Barry Cooper is one of the most controversial people in the anti-prohibition movement. The release of his 2007 DVD, Never Get Busted Again, got him kicked out of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and led many to call him a sellout, or worse.
Yet, speaking at the 2008 New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Cooper said publicly for the first time Saturday that he became a marijuana smoker, that marijuana saved his life, and that that is why he had to quit law enforcement.
Never Get Busted Again explains how to avoid being stopped by police when traveling, as well as how to avoid being caught with marijuana if you do get stopped, how police make drug dogs give false alerts, how they can tell if you’re lying, and much more. Before the DVD was released, Cooper had joined LEAP as a speaker, but LEAP objected to the content of the DVD and the fact that Cooper was making money from it, both of which conflict with that organization’s rules of ethics.
In a December 2006 press release, LEAP disclaimed any association with Never Get Busted Again and publicly kicked Barry Cooper out of the organization:
While LEAP is in sympathy with millions of people who have their lives damaged or destroyed by the failed policy of drug prohibition, LEAP in no way endorses the violation of the law, or any efforts to frustrate the hard work of those sworn to uphold the law.
When former police officer Barry Cooper was accepted as a LEAP speaker, the Executive Director and most Board members of LEAP were not aware of the fact that Mr. Cooper was planning to distribute a for-profit DVD titled, “Never Get Busted Again”. On learning of the sale of the DVDs, LEAP, which is an international nonprofit educational organization, held a board meeting where it was decided that LEAP cannot in any way be associated with this enterprise. . . .
LEAP feels that Mr. Cooper could not speak for LEAP without his product automatically being associated with us. We cannot have that so we are no longer listing Barry Cooper as a LEAP speaker. — Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Some people went even farther, accusing Cooper of spreading false information, or less evilly, of wanting to profit from his previous mistakes. Cooper doesn’t see it that way. He says he is making the DVDs to try to atone for the harm he caused over the years that he was a drug warrior, and even encourages those who can’t afford to buy his DVDs to download them for free. Indeed, on the back of the DVD cover, under the copyright notice, is printed: “Barry and Candi don’t prosecute for this. So please only copy a few.”
Now Cooper is planning to release his next DVD, Never Get Raided Again, next week. This movie will explain how to sell marijuana safely, he says, as well as to prevent the police from getting enough information on you to get a search warrant for your house. And later this year, he plans to release a third DVD, 50/50, in which he takes 50 people, gets them drunk and films their activities while drunk; then takes the same 50 people a few days later and gets them high and films their activities while stoned. He says this will prove marijuana is much safer for people than alcohol.
Cooper also announced a new initiative for dealing with corrupt cops: sue them. He plans to use some of his money to help finance lawsuits against up to 300 corrupt police officers a year, noting that the only thing he was ever afraid of out on the highways was a lawsuit, and that despite having personal immunity, a lawsuit would be quite bad for a police officer’s career.
Watch Barry Cooper’s Saturday afternoon speech at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum. (And please pardon the apparently bad camera work. He moves around a lot while speaking and it was very hard to follow him.)
Later that night, on the nationally syndicated radio show Free Talk Live, Cooper admitted that he was an alcoholic and had anger management issues, and that when he first tried marijuana, it allowed him to get both his anger and his drinking under control and made him a more compassionate person. It was then, he said, that he knew his law enforcement career was over, and it was because of the effect marijuana had on him that he was moved to create and distribute his movies to help prevent others from being caught up in the unjust war on drugs.
The law, as Frederic Bastiat said, is meant to provide justice. It can have no other legitimate purpose. When the law is unjust, as with drug prohibition, it fosters disrespect for not only the unjust law, but the law in general. This is but one of many reasons why the failed drug war must end as soon as possible.
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Join the members of the Liberty Conspiracy as they discuss issues ranging from the "Incorporation Doctrine" and gun rights, to the NBA, to protests conducted at military funerals, protests that are being challenged by government, and which will be heard by the philosopher kings in the U.S. Supreme Court.
When neoconservative Ben Stein accused Congressman Ron Paul of being antisemitic for merely wanting to ask WHY Islamic terrorists want to attack the civilians living under western governments that have meddled in the Mideast, the members of the Conspiracy could not sit by silently.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Richard Steeb
Jan 08, 2008
Rock on, Barry!
