Having problems with message search?
This forwarded email is very long even with the city lists snipped off. The archived version of this will truncate the end of the email. So the city lists are linked here at the top this time:
MMM 2004 city list and world map:
http://www.geocities.com/tents444/mmm2004map.htm
http://www.geocities.com/tents444/mmm2004map.htm
MMM 2003 city list and world map:
http://www.geocities.com/tents444/mmm2003map.htm
http://www.geocities.com/tents444/mmm2003map.htm
MMM 2002 city list:
http://www.corporatism.netfirms.com/mmm2002.htm
http://www.corporatism.netfirms.com/mmm2002.htm
-----Forwarded email begins-----
Dana Beal <dana@...> wrote:
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:26:43 -0500
To: greenpartydrugsgroup@...
From: Dana Beal
Subject: MMM 2004 #17: Milwaukee, Osaka, Reno, Sapporo Make 138 Cities in
Jay Day Offensive!
CC: niall@..., tents444@..., yerbanena@...,
risto.mikkonen@..., indianbud@...,
initiativ@..., mojca@..., ezpz@...,
newagecitizen@..., hromi@..., tushona@...,
pariah_mob@..., jc0_66@..., irena.krzan@...,
legalizemichigan@..., Newagecitizen@..., hri100@...,
info@..., hempSA@..., has.cornelissen@...,
farid@..., inorml@..., mohemp@..., Boris.it@...,
chris@..., iowanorml@..., duncaneddy@...,
RoadsEnd@..., rastapeace@..., pdxnorml@...,
hempSA@..., smuuthc11@..., acididea@...,
anna_ganja@..., andyganja2001@...,
fiddlefoot420@..., torml@..., fearless_420@...,
melacs42x60@..., rebelart@..., pcornwell@...,
martin@..., CAMPNC@..., Blocpot@...,
DennyLane@..., hanfparade@..., mayday@onelist.com,
prohibitionx@..., freddiefreak@..., sokrates@...,
restore@..., rastapeace@..., j_thang@...,
Hempsters@..., texasm5@..., rscherer@...,
phillty2@..., steph@..., billdowning@...,
mmm@..., Usersvoice.jmt@..., forml_2000@...,
chris@..., pakaloha@..., werkhausen@...,
chairman@..., bloom@..., pdr@...,
aksh1@..., stinkygreens@..., Hanf-tv@...,
blair@..., jstatzer@..., encimer@...,
tnsmith44@..., CFFHS@..., globalpeas@...,
emanuel@..., dangssdp@..., fine_time909@...,
miriamwhite420@..., bud_jamesbud@..., mappnow@...,
xchaos@..., btm42@..., wachtel@...,
mgesuald@ilmanifesto, terryparkerjr@..., fjhc@hotmail,
rzr@..., legalise@..., spacehippie@...,
artworks@..., phillyweed420@..., info@...,
doncriss@..., joewein@..., normalpotluck2002@...,
info@..., OCannabisSociety@..., writch@...,
mmackenzie2@..., hilary@..., escandonavia@...,
jipiando@..., leoparda_azul@..., faenadub@...,
don@..., ultra_plus_estrella@..., helmcke@...,
m_bandida@..., malcomska@..., foroalici@...,
earthfirstswt@..., dmcvay@..., taudarknes@...,
hemptress@..., newpaltznorml@..., bitchcrafts420@...,
melacs42x60@..., baren1@..., gica@...,
TCW@..., amec@...
