School-Snitches, Christ, Aryans, Jews, Marijuana
& Cannabis
I posted a message about
a proposed snitch-for-pay system in American schools in order
to show how unpleasant and unhealthy such schools can be. This
led to a joke about biodynamic marijuana in Waldorf schools,
which in turn opened a whole can of worms - especially with Michael
Kopp at his keyboard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:14:14 +0100
--
From: "CHARLES KRISTIANSEN"
Newsgroups: no.samfunn.narkotika
Subject: "schools for snitches,"
Date: 18 Feb 1999 11:22:04 GMT
=======================================
For release: February 11, 1999
=======================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: [email protected]
=======================================
High schoolers can get $1,000 bounty under
new drug "snitch" program
WASHINGTON, DC -- A plan by three Oregon high
schools to pay $1,000 bounties to teenagers who anonymously turn
in other students on drug charges is a morally reprehensible
program that will turn high schools into "schools for snitches,"
the Libertarian Party charged today.
"This is the first step towards turning
America's teenagers into paid informants for the government,"
said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "Are
these really the kinds of values and skills we want to teach
our young people?"
Starting this month, students in three high
school districts in Portland, Oregon, will be paid up to $1,000
for snitching on fellow students who use drugs or alcohol on
school property.
Under the new Crime Stoppers program, students
will be given a direct, anonymous hot line to school police.
But Libertarians say the program charts a
direct line to a new McCarthyism, where teenagers will live in
fear of being turned in -- rightly or wrongly -- to the authorities
by anonymous informers eager for a cash reward.
"This turn-in-your-friends-for-cash scheme
at Judas Iscariot High School is a stark example of how Drug
Prohibition has warped the morals of this nation," said
Dasbach. "Instead of treating drug abuse as a medical problem
that requires concern and compassion, this program treats drug
abuse as an opportunity to earn 30 pieces of silver by ratting
on your schoolmates."
There are many reasons Libertarians oppose
the $1,000 bounty program, said Dasbach, including...
* It's ripe for abuse. "How many high
school grudges will be settled by calling 1-800-BE-A-SNITCH?"
asked Dasbach. "How strong will the lure of a $1,000 reward
be to a student who suffered from a broken romance -- and wants
revenge? For every honest report of drug abuse, how many anonymous
calls will be made to settle a score?"
* It will create a climate of fear and distrust.
"Programs like this will cause every student to wonder:
Who will be turned in next? Betrayal, snitching, and anonymous
informants are not the proper recipe for creating school spirit,
respect, and trust," he said.
* It will funnel teenagers with drug problems
into the criminal justice system instead of the medical system.
"Like all Americans, Libertarians are concerned about teenage
drug abuse," said Dasbach. "But reporting and arresting
a teenager for smoking marijuana isn't a solution -- it's a bigger
problem. For a high school student struggling with the challenges
of adolescence, putting him in a jail cell and burdening him
with a criminal record takes a temporary medical problem and
turns it into a lifelong disaster."
* It won't work. "Last week, the American
Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section released a study reporting
that illicit drug use in America had increased 7% from 1996 to
1997 -- while the number of people arrested on drug charges since
1992 has increased by 73%. If America could arrest its way out
of the drug problem, it would have happened by now."
Ironically, reports of the $1,000 high school
bounty surfaced at about the same time Vice President Al Gore
unveiled the Clinton Administration's new anti-drug policy, and
argued that drug abuse is partly a "spiritual problem."
"If Al Gore is correct, and drug abuse
is a spiritual problem, we won't solve the problem by devilishly
appealing to the worst in people -- and offering cash rewards
to turn in your classmates," said Dasbach. "The solution
to a spiritual problem is not to turn America into a nation of
Soviet-style paid informants."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:17:38 -0800
Tarjei, there are other lists for discussion
of important topics like drugs in schools. I don't see a connection
unless your intent was to indicate how awful the conditions in
public schools are in some places. But Waldorf students use the
same drugs other kids do.