Much as I admire and respect LEAP and its members, it galls me that they find Barry’s work too subversive, “anarchistic” or whatever.
The biggest problem with prohibition is the injustice perpetrated on the “offenders”; Barry is helping to avoid that very injustice until the abominable law is repealed.
The man has even offered up his profits toward reparations if someone he had arrested comes forward. I take him at his word that his motives are sincere and righteous.
When tyranny is abroad, submission is the crime.
BelchSpeak
Jan 08, 2008
Here’s a novel idea: Don’t smoke pot or sell pot. Problem solved.
Can you use a freedom of information act request to get a list of everyone that purchases this stupid DVD? It would be hilarious to publish that list of people.
James M.
Jan 08, 2008
Barry’s DVD recommends waiving your 4th Amendment rights. He doesn’t list any exceptions, he just says “consent to the search.”
Everyone knows you don’t consent to a search! Ask any lawyer. Barry thinks if you hide your stuff, they won’t find it, but he gives away the hiding places in his DVD!
His message is anti-4th amendment. Civil libertarians beware.
Barry N. Cooper
Jan 08, 2008
James, what you said is not true. I clearly explain in my DVD that if a person has a small amount, hidden really well, it is better to give consent because the cop usually makes a quick search and leaves. In comparison, if a cop gets a refusal, he calls ten other cops and K-9 for a detailed search. Marc Emery, the owner and editor of Cannabis Culture Magazine, is one of the greatest freedom fighters in the world and he agrees with this principle.
As far as me giving away the hiding places, I told the story in my DVD for viewers to gain the PRINCIPLES needed to conceal their stash. With a principle, the viewer can cleverly use his own touch to avoid detection.
Many attorneys say Barry is trying to keep citizens out of the courtroom…not prepare them for the courtroom. I’m not a lawyer, I’m an ex-cop that told his story through that lens. Anything else would have been cheating the viewer.
And Civil libertarians mustn’t beware. I am a Libertarian and am running for U.S. Congress in Texas.
James you should not attack people who are on your side and neither should L.E.A.P. We should all join together against the true enemies of this nation and stop using our energy to attack each other. So if you truly are a freedom fighter, stop using your sword to cut your fellow soldiers.
Barry
Michael Hampton
Jan 08, 2008
Ah, Belch, you haven’t been arrested yet? Just wait. Sooner or later they’ll outlaw whatever it is you do, and then you, because you failed to stand up for the pot smokers, will have screwed yourself.
BelchSpeak
Jan 08, 2008
Michael,
Your argument is preposterous.
Pot has been outlawed longer than you’ve been alive. And last I checked, people have the ability to not smoke pot or break laws regarding possession and growing the illegal substances.
By your argument, therefore, you must have failed to stand up for some other type of lawbreakers since “the man” has now come after Pot.
The best way to avoid arrest for Pot is to not smoke it or dont possess it.
And there are lots of legal items that are being illegalized that I think you should point your efforts towards, such as tobacco, over the counter stimulants, etc. And while you bitch and whine about smoking giant bongs on behalf of burned-out couch potatoes, other legal freedoms are eroded away. You pick the wrong battles.
Michael Hampton
Jan 08, 2008
I’m sorry, but you apparently forgot to say why my argument is preposterous.
What you’ve forgotten (or perhaps never knew) is that Nixon’s insane war on drugs has been the justification for so many other infringements on our rights, such as SWAT teams killing innocent people with impunity, asset forfeiture, Terry stops, bank no-privacy laws, and many other types of violations of human rights.
Sure, the best way to avoid arrest for pot is to not smoke it, but that doesn’t help when the cop doesn’t like you and plants his own stash on you.
Did I forget to mention that the police almost always get away with it when they kill an innocent person in cold blood? All they have to do is lie about it, which they do with impunity, and far more often than most people think.
The war on drugs also opened the door for those other items you mention to be restricted. Why would I go after some small problem when I can take on the root cause?
Whatever you think about pot, the fact remains that your freedom has been stripped from you as well. Not to mention millions of other people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Kick corrupt ASS!!
Jan 09, 2008
Sue, Sue Sue !!! We could not agree more. They can be held responsible. Don’t let them get away with bs anymore!! What about the innocent people killed on death row?? Stand up America!! Get the big bucks too!!!