So far, 138 Cities are Signed up for 2004 .MAYDAY IS JAY-DAY!(This year, the first Saturday of May falls on May 1. We are recommending Sunday, May 2 or Monday May 3 in cities where there is significant conflict with other local events--or as a rain date. Of course, we understand that some schools have to do it on 4/20 because their school year is over by May, and that some northern cities have to do it a little later in May...)albany
albuquerqueamherstamsterdamashlandathensatlantaaucklandaustinbakersfieldbaselbergenberlinberneboonebratislavabremenbuenos airesbuffaloburlingtoncapetownchico
christchurch
cincinnaticlevelandcolognecolumbiadallasdarmstadtdarwindaytondes moines
detroit
doverdublindunedineau claireeugenefairbanksfayettevilleflintfrankfurtft. lauderdalegenevahalifaxhearsthelsinkihilohoustonhullkansas citykingstonkristiansandlansinglas vegaslausannelebanonleipzigleonlevinlexingtonlimalondnnlucernemarysvillemexico cityMilwaukeeminneapolismissoulamontpeliermontrealmoscownapiernashvillenewarknew orleansnewtonnew yorknimbinogdenomahaorlandoosakaoslopaducahparisparkersburgpeoriaperthphiladelphiaphoenixportlandportlandpotsdampragueraleigh-durhamrapid cityrenorichmondrio de janeroroanokeromerosariorostocksacramentosalt lake citysan diegosan franciscosan juansan marcossao paulosaporospokanespringfieldstavangerst. louissturgeon fallstallahasseetampatel avivthunder baytorontotokyotraverse citytrondheimtucsontupeloturkuupper lakevancouverventuraviennawashington, d.c.wellingtonwichitawilmingtonyuba cityzurichHelp us reach our goal of 300 cities worldwide!To get on the poster for 2004--"Mayday is Jay Day"--check yr contact info and email me back telling me to add yr city to the List at the top of this email. By the way, I lost about three weeks email not long after last year's event, and have had intermittent email service since that time.. Did anything happen on the first Saturday of May in your area? Numbers? Arrests? Media? Anything of interest happen, etc?You can also call me at 212-677-4899--or leave a message on 212-677-7180.
Dana/cnwP.S.: We are also interested in adding to our list of prestigious endorsers, which consists of pot activists well-known in their city or country. We need a name and phone number for each. Any suggestions?P.P.S: Important for Organizers: If you cannot afford to print posters for your May Day weekend rally/march from the CD "May Day is Jay Day" most of you were sent, and you need some generic, worldwide posters already printed up, contact David Malmo-Levine in Vancouver!Go to
www.cannabisculture.com
click on forums
click on current news and events
click on mmm and tell David Malmo-Levine you want a package.If you want to do yr own event, insert details of yr march/event that you want on a sticker specifically for yr city--times, date, location, phone, email, etc. You also need to leave a mailing address so that you can get yr shipment. David Malmo-Levine will be on line to answer questions.Otherwise, you can contact us at cnw@... if you need changes in the disc we sent you such as event details, yr phone number, or change in the date--OR if you never got a disc to begin with, and you would rather do your own printing.------------------From: rikki@...Greetings to all you Pioneers, on the New Frontier of
this worldwide " Million Marijuana March" if we take
this opportunity to pull together it will reachout to
the Mainstream Press surely.Come join us every Nation and the world will hear our voices.Dana Beal and I will be connecting all nationsfor licensing the live feed.
I have the lawyers who are familiar with this process.
Your participate in this Historical Musical, Political
non-violent celebration will reach world news.
NO FOOTAGE OF MINORS SMOKING ON FILM ...IT WILL DAMAGE
THE HISTORICAL VALUE AND CREDIBILITY OF OUR EFFORTS..
We have star power onboard that's known the world over.CHECK OUR WEBSITE http://www.hempevolution.orgLet's take this to the next level to the world live on
the internet and get the visibility and profile needed
to express the benefits of the Cannabis Hemp plant..contact me at:(415) 346-8796 OR rikk@...contact Dana :dana@... Rikki Gordon--------------------HELP RAISE MONEY FOR THE MILLION MARIJUANA MARCH--BOOK A YIPPIE SPEAKER!
Recently we wrote you that we need on average $100 for each affiliate to print and ship this year's poster--and that if you can't send it, we have to raise it somewhere else.
You can help. Go to http://www.yippiespeakers.com Here's the good news: 20% of all speaker fees go to printing and operating expenses for the MMM 2004. (If you can get me booked personally it's 100%.)Some of these speakers like Grace Slick and Hunter Thompson get $25,000 just for appearing at yr local university! (Some like Dennis Peron are available for a few thousand) Your local group gets 4% finders' fee.
