High times or high crimes? April 27, 2004 12:00 am
By Brian Baer fredericksburg.com Tom Aylesworth said the stupidest thing he ever did was also the most cathartic.
It was five years ago, and a casual friend had gone to Southeast D.C. to buy a small amount of marijuana.
Dana Griffin got caught between rival gang gunfire, and a shotgun blast left him dead.
Aylesworth was outraged.
"I was like, 'This is friggin' ridiculous!' He was going to buy some pot and got shot in the chest and died."
The next day, Aylesworth decided to "come out of the closet," a phrase he uses to equate private drug-users with homosexuals who go public.
He fired off an e-mail to everyone in his address book: his parents, his in-laws, his friends, his co-workers.
The marijuana laws are unjust, and "by the way, I've been smoking pot since I was 15," he wrote.
"It was cathartic," said Aylesworth, 36, of Fredericksburg. "And I was just tired of hiding it."
Besides sending the e-mail, Aylesworth called up the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. He volunteered to run the group's Web site.
No longer NORML’s Webmaster, Aylesworth nonetheless was among a couple of hundred folks who turned out for the group’s national conference in Washington over the weekend.
To be fair, plenty of groups highlight what they say are the harmful effects of marijuana.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse, for instance, notes that smoking pot may lead to decreased memory and slower learning; increase a smoker's risk of a heart attack; lead to respiratory illness; and reduce the user's immune system, among other side affects.
Not surprisingly, those at the NORML conference came with very different views.
The gathering included about 15 wheel-chair bound folks who want to legalize marijuana to ease their medical conditions; dozens of college students, including a busload of 40 who came up from six Florida schools; dozens more older recreational users; and a smattering of civil libertarians who believe banning pot violates Americans’ constitutional rights.
Each group hopes to benefit from the other.
"The medicinal issue is going to be the wedge issue," said Robert Ablon, 34, of Oakland, Calif. He, himself, is a recreational user.
"We’re going to force you to arrest cancer patients."
The NORML folks seemed to unnerve not only the hotel management, but also young folks attending a nearby meeting of the Center for the Study for the Presidency, designed to turn out tomorrow’s leaders.
Besides NORML officers, others dropped by to address—and appeal to—supporters of marijuana-law reform.
Gary Nolan, billed as the leading Libertarian Party candidate for president, delivered such crowd-pleasing lines as:
"Like me, you would probably like to send the DEA to Guam" and "Let's end this war on drugs!"
On Thursday, NORML members lobbied members of Congress to consider easing marijuana laws.
A spokesman for Rep. Frank Wolf said members of his staff did meet with a NORML member on Thursday, but that co-sponsoring any marijuana reform laws isn't something high on the Virginia congressman's radar.
"It's too hypothetical to answer that," said Dan Scandling, a spokesman for Wolf. "You don't know what it's going to look like and in what form or anything like that," he said.
Back at the conference Friday, attendees perused booths where they learned about NORML’s "Cannabis Cruise" aboard the "SS Love."
They munched on chocolate-covered hemp pretzels.
And they met like-minded folks who came to pitch their own pet causes.
Amanda Phillips, 31, of Burlington, Mass., is an accounting manager for a company that manages nursing homes and extended-living facilities.
In her free time, she's also the president of a group called the Free State Project, which advocates—among other issues—everyone's right to smoke pot.
"This is my volunteer side show," she joked.
The group's goal is to persuade 20,000 people to move to New Hampshire.
"The state motto is 'Live Free or Die,' " she pointed out.
"We want to create a similar government with less infringement on all aspects of people's lives," she said. "It's a chance to put my ideals into action and to live what we believe."
Like Phillips, each person came with her own story.
Alex Franco, 25, of San Francisco has a career you won't find advertised on monster.com.
"I'm a cannabis provider," she explained.
Although it's illegal, she said, she feels compelled to ease the pain of those who suffer from such ailments as cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis.
"The most common misconception is that there's no benefit," she said.
Franco suffers from degenerative disc disease and said legal pain killers and muscle relaxers leave her unable to function. With pot, she said, she can ease her pain and still lead a normal life.
Jim Miller's wife was once the country's most public face of medicinal marijuana use.
Cheryl Miller, who had MS for 31 years, was perhaps best known for eating marijuana in the office of U.S. Rep. Jim Rogan in March 1998.
Her husband continues to attend NORML conventions, where he's stopped by other supporters of medicinal pot.
"This is why we do what we do," Miller said Friday.
Gary Stork, 49, of Madison, Wis., said he accidentally discovered the benefits of marijuana as a teenager.
