Is Anderson Cooper Censoring the Discussion of Alternative Approaches to Re-Legalizing Marijuana?
============================
Note: Please put a "Digg" in for this article (upper right) and send it to as many people as possible. Also please cut/paste the graphic above into your MySpace, FaceBook or website homepage. Then embed the following link into the graphic file: http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama00.htm
============================
(1) Introduction
In this essay I will be discussing the apparent censorship of alternative approaches to Re-Legalizing Marijuana that do not allow the taxation and regulation of personal cultivation or consumption.
This consistent media bias toward a "tax and regulate" model is becoming quite obvious from the spate of "Marijuana Journalism" that has escalated beginning around January of 2009. Lisa "Dinga" Ling's "Marijuana Nation" and CNBC's "Marijuana Inc." are perfect examples of this biased journalism.
You can watch "Marijuana Nation" by clicking here.
Anderson Cooper has also produced a number of shows that also promote the "tax and regulate" bias. And in this essay I will illustrate, for you, how CNN's Anderson Cooper is actually censoring website posts that are against the "taxation and regulation" of personal Marijuana Cultivation.
This is the 12th in a series of essays on the MERP Model for Re-Legalizing Marijuana throughout the planet. You will find links to all past and future essays, concerning "MERP" at the following link:
"MERP" Headquarters
The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project (MRPP) = "MERP"
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htm
(2) What is the MERP Model?
MERP is really a one syllable contraction of the acronym MRPP which is short for the “Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project.” For brevity I will be using MERP from this point forward.
The MERP Model for Marijuana Re-Legalization is elegant in its simplicity and can be succinctly described as follows:
“The MERP model of Marijuana Re-Legalization would minimally allow non-commercial cultivation of unlimited numbers of plants, by adults above the age of 18, without any form of government taxation, regulation or other interference."
Under the MERP Model both Marijuana Cultivation and Consumption are to be held as inalienable, sacred rights. MERP does not preclude the issuance of commercial licensing and taxation, as long as such measures do not interfere with the aforementioned protections regarding personal cultivation and consumption.
The structure of the MERP Model assures three benefits that "tax and regulate" model can never achieve:
(1) The destruction of the Drug Cartels,
(2) Free access to Medical Marijuana and
(3) A counterbalance to the loss of personal liberties following the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001.
And while the MERP Model is unlikely to raise much tax revenue it would be much better for any nation that decides to implement it, for a number of reasons:
(1) Once MERP was implemented, the 27 Billion Annual Mexican Drug Cartel profits, derived from selling Marijuana in the United States, would no longer migrate "South of the Border" into the coffers of the Drug Cartels. Instead the proceeds would stay in the United States where it would be spent on legal goods and services. This would create thousands of new jobs and generate billions more in local, state and federal taxes. And for Mexicans it would result in a vast reduction in the violence, as the Drug Cartels would go out of business.
(2) Additional billions would be saved because, unlike the "tax and regulate models," there would be little need for the enforcement of the taxes and regulation. What the "tax and regulators" don't like to talk about is the fact that enforcement is both expensive and would still allow law enforcement an excuse to kick in your door to make sure you weren't growing your own Marijuana.
(3) MERP would allow the sick free medicine if grown outside and would only cost about $25 an ounce if grown indoors under lamps. The "tax and regulate" models will keep prices between $300 to $500 an ounce which would ironically put "Medical Marijuana" out of the reach of the sick, who were the supposed reason we were doing this in the first place. I've yet to hear Anderson Cooper respond to this little "wrinkle" in the "tax and regulate" models that he is promoting.
(3) Why is the MERP Model not being discussed by Moneyed Drug Reform Organizations or the Mainstream Media?
In past articles I have made it pretty clear that many of the well financed Drug Reform Organizations -- such as MPP, DPA and NORML -- show little to no support for the right of adults to cultivate there own Marijuana without the imposition of taxes and regulation. A similar bias permeates the Mainstream Media. In both cases it seems that a decision has been made, possibly on a global level, to heavily tax and regulate Marijuana in order to generate new revenue streams for local, state, federal and global governments.
The following articles give further insights as to how this "manufacture of consent" is being executed.
How the Marijuana Re-Legalization Movement Has Been Betrayed by Soros, Nadleman (DPA) and Kampia (MPP)
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama08.htm
How to Make Marijuana Free and Legal for For All Adults Within A Year:
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama00.htm
So it is pretty obvious "why" they don't want the discussion of the MERP Model to have a "place at the table:" MERP would not generate a great amount of tax revenue because they would be able to grow it without "taxation or regulation." Of course the motivations are actually much more complex than this would suggest. But this is really it in a nut shell.