What we need you to do is contact yr local on-campus activists and have them agitate their student affairs folks in charge of outside speakers (or equivalent) to book some of our speakers. It's important to clarify that we are NOT asking them to get this from the budget of their NORML or SSDP chapter, but from the campus office that books outside speakers. (At Kent State they call it the Office of Student Life, and they paid me $4,000 for a three hour appearance, which went straight to the printer.)
It's a good year for it. Things have come full-circle for Yippie! We have all the elements--an illegitimate Republican President everyone hates at home, a quagmire war abroad--for the first time since the '70's. And best of all, even though all our speakers support cannabis and oppose the drug war, they are Yippie, not legalization speakers, so you won't have to deal with demands from the university administration that you find some anti-drug speaker for "Balance" or you don't get the booking. (Since we are moving toward protests against the Republican Convention in NYC next August, to be fair they'd have to demand an opponent of protests, period, which is absurd.)If you have a hot prospect, email me right back; but since about half of everything sent to this address "bounces", be sure to also put in a call to the speakers bureau at 212-677-7180, and leave a message if no one picks up.Dana/cnw*****!!!Cannabis Liberation Day--Mayday Weekend 2004: Updates, Reports!!!*****From: info@...Dana,
Please update/add the following cities for MMM 2004:City: Tokyo (Japan)
Date: May 2Location: Kiba-Koen (Kiba, Koto-ku, Tokyo)City: Osaka (Japan)
Date: May 5
Location: Oogimachi-Koen (Oogimachi, Kita-ku, Osaka)
City: Sapporo (Japan)
Date: May 9Location: TBA
The contact for all these cities:Name: Takao Bakuya (Cannabist)
TEL/FAX: +81-3-3706-6885
mailto:info@...http://www.cannabist.org/
We need about 500 posters this year (for 3 cities).
I would like to send a check (or money order), so please let me know the mailing address and who should I make the check payable to.
Thanks and Regards,Takao Bakuya--------Dope Laws Up in Smoke
Source: Expatica.com March 16, 2004
Germany's cannabis laws could go up in smoke in the next few weeks as Berlin's local
assembly prepares to decriminalise pot. Ernest Gill reports on the build-up to the
change in the law, which could also set a precedent for other parts of the country.
The city of Berlin is moving quickly to decriminalise possession of small amounts of
cannabis in what is called "bowing to reality", even as federal law in Germany still
outlaws production or sale of the drug.
Read More... http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread18508.shtml*******From: gica@...Time is running fast and we did receive neither the posters (we still have to
send the 100$, we're short of money at the moment) nor any disc for printing
posters.
We are trying to organize an event as big as possible on may 2, to face the
menace of the new law proposed by govt. but not yet passed. That's why wehave expenses and money is never enough. If you'll send us the posters AND
the disc, we would be very grateful, but at least please send us the disc so
we can print according to our budget day by day.
In www.cures- there is our e-mail address in city-list but no teleph.n°.
Here it is: (0039) 339 3393589 Mefisto. The shipping address is: Alessandro
Buccolieri , Via Cristoforo Numai 61 , 00168 ROMA (Italy).
Thanks for co-operation, we'll tell you about details of march and concert as
soon as we can.
Mefisto---------Committee Approves Medical Marijuana Bill
Source: Associated Press March 15, 2004
Hartford, Conn. -- A bill that will allow sick people to grow marijuana for medicinal
purposes cleared its first legislative hurdle Monday, despite opposition from lawmakers
who described the measure as a backdoor attempt to legalize the drug. The Legislature's
Judiciary Committee voted 24-15 to approve the bill, which is nearly identical to a
measure that made it out of committee last year before failing on the House floor. This
year's bill decreases the number of plants that can be grown from six plants to five
and would require the plants be grown in a secure, indoor area, said bill sponsor state
Rep. Jim Abrams.
Read More... http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread18506.shtml------From: emlee_p@...Hi Dana--
Just looked at the website and looks like you stillhave Chuck's information posted--would you pleasechanged the e-mail posted to Phillymmm@... ?