He was born with glaucoma and faced the possibility of losing his sight.
He smoked pot before visiting a doctor in 1972 and realized his eyes were in better shape than usual.
"I made the connection that day that I could save my eyesight," he said. "I just turned 49 and I'm not blind, and I would have been if I had not found marijuana."
Andrew Looney was 30 when he came home with a memo that shocked his wife, Kristen. A NASA scientist, he had written down that he wanted to try marijuana to see if it boosted his creativity.
"In school, I was such an anti-drug teetotaler that it's amazing I've become the stoner that I am," said Looney, a couple of minutes after smoking a joint in his hotel room.
Looney said his creativity and energy have soared since he started using marijuana ten years ago.
He and his wife now run a successful game company, and Looney said he's created his best work while high.
"Nancy Reagan cost me 10 years of being a stoner," he said very seriously. "Think what I could have done with those 10 years?"
Aylesworth, the Fredericksburg resident, said the convention shatters the stereotype that pot burns brain cells and endangers society.
He said he makes about $100,000 a year as a computer consultant.
"I'm a complete pothead and I have a good job," he said.
After he wrote his email in 1999, his wife's parents stopped talking to them for about a year. Other than that, few people blinked.
"Everybody agrees with it, " Aylesworth said. "But they're afraid to talk about it."
On the War Issue, a Vote for Kerry is a Vote for Bush
On the War Issue, a Vote for Kerry is a Vote for Bush Most authentic dissent comes from outside the mainstream press and the two major parties. While FoxNews has glorified the carnage in Iraq, news sources such as Antiwar.com and Counterpunch have pointed out the war’s inherent evils. While Bush and Kerry have advanced the same foreign policy, pretending to disagree, Libertarian candidate Aaron Russo has harshly criticized both alumni of Skull and Bones for their participation in creating the Patriot Act and Iraq War, and has warned that there is bipartisan support for the reintroduction of mandatory service (i.e., a draft).
Many Americans complain that there’s too much partisanship in our country, especially considering the crises we face. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Democrats and Republicans both voted overwhelmingly for the Patriot Act and the War on Iraq, and their only differences now break down to superficial arguments over minute details.
The mainstream media portray the nearly identical platforms of Bush and Kerry as polar opposites, and many Americans swallow this misconception. Republican hawks don’t like facing reality any more than Democratic doves, and yet they do so accidentally sometimes. Many pro-war conservatives have resorted to the argument that we should not fault Bush for his false claims about the threat of Saddam’s WMD, because Kerry made such claims himself. Since even Kerry backed the war, how could it be wrong? Strangely enough, though, while Kerry’s similarities to Bush on the war issue supposedly help to vindicate the Republican president, many Republicans still lash out at Kerry for being too soft on terrorists.
Bush defenders also like to point out that Clinton waged wars. They are correct, but they defy reason when they imply that Clinton’s undeclared, illegal wars – which some of today’s conservative hawks rightly opposed in the 1990s – give license to Bush to wage illegal wars on his own.
By accurately pointing out the hypocrisy of their opponents while concealing their own, Republicans and Democrats distract us from the fact that presidents of both parties start wars that wreak havoc and run counter to American interests. Unable to condemn unnecessary wars with a straight face, they have reduced mainstream debate over war to meaningless bickering.
[More:]
Perhaps the worst distraction has been the excessive discussion of the United Nations. The War on Iraq was unjust and unnecessary, and the Democrats’ common argument that Bush should have gotten UN approval is totally bogus. If a country does have a legitimate need to defend itself, it should not matter what the UN says. Likewise, an aggressive war like the one on Iraq would not have been any more civilized or benevolent if the UN had approved it. Indeed, a UN rubberstamp may have served to widen the war and violence by involving more countries that instead chose to avoid it.
Even those who champion the UN should not favor John Kerry on that basis. The senator supported the use of force against Iraq, even without UN approval, back in 1997, and he certainly did not make UN approval a condition for the blank check he voted to give Bush to go to war.
Although some accuse Kerry of waffling on foreign policy, the candidate has been as consistent a warmonger as Bush. Both men said before the war that Saddam posed a threat, and they both say now that regardless of the veracity of those pre-war claims, the United States needs to finish the job by sending thousands of fresh new troops.
The following vague, and yet clearly ambitious, foreign policy statement from Kerry has nothing in it Bush and the neo-conservatives would find distasteful:
"Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security."