-Dan Dugan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 01:20:02 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
Tarjei, there are other lists for discussion
of important topics like drugs in schools. I don't see a connection
unless your intent was to indicate how awful the conditions in
public schools are in some places. But Waldorf students use the
same drugs other kids do.
But Waldorf schools would not *pay* teenagers
for turning in their friends and parents, like *the Nazis* did,
the East German Stasi regime, and U.S. public schools. Besides,
my post is *as least* as relevant to this list as the one about
religious sects denying medical treatment to children in favor
of prayer.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:50:18 EST
In einer eMail vom 20.02.99 01:03:33 MEZ,
Dan wrote:
Tarjei, there are other lists for discussion
of important topics like drugs in schools. I don't see a connection
unless your intent was to indicate how awful the conditions in
public schools are in some places. But Waldorf students use the
same drugs other kids do.
Dan, I agree - but do you or PLANS have knowledge
whether waldorf schools are better?
Bruce
I know its lent!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:57:46 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
But Waldorf students use the same drugs
other kids do.
There may be a difference in the quality of
marijuana here. Waldorf students are more likely to smoke the
biodynamic variety while other kids get high on pollutants like
the pesticides as well, which is a lot more dangerous than the
controversial herb in question.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Woody E. Allen
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:02:57 +0100
Tarjei Straume wrote:
There may be a difference in the quality
of marijuana here. Waldorf students are more likely to smoke
the biodynamic variety while other kids get high on pollutants
like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more dangerous than
the controversial herb in question.
Tarjei, you forgot the ;-) !
An investigation on the kids in a number of
waldorf schools in Jaerna showed that (if my memory serves me
correctly) 13 % of them had some form of allergic problem compared
with about 26 % in other non-waldorf schools in the area. The
investigation, done in cooperation between a doctor at the Vidar
Clinic in Jaerna and the Institute of Environmental Medicine
at Karolinska Institute (the Institute appointing the Nobel Proize
in Medicine ...), was reported on National Television some time
ago, here in Sweden.
I have a small hunch an investigation on the
use of drugs by pupils in waldorf- and other schools would give
a result in a similar direction.
Woody E. Allen
New York, New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Woody E. Allen
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:39:04 +0100
P.S.
An investigation on the kids in a number
of waldorf schools in Jaerna showed that (if my memory serves
me correctly) 13 % of them had some form of allergic problem
compared with about 26 % in other non-waldorf schools in the
area.
This is not to say that waldorf schools or
WE as such are/is better than other schools or Educational methods.
Again, if my memory serves me correctly, a
similar low incidence of allergic problems is also found in at
least one of the Baltic(?) countries, with, I think close to
0 waldorf schools.
The authors of the report discuss a number
of factors possibly contributing to the low incidence in waldorf
kids, among them nutritional ones like the not negligable tradition
of eating lactic acid fermented products both in "waldorf
homes" and schools and the Baltic country in question.
I think the authors are now preparing for
an investigation on a larger, maybe also European, scale of the
questions raised by the first study.
Woody E. Allen
New York, New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:39:06 +1300
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dan Dugan wrote:
But Waldorf students use the same drugs
other kids do.
There may be a difference in the quality
of marijuana here. Waldorf students are more likely to smoke
the biodynamic variety while other kids get high on pollutants
like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more dangerous than
the controversial herb in question.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
So, if I understand you correctly, there is
marijuana grown by biodynamic techniques.
This means it must be being grown by those
people who either practice or are dedicated to Anthroposophy.
The conclusion is that either dope-growing,
dope-smoking, Anthroposophical parents are personally supplying
their children (a serious possibility, I would say) -- then there
is a market for and commercial supplier of Anthroposophically-superior
dope.