'spose you should take off his phone number too--I
should have one of those soon--will write soon as Ihave one.thanks,Emily---------From: maryhuanamike@...HighMMM
I got out of jail one month ago.
I spent 5.5 months in there, doing dead time...at trial, the judge found me not guilty of trafficking cannabis and possession for the purpose of trafficking cannabis. I have other cannabis related charges pending and I have a trial date set for April 22, 2004, where I know I will get another acquittal.
Last year I promoted and organized the MMM in Sturgeon Falls, Ontario...it is possible you guys attempted to reach me via email, but no one was out here to retrieve my emails.
I had placed my community on the list for the MMM in 2004.
I hope that we are still going to be on this year's poster...I am trying to keep my community on the map of the world as a cannabis friendly area.
My mailing address and other coordinates have changed due to my incarceration.
People can communicate with me here at this email address or by mail and phone at......Reverend Brother Michel D. Ethier
c/o Tree of Life Mission
15 Morrisson Court
Sturgeon Falls, Ontario
P2B 3G3
Tel: 705 753-3162753-5297
Please leave a message as it will be a great honour again to put this event together.
In peace, bless you, bless us all.Reverend Brother Michel D. Ethier----
Tripod Form Mailer <membership@...> wrote:
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:55:00 -0500
From: Tripod Form Mailer
To: tents444@...
Subject: Results From Your Form
The following data was submitted via your form:
I am interested in adding Milwaukee, Wisconsin to your list. How does this work and what happens once we are added? Thank you
LPhempyjefferson3@...----------------From: toots_77@...hey,
this is michelle in reno, I wanted to let you know that I have a new email address, it is toots_77@.... I also received a flyer with a cd in it but I don't know how to access what is on it. my phone # is still the same, 775-287-1594. hope all is well.
be well,
Michelle
p.s. i am planning on moving to vancouver, b.c. for about a year to see mr. emery's
ibogaine clinic in practice, if there is any advise you can offer me about any part
of my move, i would really appreciate it. take care!-------From: president@...Hello Dana, last year we had 50,000 people in the park. we had 3 bands,as well as representatives from the Hemp Coalition and the NovemberCoalition. Our new addresse is www.SpoCannabis.com thank you forall of you work. This year we expect the same. Same time as
Spokane's internationally famous Bloomsday foot race Peace*************************BUSHWHACKED!!****************************Bush Campaign Gear Made by Slave Labor
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/032004A.shtml------------Of course, this is not from an American newspaper. I think it is the Pakistani Daily Times. I had seen this referenced a while back, as well from another source.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9
March 15, 2004
US tried to plant WMDs, failed: whistleblower
Daily Times Monitor
According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration's assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to "plant" WMDs inside the country.
Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by "friendly fire", the Environmentalists Against War report.
Nelda Rogers is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the DoD. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq. According to Al Martin Raw.com, "Ms Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office for the Department of Defense."
The information that is being leaked out is information "obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the DoD and/or the CIA." "According to Ms Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq," reports Al Martin Raw.com, an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides "Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence".
Al Martin is a retired Lt Commander (US Navy), the author of a memoir called "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider," and is considered one of America's foremost experts on corporate and government fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by former military personnel and "the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace".
According to Al Martin Raw.com, "the Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others". According to the Al Martin Raw.com story, another aspect of Ms Rogers' report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident when "the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called 'friendly fire'. The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted."
"They identified about $2 billion in cash, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds," reports Al Martin.
"These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray," Martin continues. "There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of 'friendly fire', 'mistaken identity,' and some of them "their whereabouts are simply unknown." Ms Rogers' story sounds like an updated 21st-century version of Treasure Island meets Ali Baba and the Bush Cabal Thieves, writes Martin.
"This was a contingent of CIA/ DoD operatives, but it was really the CIA that bungled it," Ms Rogers said. "They were relying on the CIA's ability to organise an effort to seize these assets and to be able to extract these assets because the CIA claimed it had resources on the ground within the Iraqi army and the Iraqi government who had been paid. That turned out to be completely bogus. As usual."