"Principled diplomacy"? Sounds like the Coalition of the Willing. "Undoubted military might"? I think our president would concur. Focusing "not just on the immediate and imminent"? Bush would probably agree with that.
"Denial of democracy"? Bush would certainly say "our commitment to democracy is tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come."
How about Kerry’s view that the U.S. government should go around fighting "epidemic disease" in the world because it’s a "vital issue of our own national security"? Bush would surely say "we have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa. And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do."
When everything is seriously considered, Bush and Kerry have only one difference on the issues of war and peace between them: Bush thinks he should stay president, while Kerry disagrees because he wants the job himself.
Republicans and Democrats have long used the war issue to deceive their constituencies into thinking there are differences between them. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson claimed that Barry Goldwater would ignite an all-out war against Vietnam. After Johnson became president and sent tens of thousands of Americans to their deaths in Vietnam, Richard Nixon posed as the peace candidate in 1968.
In the last three administrations, we have seen George Bush I go to war with Iraq and invade Panama. We have seen Bill Clinton bomb Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. We have seen Bush II, not to be outdone, bomb Afghanistan and Iraq even more. Few politicians from either party provide substantive dissent because they all realize the precedents set empower them to make war in the future. Genuinely antiwar politicians on the national level such as Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich have little influence in their respective parties.
Most authentic dissent comes from outside the mainstream press and the two major parties. While FoxNews has glorified the carnage in Iraq, news sources such as Antiwar.com and Counterpunch have pointed out the war’s inherent evils. While Bush and Kerry have advanced the same foreign policy, pretending to disagree, Libertarian candidate Aaron Russo has harshly criticized both alumni of Skull and Bones for their participation in creating the Patriot Act and Iraq War, and has warned that there is bipartisan support for the reintroduction of mandatory service (i.e., a draft). Independent Ralph Nader has followed suit, finally investing as much energy into opposing the mass-killing in Iraq as he does in his whining about ATM fees and the size of SUVs.
Some say a vote for a third party is a vote for Bush, and that Kerry would actually be marginally better than Bush and might not invade other countries – even though the Democrat says he faults Bush only for "not doing enough" in the War on Terrorism. Others say Kerry is worse and doves should vote for Bush, even though the Republican has waged more war than any president since Nixon.
In truth, the two men have the same exact positions. Insofar as the presidential election will be a referendum on the last four years of American foreign policy, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush. Whichever of them wins in November, peace-loving Americans will lose as we unwillingly continue down the bloody path of Empire.
Doves should therefore spend their energy moving our culture away from its irrational faith in war, rather than wasting time trying to keep one hawk or the other out of office.
Anthony Gregory [send him mail] is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California. He earned his bachelor’s degree in history at UC Berkeley, where he was president of the Cal Libertarians. He is an intern at the Independent Institute and has written for Rational Review, Strike the Root, the Libertarian Enterprise, and Antiwar.com. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.
Are you frustrated at the loss of freedom and responsibility in America, while the growth of government and taxes continues unabated? Do you want to live in strong communities where your rights are respected, and people exercise responsibility for themselves and in their dealings with each other?
If you answered "yes" to those questions, then the Free State Project has a solution for you.
What the Free State Project is... The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.
When you sign our Statement of Intent, you signal your commitment to move to the chosen free state, New Hampshire, within five years of obtaining 20,000 members who also promise to move. The more signatures we get, the more secure people can be in their decision to move, because they know that many other people will also be moving— enough to make a real difference! You don't have to wait until we have 20,000 signatures to move, of course, but that option is there to let you be more secure in your decision.
What the Free State Project is not... We are not a political action organization. We are not tied to any political party or organization; we do not run candidates for election, we do not financially support or endorse candidates, and we do not oppose or endorse legislation. All these things will be done by friendly organizations with which many Free Staters are involved.
There's no better place for freedom-loving Americans than New Hampshire... New Hampshire was the state chosen by signed FSP participants in a vote that took place in August and September 2003. It was chosen because it has the lowest state and local tax burden in the continental U.S., the second-lowest level of dependence on federal spending in the U.S., a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889, the lowest crime levels in the U.S., a dynamic economy with plenty of jobs and investment, and a culture of individual responsibility indicated by, for example, a lack of seatbelt and helmet requirements for adults.
If you're interested... Please consider signing the Statement of Intent, participating in our message board, or just signing up for our bimonthly e-mail newsletter. If you would like to help us advertise and promote our mission, please consider making a donation.
April 20, 2004 Russo Blasts GOP Call For Military Draft
In the first public display of bi-partisan congressional sentiment for conscription, US Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today floated the idea of a draft to address the deteriorating military situation in Iraq. "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He holds that conscription would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."