This is not at all flippant -- I know young
people in our former Steiner school who obtained marijuana, alcohol,
and other substances from their Anthroposophical parents. My
son attended parties at some parents' homes where the parents
either ignored, or had provided, such substances.
When I tried to inject some control into these
parties by attempting to get the parents group of my son's class
to discuss a "substances policy" for our group, it
was a very uphill battle to get them to recognise that there
might be some advantage in limiting substance use.
While the parents all said they didn't want
to see their kids become heavy drug users or use drugs at school
(a natural thing, as it's against the law here, and, like the
U.S., this country has a "war on drugs"), there was
a vocal majority of parents who said that kids should be allowed
to experiment under "friendly" circumstances, and that
parents should be allowed to give their kids anything then want
in the privacy of their own home.
Drug use by students in the upper school at
our former Steiner school was common, according to my children
and numerous other sources, both child and adult. It was not
unknown to occur on the school grounds (where it was technically
prohibited). I should note that all of the teachers were tobacco
smokers, who frequently broke the school's "no smoking on
school grounds" policy. One risked one's health going near
the staff room. And the children all thought the teachers to
be hypocrites. The children were even aware (since some of the
kids in the school were children of teachers) that some of the
teachers grew or obtained -- and used -- dope.
But I don't know if it was biodynamically
grown dope.
I am not blowing smoke here.
There is absolutely nothing to say that Anthroposophical
schools should have less propensity towards drug problems than
public schools.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 02:10:37 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, there is marijuana grown
by biodynamic techniques.
I have no first hand knowledge, but I think
it would be a swell idea.
This means it must be being grown by those people who either
practice or are dedicated to Anthroposophy.
Anthroposophists support biodynamic farming.
Criminal anarchosophists like myself would prefer biodynamic
grass.
The conclusion is that either dope-growing, dope-smoking,
Anthroposophical parents are personally supplying their children
(a serious possibility, I would say) -- then there is a market
for and commercial supplier of Anthroposophically-superior dope.
Very nice. I only wish it were so. If not,
I'd be happy to initiate it. But it would be strictly for adults
though. (On a more serious note, marijuana or any other intoxicant
is counter-productive to spiritual work, and growing marijuana
as a business, biodynamic or not, would bring highly questionable
karma to the Anthroposophical Movement.)
This is not at all flippant -- I know young people in our
former Steiner school who obtained marijuana, alcohol, and other
substances from their Anthroposophical parents. My son attended
parties at some parents' homes where the parents either ignored,
or had provided, such substances.
They must have been criminal anarchosophists
like me. (Bourgeuois, law abiding anthropops frown at us though.)
When I tried to inject some control into these parties by
attempting to get the parents group of my son's class to discuss
a "substances policy" for our group, it was a very
uphill battle to get them to recognise that there might be some
advantage in limiting substance use.
Sounds like enjoyable parties. No violence
I hope.
While the parents all said they didn't want to see their kids
become heavy drug users or use drugs at school (a natural thing,
as it's against the law here, and, like the U.S., this country
has a "war on drugs"), there was a vocal majorityof
parents who said that kids should be allowed to experiment under
"friendly" circumstances, and that parents should be
allowed to give their kids anything then want in the privacy
of their own home.
Interesting. I have a Moroccan-Norwegian friend
who has told me some interesting things about family affairs
in his old country, that are also very different from ours. (Norway
has the strictest drug laws in Europe.) I have never heard anthroposophists
or anybody else suggest that kids should be supplied intoxicants.
Never. But in Morocco, a father will pass his cannabis joint
to his son when the latter comes of age. It may be compared to
serving alcohol to a 17 or 18 year old, but it is a disputable
topic altogether.
I can understand the thought of supervising
the teenagers when they experiment with drugs, keeping them off
the street. But I don't know if it's right. All anthroposophist
families I know personally are completely drug free.
