Smoking Out Legislator’s Position on Pot

Amen sister! This story is perfect to bring out a macro view of marijuana policy. I love how clearly it points out the hypocricy that we are seeing in our elected officials. Very nice comment with the knock on manufactured pain relievers as well. Great job Jane!

Politicians on both sides are just doing whatever they can to not be controversial and to save their jobs come November.

Hardly any of them are actually listening to the people who voted them into office, and even less, as you've seen, will talk to you once they are elected.

Nava can't talk to voters now that he's in office? He won't go along with the will of the voters who put him in office? So why is he there again?

Does weed make people rude as well as high, or is that just your reporting style? Sorry, that was snarky, but really - in a country where most of us are raised with the "Just say no" and "Don't do drugs" mantras, is it so inexcusable for a politician to not support broad legalization? My drugs of choice - wine, coffee, chocolate - do affect the brain, but they haven't been associated with idiotic and just plain stinky immature behavior; weed is associated with precisely those things. I would be deeply disappointed and harshly punitive to my future kids if I caught them with weed, whether it's legal by then or not. So I can't condemn a politician for not wanting to hasten public acceptance of the drug.

That said, I do think it should be legalized, but only because I lean Libertarian and believe that most things should be left up to personal choice. The moral responsibility to choose rightly should be on the citizens, not the government, unless we're talking violence. And don't accost people in wine stores. Good grief, that's so rude.

Are you kidding LV, he's a local politician who is not shy about publicily sharing his views on MJ, he won't return her emails, and I bet he has a couple of minders who block the phone calls.

Straight out karma to bump into him in a wine store. Rude? i don't think so. how about lucky.

He lost that 'accosting privilege' when he became a politician.

I guess we won't know what Pedro Nava really said or didn't say, since the letter writer chose to directly quote him on only one comment.

LV- what? rude??

...and Mr Nava's not responding to the writer's numerous attempts at contacting a public official are what....??

not rude?

and everyone knows that drinking wine never led to any idiotic behavior.

god the hypocrisy is ovewhelming

Jane G. Copelan- You are my new hero because these weasals need to give us some answers. Glad to see some real reporting.

LV: Good luck raising your kids if you're going to depend on the government to keep all things bad away from your family, and to inform them as to what's right and wrong. Naa, you don't need any choices, or to make your own informed decisions. That's poppycock!

If you were a real Libertarian you would be for personal responsibility - let each person make the choice for themselves. But nope, not in this case. Alcohol good, marijuana bad.

What brand of wine was he drinking? I want to make sure it's government approved....

But hey, on the bright side at least the billions we spent on the War on Drugs didn't totally go to waste - it at least fooled 1 person!

"My drugs of choice - wine, coffee, chocolate - do affect the brain, but they haven't been associated with idiotic and just plain stinky immature behavior; weed is associated with precisely those things"

LV: please let us know if you are kidding--although I see nothing that indicates you are.

I've seen people get pretty stupid after drinking--and even "tasting" wine. You need to know LV, wine is booze--and it destroys the liver and kills brain cells. You can dress it up and call it culture but it's no different from Joe Six Pack getting hammered except Joe Six Pack is honest about who he is.

By the way, KEYT is running commercials point out that wine tasters should have designated drivers. These commercials, sponsored by the Californian Highway Patrol and the Office of Traffic Safety, point out that during an average wine-tasting tour, a person visits four tasting rooms, and tastes from six glasses per room, and that each visit lasts twenty-five minutes therefore during a two-hour period a person has consumed the equivalent of a bottle of wine.

Facts are facts: marijuana was legal before 1937, and wine-tasting and driving do not mix.

P.S. With a few exeptions, the Democratic Party are a bunch of hypocrits playing on the emotions of "progressives" while still toeing the line and making sure people get thrown in jail for what they put into their bodies.

Again: ask them why the world didn't come to an end when pot was legal and watch them squirm and make up excuses. THIS is the question they need to keep getting asked.

Photo caption: "Heyyyy, you can keep a secret, can't you?"