Jan 09, 2008
Barry Cooper: Sue the police : Canna Cafe
James M.
Jan 09, 2008
This is ridiculous. You can’t sue the police if you consented to the search!
Barry? Explain please.
Rob Davidson
Jan 10, 2008
@BelchSpeak:
The Freedom of Information Act is to obtain the release of government information, not private data. It’s rather pathetic that you apparently don’t know (or understand) the difference.
James M.
Jan 11, 2008
“Barry is trying to keep citizens out of the courtroom…not prepare them for the courtroom.”
Then what is all this nonsense about suing the police? Barry, do you understand that people can’t sue if they followed your search and seizure advice? That’s why the ACLU says not to do what you recommend.
I’m not calling myself a freedom fighter. You’re the one waiving that flag. But since you’ve taken it upon yourself to do so, perhaps you could go into a little more detail.
On what grounds do you plan to sue the police? Name one thing in your video that would give me standing to file a lawsuit.
I’m not trying to tear you down. I just love the constitution and I need more information from you before I can reconcile the contradiction between your pro-freedom rhetoric and your advice to waive my rights.
Is that fair?
Bob
Jan 13, 2008
I like the 50/50 idea. Why doesn’t he take it further? Get them all high on cocaine too. And heroin and ectasy and crystal meth. How about huffing gas and glue? Peyote buttons, cane toads, LSD and magic mushrooms would give a good exhibition. Hey and what about unprotected sex? That’s a rush and it would be fun to watch! And bungee jumping and skydiving and maybe even some interesting combinations of some of the above. THEN, he could compare the ones who were left at the end, to fifty people who go to work every day and have a beer once in a while.
That would be really interesting to see the difference between those two groups.
Come on man! This is crazy. My Grandpa used to say “nothing to excess” and he lived to 93. He had it figured out.
Irina
Jan 15, 2008
James M.,
I completely agree with the points you’ve made!
There’s never a time when one should give up his rights and risk avoidable jail time. After all, if we do not stand up for our rights as U.S. citizens, who will?
Please explain, Barry!
susan28
Jan 22, 2008
i shy away from disparaging allies in my various political battles, but there’s an unease that’s always lurked just below the surface, and it’s basically due to having such close proximity to people who were even *willing* to become narcs in the first place, and who view Prohibition, though immoral, as legitimate law that rates obeying, and whose only objection to it is that it doesn’t *work*.
i can’t commend them enough for their humility in willing to admit they were wrong, and harm reduction is well and good, but they don’t support what i view as the core issue of people’s body chemistry not being the business of anyone but themselves. they call it “failed policy” rather than “illegitimate law that is tantamount to treason and there should be retroactive law to punish all involved accordingly and compensate the victims”.
bottom line is they think it’s perfectly ok to forbid people to use drugs if that would work, and are only against it because they’ve learned it not only doesn’t work but makes drug use both more dangerous and less regulated than it would be if it were “legal”. they know that regulated legalisation will reduce childrens’ access to drugs and accomplish everything Prohiibition set out to, with less cost, less bloodshed and less loss of valuable human resources in the form of lost productivity due to the incarceration of otherwise productive and law-abiding memebers of society.
but i can’t shake the feeling that if shedding blood curbed drug use, they’d still be out there slugging and having no compunction whatsoever about wiping their posteriors with the Constitution.
in other words they haven’t become freedom fighters, they’re the same pragmatists they’ve always been and simply realised that (quasi) legalisation will better achieve their ends.
can you say potency limits? daily purchase limits? *drug user ID cards* as with the medicinal provisions? to me, medicinal marijuana cards are like CCW permits: asking state permission for something that’s already a right.
how about social and legal sanctions against documented users (you know they’re gonna be taking names) such as removal of voting rights, driving rights, gun rights (medicinal marijuana registrees in Oregon automatically have their CCW’s revoked), parental rights? they won’t put you in jail but you can bet you’d be more marginalised than a savvy
“underground” user who knows how (or is lucky enough) not to get caught.
it is for this reason that some of the more avid drug
“enthusiasts” are actually *against* legalisation because they know it will only limit their access to substances which under Prohibition flow like a river with not so much as an ID required, and with as much potency as their budget permits.
i’m still for legalisation because i simply cannot countenance the notion of forcing others to conform to my personal definitions of vice and virtue, but i have a feeling when Nanny finally does grant her “permission” to exercise the natural right to get high, alot of users are going to be missing the “good old days” before Nanny had her nose in their purchasing habits, the way she currently does with every *other* purchase they make.
in many ways, Prohibition actually *enables* the last bastion of true free-market economics left in the world, and its passing will be accompanied not just by relief but also by a wistful sigh over the knowledge that the Wild West is finally dead (long live the Wild West).