Drug use by students in the upper school at our former Steiner
school was common, according to my children and numerous other
sources, both child and adult. It was not unknown to occur on
the school grounds (where it was technically prohibited). I should
note that all of the teachers were tobacco smokers, who frequently
broke the school's "no smoking on school grounds" policy.
One risked one's health going near the staff room. And the children
all thought the teachers to be hypocrites. The children were
even aware (since some of the kids in the school were children
of teachers) that some of the teachers grew or obtained -- and
used -- dope.
Reminds me of "The Greening of America."
What hypocrisy is concerned, it is certainly not more widespread
among anthroposophists than other people. You seem to suggest
that Waldorf teachers and anthroposophists in general are cunning,
conniving, evil and intoxicated hypocrites. To begin with, I
thought you had been up against a Waldorf school with an unfortunate
staff. As your biased tirade continues, your credibility is fading.
But I don't know if it was biodynamically grown dope.
If it was, I would sure like a taste, though
it would probably be expensive - especially if imported to Europe.
I am not blowing smoke here.
Perhaps you should. It might reduce some of
your aggression and hostility against anthroposophy and help
you sleep better. On the other hand, homeopathic medication would
be a lot healthier, safer, and get at the causes and not just
the symptoms.
There is absolutely nothing to say that Anthroposophical schools
should have less propensity towards drug problems than public
schools.
How do you know? Has any research been done
on this?
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 06:14:27 EST
In einer eMail vom 21.02.99 00:54:44 MEZ,
Michael Kopp wrote from Godzone:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dan Dugan wrote:
But Waldorf students use the same drugs
other kids do.
There may be a difference in the quality
of marijuana here. Waldorf students are more likely to smoke
the biodynamic variety while other kids get high on pollutants
like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more dangerous than
the controversial herb in question.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
So, if I understand you correctly, there
is marijuana grown by biodynamic techniques.
This means it must be being grown by those people who either
practice or are dedicated to Anthroposophy.
The conclusion is that either dope-growing, dope-smoking, Anthroposophical
parents are personally supplying their children (a serious possibility,
I would say) -- then there is a market for and commercial supplier
of Anthroposophically-superior dope.
Bruce: You are assuming that there is no medical market for marijuana,
which there is. MOST "drugs" (in the sense we are now
talking about marijuana) are also medicines.
This is not at all flippant -- I know young
people in our former Steiner school who obtained marijuana, alcohol,
and other substances from their Anthroposophical parents. My
son attended parties at some parents' homes where the parents
either ignored, or had provided, such substances.
Bruce: You are only too right. Marijuana smoking
is no longer illegal in some european countries (I have no idea
what goes elsewhere, but would like to be enlightened). It is
a problem in ALL schools (whether greater or lesser in waldorf
would be impossible to ascertain), and the effects of smoking
pot can be seen clearly. I am sure ALL teachers and parents would
like to know how to stop it - well almost all; I too know parents
who smoke quite openly)
When I tried to inject some control into these parties by
attempting to get the parents group of my son's class to discuss
a "substances policy" for our group, it was a very
uphill battle to get them to recognise that there might be some
advantage in limiting substance use.
While the parents all said they didn't want to see their kids
become heavy drug users or use drugs at school (a natural thing,
as it's against the law here, and, like the U.S., this country
has a "war on drugs"), there was a vocal majorityof
parents who said that kids should be allowed to experiment under
"friendly" circumstances, and that parents should be
allowed to give their kids anything then want in the privacy
of their own home.
Drug use by students in the upper school at our former Steiner
school was common, according to my children and numerous other
sources, both child and adult. It was not unknown to occur on
the school grounds (where it was technically prohibited). I should
note that all of the teachers were tobacco smokers, who frequently
broke the school's "no smoking on school grounds" policy.
One risked one's health going near the staff room. And the children
all thought the teachers to be hypocrites. The children were
even aware (since some of the kids in the school were children
of teachers) that some of the teachers grew or obtained -- and
used -- dope.
But I don't know if it was biodynamically grown dope.
