FORUM SCHEDULE:

Monday, July 9, 2001 8 p.m. Eastern in the NY Times Drug Policy Forum
http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/index-national.html join Keith Stroup,
executive director of NORML http://www.norml.org

Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8 p.m. Eastern in the NY Times Drug Policy Forum
http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/index-national.html join Al Giordano,
publisher of the Narco News Bulletin, http://www.narconews.com/
~~~

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

TRANSCRIPT: CHAT WITH KEITH STROUP OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE
REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS (http://www.norml.org/)

DrugSense Chat Room (http://www.drugsense.org/chat/)

Sunday, July 08, 2001, 8:00 PM ET

Keith: Hello, friends. My name is Keith Stroup and I'm pleased to join you
tonight. I am here to discuss marijuana policy in general, and NORML in
particular. I founded NORML 31 years ago, and am currently back running
the organization again.

Dean: What do you think of the UK situation, with Sir Keith Morris, Simon
Hughes and David Davis coming out for marijuana legalization if not full
legalization?

Keith: I think what is happening in England and in Canada is terribly
important. Our government, and most elected officials, have been
willing to try to ignore and misrepresent the experience in Holland and
other countries. They will not be able to do that in Canada, for example,
with whom we share a common language, common culture, and common border.
England, because of our special relationship with our mother country, has
that same potential to impact domestic marijuana policy as well.

Keith: The situation in Portugal is also very important, as they seem to
be openingly violating the 1961 Single Convention treaty, with no apparent
repercussions. This may be an important issue for us in this country a few
years down the road.

kelinsmART: Every time I look for a job and see pre-screening testing I
feel discriminated against. Has anyone looked into a class action
discrimination lawsuit against gov or other? No one should be judged on the
"color" of their pee

Keith: The usual legal basis for challenging a urine test is that it is a
search done without a search warrant, and therefore unconstitutional.
However, the 4th amendment only applies to government, not private
companies. Essentially, private companies are permitted to impose whatever
employment practices they want, so long as they do not use race, religion
or gender as the basis.

Keith: By the way, Graham Boyd runs a very good drug policy litigation
project for ACLU which does frequently sue to challenge drug testing
requirements, but they can only do that when the entity is a school or
other governmental unit, so the 4th Amendment applies.

kelinsmART: but if smoking is part of your religion?

Keith: To challenge the use of marijuana under a religious theory has not
been successful to date, although the native Americans have won legal
protection for their use of peyote in their religion.

allan: keith as a lawyer can you explain how laws - pot prohibition - that
are based on the lies and bigotry of Harry Anslinger can remain standing?

Keith: Our laws are the result of the political process -- not some
rational process of fact finding -- and therefore they represent all
of the fears and exaggerations accepted by those lawmakers.

Keith: Friends frequently tell me they presume there must be a legal
solution to the problems of marijuana prohibition, because they presume
there is a legal solution to all problems. In fact, for many injuries one
sustains in our society, there simply is no legal right to peruse. In many
ways I think we will have to look to our elected officials to get us out
of this problem; I do not expect the judges will bail us out.

Frank: Keith, Gary Storck from Madison WI here. What kind of future do you
see for getting cannabis rescheduled, and what steps can activists take to
move this issue along?

Keith: Gary, the work you and Jackie are doing is wonderful and we just
need more of it. I am not sure I believe the DEA will ever give us a fair
hearing on the rescheduling issue, but eventually, if necessary, we will
have sufficient support in Congress so that we can reschedule it via
legislation.

Lindy: Health Canada released new MMJ regs this past week, which was court
driven. Have you had a chance to read them? If so, what do you think?

Lindy: In Canada it was the Judges who mandated the changes for Medicinal use.

Keith: As to the Canadian regulations for medical use, I have only read a
summary of their actions. It did seem that they were insisting on some
requirements (must have tried all other medications and found them
ineffective) that were needlessly restrictive.

