FORUM SCHEDULE:

Tues. July 17, 2001 8PM Eastern/5PM Pacific - NY Times Drug Policy Forum:
Steve and Michele Kubby

Sun. July 22, 2001 8PM Eastern/5PM Pacific - Drugsense Chat Room: Steve and
Michele Kubby

Future guests already scheduled in the series include Al Giordano, Renee
Boje, and Al Robison. See http://www.cultural-baggage.com/schedule.htm for
details.

TRANSCRIPT OF KEITH STROUP'S VISIT TO THE DRUG POLICY FORUM

On Monday, July 9, the NYTimes.com's Drug Policy forum hosted Keith Stroup,
founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws,
NORML. This discussion was part of the speaker series organized by forum
participants.

rkstroup: Hello, friends. This is Keith Stroup. I'm pleased to be here
tonight and will try to answer any questions you may have about my narrow
area of expertise, marijuana or marijuana policy.

dean_becker: Each day seems to bring more call for reform of the marijuana
laws to the UK. Home Secretary David Blunkett has now called for a formal
debate on the decriminalization of marijuana. Assuming they move toward
decrim or legalization, how will that affect US attitudes and laws toward MJ?

rkstroup: Dean:

I think what is happening in Canada and in England is the most significant
progress we have seen in my lifetime, and it will clearly have a positive
impact in this country. Our government seems to be able to ignore and
misrepresent what happens in Holland and in many other parts of the world,
but we can't simply make things up about Canada and England and expect to
get by with it. Our common culture and language, and with Canada our common
border, make these pending changes terribly important for us in the US.

donaldway: Hi Keith, and welcome!

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the New York Times has been
running these "antidrug" ads with increasing regularity.

Has NORML ever tried running ads with the New York Times or other corporate
media outlets? Have you ever been refused?

Or is it all just a question of money?

rkstroup: We have used paid public advertising in s number of instances,
and we have had our money rejected on at least one occassion.

In the 1970s, a funder gave us money to purchase a full-page ad in Time or
Newsweek, and we tried in both, and were turned down by both. They have the
legal right to reject you simply because they think your message is too
extreme, or whatever. And they did.

We have not been turned down in more recent years when we have attempted to
purchase air time on radio or print space in a newspaper. That will be
given a more serious test this fall when theNORML Foundation launches a
fairly significant ($600,000) public ad campaign, and it is quite possible
that some of the stations we want will reject our ads. We'll just have to see.

That's not always bad, as the free press coverage can sometimes be more
valuable than the paid space.

dean_becker: Now that the head of the UN drug policy is under fire, the US
has been kicked out of the UN human rights and drug war panels, will the UN
do anything to undermine the failed US drug war?

rkstroup: Now that the head of the UN drug policy is under fire, the US has
been kicked out of the...

I fully expect the UN will hold firm to the US anti-drug position for as
long as possible. They are even further removed from the people than our
federal elected oficials, and thus they are even less responsive to
changing attitudes.

zooneedles: How many times have you been busted for cannabis, Keith?

rkstroup: Only once, for a single joint in my pocket when I was entering
Canada to give a NORML lecture in the 1970s. We raised the Pierre Treadeau
defense, to no avail!

ajdectis: Now that Britain has said that it is no longer going to make any
effort to chase down marijuana smugglers and sellers , does this not mean
defacto legalization?

rkstroup: This is really some of the most exciting news I have heard in
many years. It is wonderful that they have decided to focus on more
dangerous drugs, and to apply that principle evento major traffickers. It's
not legalization quite yet, but it sure does seem like a transition phase
that will likely lead to actual legalization at some point.

celaya: Welcome Keith!

I have been a member of NORML for some years now and I feel like the
membership is under utilized.

I get an occasional newletter and requests to contribute money to one
project or another. But I feel like we, as members, could be a great
political machine if we were well coordinated.