I am not blowing smoke here.
There is absolutely nothing to say that Anthroposophical schools
should have less propensity towards drug problems than public
schools.
Bruce: There is a very active group fighting against the use
of drugs in school, and elsewhere, and there are several very
well known "drug-clinics" run anthroposophically here
in Europe.
BTW: Since this thread has virtually nothing
to do with waldorf, I would like to ask "critics" if
they are against genetic manipulation? There is a large international
campaign centred at the Goetheanum (Switzerland) called IFGene.Anyone
interested please contact me OFFLIST
Bruce j
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:32:30 +0100
My fellow subscribers,
As an anarchosophist, I am always in danger
of putting my hand into a hornet's nest on this Waldorf Critics
list. Sometimes the opportunity presents itself to throw in an
anarchist bomb, and when I can't resist the temptation, there
is always the risk that I may cause problems for my fellow anthroposophists.
My humorous remark about Waldorf students being more likely to
smoke biodynamic marijuana is a classic example of this.
Several anthroposophists have expressed their
concern about the marijuana-related articles and links on my
website. The articles are in Norwegian, and one Waldorf school
in Norway with drug problems among the students refused to exchange
links with me because of these articles and links.
My reasons for supporting the marijuana legalization
movement are strictly personal and unrelated to anthroposophy.
They date back to 1969, when I spent six months in prison for
cannabis. Because I am still suffering serious legal consequences
of being convicted for cannabis exactly thirty years ago - it's
a lifetime punishment - I activiely support the international
legalization effort.
I had to leave the U.S. after twelve years,
banned for life, because of this conviction twenty years prior.
For the full story, go to
http://www.uncletaz.com/immigintro.html
Today, I am being refused employment in a
toll booth because of this conviction, which is now thirty years
old.
This movement has many active smokers in its
camp, and I have still made the choice of being their ally in
spite of the fact that my own consumption is limited to once
or twice a year. These once or twice a year inhalations are basically
what I call "my socio-political civic duty," because
I never fail to mention my occasional illegal inhalations when
engaged in public debates with the narc police.
It's a human rights issue, not a recommended
lifestyle. My point is that in Norway, a good friend of mine
got 12 years imprisonment for cannabis, and I visited him in
the cage, which was mainly occupied by violent killers and the
like. You get three to five years for homicide on the average
and fifteen for drugs. My friend was threatened with 21 years,
which is the maximum penalty in Norway, the very worst you can
do against society.
I have noticed that the police and the drug-policy-supporting
bourgeoisie are extremely provoked by my profile what marijuana
and cannabis is concerned. Good. The Justice Department has made
strong efforts to silence the debate about the issue of changing
the laws.
The only possible link here might be the nebulous
borderline between banned stimulants and alternative medicine.
The political noise around medical use of marijuana as a prescription
drug is very interesting when we consider the fact that many
medications are extracted from herbs. The question is if it is
moral to declare a plant to be illegal.
Nevertheless, as soon as I make a frivolous
remark about smoking biodynamic marijuana in Waldorf schools,
hardcore Waldorf critic Michael Kopp immediately seizes the opportunity
to portray Waldorf students, Waldorf parents, Waldorf teachers,
and anthroposophists in general as dopey pot heads engaged in
some super-marijuana production and trade business. My sincere
apologies to the "defenders of the faith" for sending
Kopp off on this tangent!