Keith: Nonetheless, what they are doing -- adopting a regulatory system
for permitting patients access to medical marijuana -- protected from the
law -- is incredibly important, and will eventually put a lie to our
government's propaganda.

Dean: Why do not more celebrities come into the fray, help to battle
against the drug warriors? For many of them, it seems they could only but
gain more endorsement from the public for their efforts.

Keith: Many celebrities support the work we are involved in, but that does
not mean they either send money, speak out publicly, or in any other
manner help move the issue forward politically. For most of them,
their agents and business managers scare them to death, and convince them
they will destroy their careers if they are seen as too closely connected
with any controversial issue.

Dean: Where do you see next year at this time Keith?

Keith: Perhaps because I have been on this path once previously, I tend to
take the longer look. I presume the fight will remain difficult for the
next few years, as more of our strongest opponents die or otherwise move
on to other issues, and we replace them with younger policy makers who are
far more likely to be sympathetic to our position. But if the pendulum
continues to swing in our direction, as it has clearly since around 1996,
we will make some incredible progress over the next five years, including
total legalization of medical use, and some new states to add to the
decriminalization list for responsible social use.

allan: Keith - what about pressing the opposition for a major public debate?

Keith: That's probably a good idea, although I don't think a formal debate
would be the most effective forum. If one remembers from high school and
college, those tend to be wonderful games to play, but not particularly
good at reviewing the evidence and arriving at a just conclusion. Sometimes
the procedure gets in the way of a helpful discussion. Nonetheless,
anything to encourage more of a healthy public debate on marijuana policy
- -- and a challenge would be one way -- is worth pursuing

kelinsmART: how do we get more airtime, TV time, radio, papers and other media?

Keith: There are two ways: first, we spend more of our resources buying
time on major media to get our message out. The NORML Foundation, our
tax-exempt side, is in the early stages of a significant public advertising
campaign that will air later this year. Second, we have to create events
and opportunities to get free coverage in the media. This is the
most powerful exposure, but difficult to control. The movement overall
is getting better at this, but mostly we need to allocate more resources
to media outreach.

stv: keith, we had a few state bills in texas this session but they never
got out of committee. what can we do to get it further along next time.

Keith: Legislative support really consists primarily of demonstrating to
elected officials that their constituents -- those who live and vote
in their district -- care about this issue. If they hear from a reasonable
number of constituents, saying "it's time we stopped arresting responsible
marijuana smokers," that begins to seem like a responsible alternative to
current policies, instead of some radical or fringe proposal. We must
demonstrate that most citizens oppose jailing marijuana smoker (58%).

kelinsmART: Has many people claimed political amnesty from America?

Keith: There have surely been far too many casualties from the drug war,
including the many good Americans who elected to become ex-patriots,
rather than face the legal consequences awaiting them in this country.
There but for the grace of God

Lindy: Would acknowledging potential tax revenue help inspire our
governments to decriminalize Marijuana?

Keith: The positive economics of legalizing marijuana, with a regulated
market where consumers could purchase their marijuana from a safe and
secure environment, and where governments would presumably impose their
"sin tax," will become an issue, once the morality has largely been removed
from this issue. Just as gambling was once consider immoral, today nearly
every state in the union raises money by offering a state sponsored
lottery. I do not believe this issue works well at all for those
who seriously oppose marijuana on moral grounds, but as they become less
of a political force, the tax revenue issue will become very important
politically.

BigBong: would ask KS if he is aware of the radical activism of the worlds
only online illegal cannabis cafe,
http://www.nimbinaustralia.com/hempbar/webcam.htm

Keith: I am not aware of the online cafe, but will surely check it out.
Thanks.

Paul: hi Keith...what have you been up to lately

Keith: I was able to take a couple of days off following the 4th, and
enjoyed some cooking at home and some gardening. I feel mostly rested and
ready to go back to work tomorrow.

Paul: are you shooting for decrime or legalization?

Keith: NORML has always supported (1) decriminalizing the smoker; and (2)
establish a legal market where the sale of marijuana is regulated. The
former is what most people mean when they say decriminalization, the later
is legalization. We support both, and support the consumer's right to grow
his own marijuana, as an alternative.