Is there any future plan to organize the NORML membership for these kinds
of actions?

rkstroup: Iconcur that we do not generally utilize the average NORML
supporter as a grassroots organizer or activists to the degree we would
like. It is largely a result of limited resources, and the need to focus on
streamlining and modernizing other areas of our work since the new board
took over the organization in the fall of 1994. I believe we do a better
job of local and grassroots organizing now than we have in the past, with a
sophisticated (and expensive) computer tracking program on our website that
makes it easy and quick for any visitor to the site to register their
support for or opposition to any pending marijuana-related legislation
pending inCongress or in any state legislature. But we need to do much more
to help train, motivate and support the efforts throughout the country. I
hope we can raise the resources to finally permit us to more effectively
address this part of our work.

aahpat: Hi Keith;

Could you talk some about these issues? Thanks.

1. Lobbying the congress. Both as individuals and in terms of what the
major organizations are doing to expand the effort.

2. Regarding the coming 'off year' 2002 national political campaigns for
the U.S. congress. What is the collective reform camp doing to participate
in the U.S. Senate and House elections? What can individuals do to raise
the profile of drug policy reform in the elections?

rkstroup: 1. Lobbying the congress. Both as individuals and in terms of
what the major organizations are doing to expand the effort

Could you talk some about these issues? Thanks. 1. Lobbying the congress.
Both as individuals and in terms of what the major organizations are doing
to expand the effort.

As to Congress, I do a limited amount of work with them, making sure we get
Rep. Frank's medical use bill reintroduced each new Congress, and
continuing my search for a sponsor for a full federal decriminalization
bill. Frankly, so long as the Republican party continue to control the
House, the Frank medical use bill will continue to be ignored by the
appropriate committee chair and subcommittee chair, either of whom could
schedule a public hearing on the bill and at least permit us to make our
best case. But the Republican leadershi has for several years confused the
question of the medical use of marijuana with the war on drugs, and have
made the anti-medical use position an integral part of their anti-drug war.
So realisticly, until there is a change in Congressional leadership, or
until the average member of Congress receives a lot more mail, calls and
visits from constituents supporting the Frank bill, there simply will be no
action on the federal bill in Congress.

The real action will continue for a few more years to be at the state
level. Once we have gathered a critical mass of states -- which might be 15
or 18 or whatever -- the Congress will have no choice but to pay attention
to this issue, regardless of who is in control of the Congress, and to
support medical use because their constituents told them that's what they want.

celaya: Thanks Keith. I look forward to more opportunities to become a
NORML activist. I think ajdectis' idea of creating social events for NORML
members is a great one also. This would create great solidarity and raise
committment levels.

On another note, why do you think that there is such a void of entertainers
who are willing to stand up and denounce marijuana prohibition?

Is there no idealism in these people anymore? Are they just in it for the
bucks? One would think that, for some, like rock musicians, it would
actually be a boost to their careers.

rkstroup: Celaya made a good point. With all the cannabis users in the USA
we could be a potent force if organized. Why have the cannabis users failed
to organize well? Is it becaue there is too much fear and apathy? Is it the
lack of an organizational mechanism that reaches enough people?

The most significant hindrance to our winning the rights to wich we are
entitled is the fear that the majority of responsible marijuana smokers
feelabout the possibility that they might be identified as smokers. And it
isunderstandable that they would havethose concerns, asthe reprocussions
for many people is disasterous.

At a minimum the individual likely loses his or her job, and depending on
where they live, may lose their housing, custody of their child or
children, student loans and other professional lisences. And they have to
hire an attorney to try to assure that they remain out of jail.

So it is no wonder that most smokers, and this is especially true for the
middle-class, professional folks who enjoy smoking when they relax on the
weekends, are too paranoid to "come out of the closet." Until we change the
climate that causes folks to fear to express their own political
preferrences, for fear of being hurt personally and professionaly, we
cannot expect to fully exercise our full political potential.