Legalization or decriminalization of mariuana
is more of a concern for anti-authoritarian anarchists than it
is for anthroposophists. With our anarchist magazine Gateavisa,
we did a stunt a few years ago after someone in the Center Party
- the old Farmers' Party that was the Norwegian Nazi Party during
the occupation under Vidkun Quisling - recommended that cannabis
be legalized and sold at pharmacies. The Center Party leadership
did not support this, but on the big speech day immediately before
election day, we made ourselves T-shirts with their green leaf
logo and made it look like a hemp leaf; we made a thousand flyers,
"With the Center Party for Free Hash." For the story,
see the photos at
http://www.uncletaz.com/anarchistphotos/
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:10:35 +1300
Tarjei Straume apologises to the defenders
of the faith [TM] for unintentionally tarnishing the Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical (SWA) movement with the vile weed:
My fellow subscribers,
As an anarchosophist, I am always in danger of putting my hand
into a hornet's nest on this Waldorf Critics list. Sometimes
the opportunity presents itself to throw in an anarchist bomb,
and when I can't resist the temptation, there is always the risk
that I may cause problems for my fellow anthroposophists. My
humorous remark about Waldorf students being more likely to smoke
biodynamic marijuana is a classic example of this.
Several anthroposophists have expressed their concern about the
marijuana-related articles and links on my website. The articles
are in Norwegian, and one Waldorf school in Norway with drug
problems among the students refused to exchange links with me
because of these articles and links.
My reasons for supporting the marijuana legalization movement
are strictly
[snip Tarjei's views on marijuana legalization,
his own plight, and the international drug war]
Nevertheless, as soon as I make a frivolous
remark about smoking biodynamic marijuana in Waldorf schools,
hardcore Waldorf critic Michael Kopp immediately seizes the opportunity
to portray Waldorf students, Waldorf parents, Waldorf teachers,
and anthroposophists in general as dopey pot heads engaged in
some super-marijuana production and trade business. My sincere
apologies to the "defenders of the faith" for sending
Kopp off on this tangent!
Michael KOPP says:
This is total bullshit. I did not portray
Waldorf students, parent, teachers and Anthropops in general
as "dopey pot heads", nor did I suggest that the SWA
movement or any part of it was engaged in a "super-marijuana
production and trade".
I said I was aware of students at one SWA
school in my personal experience who used marijuana, including
on school grounds during school time.
I said I was aware of SWA parents at this
school who provided dope (as well as another illegal substance,
alcohol) to their (and perhaps other) kids, at parties or at
home.
I made a joke -- much like Tarjei's -- about
there being an SWA drug business. The object of that joke --
and the subsequent points I made -- was to take the wind out
of the SWA movement's `holier-than-thou' attitude in general.
That said, I have been contacted privately
by someone in the U.S. who cannot post to this list about similar
drug and alcohol use in a SWA community that they are aware of.
As a journalist I cannot confirm this because I have no secondary
source and cannot mount an investigation trans-Pacific. But it
sounds like a reasonable report, and the illegality there does
extend to SWA parents growing for selling, and others escaping
punishment for their kids when caught because of their wealth
and position in the community. Such things are not unknown, of
course.
I am also reminded of stories I have heard
in New Zealand about marijuana use at other SWA schools here.
Again, I cannot confirm these without extensive personal investigation
which is beyond my capacity at the moment. I do not allege that
these stories are true, only that they are current and believable.
This makes my point again: there is no reason
to believe that SWA schools should be exempt from such activities
by students and parents. Marijuana is not a class-conscious affair:
even a certain president of a big firm (the U.S.A.) has more-or-less
admitted using it. (If he didn't inhale, he probably chewed MJ
brownies. Yeechh.)
STRAUME:
Legalization or decriminalization of mariuana
is more of a concern for anti-authoritarian anarchists than it
is for anthroposophists.
KOPP:
Straume may be surprised to learn that it
is my personal opinion that he was the victim of an hypocritical
American aberration that has cost the world huge numbers of lives.
It is Prohibition all over again. Until about 1900, even opiates
were legal almost everywhere. Now one can't even legally grow
poppies in one's garden as flowers! The American `war on drugs'
is doomed to failure, but it keeps a huge, repressive apparatus
in business for geopolitical and financial reasons. The U.S.
government (the politicians and the bureaucrats) are all self-serving
shits in this instance, in my view.
I sympathise with Tarjei over his plight.