kelinsmART: How can they still run the ads on TV showing your brain on
drugs only its actually a comatose brain? Is there any truth to advertising?

Keith: There was never any truth to the "this is your brain on drugs" ads,
and I think they have generally been discarded, but apparently you have
recently seen them, so they must still be in use in some markets.

BigBong: keith do you believe we are closer to relegalization nowww than at
any time since the marijuana tax act of 1937?

Keith: Keep in mind that the 1st amendment protects most speech in this
country from censorship, including a lot of propaganda from the
government and their dupes. So they can and always have exaggerated the
dangers from marijuana (and from other drugs as well), but there is no
"truth arbiter" you can appeal that to. Eventually we simply have to
convince our own government to be rational about marijuana research and to
stop exaggerating the supposed dangers from marijuana smoking.

Paul: Kieth...where do you see the biggest opposition to the reform movement

Keith: Our issue suffers from some terribly negative stereotypes, almost
all of which is totally bogus. It's as if we were defined by a couple of
Cheech and Chong movies, when in fact he vast majority of marijuana smokers
are just average Americans, who raise kids, work hard, contribute to
their communities, and are generally good citizens. They are simply
average Americans who happen to smoke marijuana.

BigBong: keith how often do you visit www.mapinc.org?

Keith: Actually I was aware of Map, Inc., but not very familiar with what
the group does until recently. Mark and Matt recently began proving NORML
with current information for our web site that is just great. The joint
effort has proven good for both organizations, as our web site is
much better, and the NORML site now accounts for more referrals to Map,
Inc than any other site.

kelinsmART: What direction do you see the United Nations going with drug
policy?

FatFreddy: What will the pressure from other countries do to the WODs, in
the USA?

Keith: The changes that appear to be almost unstoppable in Canada, England,
Portugal, Spain, not to mention the success in Holland, are enormously
important. They reflect political change on this issue by elected
government in many countries of the world, several of whom are very close
to the US. This is really the beginning of the end for the war on drugs.

Keith: As I mentioned earlier, it will be interesting to see how the UN
responds to the recent changes in Portugal. They complained loudly when it
happened, but I can't see that they have the slightest ability to enforce
their treaties and conventions. In the end, each country will always do
what is in that country's best interest.

Paul: where would you see a good point to gather the forces?

Keith: It seems to me that with political issues, we must always be
ready to do battle, but we can seldom determine the timing of the next big
battle. The Supreme Court case on medical marijuana, although a temporary
set-back, proved to be the biggest political issue for our issue this year.
I doubt many people would have expected that. So I can't really expect to
gather the forces at our timing. However, the Seattle HempFest on August
18 and 19, and the Boston Freedom Rally on September 15 are both
wonderful events that each year attract close to 100,000 supporters.
I will be at both events again this year, and I urge everyone who can to
attend both events.

kelinsmART: How did the presidential candidates ignore the drug question?

Keith: Both political parties have been afraid of the drug issue. Since
Gov. Dukakis was portrayed as soft on crime and drugs, every elected
official in American has believed the surest way to lose the next election
is to let our opponent position himself as tougher than you. So now, almost
everyone in the entire political system has bought into the drug war, and
there is little real debate over options to the war, such as
decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana. It also was a factor that one of
the candidates had a problem earlier in his life, and adopted a hands off
policy early. I do not understand why the media allowed him to get by with
that, but they did. Neither candidate felt they had anything to gain from
bringing up the issue, or by publicly supporting reform. It shows how far
we have to go to finally win this issue.

stv: keith, i have thought the war on drugs on colombia might be more about
oil than drugs. what do you think?

Keith: The war in Colombia from our government's perspective seems
entirely about drug enforcement; from the Colombia perspective it is
interwoven with a revolutionary movement that has been alive for many
years. We have once again made strange allies, it seems.

Keith: Let me thank the good folks who spent their time hanging out
with us tonight. It was fun.