Barry: you’re a saint, doubly so for acknowledging the unpayable debt owed to victims of Prohibition with your reparations comment. for now, i’m still not consenting to searches (even though i don’t use, but my principles forbid me from consenting), but i’ll consider your ideas and discuss them with others.
Bob
Jan 24, 2008
You might be confused where I stand on this, if you even care, but I will try to define my position.
I’ve said before, I’m a naturalist. I don’t give a rat’s heinie what people smoke or drink or snort or whatever as long as it doesn’t affect me. If a person’s activities do affect me then he or she should expect me to exercise my natural right to respond any way that I want to. Tit for tat. When that happens however, suddenly there are outcries that I should be controlled, coming from the very people who are asking for all the freedom.
Let me explain. If some hippies I know want to grow some weeds out in their back forty and spend the winter in a fog, who cares? I still visit them once in a while and enjoy their company. But if a pusher wants to live next door to the elementary school and try and push booze, joints and little pills on eleven year old girls, I think his house should be burnt down with all his stuff in it and he should be beaten within an inch of his life. I would be quite willing to do it myself, but suddenly my right to respond in such a manner doesn’t legally exist. Why then am I expected to support his rights to legal access to his drugs?
I don’t want to pay to prosecute users.
I don’t want to pay for clean needle programs.
I don’t want to pay for safe injection houses.
I don’t want to pay for rehab programs.
I don’t want to pay for new crack pipe tips.
I don’t want to be told that getting high is better than getting drunk. They are both stupid things to do even though I’ve been there. I know that for a fact, just feel the need to “relax” once in a while.
If you can get rid of all this crap in one fell swoop and let people take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, I’m all for it. But if you want to force me to accept drug use and tell me that there is something wrong with me because I don’t agree with drug abuse and then expect my tax money to pay to help people who abuse drugs, you’re no different than the people you are fighting.
This whole topic above is just a case of trying to fix nonsense with more nonsense as far as I’m concerned.
I’ve seen what all the different weeds and potions do to people in the long and short term, even experienced some of it for myself and I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions about them and choosing which ones I want to dabble with. They’re all out there legal or not and if I choose to use one, I accept the responsibility for that choice and the consequences that go along with it.
That is what real freedom is all about.
susan28
Jan 24, 2008
right on Bob! and legalised regulation would get rid of those “schoolside crackhouses” overnight. though regarding this somewhat mythical but much-ballyhoo’d phenomenon, ask yourself this one question:
aside from the occasional 20 grabbed from mom’s purse, schoolkids by and large can’t afford any drug habit worthy of the name. there’s just no margin in giving away drugs to hook people who can’t give you a return on your investment and will likely only become a bother, not to mention jailbait. dealers don’t have the time or patience for that crap.
the whole “schoolyard dealer” thing is just the modern iteration of the “protecting White Womanhood from coked-crazed Negroes” hysteria that was used by the culture warriors to get drugs outlawed in the first place (notice the “drug house by the schoolyard” line always involves a pre-pubescent girl and the drug’s always crack. discussion of legalisation of any drug always degrades into “yes but little Betty Sue in the crack house!!” (you know, the one that only exists because of Prohibition).
coke laws were (and still are) directed at blacks, weed laws were at Mexicans and opium laws at Chinese. it’s just thinly-veiled xenophobia which is why comparisons to the dangers of legal drugs falls on deaf ears. the drugs that are legal aren’t that way cuz they’re safer they’re legal because they’re bastions of anglo culture, and the ones that are illegal are so because they’re less popular, and because it provides a “useful tool for law enforcement” to bust anyone they please without the hassle of the person actually having to have been caught actually *doing* something. think this is the kid that committed that burglary last night but there’s no evidence? lessee if he’s got some weed on him, and if not, we can fix that. burglary bust by proxy. also works well on those who won’t sign speeding tickets and people with unconventionaol hairstyles.