It is not totally unlike my shunning by mainstream media here
in New Zealand because I talk back to editors on the ethics and
professionalism of themselves and their proprietors, and because
I was getting too close to exposing government corruption. The
result is the same: economic deprivation.
(There's my paranoia, Flannery, and it's real
and not imagined. That, and the possibility that someday I may
say something that pushes my former Steiner school's owners and
operators -- who have the money to do it -- into suing me for
defamation. I may be right, and totally, provably truthful, but
in this country, the defendant has to prove innocence in defamation
cases, unlike the U.S. situation. And there's no First Amendment
here. I would be bankrupted by proving my innocence of such an
accusation against me.)
I am also for marijuana decriminalisation,
if for no other than the practical reason that the witchhunt
is both wrong and unsuccessful -- although I do think it has
some negative health effects, as to most of the pleasurable things
humans ingest. There is certainly no worse effect on people's
brains than there is effect on their lungs and brains from tobacco,
which, of course, is hypocritically legal because of the huge
money and power involved. U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, mentioned
elsewhere on this list, is a tobacco state representative, and
has fought tooth and nail to preserve tobacco as a legal business,
while being totally opposed to marijuana. Doesn't politics make
strange bedfellows? The people running the U.S. drug war don't
care if it's successful, and they don't care if it means greater
suffering, misery and criminality than previously. They are amoral.
I'd be pleased (but surprised) to see Straume
retract his accusation that I am trying any means to discredit
SWA, fair or foul. I am simply reporting what I know, and use
barbed humour no worse than do supporters of SWA.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:50:32 +0100
I wrote:
Nevertheless, as soon as I make a frivolous
remark about smoking biodynamic marijuana in Waldorf schools,
hardcore Waldorf critic Michael Kopp immediately seizes the opportunity
to portray Waldorf students, Waldorf parents, Waldorf teachers,
and anthroposophists in general as dopey pot heads engaged in
some super-marijuana production and trade business. My sincere
apologies to the "defenders of the faith" for sending
Kopp off on this tangent!
Michael KOPP says:
This is total bullshit. I did not portray Waldorf students,
parent, teachers and Anthropops in general as "dopey pot
heads", nor did I suggest that the SWA movement or any part
of it was engaged in a "super-marijuana production and trade".
I said I was aware of students at one SWA school in my personal
experience who used marijuana, including on school grounds during
school time.
I said I was aware of SWA parents at this school who provided
dope (as well as another illegal substance, alcohol) to their
(and perhaps other) kids, at parties or at home.
I made a joke -- much like Tarjei's -- about there being an SWA
drug business. The object of that joke -- and the subsequent
points I made -- was to take the wind out of the SWA movement's
`holier-than-thou' attitude in general.
Fair enough, but in view of the general witch
hunt by yourself and some of your fellow critics against Waldorf
teachers - a pillory that you seek to chain all anthroposophists
onto for ridicule, scorn, and moral discredit (divisive, dangerous,
racist, exclusive, elitist, abusive, etc. etc.), your gave the
impression of adding the drugging of children to the long list
of sins in "the Waldorf approach."
<snip>
(There's my paranoia, Flannery, and it's
real and not imagined. That, and the possibility that someday
I may say something that pushes my former Steiner school's owners
and operators -- who have the money to do it -- into suing me
for defamation. I may be right, and totally, provably truthful,
but in this country, the defendant has to prove innocence in
defamation cases, unlike the U.S. situation. And there's no First
Amendment here. I would be bankrupted by proving my innocence
of such an accusation against me.)
You are suggesting that the Waldorf school
in question is owned and operated by wealthy criminals who may
do something unpleasant to you if you rub them the wrong way
or get too close to their illegal activities. That's fine with
me as long as this profile is not blamed upon anthroposophy and
its founder.
