zooneedles.- By the way, Al. I noticed your picture on the DPFT. You are
quite an attractive man.

If you should be incarcerated for some reason here in the States, will they
be allowing you conjugular visits?

(Sorry folks, had to do it.)

Zoo

lenzapleaps- galan14 7/31/01 10:30pm

"I would agree that that should be our long-term goal, to make it a
universally recognized right to have sovergnity over what you put into your
own mind and body."

As would I. In fact, I regard it self evident as an inalienable right.

"But convincing people that you should have that right might be something
else"

It is clear to me that "sovereignty" can only be endowed US by our Creator.
And there's the rub for entirely too many.

richard1028c- Zoo--ROFLMAO!

Alan

What standard must a law meet befor IT is considered legal?

galan14 - Please give us your recollections of the Tulia vigil, how did the
town folk treat the marchers?

Hi Dean --

Sorry I couldn't figure out how to get back to where I was faster, instead
of always having to push the "previous" button. Am running out of steam and
am going to have to bag it soon, but the Tulia people treated us aloofly.
One of them told me it wasn't any of their business one way or the other.

We have to do a better job of convincing everyone that the drug war and the
harm it's causing is the business of all of us, whether we use drug or not.

dean_becker - Just like with your determination with DPFT and the many
other organizaions and commitments you lead, carry or point the way for,
your time and endurance here tonight again speaks very loudly for you Mr.
Robison.

Thank you Al.

galan14 - Gang --

Thanks it was fun but hard work. I'll probably never be able to convince
tom that the war on drugs has nothing to do with logic. Somebody said it's
the money, stupid, and that's probably a fairly good way to summarize the
situation.

Cheers / Al

chieflake0- Thanks, Al, for staying so long past the normal hour!

Looking forward to your visit to the DrugSense chat next Sunday evening,
same start time, 8 p.m. Eastern, 5 p.m. Pacific.

http://www.drugsense.org/chat

btw, Al is pictured in two pictures near the bottom of this page
http://www.drugsense.org/dsdpics.htm

donaldway- Thanks for coming Al... some good stuff.