The spectre of conscription has loomed over Washington for months, despite denials from the Bush administration that a draft was under consideration.
With re-enlistment rates plummeting and recruitment flat, the administration has quietly begun staffing Selective Service boards. US commanders in Iraq have called for an immediate deployment of 10,000 additional troops to bolster the American occupation, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has announced his intention to expand the Army by 30,000 next year, with no details as to how.
Democrats have been calling for conscription with a slightly louder voice for more than a year, receiving round condemnation from Republican legislators until now. US Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) and US Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) introduced a draft bill in early 2003 which remains in committee. US Senator Hillary Clinton, in a March 25th speech at the Brookings Institution, referred to a volunteer military as "inadequate."
Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (D-MA), called for "mandatory national service" on his campaign web site until last week, when Libertarian presidential candidate Aaron Russo's highlighting of the issue embarrassed him into removing the language.
"A Washington Times reporter called me, asking where Kerry's use of the word 'mandatory' existed on his web site. I looked and it was gone. We have collected a Google cache proving it once existed, and will be posting it on our web site soon," commented Russo spokesperson Stephen Gordon.
"This isn't speculative," Russo says. "The draft is coming. Republicans and Democrats have been trying to put off the public discussion until after the November elections, but there's no doubt that the American people will be threatened with conscription by the end of this year."
Independent candidate Ralph Nader joined Russo in opposing the draft last week in a press release aimed at American students. "Young Americans need to know that a train is coming," said Nader, "and it could run over their generation."
Russo greeted Hagel's trial balloon, and Nader's engagement of the issue with enthusiasm. "For six months now, I've been telling Americans about the coming draft, and the Republicans and Democrats have denied it out of one side of their mouths while talking around it with the other. It's coming, and it's time we had a real public discussion about it. If Bush and Kerry want this issue to go away, all they have to do is make clear, public pledges that there will be no draft."
Russo's campaign web site (www.russoforpresident.com)features an anti-draft petition which has collected thousands of signatures.
"The question is this simple," Russo says. "Should the government have the power to take our sons and daughters, against their will, in order to rescue themselves from the situation they themselves brought about with an immoral, unwinnable war? The answer is no. The war in Iraq was a mistake a year ago, and it's a mistake today. Not one more drop of American blood to save our politicians from their own wrong-headed policies."
"Americans have always responded in their country's time of need. If this war was justifiable, the recruiting offices would have lines around the block of young men and women eager to serve. The fact that they don't should tell our politicians that it's time to re-think what they're doing. But the draft? No. It's not right and it can't be allowed to happen."
And with both "major" parties now on record as supporting conscription? "That just shows how disconnected from reality the Democrats and Republicans are," says Russo. "And it demonstrates the clear necessity of electing a president to this November who will put the nation back on the path to peace and prosperity."
Aaron on Howard Stern Show - audio file Howard Stern to Aaron Russo: "I want you as president."
The audio from Aaron's appearance on the Howard Stern Show last Friday is online for your listening pleasure.
It's 13 minutes long, and available as an MP3 file here: http://russoforpresident.com/audio/russostern-4-2.mp3" title="http://russoforpresident.com/audio/russostern-4-2.mp3" target="_blank"http://russoforpresident.com/...
Beware that the Howard Stern Show is reputed for being lewd and rude, and the interview does inevitably get steered in that direction for a short while. The rest of it is really good stuff, though.
Howard and co-host Robin Quivers were very friendly and supportive of Aaron. While Howard still maintains that he is going to support Kerry to ensure Bush's removal, he made it clear that likes Aaron as a candidate-- witness the quote that led off this entry. Stern appears to have left room to be persuaded, and he ended with "Let me think about it."
One solid thing that came from the interview was Stern conceding that the country was heading toward becoming a police state, and that neither Bush nor Kerry are going to do anything to change that. And he also acknowledged that neither Bush nor Kerry would stand up for his right to free speech, nor tame the out-of-control FCC. So there are clearly grounds for a continuing discussion with Howard Stern and his 10 million or so fiercely loyal listeners.
With that in mind, Aaron has asked that you all write to the Stern Show and request that they have him on as a guest again sometime soon-- or even better, on a repeated basis (how does once a week sound?)
The address to write to is sternshow@howardstern.com. It's probably a good idea to put Aaron's name in the subject line somewhere, in case they don't get around to reading all their e-mail individually. As always when contacting the media, be polite and appreciative, please. Thanks for your help!