As Assemblymember Nava’s Chief of Staff, I feel compelled to express my disappointment with the Santa Barbara Independent for deeming Ms. Copelan's Letter to the Editor to be of sufficient public interest to be printed. It does not matter that Ms. Copelan’s piece has been published under the “Opinion” section. Ms. Copelan’s opinion may be that the Assemblymember’s position is hypocritical. She is more than welcome to her two cents and 15 minutes of fame. But statements like “after waiting for a response from him for almost four months” and “he finally said, ‘well I am going to go get my poison’” are taken as fact here. Those are not opinions, and the Independent should have either fact-checked, or asked for a re-write from Ms. Copelan.

That said, I would like to point out that Ms. Copelan has talked to at least three staffers from our office over the four-month period in which she implies that she was ignored. I myself had a 20-minute long conversation with her in which she consistently asked questions pertaining to city zoning. I actually referred her to Councilmember Das Williams’ office as her questions were of a local nature. While I think it is noble of the author to laud Mr. Williams for his quick response to her questions, it is important to note that to do so is actually his job as her local City Councilmember. Had she asked me about the questions she poses in her piece, we may have had a more fruitful conversation (as some of them are in fact, state policy matters).

Finally, while Ms. Copelan would like to portray herself as politically savvy, she is clearly misinformed or uninformed on several matters. First, she claims that Assemblymember Nava “balked” at the idea of bringing new revenues into the state. Mr. Nava has, in fact, been the most vocal proponent of the implementation of an oil severance tax – a proposal that has since been adopted by Assembly Democrats and is considered a linchpin of the Assembly’s budget proposal. Additionally, had Ms. Copelan been paying attention, she would know that, despite my hopes to the contrary, Assemblymember Nava is “termed-out” of office this December. To have led Ms. Copelan on by promising to work side-by-side with her on a change to state policy would have been disingenuous, at best (new policy proposals cannot be introduced until January 2011) and an outright lie, at its worst – a level to which he clearly refuses to stoop.

I applaud those like Ms. Copelan who are passionate about issues and tireless in their efforts to seek change. That said, I would hope that both the Independent and the author would seek to use their voices to promote knowledge and truth in the future in a productive manner. This Letter to the Editor is quite frankly, misinformed and one-sided and does nothing to promote a better understanding of the issue.

35adcos it actually would have been better for Mr Nava had you not responded on this board.

You could have answered in a forthright manner. Instead you would rather try to show us how much smarter you and your speech writers are.

You take yourself so seriously, you are actually a caricature of yourself.

Trust me, you didn't do the Assemblyman any favors with your 4 paragraphs of fluff.

Thanks for the giggle.

Wine (and other alcohol) have CERTAINLY been "associated with idiotic and just plain stinky immature behavior." When I was in college alcohol caused a lot more violence and dangerous behavior than pot. I’m not saying alcohol should be banned. Or that it could. But let’s be honest.

Copelan's piece is straight-out tar-n-feather op-ed. 'But Mr. Nava likes his wine. He doesn't like marijuana, which, apart from being medically beneficial on a number of levels, is for many of us a better recreational choice than alcohol. He agreed that if someone had AIDS or cancer, that was fine.' Um, so wine has been and continues to be used medicinally for millennia. Hildegard Von Bingen wrote one should drink wine rather than water (wells were notoriously contaminated during the middle ages) and wine was viewed as more beneficial. People drank ale at all times of day. So if you're gonna' go down that road, at least have your facts right. I don't buy that marijuana is so medically beneficial. When Prop 215 passed, every voter I've talked to thought it WAS for the seriously ill and dying. This was an end-of-the-road pain relief. They never thought it meant dispensaries next to their kids schools with pot entrepreneurs and dressed up drug dealers repositioning themselves as 'healers' and selling pot to anyone and everyone. That was not the intention of 215. Nava was, and is, right on this one. The city got snowed by pot entrepreneurs who tried to convince them that this is just sooo mainstream. Well, it's not, and a lot of people woke up, studied the law, and found out the history behind it. The legalization initiative is no budget panacea. The numbers quoted for revenues are actually for Ammiano's bill, which is on hold pending November's vote. Those revenues were way over-optimistic, and are a pittance against just the state deficit. It would never get us into the black. This bill prohibits taxation and regulation at the state level, and punts it all down to cities and counties, who will now have to individually pass laws on it, should the initiative pass. It will take years for every jurisdiction to sort it out, so no revenues for the state in the meantime. Legalization may be coming, one day, but this bill does it stupidly, just like we did medical marijuana stupidly. Nava knew that, and correctly pushed back. The laws have to be correct at the state level, and there's currently no agreement among legislators on how to do that.

