In comments on the story about my sentence that appeared in the Rapid City Journal today, a comment purported to have come from Stanford Adelstein (and I believe the attribution to be accurate) at 2:10 PM says:
Judge Delaney was absolutely correct. To characterize Newland as an advocate for the legalization of marijuana for MEDICAL purposes is untrue. He is only interested in making marijuana available for his friends and others for recreational purposes, and perhaps financial gain.
I met with him at the Capitol in Room 411, (or maybe 412) during the session to offer, to assist for MEDICAL purposes in a Bill, as Chair of Health and Human Services. I said that I would only do so if there were 3 (three) simple changes in the legislation he was proposing.
1. There would be a required prescription from and MD legally authorized to issue drug prescriptions
2.The prescription could only be given if either there was no FDA drug that would accomplish the same as the marijuana or that drug cost three more times the cost of the pot.
3. The marijuana could only come from one or two sites approved and inspected by the SD Dept of Health
He and his friends in the room flatly rejected all three saying that anyone could grow the stuff for anyone else at any time that it was needed. I walked out of the room, knowing that they had no true interest in the help for people with pain and/or suffering. I of course opposed their bill vigorously and it did not even get to the House floor.
Newland is and should be treated as a common felon. The Judge was correct from stopping his phone posturing, I only wish that it was for more than a single year.
Stan Adelstein, State Senator District 32
What actually happened was that Adelstein came into a room where Pat Lynch, a 40-ish multiple sclerosis sufferer was explaining to a number of legislators how cannabis palliates his condition. Adelstein broke into the conversation rudely, made his three-point announcement (ludicrous on its face) as he states above, then turned and walked out without giving anyone a chance to respond.
The sentence given me by Judge Delaney is tolerable. Having an a**ho** lie about an event as important as that one was is not.
A few years ago, an editorial in the Rapid City Journal recounted an Adelstein statement: "I know the marijuana laws work, because only one of my three sons smoked marijuana. I know because they told me so." Common felon, indeed.
I met with him at the Capitol in Room 411, (or maybe 412) during the session to offer, to assist for MEDICAL purposes in a Bill, as Chair of Health and Human Services. I said that I would only do so if there were 3 (three) simple changes in the legislation he was proposing.
1. There would be a required prescription from and MD legally authorized to issue drug prescriptions
2.The prescription could only be given if either there was no FDA drug that would accomplish the same as the marijuana or that drug cost three more times the cost of the pot.
3. The marijuana could only come from one or two sites approved and inspected by the SD Dept of Health
He and his friends in the room flatly rejected all three saying that anyone could grow the stuff for anyone else at any time that it was needed. I walked out of the room, knowing that they had no true interest in the help for people with pain and/or suffering. I of course opposed their bill vigorously and it did not even get to the House floor.
Newland is and should be treated as a common felon. The Judge was correct from stopping his phone posturing, I only wish that it was for more than a single year.
Stan Adelstein, State Senator District 32
What actually happened was that Adelstein came into a room where Pat Lynch, a 40-ish multiple sclerosis sufferer was explaining to a number of legislators how cannabis palliates his condition. Adelstein broke into the conversation rudely, made his three-point announcement (ludicrous on its face) as he states above, then turned and walked out without giving anyone a chance to respond.
The sentence given me by Judge Delaney is tolerable. Having an a**ho** lie about an event as important as that one was is not.
A few years ago, an editorial in the Rapid City Journal recounted an Adelstein statement: "I know the marijuana laws work, because only one of my three sons smoked marijuana. I know because they told me so." Common felon, indeed.
16 comments:
So does this post count when the judge told you to shut up for a year about medical marijuana?
I was simply refuting a lie, not advocating.
Multiple visits for 12 hours, Pat? That IS creepy.
Bob- be careful my friend. It's a very fine line that you are walking. All it would take is for something you say to be taken out of context. Not everyone loves you as much as we do...
Ya' know..., based solely on principle(s), with some people you just have to shake your head and hope they don't make the cut when the gods, God or Goddess next thin the gene pool.
Time to work smarter Bob.
Thank you for not standing down when it comes to truth. That's about all a worthwhile present or future can be based upon.
Mr. Adelstein more then likely is one of those that prefers taking money from education and using it to build more prisons for his "War on Drugs". I wonder how well that is working for his kids. The parents are the gateway.
If he drinks alcohol, which has been proven to have more health consequences then marijuana, he is a bigot and does not deserve to represent ANYONE.