(4) The Specifics of the Anderson Cooper Censorship Scandal
On July 24th Anderson Cooper's show "Anderson Cooper 360" published the following article on the "explosive" trend toward Marijuana Legalization:
The Medical Marijuana Explosion
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/24/the-medical-marijuana-explosion/
Dan Simon, CNN Correspondent
Medical marijuana dispensaries have exploded in California. In Los Angeles, there are more than 600 of them. Incredibly, there are more places to buy pot in LA, than there are McDonalds, 711’s and Starbucks. But that could be just the beginning. There is growing momentum in the state to fully legalize marijuana for people 21 and older. That means marijuana could be sold all throughout the state.
Governor Schwarzenegger says the idea ought to be studied. The idea is gaining strength, in part, because of the state’s disastrous budget. Legalizing pot would also make it taxable. The state tax board estimates that marijuana could bring the state more than a billion dollars a year. This is not just a pie in the sky idea. Oakland is now actually doing it. Voters overwhelmingly approved a measure to begin taxing medical marijuana.
There are really two to make marijuana legal in California: A legislative bill or voter initiative. Both are underway. The initiative probably has a better chance of passing the finish line. According to a California field poll, more than half of Californians—56% favor legalization. Meanwhile, lawmakers right now are reluctant to fully legalize. It’s possible the question could be put directly to voters in next year’s election.
Here’s the rub, however. Pretty much anyone over 18 who wants marijuana in California can get already get it legally. All you need is a note from your doctor. The state is filled with “pot docs,” who write the prescriptions for things less severe than hangnails. So while full legalization would put pot on par with cigarettes and alcohol, no one should pretend that pot already isn’t available to anyone who wants it.
There is little doubt from reading this short article that the bias is for a "tax and regulate" model.
So, Patti, one of the MERP activists, had written me to report that she had posted a few comments in regard to the article. So I followed the link to see what she had written. But I could not see any of her comments. I then posted a few comments of my own and wrote Patti to inform her of those posts. But Patti could not see any of my comments.
So this is the deception that CNN has put together for their readers feedback on a given article.
(1) The reader posts a comment that will initially appear to have been posted below the original article. The comment will initially have a note stating that the comment is "awaiting moderation." Now we had both assumed that this meant that it would be posted until the moderator had a opportunity to review it. And if it was offensive it could be deleted. We both had the false impression that anyone could view our comments after they were posted and viewable.
But what really happens is that the website can somehow detect exactly who you are and will then allow you to see your comments that are awaiting moderation. Until the comments are reviewed no one else can see them. But it seems like CNN wants people to think that others can see them. This is pretty creepy, in and of itself. But as we can attest: Patti and I could only see our own comments that were flagged as "awaiting moderation." We could not see each others. And readers of the article could see neither of our comments.
(2) Next the moderator goes through the posts "awaiting moderation" and does one of two things: (a) they are "OK'd" and viewable by all readers or (b) they are deleted and no longer viewable be anyone.
And that is exactly what happened to many of our comments. I have provided one of my posts to this article so you can see how my comments were first viewable by myself, yet were later deleted.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
So what has been the delay on moderating and posting my previous comments. Is the CNN’s way of censoring the discussion of alternatives to the “tax and regulate” model that appears to be getting forced down our throats begining in 2009.
I think the MERP Model for Marijuana Re-Legalization serves the greater good of society compared to a “tax and regulate” model that would effectively make our government our new Marijuana Dealer. The “Tax and Regulate” Model will not destroy the Cartels, will not provide cheap medicine and will not restore any of our liberties.
The MERP Model will do that by allowing all adults to cultivate without any taxation, regulation or other form of interference. Although MERP would not preclude the issuance of commercial licenses, personal cultivation of unlimited quantities would be protected as a sacred inalienable right. This would guarantee that no one would any longer make more than “normal” profits from the commercial sale of Marijuana.
Anderson Cooper, don’t you think my voice should be heard on the issue. After all I have been involved in this for over 20 years and challenge anyone to provide a better model for Re-Legalizing Marijuana than the MERP Model.
Here is where your readers can read more about my proposal through a series of articles and videos:
MERP Headquarters
The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project (MRPP)= “MERP”
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htm
This (above) is what I saw in the comments section of the article. Take a moment to bring up that article and see if you can see this comment from July 28th:
The Medical Marijuana Explosion
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/24/the-medical-marijuana-explosion/
"Anderson Cooper 360" IS censoring our posts. I can see my comment, but you cannot.
I highly recommend that you read through the "approved" comments. Because what seems to be getting approved is anything that supports the notion that we should "tax and regulate" Marijuana. All of our comments made reference to the MERP Model and that is why we feel they were deleted. Goodness forbid that Americans should be allowed to grow Marijuana like they brew homebrewed beer or tomatoes -- without any taxation or regulation.