Anything done in excess is bad for your health. Legalizing marijuana? You must be on something'...oh wait, you are! No way that is going to happen. Lay off the pipe and stop harassing people at the store...good grief.

"When Prop 215 passed, every voter I've talked to thought it WAS for the seriously ill and dying. This was an end-of-the-road pain relief. They never thought it meant dispensaries next to their kids schools with pot entrepreneurs and dressed up drug dealers repositioning themselves as 'healers' and selling pot to anyone and everyone. That was not the intention of 215" -So, so true. When I supported 215, I never imagined things would get this out of control.

Ok, so that is why I am voting against Prop. 19 because of idiots like Copelan. She probably doesn't remember she had a half hour conversation with nava's staff because she was stoned. @lawdy--let me tell you about taking yourself too seriously..how about someone writing to the nitwits at the Indy about their run-in with a legislator at a wine shop...like we give a rats @#$. I don't blame nava for trying to blow her off..she probably reeked like Ganja. I tend to blow off nut jobs myself when they approach me. Here is some advice everyone...lay off the pipe and start paying attention to the real issues affecting real people!

Nava is deceitful and hypocritical, I've had similar experiences with him on this issue and oil drilling.
Nice work Ms. Copelan.
Real people smoke pot for various reasons, and real people's lives are being ruined to feed the prison industrila complex and politician's egos.
And if you hate SB, leave.

35ADCOS, you laid a real stink bomb with that response. First, it is, as you acknowledge, an opinion piece but you want the Indy to fact-check it. Do you think they fact-check the Poodle? Of course not, Nor do they fact-check other opinion pieces. One strike.

You want the Indy to fact-check a two-person conversation in a wine shop? Really? How? Ask you so you can claim it didn't happen, even though you weren't there. Ask Nava and all you end up with is he-said, she-said. But you want a rewrite. And on what basis is the Indy supposed to accept or reject any rewrite? Two strikes.

You laud Williams for his quick response noting that his job to do so. But is it not Nava's job to also respond? Three strikes.

You assert that Copelan stated that Nava balked at the idea of bringing new revenues to the state then go off on a tangent on the oil severance tax. She stated no such thing; she merely stated that he balked at HER idea. Poor reading skills lead to your fourth strike.

Yer Out - and then some!

I don't blame nava for trying to blow her off..she probably reeked like Ganja.
--ihateSB

Nice post. Next time, put away the keyboard until you're sober.

Remember folks: us anti-prohibitionists are not asking to Legalize marijuana, but to RE-legalize it.

Once again: how do the anti-legalization people reconcile the fact that when it was legal our society didn't degenerate into a kafka-Esque nighmare of Reefer Madness? Answers please.

So true BC,

In the past 30 years, never had a problem finding "illegal" MJ. Not really hard to find pot in even the most restrictive societies, because people like it. It's cheap and effective and organic.

The real story that should be studied and sold is how many good kids (and adults) have their future (and current) careers ruined by a MJ bust? Ever seen a job app that didn't ask you if you've ever been arrested? How about the random drug tests? A month ago I saw 3 really talented hard workers fired only because they failed the P test for MJ.

The problem is there are so many special interests that collect huge money from the "MJ is illegal" biz....L.E. agencies, doc's and psych's writing prescriptions, drug companies with all their high priced, dangerous meds, lawyers and prosecuters, the ALCOHOL lobby, paranoid soccer moms like sharonnella, school officials that need something to blame poor scores on...

It is time to say "enough with the persecution!"

Vote in Nov. to legalize!

43% Say Marijuana Should Be Legalized, 42% Disagree
Monday, July 26, 2010

Americans are evenly divided over whether marijuana should be legalized in the United States, but most expect it to happen within the next decade.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...

LV, it is funny you call yourself a libertarian. I am a libertarian, but there are a lot of people who have been falsely claiming libertarian status recently like Glenn Beck and even Jeb Bush!!

If you were really libertarian, you would be much more concerned about the countless lives being wasted away in prison for doing no harm to others than you would about someone posting their thoughts on the internet. You wouldn't be trying to trip someone running in the same direction as you yourself are supposedly moving.