My wife works at a cancer clinic, a lot of the patients don't have the money to buy Marinol, which costs like $800 a month. They then are forced to find marijuana on the black market, which only enriches the Mexican drug cartels. How embarassing it must be for those 70 and 80 year old patients to have to ask their grand kids to buy them marijuana. Trust me, it happens.
Mr. Adelstein and his cronies are the ones ultimately responsible for the blood shed happening in Mexico. If he was educated at all he would understand how well alcohol prohibition worked out back in the 30's. Of course now that most of our money goes to prisons to house non-violent drug offenders, they probably don't have the money to buy history books that discuss that issue.
Anonymous, good, but ouch.
Easy on the name calling.
Your post works just fine without it and contains important, well reasoned ideas.
But we're not going to get anywhere by anonymously calling each other "bigots," etc.
If you want to state your case with that much vigor, put your name behind it.
People, I'm going to start enforcing a rule (which I am loathe to do, libertarian that I am...)
If you're going to make ad hominem attacks, you must first identify yourself as a "hominem*" yourself.
I will henceforth kill at my sole discretion any personal insults that are posted anonymously or under pseudonym.
And I won't argue about it.
Don't have to.
I hold the delete key, see?
————————————————
* ad hominem is latin for "to the man."
The fact that the senator demanded a "prescription" and not a recommendation is a clear statement that he did not intend for ANYONE to be able to access medical cannabis as it is illegal to write a prescription for medical cannabis. It is however legal for a doctor to " recommend" cannabis. It was a defacto ban and the activists were correct to walk out. As we have seen with Health Canada, government pot is HORRIFICALLY BAD. and couldn't be sold on the streets let alone be used for medical purposes.
so apparently the laws work because only one of three kids smoked it? in percentage that would be 66.6% success rate, which by educational standards set by the local government in my state (Indiana) is a failing percentage? and who's to say his other sons aren't lying to him? seems to me all these laws are blatantly failing
Bill, it's not ad hominem to call a person a bigot when his positions on the issues reveals him to be a bigot.
Debaters debate the two wars as if Nixon’s civil war on Woodstock Nation didn’t yet run amok. One need not travel to China to find indigenous cultures lacking human rights or to Cuba for political prisoners. America leads the world in percentile behind bars, thanks to ongoing persecution of hippies, radicals, and non-whites under banner of the war on drugs. If we are all about spreading liberty abroad, then why mix the message at home? Peace on the home front would enhance credibility.
The witch-hunt doctor’s Rx for prison fodder costs dearly, as lives are flushed down expensive tubes. My shaman’s second opinion is that psychoactive plants are God’s gift. As God witnesses (Gen.1:12), its all good. The administration claims it wants to reduce demand for cartel product, but extraditing Marc Emery increases demand. His seeds enable American farmers to steal cartel customers with better product at lower price.
The constitutionality of the CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) is derived from an interstate commerce clause. This clause is invoked to authorize funding outlaws, endangering homeland security, avoiding tax revenue, and throwing good money after bad. Official policy is to eradicate, not tax, the number-one cash crop in the land. America rejected prohibition, but its back. Apparently, SWAT teams don’t need no stinking amendment.
Nixon promised the Schafer Commission would support the criminalization of his enemies, but it didn’t. No matter, the witch-hunt was on. No amendments can assure due process under an anti-science law without due process itself. Psychology hailed the breakthrough potential of LSD, until the CSA halted all research. Marijuana has no medical use, period.
The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. A specific church membership should not be prerequisite for Americans to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. Denial of entheogen sacrament to any American, for mediation of communion with his or her maker, precludes the free exercise of religious liberty.
Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate any governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? The Puritans came here to escape coerced conformity. Legislators who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.
Common-law must hold that adults own their bodies. Socrates said to know your self. Statutes should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Persons who appreciate their own free choice of path in life should tolerate self-exploration for seekers. Americans’ right to the pursuit of happiness is supposed to be inalienable.
Simple majorities in each house could put repeal of the CSA on the president’s desk. The books have ample law on them without the CSA. The usual caveats remain in effect. You are liable for damages when you screw up. Strong medicine requires prescription. Employees can be fired for poor job performance. No harm, no foul; and no excuse, either. Replace the war on drugs with a frugal, constitutional, science-based drugs policy.