Belch:
100% correct on the nicotine issue. i include nicotine rights in my activism and both donated and canvassed for the (sadly failed) Take Back The Night campaign to preserve nicotine rights in DC bars and restaurants. i can’t stand cigarettes, but as with the other drugs it’s not a “drug” issue nor does my opinion of cigs bear on the issue, it’s a freedom issue, under the same rubric as gambling laws, prostitution laws, seatbelt laws and all other such paternalistic laws. the entire category is illegitimate law and it’s about time we acknowledged it and give up the dangerous notion that we have the right to outlaw something simply because it frightens or disgusts us.
the diff between an absolute democracy and a Republic is that the former requires only majority opinion to outlaw things (our Founders saw this nighmare in France and learned from it) the latter has some ground rules (the Bill of Rights) to protect unpopular minorities. we are the latter but continually mistake ourselves for the former, which is why i hate having the “harm reduction” discussion, because that suggests that drugs being harmful somehow makes them fair game for “the list”. it doesn’t. that’s Nanny talking. she’s a populist who thinks that it’s ok to trash the constituion as long as it’s for a “good reason” (read: you’re able to whip 51% of the population into a frenzy over it).
things like rape and assault are already illegal, “drug related” or otherwise. punish them, not the drugs, just as we punish drunk driving, but not drinking.
you have the right to use, sell, and distribute drugs, guns, cupie dolls or whatever else you please to your heart’s content. just because the gov doesn’t *respect* that right doesn’t cancel it out, it just means you’ll be prosecuted for exercising it, and *that’s* the only thing we need to change. the kids are alright! ask ‘em yourself. they’re doing fine.
John Hanks
Jan 24, 2008
Republican socialism. The crooks do love it so. Prohibition was a good example. The combination of Republicans, religiosity, and stupid laws made Al Capone wealthy beyond his wildest dreams.
The war on drugs is the same thing, only it is more advanced. It has financed every illegal crooked CIA and other govt. operation to come down the pike. It made the Bush Crime family fabulously more wealthy on the BCCI laundering train. It has financed every privatized prison and every over-armed cop.
Republican socialism. No crook is left behind. God almighty. They love it so.
Bob
Jan 25, 2008
In response to your “kids can’t afford drugs” line, I’d be willing to bet that most drugs sold in North America are consumed by the 15-25 age group. I remember high school and the few years after. They were the most bulletproof years of my life and the first thing you did with your money was spend it on a good party. Kids haven’t changed. If anything, they’ve gotten worse. I’ve got girls, one 22, one 18 and a 13 year old just gearing up. I know what I’m talking about. I’ve got a lot of gray hair.
For the record, I find it just as offensive for a white man pusher to push drugs on eleven year old black girls as well, even though the whole thing is such a cliche and never happens for real. Just for the record anyway…….and little spanish girls or oriental girls. Little boys of all colors, too. God damn the pusher man.(a little Steppenwolf for ya)
Nothing good comes from getting bent out of shape, unless you do it so much that you get sick of it and quit. Let’s be up front about that. I’ve done it enough and watched others do the same. The product is not positive energy. If you believe otherwise, you’re still under the influence.
“Nothing to excess.”
susan28
Jan 25, 2008
John Hanks: it’s true, there is a sense in which a truly *successful* campaign to get peopole to stop using drugs would actually be about the most subversive thing one could do, drying up as it would the CIA’s fave watering hole..
Bob: not saying kids don’t use drugs – i first encountered them at age 12, they trickle down from older siblings and friends, everyone only sharing with someone just *slightly* younger than them. so the 25-year-old doesn’t give it to the 12-year-old. he gives it to the 22 year old, who gives it to the 19, who gives it to the 17, etc. the “pusher” who hooks kids just to get their allowance or dishwashing money. is largely an urban myth. they may be enaablers, but what they are enabling, though maybe not positive, is people’s right to make their own mistakes, and that, in its own way, is a noble thing in this day and age of what John so aptly nailed as Republican Socialism. i’ve known many dealers in my career as a nightclub dj, it’s just part of the territory, and all of them have just been good folks, all of whom used their own stuff, who were just trying – albeit in a way which might not be sustainable (this was the case with me) but are working for the moment, and for some, just surviving the moment is a miracle. it was for me. they took their toll but i can’t honestly say i’d be here now were it not for the crutches i leaned on sometimes back then, rickety though they were. they let me live to walk again.
but yeah, damn anyone who actually hooks someone by giving them misleading information just to make a buck.