Marijuana not a real issue that concerns the common man? Maybe you haven't noticed the violence that has broken out in Mexico, or that the violence is spilling over the border into our country. Hence, 1070. ILLEGAL Marijuana is driving this, and is also filling up our prisons. We have had the equivalent of the St.Valentine's massacre over and over again, but we still want to wait it out. Cartel's make 40% to 70% of their profits from selling ILLEGAL marijuana; we need the money more and the violence less. Take the teeth off these gangs before we turn into prohibitionist Chicago. We have enough Al Capone's today (Chapo Guzman, Arellano-Felix cartel, Los Zetas, etc.)

52% of Californians support Prop 19. 36% oppose. This is from the PPP, a MUCH better and more reliable polling number then Rasmussen (even by their own numbers).

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.c...

And it's nice to see most of Navas office staff getting on here to voice their disapproval of this letter, and to defend their bosses indefensible position on the Drug War.

As I've said in my previous postings, this is their goal. Don't change the status quo, protect their jobs, play politics.

To Nava's staffers who are watching this thread, you've made yourself and your boss look even worse by attempting to BBQ the letter's author on here, rather then addressing the question at hand: Navas position on Prop 19 and making marijuana legal for adults.

But hey, Nava is termed out and he'll be leaving us in December, and so will 35ADCOS and the rest of his "staff" no doubt. Maybe then the person we elect to fill his seat will listen to the voters for once. And maybe they will have a staff with half a brain..

blindsided, tabloidish, and unworthy journalism

Here are some facts about “medical marijuana” for your consideration:
 

Marijuana is not medicine.  The term “medical marijuana” was coined by Keith Stroup of NORML in 1979 as a red herring to give marijuana a good name as a first step towards legalization for recreational use. Passage of Prop 215 in 1996 was the result of a heavily financed propaganda campaign by three out of state billionaires, with George Soros at the helm.  SB420, introduced by Senators Vasconcellos and Leno, two Soros lackeys, was stage two in the assault on California, which made “medical hoax marijuana” available for any purported illness.  Today only about 2% of those who hold medical ID cards are those for whom Prop 215 were intended.  

Marijuana is a schedule I drug because it is harmful, addictive and has no accepted medicinal value.  Real medicines must be approved by the FDA and have known ingredients, known dosage and known potency.  That is not possible with smoke.in any case, but much of the pot being sold in California is laden with pesticides and fungus, and the THC content ranges from 10% to 21% (at Harborview in Oakland), and as high as 37%.   Compared to pot 30 years ago when the THC content was .05% to 3%, its like grain alcohol compared to near beer, and there is no way of knowing what is in it.

In one test in Long Beach, they discovered pesticide levels 1400 times the allowable limit for food or medications.

mmener1991, you need to get your facts straight.

You said "Today only about 2% of those who hold medical ID cards are those for whom Prop 215 were intended."

The law that was passed in 1996 stated: "To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, OR ANY OTHER ILLNESS FOR WHICH MARIJUANA PROVIDES RELIEF."

I'm sorry if you didn't read the law before you voted for it, but clearly near 100% of patients are qualified under the law that was passed. The idea was to put it in the hands of doctors rather than some monolithic political entity. This is freedom, this is what America is about. Your tyrannical approach to this issue is very un-American.

The efficacy of cannabis is incredible. There is so much amazing research out their regarding multiple sclerosis patients, AIDS and cancer patients along with hundreds of other conditions which benefit from the use of cannabis. You clearly haven't done much of your own research on the topic and have chosen to be spoon fed information from the establishment.

The pesticides they found in long beach were probably from bud being smuggled up through mexico, or they were non-harmful organic pesticides. Bud growers generally pride themselves on the taste and quality and would not allow unsafe pesticides to be used on their product. If you have good clean bud, as most medicinal patients are able to acquire, then you would know if there was something else on there.

Lastly, more potent cannabis is healthier for patients. Patients are able to titrate vaporized or smoked cannabis much better than other medications and require less 'tokes' of medicine when it is in higher concentrations. Thus lessening any harmful substances that may enter the lungs from the result of burning, which are generally cleansed out by the expectorant properties of the substance.

mmender1991 says: "Marijuana is a schedule I drug because it is harmful, addictive and has no accepted medicinal value."