"CIA people were supposed to be handling it," Martin continues. "They had a special 'black' aircraft to fly it out. But none of that happened because the regular US Army showed up, stumbled onto it and everyone involved had to scramble. These new Iraqi "asset seizures" go directly to the New US Ruling Junta. The US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer is reportedly drinking Saddam's $2000 a bottle Napoleon-era brandy, smoking his expensive Davidoff cigars and he has even furnished his office with Saddam's Napoleon-era furniture.
=======================================================Outside View: Who is William Krar?
By Jim Kessler
A UPI Outside View commentary
WASHINGTON, March 14 (UPI) -- Since his appointment as attorney general, John Ashcroft's Washington office has issued 2,295 news releases. Not one of them has mentioned the name William Joseph Krar.
Krar's attorney is saying it's all a misunderstanding, and Krar himself is not talking, but his arrest by federal law enforcement in the small town of Noonday, Texas, last April may have stopped the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11.
Krar, who is affiliated with several anti-government, white supremacist militia organizations, was apprehended after mailing a package containing false U.N. credentials, Defense Intelligence Agency IDs, phony birth certificates and a forged federal concealed weapons permit to a co-conspirator in New Jersey.
The package came with a note that read, "We would hate to have this fall into the wrong hands." It did. It was delivered to the incorrect address.
An alert citizen contacted the FBI, which led to the arrest of Krar and the discovery of a mind-numbing weapons cache: fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs, nearly 500,000 rounds of ammunition and enough pure sodium cyanide "to kill everyone inside a 30,000 square foot building," according to federal authorities.
The arrest of Krar and two associates was the talk of the town in little Noonday, Texas, a sleepy community of about 500 people located 100 miles southeast of Dallas. But outside of a few local news stories and a handful of mentions in several national outlets, the William Krar arrest is the proverbial tree that fell in the woods.
Even more astounding is the stony silence from the Ashcroft Justice Department, which found at least 2,295 occasions to toot its own horn that are apparently more newsworthy than the Krar arrest.
"We don't spend a lot of time thinking about how we announce our activities," a Justice Department spokesman told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Really? This is from a Justice Department that averages two news releases every day and has never been shy to march out every triumph over the arrest or conviction of anyone remotely connected to overseas terror.
No, this Justice Department is obsessed with thinking about how they announce their activities. And that is what is so intriguing about this arrest and the conspicuous lack of comment from Ashcroft.
It is, to quote another famous crime fighter, reminiscent of "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time," said Inspector Gregory. "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Is there a double standard at Justice between the public pronouncements over arrests that fit our current stereotype of terrorists and those that don't? It is a question deserving of an answer. As for William Krar and his associates, who knows what they were planning? Perhaps they were going to blow up the United Nations or release sodium cyanide poison in the Pentagon. Perhaps they were ultimately going to do nothing -- just stockpile weapons of mass destruction and pass coded communiqués to each other bemoaning the Zionist occupation of the United States.
We don't know because William Krar is not talking. And neither is the Justice Department.
--
(Jim Kessler is president of the Washington-based consulting firm Definition Strategies. He can be reached at jkessler@....)
______________________________________________________________________
The US Terrorism Plot That the Media Ignores
>>> In May 2003, white supremacists in Texas were caught with a sodium cyanide bomb, other bombs, illegal weapons, hate literature, fake I.D., and chemicals, including hydrochloric acid and nitric acid. In mid-November, three people pleaded guilty to related charges, while seized documents indicate that there are other co-conspirators at large. The feds have served "hundreds of subpoenas across the country," and the plot has been included in the President's daily intelligence briefings.
But most of us have never heard about it. The only media that saw fit to report about this terrorist plot within the US were a few newspapers and TV stations in Texas. The Web-based news outlet WorldNetDaily ran a story about it, but Google News shows that there hasn't been a word in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or any other big media outlet. Why have the media decided that this is a non-story? It's hard to say, but we can say with certainty that if Muslims had been caught with these weapons of mass destruction, fake I.D., gas masks, and books on making explosives, it would've been front-page news for days.