I am also for marijuana decriminalisation,
if for no other than the practical reason that the witchhunt
is both wrong and unsuccessful -- although I do think it has
some negative health effects, as to most of the pleasurable things
humans ingest. There is certainly no worse effect on people's
brains than there is effect on their lungs and brains from tobacco,
which, of course, is hypocritically legal because of the huge
money and power involved. U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, mentioned
elsewhere on this list, is a tobacco state representative, and
has fought tooth and nail to preserve tobacco as a legal business,
while being totally opposed to marijuana. Doesn't politics make
strange bedfellows? The people running the U.S. drug war don't
care if it's successful, and they don't care if it means greater
suffering, misery and criminality than previously. They are amoral.
Allen Ginsberg is no longer with us, but I
had the opportunity to meet the old legend at the Blindern University
on Oslo a few years back, and I brought up the issue of marijuana
and the war on drugs in America. Ginsberg held the opinion that
the mafia with vested interests in the tobacco and alcohol industry
was responsible for the witch hunt against pot smokers because
they didn't want that kind of competition. Anyway, it goes back
to J. Edgar Hoover and the "reefer madness" propaganda.
When it was a black phenomenon, it was ignored. With the emergence
of the jazz bands where blacks and whites were mixed, it became
a racial thing; it was part of a reaction against white youth
adopting black culture in America. When rock and roll came along,
there was panic in the Southern white bourgeoisie. Pot smoking
was cultural heresy in the white community. They couldn't ban
the music (though certain lyrics were banned), so they used marijuana
as an excuse for arrests and raids. And they still do. But the
rich get away with everything.
There are plenty of drug busts in Norway,
and there has been all kinds of noise about parties with cannabis
and ecstasy and funny mushrooms. But nothing about cocaine. Why?
Because cocaine is still so expensive in Norway that only the
richest people use it. The ship owners, friends and peers of
the king. That is where the coke is. No wonder the cops never
make a bust.
I'd be pleased (but surprised) to see Straume
retract his accusation that I am trying any means to discredit
SWA, fair or foul. I am simply reporting what I know, and use
barbed humour no worse than do supporters of SWA.
If I have given the impression that you are
deliberately using foul means to discredit SWA, I'm happy to
apologize.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:31:28 -0700
On 22 Feb 99, at 0:50, Tarjei Straume wrote:
(There's my paranoia, Flannery, and it's
real and not imagined. That, and the possibility that someday
I may say something that pushes my former Steiner school's owners
and operators -- who have the money to do it -- into suing me
for defamation. I may be right, and totally, provably truthful,
but in this country, the defendant has to prove innocence in
defamation cases, unlike the U.S. situation. And there's no First
Amendment here. I would be bankrupted by proving my innocence
of such an accusation against me.)
You are suggesting that the Waldorf school
in question is owned and operated by wealthy criminals who may
do something unpleasant to you if you rub them the wrong way
or get too close to their illegal activities.
He's suggesting that he might get sued for
defamation. He's not suggesting that the school might hire thugs
to blow off his kneecaps.
Allen Ginsberg is no longer with us, but
I had the opportunity to meet the old legend at the Blindern
University on Oslo a few years back, and I brought up the issue
of marijuana and the war on drugs in America. Ginsberg held the
opinion that the mafia with vested interests in the tobacco and
alcohol industry was responsible for the witch hunt against pot
smokers because they didn't want that kind of competition.
I suspect that organized crime is interested
in stamping out marijuana farming for another reason. Pot farmers
are, for the most part, relatively small, independent operators.
Smuggling is more easily controlled by organized crime, and independent
growers cut into the smuggler's profits.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:35:39 +0100
Steve Premo wrote:
He's suggesting that he might get sued
for defamation. He's not suggesting that the school might hire
thugs to blow off his kneecaps.
Well, with wealthy and well-connected organized
criminals whose philosophy of evolution is taken from Alfred
Rosenberg you never know. They may even have secret torture chambers
in their basements.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"