John Kay truly showed The Way.. but it’s hard not to get bent out of shape about it, ya know, cuz “everybody hurts you know it fills her with compassion, that’s why she tries to save the world alone..”
it saddens me to see people go downhill, but the damned drug war just rips my heart out..
susan28
Jan 25, 2008
quick questions for Barry:
earlier i mentioned that i’d never consent to search, and feel confident in refusing because i (no longer) use substances (i didn’t “quit”, just kinda fell away from it, don’t mean this to discourage anyone from experimenting provided they learn the facts first. i am part of the “str8 edge” movement in the rave community, which doesn’t tell people not to use, just tells them they don’t *have* to, using ourselves as examples of how to rock chem-free if you want to).
anyhoo, 20 years ago i was pulled over in a drug area but hadn’t scored. i exited upon seeing a cop and he followed me out and asked to search and i let him. frustrated at not finding anything, he then said that if i didn’t admit to being there to score, he could “hold” me for 72hrs on “suspicion”, and would if i didn’t confess. i did, and he let me go.
so the questions are: should i have confessed? could he have hauled me in fore 3 days just on a whim? i considered myself pretty savvy but that one really caught me off guard.
the next question is, how good do you think the chances are that that cop would’ve planted evidence if i’d refused search and he did the false-alert routine, and also, do you think i’m placng myself at high risk of evidence planting even *now* by refusing consent, even though both my car and bloodstream are always squeaky-clean?
i’m still gonna refuse, just wondering exactly what kind of monster i’m up against here.. as a Libertarian activist i probably shouldn’t even have to ask, but i want your cop’s-eye view of it.
thanks for everything, Barry!
Bob
Jan 29, 2008
I made a mistake. Hoyt Axton wrote “Goddamn the Pusher Man”. I’m usually up on that sort of stuff. If you are reading this Hoyt, please accept my apologies for not recognizing your contribution to the Steppenwolf version. I’m an admirer of your work. Even saw you on WKRP one time.
susan28
Jan 30, 2008
Steppenwolf does, though! i used to think “Axton” was in the band but must have left before that album, lol.. but now that you mention it i’ve heard the name Hoyt Axton, have to give him a listen, sounds like he’s been to school..
BTW for anyone interested, i visited Barry’s site and there’s a whole forum there dedicated to Q&A to discuss situations just like the one i described above, as well as where (il)legally-persecuted users and sellers can share their experiences.
Joe
Jan 30, 2008
I think you are missing the point. Even if you don’t deal with pot, your liberties are being stripped away one after another.
Go to a school and see how children are being conditioned to accept the presence of “law officials”. Be sure to get a “pass” otherwise you will get arrested for trespassing.
The world is changing and this country is not and has never been “free”
Paul Mcpherson
Feb 10, 2008
Hello everybody my name is Paul McPherson and I have lung cancer from smoking tobacco I have about 3 months to live anyways I want everyone here to know how easy it is to quit marijuana I smoked pot once a week through high school and then I stopped in college it was easy to quit, but my nicotine addiction was so much harder to quit I tried to 13 different times before I did it but I was too late and I got cancer I want everyone here to know that you should stand up for what you know is right and not what the people around you believe with my last 3 months I encourage people to vote for Ron Paul he will stop this insane drug war which has torn apart the families of some of my college friends I hope you realize how dangerous tobacco is and how safe marijuana is.
Noah
Feb 10, 2008
Im so sorry to hear about your cancer Mr McPherson but why are you so pro-hemp if you have lung cancer why didn’t your college friends stop smoking pot?
Paul McPherson
Feb 10, 2008
Well Noah the reason I am so Pro-hemp is that many people including some close college friends of mine are suffering, losing their kids, their jobs, and going to rehabs that dont work or going to Prison, and as Mr Cooper the former Police officer has said these people have sometimes been raped or beaten while they have been in prison. Look I realize that I have terminal cancer but from tobacco not marijuana none of my friends has had the shortness of breath as I have from their pot use and nobody that I know has ever had a hole in their neck to breath out of Pot to me is not very dangerous I know nobody in my life that has gotten cancer from marijuana I know 7 people who I knew personaly that had cancer from smoking cigarettes im sure their are people who have gotten cancer from marijuana but nobody I know has. oh and about my friends smoking pot I would have to ask them but im not very concerned about it.