Below, we've collected every article about this ignored plot that we could find. All images come from CBS 11 in Dallas/Fort Worth.
Update: Seven months after the arrests and one month after the guilty pleas, the New York Times finally saw fit to mention this domestic terrorism case-in an opinion piece that spends three paragraphs on the incident [here]. Fortunately, the writer's central point is a good one:
Americans should question whether the Justice Department is making America's far-right fanatics a serious priority.... It is also worrisome that the discovery of lethal chemicals in President Bush's home state was not deemed occasion for a high-profile announcement by Attorney General John Ashcroft or other officials trumpeting the arrests of Mr. Krar and his compatriots. This stands in stark contrast to the department's news media onslaughts whenever alleged operatives for Al Qaeda have been apprehended in the United States.
On the downside, he doesn't mention the media's complicity by ignoring an extremely important story. Will the media only cover terrorism if Ashcroft mugs for the cameras about it? [16 Dec 2003]-------QUOTEQUOTE (Lando Griffin @ Mar 14 2004, 04:19 PM)A handicap? no, you are not born an addict, you become one. Its more of a behavioral problem than anything else.
People are not born with aids either, and the federal government deems it a legal handicap. Moot point.
Well, actually there's this thing called obsessive/compulsive disorder, and probably some kind of genetic role in addiction, which is a subset of OCD involving a biochemical and a market capitalist component. But have you seen this?
QUOTE
The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically
determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of thejournal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it
is a chosen lifestyle.
Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered
after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has
sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing
communities.
Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional
tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably
high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering
fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to
be kind and gentle.
Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited. "After
all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a
Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican." The
finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of
Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political
views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted
co-conspirators.
One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy
on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said,
seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would
never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican
lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions
in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant
demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know."
Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but didnot confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced
it wasn't just a phase they were going through.
The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the
high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their
sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional
attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.
A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted
Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing
so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a
Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation
with Republicanism.
Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating
conservativphobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose"
their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump
nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.
If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical
stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans
can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate
Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided
they don't flaunt their political beliefs.
For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different
future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism
altogether.
Should they be allowed to marry, then, if the last few offspring of their
ilk are doomed to grow up shunned and alone, the vestigial remnantof a dying breed?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Join the Kerry Drug War Thread: http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=11770&hl=illicit+drugs+terrorismsandyPosted: Mar 15 2004, 02:42 AM
Okay, try to get back in here a little bit.
Dana, I think you don't understand my position on Ibogaine completely. As a moderator, it was my job to enforce the rules of the board. This forum cannot allow links directly to sites that promote illegal activity. The gun people cannot link to sites that explain how to illegally modify a gun, for example. They can discuss the Constitutionality of not being able to modify weapons and they can link to sites that discuss that, as long as there are no instructions or selling of the actual parts, stuff like that. That's the line I was drawing with Ibogaine links.
As to Ibogaine itself, you seem to be saying the Netherlands program works because of Ibogaine. At least at one point. That is not true, Ibogaine is not a routine treatment in the Netherlands. I posted an article that outlined their treatment program. Addiction treatment is too important to too many people to distort. There are some experimental programs and that's the best you can honestly say about Ibogaine treatment.
Now, as to my own personal view of Ibogaine, I do not see it as a magical cure. That's not to say it might not have a place in treatment, although I'm really having a tough time figuring out what that would truly be. Perhaps heroin addiction because that's the toughest one to break. And for whatever reason, heroin addicts seem to be pretty well aware that they're addicts and motivated to get off of it. Moreso than other addicts, but it's just tough to kick. It also might be just the thing for dual diagnosis, it seems for those people the medication is sometimes worse than the illness. It might even be good for cigarette addiction for the same reason. Most smokers really don't want to smoke, it's just a tough addiction to break. So there could be specific scenarios where Ibogaine could be essential.
