The High Priest of Medical Marijuana The Foundry / Cully Stimson / 10,8,2010 If you ever wondered about some of the people behind the marijuana legalization movement, you need not look any further than Ed Rosenthal and Richard Cowan to see how disingenuous arguments are used to advance a broader agenda. Rosenthal (former editor of High Times Magazine) and Cowan (former Director of NORML - the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) realized a long time ago that in order to achieve full legalization of marijuana throughout the United States, they would have to invent a “scam†(their words) to get people to see marijuana in a whole new light. That “scam†was the passage of “medical marijuana†laws in as many states as possible. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccjLM4-4U2k&feature=player_embedded"]VIDEO[/ame] Don't believe me? Then watch this video (above) where they say exactly that. As we detailed in our recently published research paper, “Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No,†marijuana is dangerous, not at all like alcohol, is addictive, and legalization will result in a myriad of unintended but predictable consequences, including increased usage by minors, additional drug trafficking by criminal syndicates and an increase in crime. We also noted that California's Prop 19 (November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana) is flawed, fails to address the practical problems of implementation, fails to address the fact that federal law prohibits marijuana production, distribution and possession, and is based on flawed claims regarding the amount of tax revenue it would raise. Predictably, pro-legalization activists howled at our comprehensive and detailed report, most likely because it contained facts that rebutted each and every claim they have been peddling for years. Now, major California newspapers have all come out against Prop 19, echoing various aspect of our research paper. The Los Angeles Times' first political endorsement of the 2010 cycle was an editorial against Prop 19. The Times opposes Prop 19 because it is “so poorly thought out, badly crafted and replete with loopholes and contradictions,†and is “an invitation to chaos.†They point out, as we did that “Californians cannot legalize marijuana,†and in doing so they would “set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government that might not end well for the state.†The Times' editors must have read our paper (published 11 days earlier), where we said: “Yet even if California could act as if it were an island, the legalization route would still end very badly for the Golden State.†Similarly, the San Francisco Chronicle editorialized against Prop 19 (“seriously flawed initiative,†“invite legal chaos,†“fail to deliver its promised economic benefitsâ€), as did the Sacramento Bee (“does not set statewide standards on taxationâ€). Opposition to legalization is clearly not a partisan issue. The current Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske, and five other former Directors who served in the Clinton and both Bush administrations recently opined in the Los Angeles Times against Prop 19 about why Californians should just say no. Every single head of the Drug Enforcement Administration opposes Prop 19, as they recently opined in the Wall Street Journal. Politicians of all stripes are against Prop 19, including California Attorney General Jerry Brown, Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and virtually all other candidates for public office in California. The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement opposes Prop 19, pointing out that although they are “concerned about disparities in sentencing and treatment in the criminal justice system,†legalizing marijuana is not the cure. Virtually every law enforcement organization in the Golden State opposes legalization and Prop 19. Pro-legalization activists have touted the “expected†$1.4 billion in tax revenue California would receive were Prop 19 passed. However, the state office charged with estimating the expected tax revenue gained from any law recently reversed itself and now says that is “not possible to estimate the potential revenue gain†from Prop 19. Why? Because, as we carefully and methodically pointed out in our research paper, there is no statewide regulatory framework in the act. Implicit in their revised position is that, given the fact that residents are authorized to grow marijuana themselves, there is simply no way of knowing how many people will actually buy marijuana from the state-authorized store-where they will pay a state sales tax on top of the cost for the product. In other words, their “taxing pot will raise revenues†argument has gone up in smoke. Finally, The Glaucoma Foundation recently released a statement, based on research, that “medical experts believe that marijuana could actually prove harmful for glaucoma patients.†Dr. James Tsai, Chairman of the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science at Yale University School of Medicine stated, “We are afraid that people will self-treat their glaucoma with marijuana…They think that even if this unconventional therapy doesn't work, it can't possibly hurt their disease. However, studies suggest that it might in fact be damaging.†The reason, according to the Foundation, is that marijuana only lowers pressure in the eye for several hours, requiring patients to medicate day and night. “Failing to do so can lead to a rebound spike in eye pressure, which can be damaging.†So, it looks Rosenthal and Cowan are having a harder time than they thought enacting their “scam.†XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX For the rebuttal of the above article: The Heritage Foundation: A Last Refuge For Reefer Madness?