In a manner, we need, as a culture, to come out of the closet, and to
demonstrate that the vast majority of marijuana smokers are good, decent
Americans who are good neighbors and good citizens, as well as marijuana
smokers.

rkstroup: On another note, why do you think that there is such a void of
entertainers who are willing to stand up and denounce marijuana
prohibition? Is there no idealism in these people anymore? Are they just in
it for the bucks? One would think that, for some, like rock musicians, it
would actually be a boost to their careers.

It is true that most celebrities and entertainers, regardless of their
personal habits, refuse to publicly identify with the marijuana issue for
fear they will be identified as potheads and it will negatively impact
their careers. They all have managers whose job it isto foresee problems
such as this, and to head them off to protect the source of income, the
celebrity's popularity.

But don't forget that there are a few notable exceptions, and there will
certainly be new names and faces who will decide the time is right to be
honest over the coming year or so. Willie Nelosn is one of my personal
favorities. He has always insisted that those who like Willie be prepared
to accedpt his marijuana smoking, and I frequently tease him that he is
"America's most beloved marijuana smoker." And Woody Harrelson and Bill
Maher, and a few others, but the list is embarassingly short, which does
not speak well for the courage level of the Hollywood community.

donaldway: Any estimates on the number of people who are dead today but who
otherwise might be alive were marijuana available as medicine?

rkstroup: I've never seen any attempt to estimate the number of patients
who migh be alive today had they been permitted to use medical marijuana,
but clearly Pter McWilliams is far from the only one. Perhaps more dramatic
are the tens of thousands of seriously ill patients who were required to
suffer needlessly, when a chea; and effective medication could have largely
spared them the pain and agony.

It has always seemd stupid and counterproductive to me that we would treat
social smokers like criminals. It is absolutely unconscionable that we
would deny an effective medication to the seriously ill and dying.

jerryt9: Questions for the visitors:

1) Do you predict an END to the War On Drugs during the coming decade?

2) What events need to happen in order for the War On Drugs to end?

3) What can WE do to bring about major changes in Drug Policy?

rkstroup: 1) Do you predict an END to the War On Drugs during the coming
decade? 2) What events need to happen in order for the War On Drugs to end?
3) What can WE do to bring about major changes in Drug Policy?

(1) Yes, without much doubt I expect we will stop arresting marijuana
smokers, and I hope we will treat other nonviolent drug offenses as a
medical matter, not an appropriate matter for the criminal justice system.
I believe we are finally headed in that direction, and itis clear the
American people really do make a serious distinction between violent and
nonviolent offenses, even if many of our elected officials have tried to
blurr that important distinction.

(2)We must overcome the years of demonization of drug users, and marijuana
smokers particularly, and demonstrate that most marijuana smokers (and thus
most drug users) are good people. That fact, while it seems obvious to
those of us who smoke, is the one we have to win in order to finally move
the political system to reflect a new reality in attitudes. As I said in an
earlier answer, to some degree this involves the millions of Americans who
smoke marijuana responsibly to come out of the closet, or at least to
contact their elected oficials at all levels and demand they stop arresting
marijuana smokers. (3) The two most basic things each American can do to
change public policy is to contact you elected officials (and do it more
than once, at at all levels from the city council to the state legislature
to Congress) so they know their constituents want a change in marijuana
policy, and to donate a few bucks each year to any of several good public
interest groups working to end the drug war. Most Americans need to work
during the day to support themselves and their families, and they can't
spend as much time as they might like working for their favorite charity.
But each of us can give $25, or $50, or whatever, and help provide the
overall funding that is necessary for us to finally end the drug war, once
and for all.

