DrugWarRant is a site promoting legalization. It doesn't seem to work that way, though, as Pete Guither won't let people post relevant topics to the atrocities of the drug war.

Hope his friends don't find this nice place.

I'm glad someone else noticed that, too. Have you seen the Drug Policy Alliance site? It's the same thing! They're the ones behind Prop 36, but they're from New York or something! That's right, they're not even Californians! And Prop 36 isn't retro, so it doesn't do anything at all for the Californians it's supposed to be for.

They won't let you post relevant things there, either. They play their delete key more than anything else on the keyboard.

Guither and Nadelmann. Birds of a feather.

If I'm not mistaken, DPA was originally a west coast operation that merged with the NYC Lindesmith center sometime back in the late nineties, and that's how they got the east coast address.

DPA gives out the 'Dove of Drug Peace' buttons (I've got one somewhere from the old NM rep).

And nobody had EVER heard of 'marijuana addiction' or 'treatment' for it before this court-ordered 'rehabilitation' instead of incarceration method was used.

Still, I'm waiting for that mythical creature to show up (the person who realized they were 'addicted' to marijuana and found they needed to pay for a program to stop (not sent by court or mom and dad).

http://dpalliance.org

I'm sure both Guither and Nadelmann/Piper have done great things for legalization and medical treatment, but both have used such unethical tactics they've jeopardized whatever it was that they were doing.

Both sites delete truth about their respective topics (DPA will not make Prop 36 retro nor listen to any arguments for it. They delete what they don't like), and have become commercialized. The posters on Guither's site are concerned with profits and mocking and humiliating other persons concerned with legalization. That's self-centered and self-interest. Nall changes her story constantly.

I don't know. If they find Ukiah you're all wasted up there.

"The posters on Guither's site are concerned with profits and mocking and humiliating other persons concerned with legalization."

What? How would people "profit" from Guither's site? If there's a way to make money commenting on a drug policy blog, please do enlighten us. As for Guither, I doubt his google ads even pay for his coffee. I feel like there's some sort of misunderstanding here.

stdw wrote:

What? How would people "profit" from Guither's site?

Loretta Nall running for office, for one. DPA's Prop 36 is so exclusionary; you hear the proponents speaking of "not caring about the older ones," just focusing on the younger generation of non-violent offenders. But the older generation's experiences with unlicensed rehabs are what brought Prop 36 about. Unlicensed treatment is a real horror, the stories are real and many of these persons are still lost in the system or been on the street for decades. If Prop 36 was retro, then the malpractice of unlicensed treatment would end for these. But the DPA is uncaring of what went before, no money to be made in these bums.

You can even see the ignorance of the true situation by the posts on their blog. These people ask for a lot of money in donations, yet they (or some of "they," anyway) don't even know what they're talking about.

Profit through ignorance is still profit.

I don't like either one of those sites, myself.

What is a "Ukiah"?

And why do its denizens think that hate and division are ways to change bad laws?

Ukiah. Sounds like something in an intestine that won't allow the victim to get off the toilet.

aahpat wrote:

What is a "Ukiah"

I have no doubt it is an ancient Native American name that can't be made fun of due to sensitive relations with the Pomos. It might infringe on their right to smoke cannabis in their religious ceremonies.

The fact that the state's ADP Prop 36 website originally listed a federal Native American agency as supporting Prop 36, when actually the feds have been studiously against California's 215 related legislation and didn't know anything about Prop 36 or why they were listed on the site, could be an example of the tactics the DPA has used to pass its laws. No one knows what they're doing as they're lying or, at least, using unethical practices to deceive you, the voter and potential donor.

It's all really happened and it's part of a much bigger rip-off. Real bummer, dude.

well...

You most certainly can post at Mr. Guither's DWR. You want to talk drug policy?... come on over.

However should you want to talk drug policy with... oh... say the ONDCP... fuggedaboutit. Want to talk to PDFA. DFAF, DAMMAD or any of the anti-drug/pro drug war sites... fuggedaboutit, ya can't cause there is no discussion.

Drug policy reform has many faces, many orgs. Want a different perspective? Try LEAP - http://www.leap.cc/ - these guys and gals are veterans of the drug war, frontline perspectives.

And if you don't like the DPA, don't support 'em.

What are you people talking about? Anyone can post to Pete Guither's site or the DPA blog.

No legitimate posts are taken down, but people argue with the trolls (there was one named Jake, IIRC) as long as the trolls want to argue.

Nothing different than if you went on, say, FreeRepublic and started praising Nancy Pelosi and gay hippies from San Fran who want to get married. Actually, that's a bad analogy, because chances are "liberal"-leaning posts *would* be taken down on Free Republic or Little Green Footballs, just like what you're (wrongly) accusing DWR and DPA for doing.