But, as I'm sure you know, the key to most other addictions is denial. Which is where I have a hard time understanding how Ibogaine would be the broad panacea you describe. As I've said before, breaking through the denial is still going to be required to get someone to agree to Ibogaine in the first place. Maybe you do an intervention and get them to do the Ibogaine treatment instead of a treatment program. But then when I read Dr. Mash's reports, they specifically say the effects only last 30 days - 6 months. Then what? You can't give somebody the emotional tools to deal with sobriety if their mental/emotional state is altered by Ibogaine. So like I've said before, what happens when the Ibogaine wears off and the person opts for their drug of choice instead of Ibogaine because it's easier or cheaper. You quoted a 70% recovery figure, that's the same figure any decent treatment program has and is usually a monitored 1-3 year recovery figure. I don't see any similar data on Ibogaine for a substance that has supposedly been used since the 80's or before.
Ibogaine may be useful for those who have been through the treatment process numerous times and continue to use. Addicts who are fully aware of their situation That is the minority of addicts. If Ibogaine became legal tomorrow, the vast majority of users in this country wouldn't run to get it because they don't see themselves as addicts in the first place.
climbingthegreatbluecliffsPosted: Mar 15 2004, 12:28 PM
Ibogaine produces an objective state of introspection at high doses. Not for everyone obviously but it is a treatment option like any other. Maybe some real intergration into the treatment community and some honest research were done its realism or lack thereof could be better concluded. Basically though i think that ibogaine could be effective in presenting addiction to addicts in denial, as well as helping long time addicts see what they have been doing from a non-addictive substance induced perspective, and helping them see the hurt and suffering they bring to people around them and themselves.sandyPosted: Mar 15 2004, 01:10 PM
"Basically though i think that ibogaine could be effective in presenting addiction to addicts in denial"
But someone in denial isn't going to be knocking down the door to get to the Ibogaine. See what I mean?
"helping them see the hurt and suffering they bring to people around them and themselves"
Does it stick with them once the Ibogaine wears off? Can they apply anything they learned in an "Ibogaine state" to the "non-Ibogaine state"?There are experimental programs and I think that is good. I just object to the notion that Ibogaine has been proven to be a magic cure-all, because it hasn't.
climbingthegreatbluecliffsPosted: Mar 15 2004, 01:28 PM
They wont be knocking down the door to get anything. But ibogaine might be better when they decide to ring the doorbell, or have someone else do it for them.Its hard to remember the why of a drug induced train of logic. But the feeling is still there. Hopefully they can integrate enough of the experience to work out the kinks or holes afterwards. I think ibogaine does deserve a place in addiction treatment, wither or not that is the central one remains to be see/proven. It is good to dispel a potential myth of ibogaine as a complete cure for all addiction, although in my opinion it has more potential than methadone or other substances that do little more than prevent morphine from bonding to receptor sites long enough for the person to get over morphine withdraw symptoms and into those of the substitute receptor bonder. Ibogaine might even be a good addition to methadone programs, to help the addict kick the methadone.
sandyPosted: Mar 15 2004, 01:44 PM
I tend to agree with what you're saying bluecliffs. There are possibilities and I see alot of the same ones you do, especially methadone. But we don't know yet because it is still in the experimental stages. The most important part of its effectiveness would be if traditional treatment "takes hold" more with Ibogaine than without it. Then you've got people who can pay attention, practice new behaviors, etc.; without withdrawal, cravings, emotional upheaval, and the like that go along with the first few years of sobriety.
sandyPosted: Mar 15 2004, 03:34 PM
After all this time Dana, where are the 5 year studies of people who no longer use any drug at all. Why is it all antecdotal short term stories?
danaPosted: Mar 15 2004, 06:47 PM
The closest you can come right now is
http://www.ibogaine.org/Alperetal.html
That includes the original cohort who were dosed by Lotsof in the early 60"s--none of whom intended to quit drugs. Famously, 5 out of 7 quit drugs anyway, most for 6 mos. or longer. Then again, people quit red meat, and cigarettes after taking ibogaine. It's a purge, a cleansing. Cysts, tumors and zits clear up, vanish.
Ibogaine should be promoted not as an addiction cure, but as something for polydrug users who have tried everything else, and want to move on. On Ibogaine, people see the reason why they're using. It's a maturity pill--helps users to mature out.