Patent number 6,630,507 states unequivocally that cannabinoids are useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including auto-immune disorders, stroke, trauma, Parkinson's, Alzeheimer's and HIV dementia. The patent, awarded in 2003, is based on research done by the National Institute of Health, and is assigned to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services.

So, why is this important?

Here is a legal document, in the public domain, which flies in the face of the US Government's stated position with regard to the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance having no "currently accepted medical use".

mmender1991 says: "Marijuana is a schedule I drug because it is harmful, addictive and has no accepted medicinal value."

"The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse was created by Public Law 91-513 to study marijuana abuse in the United States. While the Controlled Substances Act was being drafted in a House committee in 1970, Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg had recommended that marijuana temporarily be placed in Schedule I, the most restrictive category of drugs, pending the Commission's report. On March 22, 1972, the Commission's chairman, Raymond P. Shafer, presented a report to Congress and the public entitled "Marijuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding," which favored ending marijuana prohibition and adopting other methods to discourage use.

...

The Commission found that the constitutionality of marijuana prohibition was suspect, and that the executive and legislative branches had a responsibility to obey the Constitution, even in the absence of a court ruling to do so.

...

The Commission also recommended that the distinctions between licit and illicit drugs be dropped, finding that "the use of drugs for pleasure or other non-medical purposes is not inherently irresponsible; alcohol is widely used as an acceptable part of social activities".

The Nixon administration did not implement the study's recommendations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa....

sharonella is a soccer mom?

"Here are some facts about 'medical marijuana' for your consideration:

Marijuana is not medicine."

When a family friend had lung cancer, she used marijuana (illegally and under threat of persecuation) to deal with the side effects of her treatment. While the cancer went on to kill her, she suffered no side effects from the treatment.

"Marijuana is a schedule I drug because it is harmful, addictive and has no accepted medicinal value. Real medicines must be approved by the FDA and have known ingredients, known dosage and known potency. That is not possible with smoke.in any case, but much of the pot being sold in California is laden with pesticides and fungus, and the THC content ranges from 10% to 21% (at Harborview in Oakland), and as high as 37%. Compared to pot 30 years ago when the THC content was .05% to 3%, its like grain alcohol compared to near beer, and there is no way of knowing what is in it."

Lots of things are harmful and addictive. Yes, mainlining pot over a long period of time will take it's toll, just like booze and cigarettes, but we don't arrest people (and we shouldn't arrest people) for abusing those other substances. As far as spraying pot with pesticides, that point is not relevant to pot's value/danger in and of itself. Solution: stop spraying it with pesticides.

What is those of you who are opposed to re-legalizing marijuana are afraid of? (Excuse the preposition at the end of the sentence please)

D-
If it's not, it sure sounds like one. Probably has a bumpersticker about an honor student...

People from Nava's officer keep getting on here, using the same old lies the government keeps telling people about Marijuana to justify his position.

There is medical and scientific studies and proof to show what marijuana can be helpful for. To deny those facts just make you look dumb.

I bet mmender1991 also doesn't believe in evolution, or that we landed on the moon. But I bet he/she can tell us about what Glenn Beck said last night on TV...

No soccer, but I am a mom. Is that term a new pejorative?

Potheads. LOL.

Volcano heads are far more dangerous.

Pedro Nada / Poco Nava . . . Now there was a guy who clawed his way far above his competence level. Glad to see him receding in the rearview mirror.

"How about the random drug tests? A month ago I saw 3 really talented hard workers fired only because they failed the P test for MJ."

Next time you're on a jet airplane, flying high above the clouds (a real airplane, not 420) you might want to reconsider your views on workplace drug testing and why it is important. The reason that planes have such a low rate of disaster cause by mechanical failures is due to just such diligence.

How safe will you feel knowing that 1/2 the crew that did the last maintenance overhaul got stoned at lunch? Keep in mind that just one tiny screw, fastener, of any little thing that is not properly installed will detonate a jet engine if it comes loose.

Pot does not make you perform better. It may make the user "think" he is performing better, but the results do not show that.

Seriously, all the stoners that are jumping on the bandwagon here trying to argue the "medicinal marijuana" angle are ultimately going to completely screw the small percentage of card holders that actually DO have a legitimate "need" for this. Getting stoned does not fit the criteria, THAT is why this will backfire on you.