Actually, if you want to see sites where you can't post AT ALL and no feedback is allowed, try the "official" government propaganda sites run by the "health" agencies and ONDCP (White House "drug czar"), like pushingback.com or abovetheinfluence.com . Those don't allow ANY feedback to be posted, unless you e-mail them a question and they choose to answer it. There has NEVER been anything posted from drug law reformers or legalizers on the official government "antidrug" websites.

What's going on in Ukiah, BTW? Did someone put something in the water up there that has you folks riled up?

jackl wrote:

What's going on in Ukiah, BTW? Did someone put something in the water up there that has you folks riled up?

See? It's too late now.

And Jake wasn't really a troll, he was just a poster who disagreed with the site's stance on the drug war. They had a whole thread devoted to Jake and his detractors.

But they're not from California, and as they're a long way away, the harm that's befallen many people here since 215's been passed isn't important to them. And Guither does delete posts that he doesn't like, and his site's monitors won't let certain topics get posted. Same as DPA.

But it's too late now. So sorry for you people up there.

Loretta Nall is trying to change things in Alabama
IMHO that makes her a hero. All the stories are true the rednecks here don't like change, hippies,
minorities, women who call them out. They don't have too many murders here just lots of missing people. She is braver than anybody in this cause for what she's doing in this part of the country and we shouold all support her any way we can.

auggie wrote:

Loretta Nall is trying to change things in Alabama
IMHO that makes her a hero.

Loretta Nall says that she'd "rather prostitute" herself before she'd take any government aid. This from a woman who bases her political stance on cannabis legalization.

Maybe she misses what the whole legalization movement is about, what the stigma of marijuana use is with the "rednecks." Or maybe she isn't familiar with the attempts to disenfranchise students from student financial aid if they've had drug convictions. Maybe Nall just isn't there where she's supposed to be.

I wouldn't want to see any of my family members having to prostitute themselves because they were afraid of asking their government for assistance. I wouldn't want my child to miss a chance at higher education because he or she got framed in a drug bust when younger. I wouldn't want to be represented by someone who would sell her body to the highest bidder. I don't make that much money, I know that bidder wouldn't be me.

Nall has foreign ideas for domestic politics. She's not Californian, and her statements prove it. She's not in contact with the drug legalization controversy, and she's a good example of what frequents Guither's site.

End of story, dude. This is California.

No... dude... THIS is the wwweb. As in World Wide. YOU may be in Ukiah, but HERE is virtually everywhere.

And Pete Guither runs his blog all by his lonesome. No "monitors" as someone above stated.

As usual with anti-drug nuts (comparable to anti-gun nuts) y'all can only bash the reform community and can never actually debate the issues. Probably because it is sooo hard to defend the multi-failed policies of Drug Prohibition.

So what do we call the ronin potheads who come here to pokey ol' Ukiah to post?

Are you guys "Freefers"?

;)

[QUOTE who="ohmy
And Pete Guither runs his blog all by his lonesome. No "monitors" as someone above stated.[/QUOTE]

"Cali?" Guither calls California "Cali?" I didn't think that Guither was Hispanic. "Cali's" a word that's used by Hispanics for the state; I've never heard a white man use it. If "Cali" is used on Guither's site, does that mean he talks like that or he farms his work out?

We're talking on the world wide web. If you don't live in Ukiah, you don't vote in Ukiah. If you don't live in California, you don't vote in California. If you're imported to California to vote and buy land, then you're a jerk.

Until you give the state back to your Mexican friends, it's "California," not "Cali."

sorry, cvft, your reply quoted me but... it wasn't me. I never said "Cali"

And as far as Hispanic terms for California, in Spanglish it would be "Califas"... if you say Sacramento you're using Spanish. Ya ever eat salsa? You're eating it. Half the place names in your state (and I am a former resident of CA) are Spanish words.

And I'm a white man and danged if I won't say "Cali" if so moved. I'm sorry your social circle has remained so small.

Now I've said "Cali." Please continue to enjoy the obvious burr that seems to have gotten stuck...

ohmy wrote:

sorry, cvft, your reply quoted me but... it wasn't me. I never said "Cali"

No, I meant "Cali" as used on DrugWarRant. I was surprised to see it there, as Guither's a fine writer and using a word like "Cali" is pretty much gutter level.

Some places in California it might still get a reaction; you're right about "Califas," but I think "Cali" is often used there, too.

Conversationally, you'll notice Ddc's found this site and is here posting her links to dozens of hemp and green sites. Same as at Guither's, but still missing the topic in California. Why not Prop 36 for the Californians it's supposed to be for? Why 420 registration? You can hemp and green all you want to, but you're still falling flat.

Why is everyone scared that some people support the end to the prohibition of certain drugs? Would they have been as ardent when alcohol was un-prohibited? Relax, everyone -- for most of the history of the planet, there was no such thing as a prohibited drug, and it was a good thing, too.