Richard Cowans response to the above article: To the Heritage Foundation: Richard Cowan responds to “The High Priest of Medical Marijuana†by Charles “Cully†D. Stimson. October 12, 2010 I am the Richard Cowan cited in this absurd posting. And yes, I am very proud to say that I was once the National Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). However, there are two more facts about me that I would like Heritage readers to know before addressing the substance of the issue. First, I am also a founding member of Young Americans for Freedom, and like most of the founders, I was – and still am – a libertarian. I do not now nor have I ever thought that freedom is a “scamâ€, nor do I believe that lying is either necessary or acceptable in the struggle against the omnipotent state. Second, I am also the author of an article, “THE TIME HAS COME: ABOLISH THE POT LAWSâ€, published in the December 6, 1972 issue of National Review. Bill Buckley said, “â€I flatly agree with him.†In fact, Bill wrote very frequently in support of legalization over the years. Something else he said makes a point that Heritage completely misses: “One of the problems that the marijuana-reform movement consistently faces is that everyone wants to talk about what marijuana does, but no one ever wants to look at what marijuana prohibition does. Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.†Was Buckley a part of this “scamâ€? And what about George Shultz? Or Milton Friedman? Or most of the current editors of National Review, and many other prominent conservatives? Or Ron Paul? Or do you prefer the company of Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama? Now for the substance of the charge that in 1993 I said that medical marijuana or legalization or whatever is a “scamâ€: What would it prove, if I really had said that? It would seem to me that it would prove nothing more than that I was – perhaps still am – both evil enough to tell a dumb lie and stupid enough to announce it as such in public. In short, the video proves nothing whatsoever about either medical marijuana or legalization, but I think it does prove something about the profound intellectual dishonesty of anyone who would try to use it for that purpose. History: At a conference on medical marijuana and LSD (about which I had no comment) I was asked whether NORML, which was founded with the stated goal of ending marijuana prohibition, had abandoned that objective and was only working for medical marijuana. My answer was intended to reassure everyone that our goal had not changed, and to explain how I thought that proving the value of medical marijuana would help us. As I said, having marijuana used by a large number of people under clinical supervision would refute the “reefer madness†prohibitionist propaganda that supported the massive state violence inherent in the “Drug War.†Of course, I had clearly under estimated the intellectual dishonesty of people like Mr. Stimson. These conferences are always open to the public, so apparently someone from a prohibitionist group, probably Mel Sembler's Drug Free America Foundation was there with a camera. (I assume that is where you got the video. Google: ‘Mel Sembler' + ‘Straight Incorporated', and then re-reread what Buckley said.) Shortly after the conference the statist propaganda mills began to claim that I had said that medical marijuana is a “scam.†Oddly, even the heavily edited version of the video does not support that interpretation. If one listens closely, I said that the “whole scam will be blown.†? Would I really dumb enough to say that our position is a “scam†and then say it will be “blownâ€? And then we are supposed to clever enough to pull off the scam??? Of course, thanks to the editing you cannot hear me saying in the next sentence, “I mean what we know is that marijuana prohibition is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people…†If that seems hyperbolic, consider that 17 years later a prominent think tank that claims to be “based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense†is still pushing third rate collectivist propaganda based on dishonest editing and absurd arguments in support of a disastrous scam that undermines individual freedom, blocks scientific research, destroys the political stability of a vital neighbor, circumvents property rights and due process, funds terrorists, and subverts the rule of law. And you call yourselves “Conservativesâ€? -Richard Cowan
Terrific rebuttal. It's just a shame that no matter how logical and well-thought out legalization is, those who are opposed turn a blind eye to all rational argument, and still base their viewpoints on the same fallacies and lies we've heard repeated over and over, even while being disproved. One of the things that angers me quite a bit is all this tea party for the people, what the people want bullshit. If that's there party standpoint then WHEN prop 19 passes in California they should stand firmly behind it, as the people have spoken what they want. Get out and vote if your in California, do not pass up this moment of opportunity, and do not let the rest of us Americans down!