I think this should be seen as an outrage to anyone that believes in the freedom of the press and the right to unregulated public discourse. We should not expect that Anderson Cooper would be censoring valid points of view, merely because they don't support the opinions of their Multi-National Corporate Masters that own CNN.
The comments on behalf of Patti and myself did not merely criticize the War on Marijuana: they gave a very credible insight into a viable alternative model for Re-Legalizing Marijuana. Is it really just a coincidence that all of the recent Mainstream Media "specials on Marijuana (Marijuana Nation, Marijuana Inc., Anderson Coopers continuing series on Marijuana etc) have all "pushed" a "tax and regulate" model without giving ANY consideration to the larger benefits that could be realized by, instead, implementing a "no tax, no regulate" model such as the MERP Model?.
All of this propaganda is attempting to not so subtly manufacture consent for a "tax and regulate" model for Re-Legalizing Marijuana. None of these shows discuss the advantages of just allowing adult Americans to grow their own Marijuana, much less discuss various ways in which this could be accomplished. What they absolutely avoid is anything favoring "untaxed, unregulated" personal cultivation.
And it is not just Patti and I that support the individuals right to cultivate without being taxed or regulated.
The other day I was listening to fellow activist Casper Leitch's webcast "Time for Hemp." On the show he had two luminaries of the movement to comment on the recent 80% landslide vote in favor of taxing Marijuana in Oakland, California. The first guest on the show was Dennis Peron, who was one of the original authors of the first Medical Marijuana Initiative: Proposition 215 in 1996. Also on the show was Ed Rosenthal who has been writing about Marijuana Cultivation for decades through High Times and other Magazines.
You can listen to it in its entirety at this link:
Bruce Cain and Tammy McKenzie. "Time 4 Hemp" (08/25/2009): Cain discusses MERP. McKenzie discusses LED Grow Light Systems
http://www.time4hemp.com/podcast/music/31-Time-4-A-Tax-Revolution.mp3
Here are some excerpts of what they had to say:
Time For Hemp Partial Transcript with Dennis Peron and Ed Rosenthal:
Casper Leitch: CL
Dennis Peron: DP
Ed Rosenthal: ER
[About half way through the audio file]
CL: The Medical Marijuana Tax has now passed in Oakland California. Some people think it to be a wonderful thing, overly exciting and a sign of progress. Others consider it to be a little strange. We have on the line today someone that helped place the first Medical Marijuana Law on the books with Proposition 215. Dennis Peron is one of the authors of Proposition 215.
Did you ever think you would see a day, when you woke up in California, and found that Marijuana was being taxed?
DP: It has taken a strange course of events, none of which I anticipated. And it is a strange thing in California because in California and the other states, medicine is not taxed. Now all of a sudden our medicine has to be taxed. And I don't "get" this tax. It seems like we are trying to buy our way into this thing: to buy our way into acceptance. And I don't think that is the way to go. It's like buying our way to "keep the bear away from us" by feeding it. And I have to tell you about the bear. You have to keep feeding the bear or else they're going to get rid of it (e.g., Medical or Legal Marijuana). So if you start feeding it, you're going to have to keep feeding it. And taxes here, taxes there. And we're really being taxed with over 20 million getting busted. That's our tax.
And I know it sounds good to say, "let's just tax our way out of this thing." But you can't. This is a moral crusade. And it's a moral crusade on their side and a moral crusade on our side. We believe in plants and I don't think we should have to tax ourselves to get it to be free. And I just think it is wrong to do it and I support the idea of getting Marijuana to be accepted and it is being accepted because people voted for it. They think it is a medicine. So the idea is that we have to start feeding the bear money to get him to stay away from us. We have won and eventually the courts are going to come down on their side and say hey Mr. Peron says all use is medical. Therefore Proposition 215 Legalized Marijuana and maybe through the back door. So we go through the back door and they go through the back door. But now we have these taxes. So now we can money out of these guys (e.g., Marijuana Consumers) and I think that is wrong.
CL: Now their are some people that say we are working within the system by making this happen and they point out that the government is going to have its hand in everything and this might be a reasonable way to make it acceptable across the entire United States.
DP: Oh, I know. Its a way of acceptance. But it is the wrong way of getting acceptance. We are gaining acceptance because it is a good medicine, a beneficial medicine, a safe medicine that saves peoples lives. You can't get more righteous than that.
CL: OK. Do you have a dispensary in Oakland?
DP: No, I'm not into that I'm glad to say. I'm totally out of that. Now I'm just operating a "Bud and Breakfast" . . .
==========================
Ed Rosenthal: :Ask Ed" Grow Column
CL: Are you excited by the new tax that has taken place there in Oakland?