Michael Hampton
Feb 10, 2008
That’s because not only does marijuana not cause cancer, it may actually help eliminate cancerous growths. But not if you smoke it. If you vaporize it, though, you don’t get all the other carcinogenic chemicals which burning the marijuana releases into the smoke.
Paul McPherson
Feb 10, 2008
Wow I guess your right Paul… It must be tough to lose your friends to tobacco use I wish Ron Paul luck and I hope your cancer goes into remission.
is a hero
Feb 10, 2008
…
Noah
Feb 10, 2008
I meant to put Paul McPherson is a hero as my name but it came out as Paul McPherson lol. but Paul where should people go to vote for Ron Paul?
Paul McPherson
Feb 10, 2008
They should go to Ron Paul for president plain and simple and I hope Barry Cooper makes it into the congress at Texas and thanks for the support Noah.
susan28
Feb 10, 2008
you’re a true hero, Paul.. Godspeed to you, baby..
Mike: spot-on re: vaporisation.
Noah, way to be open to truth, Sir! if you go to RonPaul2008 dot com to support Dr Paul. we’re not getting the brokered convention we were hoping for since Romney withdrew, but this campaign has always been about the message and the movement and there’s still some valuable publicity to grab and haearts and minds to win, and as Paul pointed out, Ron is also defending his Congressional seat, which we can all help with. welcome to the rEVOLution!
i would say based on Paul’s story, though, that even though pot is benign and nicotine literally malignant, this is an issue of self-ownership and self-determination, and although there is a powerful harm-reduction argument to be made for re-legalising not just pot but all drugs, the bottom line is it’s not the government’s job to protect us from ourselves, even in cases of ectreme risk.
to that end, though cigarettes make me nauseous and i’d like nothing better from a personal standpoint than a nation of smoke-free bars and restaurants, i nonetheless spent a pike of my own money, and donated even more of my time, to the campaign to keep tobacco smoking legal on private property in DC, at the discretion of the bar/restaurant owner, because i didn’t feel i had the right to tell people how to run either their lives or their business, and i think our Patriotic friend Paul would back me on that, and accepts that his condition was the result of a decision that was no-one’s affair but his own. right Paul?
this week for the first time, the Drug War Chronicle included a category for “tobacco”, which is quickly becomoing the new front in the Drug Massacre, with our own (totally true) “tobacco is more harmful than pot” argument being used to point the State’s guns at folks like Paul now, and i’m sure he’d be the first to declare that the last thing he needs right now, on top of everything else, is to have his door kicked in cuz some cop smelled cig smoke coming out his window, or have his kids incarcerated in some orphanage. right Paul?
and not to be outdone, Mississippi now has a bill on the table to bust restaurant owners for serving obese folks. this is all evidence of the obsessive and *unhealthy* nature of the Prohibitionist mentality, and what happens once we set the precedent that we want the state to be responsible for our health.. “first they came for the heroin addicts..” etc..
Cabinets Los Angeles
Feb 28, 2008
I believe in the 1st amendment. And I believe that Barry Cooper is doing a good thing. Though if everyone is worried about getting busted, why not just move to California. Here in the state, we’ve beaten the federal law and made it a viable form of medication. Since then many folks I know dying from various problems have been given a new lease on life. And for good reason, marijauna is a wonder plant, as much, if not more than the aloe plant. So, move to CA, get a perscription and grow, sell, buy as much as you legally can.
Tommy
susan28
Feb 29, 2008
cali is a cultural paradise but for the deal-breaking caveat that they don’t believe in the right to self-defense and all my weapons would be illegal there (if for no other reason than i’d refuse to register them) so if i ever did shoot someone i’d be facing weapons charges on top of “failure to grovel at some slimebag’s feet” charges.
i believe in the idea of forming hubs of critical mass of support for crucial causes like drug legalisation, and california is about the best place to gain such a stronghold for that i agree, but the pacifist shit really offends me. which is ashame because i’m from there and it’s where all my best friends are as well as all the promoters i love to spin for (FnF, SisterSF etc), but if i move somewhere for political reasons i’m leaning toward NH for the Free State Project, which is pro ALL civil Liberties and doesn’t cherry pick them like some so-called “liberal” areas like cali (i don’t thinkk they should use that word if they’re not pro-all liberty but the word’s gotten co-opted by socialists, i see nothing at all liberal about gun control).