Cartoonz- How about the fact that The War on Drugs has been a complete failure, and that marijuana is the #3 most used recreational drug? Or that there is a Drug War being fought in Mexico and here, with drug casualties going up every day? To deny the beneficial effects of marijuana to alleviatethe symptoms of any ailment is also ignorant.

Regarding MY experience, opinion, letter:
I am and have been a contributing member of this community for 29 years. I am a former business owner and operator, a devoted volunteer, and an educated, responsible citizen. I am not high. I am not a slacker. I am 51 years old. I have no children. And I do enjoy wine.

I attempted to have a conversation with Mr. Nava, who initially contacted ME via the
internet, with his "Nava News" entitled, "SB Marijuana Dispensary Update", 8 months before he "terms-out".
I am not a journalist, nor am I politically savvy, but I'd like to know... Why we are ignoring the elephant in the room?
Marijuana is not going to go away.
If we maintain that it is a crime for adults to use it recreationally...we force them to find it on the black market, where they will be bankrolling the drug cartels, where the violence loop begins again...more pesticide use?...more crime? more violence?
Prohibition did not work. If marijuana has no place in your life, so be it, but please don't deny to another.
This is not about making it available to children, or having airline pilots fly while under the influence of any mind/body altering substance. This is about fair choices for adults who are in charge of what they put into their bodies.
That should be between each adult individual, and their physician.

As for my "15 minutes of fame", I can only assume that jab is in reference to me stating my full name on my letter. Let me explain why...I have decided to "OUT" myself, and stand up for what I believe in at the risk of judgement by those who don't agree.
I am willing to put a name to my voice, opinion letters, to open myself up for scrutiny on an issue
that I have reason to feel passionate about.
I chose to do this, as most of my peers cannot, fearing the loss of their jobs by "outing" themselves publicly for their views on, or reasons for, using marijuana.

I resent is the twisting of my mission.

I have been moved deeply by the deaths of friends and family due to alcohol and narcotics. Know and love people who suffer with PTSD, anxiety disorders and violent nightmares, who benefit with relief from their emotional/physical anguish, others with gastrointestinal disorders, who's nausea can be kept at bay, these situations are what drives me. My demographic is not fairly represented, due to possible repercussions by those opposed.

Pedro Nava's staff has the freedom to intimate that I am a liar. Adults have the freedom to get high on alcohol and prescription pills...both substances perfectly legal, with lobbyists heavily in the mix, possibly swaying our elected officials votes...but marijuana is the enemy?

This is hypocrisy. In My opinion.

~Jane Gail Copelan

"How safe will you feel knowing that 1/2 the crew that did the last maintenance overhaul got stoned at lunch?"

How safe do you now feel that 40% of the airline maintenance is done overseas in asia, central america and south america where the federal oversight is nil and the workers barely speak let alone read techhnical english?

All so some sloppy bum in shorts and sandels can blow $40 at the bar waiting for his $99 flight to Vegas flown by a union pilot that earns 1/3 the salary of a 28 year old cop in S.B. That pilot has to invest 50K-100K in training just to get the job...the cop invested $0K for his gauranteed 80% pension for life at 52.

You really want to talk about the price of public safety? Bring it on...

BTW random testing started in the late '80s. Show me the stats of all the aircraft crashes caused by stoners prior to then.

Jane Gail Copelan- Still my hero. In AZ we will be legalizing medical marijuana this November (the polls look good) and will probably also be in support of ending prohibition. 1070 isn't about racial discrimination it is about addressing the crime which is getting worse south of us. As long as we provide this cash cow to the underworld, we will continue to see this loop as you mentioned. Ending prohibtion is not the end all but it will help.

Once again Pot was made into the Demon Drug because the Banker Mellon (His son in law was Harry Anslinger the first head of the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs and Narcotics and the creator of Reefer Madness Campaign) Hearst, Weyerhauser and Dupont wanted to do away with Hemp and create the chemical based world we live in today. Just google anyone of the names together with Hemp and learn the truth. THE MORONS that are against marijuana are simply government brainwashed fools and they need to wake up and become educated!

No you are wrong John, because our government would never lie to us.