ER: This initiative that the voters just passed. The 1.8 percent tax on the revenue from all businesses associated with the sale of Marijuana. Now it's not that I'm opposed to the tax, per se. And I know Oakland needs the money. But in California there is no sales tax on prescription medicine. And Marijuana coming from the dispensaries all needs a recommendation from a doctor. So they're not treating Marijuana as they are treating other medicines. Instead this initiative is treating Marijuana much like alcohol because bars and other establishments in Oakland that serve alcohol, also have to pay a 1.8 percent tax. And I think that if they want to tax Marijuana it would be fine to tax recreational Marijuana. But I don't think that patients should have to pay a sales tax. If you hear the club owners, or other public officials, they say, "Oh no, the patients won't pay it." But everyone knows that ultimately the patients will pay it. It doesn't' come out of the profits of the distributors it comes directly from the patients. And I don't think that patients should have to pay a tax for their medicine.
So isn't it rather odd that the Mainstream Media doesn't allow Dennis Peron, the author of the very first Medical Marijuana Initiative, to voice his opposition to "taxing and regulating" Medical Marijuana? Isn't it rather odd that the Mainstream Media doesn't allow Ed Rosenthal to point out that Marijuana is the only medicine that we allow to be taxed.
This is simply part of the plan to "manufacture consent" for a "tax and regulate" model to eventually legalize Marijuana. But, unlike the MERP Model there are 3 important things it cannot accomplish:
(1) It will not Destroy the Drug Cartels
(2) It will not allow the sick access to free medicine
(3) It will not provide a counterbalance to the liberties lost in the wake of 911.
Once the MERP Model becomes law the police will no longer have any excuse to break down you door in order to see if you are growing too many Marijuana plants.
There are most definitely advantages to such a model that allows individuals the right to cultivate without being taxed or regulated.. So why doesn't the public get to even consider the "pros" and "cons" of such an approach?
After all we are not trying to monopolize the debate. But we do believe that the MERP Model should have a place in every future Mainstream Media "propaganda piece" regarding Marijuana. It should also have a place at every future meeting of the Marijuana Policy Project, the Drug Policy Alliance and NORML. But so far we have been essentially censored by these groups, just as we have been censored by the Mainstream Media.
Why is it that they are so afraid to give equal consideration for an alternative model for Marijuana Re-Legalization that treats personal cultivation and consumption of Marijuana as a inalienable and sacred right? Shouldn't the public at least have the opportunity to consider the merits of the MERP Model compared to the "tax and regulate" model that is being promoted by some obviously very powerful forces. The question every one should be asking is "are these powerful forces, behind the "tax and regulate" model truly looking out for the best interests of society.
I think not. And in reality it is the same vermin that push the "tax and regulate" model are the same vermin that have outsourced our jobs, destroyed the values of our homes and are leading us towards a very uncertain future. Every single policy that this global elite has promoted is intended to leave the working class just a little bit further in debt. And their promotion of a "tax and regulate" Marijuana model will have the exact same effect: more money from your wallet to that of the elite. Isn't that enough reason to question the true intent of the "tax and regulate" model.
This "tax and regulate" model is being structured towards a "Government Marijuana Dispensary" System where the very same government, that has been busting your for consuming and cultivating Marijuana for over 70 years, is now going to force you to make them your new Drug Dealer.
Can you think of anything else more hypocritical?
If you agree with the MERP Model I would highly recommend that you send a letter to your Congressman and any drug reform groups with which you are associated. Tell them that unless MERP is implemented immediately, through a special session of Congress, they are going to be out of a job soon.
You will find instructions for contacting your representatives, along with a boiler plate letter (which you can customize) at the following link:
How to Make Marijuana Free and Legal for For All Adults Within A Year:
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama00.htm
Yours in Peace and Freedom,
Bruce W. Cain
Author of the MERP Model for Marijuana Re-Legalization
Related Media:
Majority Of Americans Want Pot Legalized: Zogby Poll
[Click here for more articles on Zogy Pot Poll]
A majority of Americans, in a poll released Wednesday, say it "makes sense to tax and regulate" marijuana. The Zogby poll, commissioned by the conservative-leaning O'Leary Report, surveyed 3,937 voters and found 52 percent in favor of legalization. Only 37 percent opposed.
A previous ABC News/Washington Post poll found 46 percent in support. In California, a Field Poll found 56 percent backing legalization.
Responding to the poll at a press conference Tuesday, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for an open debate on legalization.
Voters were asked: "Scarce law enforcement and prison resources, a desire to neutralize drug cartels and the need for new sources of revenue have resurrected the topic of legalizing marijuana. Proponents say it makes sense to tax and regulate the drug while opponents say that legalization would lead marijuana users to use other illegal drugs. Would you favor or oppose the government's effort to legalize marijuana?"