I'd be willing to wager that Antinomian does not live in South Dakota. His kind of thinking -- which is above reproach -- doesn't have much quarter around these parts.
I am disappointed to hear news of Bob Newland being judged as a bad person (felon) by a judge. I am not a "bible-thumper" but in the face of those who are so religiously driven, Romans 3:10 states "There is no one righteous, not even one;". I really enjoyed Barry McCaffrey's comment below.
Prohibition should be illegal.
I am 56 years old, all of my life this nation has been engaged in a war against its own citizens under the guise of a "war on drugs". The government has spent over a trillion dollars on this folly. It has destroyed homes and families, it has reduced tax revenue by imprisoning working people and raised the cost of government by huge amounts by incarceration costs.
A stupider, more worthless policy could not have been deliberately created I am quite sure. I would like to have a government that is reasonable, trustworthy and inexpensive, the drug war precludes all of these attributes.
We cannot help our nation by destroying the lives of its citizens. All pyschoactive drugs should be legal for use by adults who attend a class describing the side-effects and any other obvious dangers as well as signing a waiver resolve everyone other than themselves of any liabilities. Drugs should be regulated for purity and should be taxed and sold through licensed sellers. Sales to minors should incur fines, possible jail time and revocation of licenses.
Such drugs were legal in this country until the madness of the 20th century and its yellow journalism scapegoated minorities and others for purposes of private agendas.Drugs were never criminalized because of harm, they were criminalized to make the laws tools of control over minorities and other groups feared or exploited by the ruling class.
We no longer have the economic luxury of imprisoning everyone we don't like. Lets clear out the political prisoners and make room for violent and dangerous criminals and lets allow all our citizens the freedom our founding fathers enjoyed.
Prohibition will always fail, lets make prohibition illegal and lets get this country back on its feet again.
Barry McCaffrey of DC
Posted at: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/06/15/drug-dealers-secrets-revealed-in-justice-department-reports.html#3127005
Bob, you really should become an anonymous poster. Stop using your real name. I KNOW you were only refuting a lie, not advocating reform (we all know about the gag order, even though it is blatantly unconstitutional) I don't want to read how the judge tossed you in jail. There are enough of us out here to keep up the fight, just stay safe Bob.
Hello Bob;
It is good to hear from you, and I am glad that you are well and eloquent.
Please understand that what I am about to say comes from a friend, and not someone trying to still your voice:
"Be very careful about what you write on the internet."
I don't know if you have appealled this stupid sentence yet, but even assuming that you have, you are still free only under its conditions until a higher court has overruled this judge. I want you to be very careful what you say while under the conditions imposed by this sentence, as I fear the prohibitionists will goad you into what this obviously bigotted and prejudiced judge will regard as "making marijuana advocacy statements," and impose a really vicious sentence on you. This asshole Senator obviously confuses his own body parts and farts when he makes political statements. But these prohibitionists are very clever about laying traps for activists, all the while posturing as lenient, understanding, and kind establishment figures. Don't play into their game, and avoid traps that they set for you. You are important, and they know it. You will be far better able to help our cause out of jail than in it. Prohibitionists are ruthlessly malignant, and they will not forget you, and will continue to try and hurt you or reimprison you long after your sentence has expired. They will send snitches to try and buy from you. They will eavesdrop on your conversations and communications. They will follow you and spy on you. They will do anything to silence you, and have shown that already. They are truly evil, and will never repent.
Yeah, my disillusionment set in long ago, and I know yours is yet to be totally fulfilled. I just wish you the best, and hope that you think before you react. I have been where you are, mostly. I have said before that your sentence is wrong and unconstitutional, and that the judge cannot sentence anyone to political silence. It is true that all speech is not free, but speech about the law is always free, and I think your case is very important in determining the limits of a judge to impose such a sentence.
I hope things are going well for you. I help you as much as I can, and will continue to do so, but I am far away. Hang in there, if you appealled, you should be able to get a stay on the execution of the sentence. But talk with a lawyer, and get all the help from NORML, ASA, and anyone else that you can, to stay out of jail and to avoid more contact with this judge. A lot of people are on your side, and your case will bring more people on your side.
But be patient. And be careful. The prohibitionists are still very powerful, and very wrong and bad.
Hello Bob, I agree on discretion on the internet. But would like to know how you are and the overall sentence has clipped your wings. Ummm I bet not much. Also as someone mentioned being so far from the center--how can one help from across the states? Candy from Michigan
Post a Comment