A little time, and a little money. There are enought of us that if each
regular marijuana smokers did only these two simple steps, we would
havemarijuana legalized within 5 years.

galan14: Hi Keith -- Just got here, so apologies if someone else has
already asked this. But a few years ago you or somebody mentioned at a
NORML Conference that a new advertising campaign was being planned,
according to which celebrities and other well-known people would speak out
about their use of cannabis and what it had meant or done for them. Could
you give us an update on how that's coming? Has the climate changed enough
within recent years to make that feasible? Thanks / Al

rkstroup: a few years ago you or somebody mentioned at a NORML Conference
that a new advertising campaign was being planned, according to which
celebrities and other well-known people would speak out about their use of
cannabis and what it had meant or done for them. Could you give us an
update on how that's coming? Has the climate changed enough within recent
years to make that feasible? Thanks / Al

Al, nice to hear from you. I am new at this chat room experience, and I
missed you're message altogether.

The original idea was to combine several prominant Americans, including
Willie Nelson, Peter Lewis and Carl Sagan, and to publish a full-page ad in
several newspapers across the country. The purpose of such a campaign would
obviously be to attack and overcome the negative stereotype marijuana
smokers frequently encounter, and which undoubtedly holds back our
political progress.

Unfortunately, Peter lewis needed to avoid this for some time because of
personal or business reasons, and Carl Sagan became ill before we could
fully discuss the possibility with him, and sadly, henever recovered. His
widow Ann Druyan is an active member of the NORML and the NORML Foundation
boards, and her continuing support is invaluable.

Nonetheless, you can see that our original idea was never realized.

However, the NORML Foundation is currently working with our advertising
people to develop a public advertising campaign that we hope to run with
this fall. We havenot selected the thrmr yet, but we will likely do
something designed to reinforce the idea that responsible marijuana smoking
is okay, and that is designed to motivate marijuana smokers to come out of
the closet, get involved politically, andhelp us change this situation.

I was personally impressed with the full-page ad that the couple in Oregon
ran recently, with the headline, We're jeff and Tracy, we're your good
neighbors, and we smoke marijuana. We may consider some variation onthat
theme for our campaign, but again, it is alittle early to know. We will
certainly try to make the campaign newsworthly, so we can benefit from the
free media coverage that should result.

ajdectis: Keith, What was the process you used to found Norml in the early
1970's? How involved was the founder of High Times ( his name escapes me
for the moment). How does one just one day say: "I am going to start an
organization to legalize marijuana"?

rkstroup: The founder of High Times you asked about was Tom Forcade, a
friend of mine during the 1970s and an interesting individual. He showed
great vision when he founded High Times.

I started NORML as a result of the anti-war (Vietnam) movement that was at
its peak in 1970, and my experience working with Ralph Nader (actually with
the National Commission on Product Safety, a Presidential Commission, but
we worked closely with Ralph and I was impressed with the way he had taken
the consumer perspective and made it a powerful interest in the public
policy debate)

Many anti-war activists were arrested on marijuana charges, and there were
years when anyone with long hair and an anti-war bumper sticker would be
pulled over and searched for marijuana by the police. The marijuana laws
were a major way for the government at the time to punish anti-war
organizers and demonstrators. As a oung lawyer right out of Georgetown Law
School, I was called by several people seeking representation, and my
friends were having the same experience. So we decided to found an
organization to try to fight back.

Because I was impressed with the mannerin which Ralph had turned consumer
power into real political power, I wanted to make our focus that of the
consumer -- or the smoker -- and thus NORML was born.

Of course we were fortunate to get the early and generous support of the
Playboy Foundation during the early years, that made it possible for us to
grow, and to eventually lead the reform efforts that resulted in 11 states
decriminalizing marijuana during the 1970s.

Sadly, we lost ground during the 1980s and mostof the 1990s, but since 1996
the pendulum has begun swinging back in our direction, and if it should
continue for a few more years, we will make some extraordinary progress
towards ending the drug war altogether and devising more effective drug
policies.

The political climate is more positive today than I have seen it since at
least 1978.

rkstroup: Friends:

I need to wrap things up for tonight. It has been fun.

I wish I were a bit more facile with the chat room format, but I'm still
new at it.

Thanks for letting me use your open mike for the evening.

Help us legalize marijuana.

Regards,

Keith Stroup