but there’s nothing like the raves in the bay area, *wistful sigh* .. i miss them so.. i also miss Dennis Peron, for whom i spun many beneift gigs to get Prop 13 on the ballot back in the bad old days when the market st dispensary was still a city-sanctioned act of civil disobedience.. i still remember the DEA thugs milling about outdside with the mayor holding them at bay, and “we are NOT getting busted” scrolled on the menu board :) ah.. i’m so proud of what you gys have accomplished ou there, Tommy, and proud that i was a part of setting it in motion.
give ‘em hell, Tommy!!
trupatriot
Dec 05, 2009
as i’m not on my computer i’ll say this.thomas jefferson was the first pothead and wrote the dec of ind on paper made of weed our first flag out of weed our country forged from cannabis it ought to be a treasonist crime to stop someone from growing it. the dea should be marched out in the street(not offered a smoke cause we frown on that now)and get the crap beat out of them by the people that they have locked up.yea i know what they do to treasonists but it’s 2009 not the 1800’s.and barry said it right their pow’s and see repreation’s for having their lives trashed,time lossed and for having being ripped from their family.
Rob
Dec 13, 2009
Barry is a patriot! I would love to join the fight by his side. I might be starting a website that informs America about all of these issues. Barry should be inspiration to all of us!
Irina
Dec 13, 2009
Rob,
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com) and Flex Your Rights (www.FlexYourRights.org) are the true patriots.
Barry is informing people to give up their constitutional rights.
Please check out the organizations above! Flex Your Rights is coming out with a new movie in January called “10 Rules for Dealing With Police,” which you can pre-order here: http://www.flexyourrights.org/10_rules
Enjoy!
Anonymous
Jan 05, 2010
f uck that everyone knows you are still working with some govt agency
Karen Dawe
Jan 27, 2010
It is time to get rid of prohibition.
Karen Dawe
mrs.rude
Mar 08, 2010
please my family is afraid we have had the huron undercover narcotics team bust are door in for a warrant on and unpaid parking fine. more to the story if you do care crying for your help or just some support pleazzzzzzze.
Anonymous
Mar 10, 2010
i got pulled over with $27,000 cash and denied the search so oklahoma city state police said they were going to use the k-9 unit to give them the right to search. when the k-9 arrived a police officer hopped in the vehicle and moved the vehicle farther off the road and then got out and let the k-9 go around the car and then they searched and found the money in the trunk…is that illegal search and seizure when the cop got into the car to move the car farther off the road before the k-9 even started the search???
Anonymous
Mar 10, 2010
about the $27,000 cash send ur feedback to skywalker_vip9@yahoo.com i’m going through court and my lawyer is sayiing i should settle what should i do please help i feel like i’m being violated and trying to get my money back asap
Karen Dawe
Mar 12, 2010
I think what people are forgetting is that the pusher or so called pusher or seller is a drug addict and that message has not been elusive but buried. And, it is not difficult to translate to the natural public.
It is not a malicious means to live but a way of being here and feeling wanted.
The civil rights suit against the police (publlic misfeasance or suing abstinence and/or for parity or consumer relations are three alternatives, and one for the landlords that think they can…is suing for a minor assault or with a weapon, which can work but is hard to get across…
Economic disadvantage is a right…
and so is class, race, sex and creed, color and color of a right is not owned it was paid for and out a long time ago.
Karen Dawe
Karen Dawe
Mar 12, 2010
And, from Ontario again, I would like to remind the government of Ontario that they sold, made profit set up drug busts and were responsible for their despicable truths, the death of mothers and their children and for the degraded losss of religion and for the removal of race women, school children and marriages, men in the home and caused the downfall of familes altogether. They did it and we did not…do it too us.
Historical and systemic discrimination are not a thing of the past,
The new business of the same old is nothing but a scam…
Karen Dawe
Karen Dawe
Mar 13, 2010
I am in Ontario and I would like to be part of this social movement. I am not in the habit of being murdered by the illuminati in my home and wish to shake it.
public misfeasance…
Karen Dawe
kaatey@hotmail.com