I think you're underestimating the cognitive dimension, and the fact that since it's working with NMDA receptors and messenger 5 glutamate pathways you're laying down longterm learning during both the initial sleep paralysis and the deep cognitive state that follows it, where you analyze all the bits and snippets of edited-out stuff that's been retrieved from yr hard drive, so to speak, during the initial waking dream phase.
Mash as duplicated the findings of Alper, et al in Chapter 8 of
http://www.ibogaine.org/apcontents.html
which is not available on line. You have to pay Academic Press $80 -- and that's for the soft-cover! Mash is too focused in on nor-ibogaine, which she patented, to give appropriate credit to other long-term effects of Ibogaine itself. And then there's 18-MC, which lacks several kinds of activity that have been hypothesized to be responsible for Ibogaine's anti-addictive effect by Mash and others--but which still works perfectly well in rats. Better for nicotine, in fact. (Preston Peet, editor of Drugwar.com , reminds me to remind you nicotine is twice as addictive as heroin.)
For anyone defending the status quo at this point to ask for longterm studies is kind of like the kid who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy on account of he's an orphan, since (exactly like medical marijuana) the schedule I status of Ibogaine militates against precisely the kind of longitudinal followup that we've been asking NIDA to fund the whole time!
And what about the fact there is NO effective treatment for cocaine or speed addiction but ibogaine, or that people on methadone use crack and xanax to pull a pharmacological end-run around their opiate blockade, and ibogaine addresses that as the only patented treatment for polydrug dependency?
Will John Kerry take the money in the ONDCP forfeiture fund, which he will control directly as President, and re-target a certain amount into this biomedical research?
Dana/cnwsandyPosted: Mar 15 2004, 07:09 PM
"Ibogaine should be promoted not as an addiction cure,"
Well, then why do you keep promoting it as a cure?
"On Ibogaine, people see the reason why they're using."
People use because they're addicted. Most of the behavioral stuff is from creating excuses and patterns to use. Like the guy who gets in a fight with his wife so he can go get drunk. He may honestly think he's getting drunk because he has marital problems, but he's not. He's creating a crisis so he can drink, because he has to feed his addiction.And no, asking for actual recovery statistics is not unreasonable when you are claiming that Ibogaine is legal all over the world and has been used for decades and has a 70% recovery rate.
"And what about the fact there is NO effective treatment for cocaine or speed addiction but ibogaine"
Well now you're back to claiming Ibogaine as a cure again. And I've seen just as many cocaine and speed addicts recover with traditional treatment as alcoholics. Heroin addicts are the only addicts with persistent recovery problems.
I have no idea of what John Kerry will decide to do in regards to Ibogaine. But I would think that there would be a much higher odd of Ibogaine receiving research funding if people are completely honest about its use. As I've seen Dr. Mash be in all of her reports, where she specifically says it's not a cure, just a helpful piece of the treatment puzzle.
bcalabresePosted: Mar 15 2004, 08:13 PM
Sandy
The hardest addiction is the one you have, not heroin, not cocaine though if there is one to take the cake it is cigarettes. Obviously heroin addiction has acute withdrawal to deal with and there is where ibogaine is most dramatic in its effects.
You said;
"when I read Dr. Mash's reports, they specifically say the effects only last 30 days - 6 months. Then what? You can't give somebody the emotional tools to deal with sobriety if their mental/emotional state is altered by Ibogaine"
What ibogaine does is un-alter someone from the long term effects of drug abuse, addiction. It removes that altered state, it does not produce one - not for long anyway, just the treatment. What is altered by ibogaine is improved mood, clarity, health, vigor and desire to be who you are - it is a new day (so to speak). It removes the angst, gives a period of peace where drug thoughts are not overwhelming ones existance. It is something like going from being in active addiction to some number of months/years sober in a couple days. It is this time period, that the person can focus on their recovery, getting a life together, they are extremely "plastic".
"So like I've said before, what happens when the Ibogaine wears off and the person opts for their drug of choice instead of Ibogaine because it's easier or cheaper"
You want to know what happens when someone uses after taking ibogaine, it depends; Some don't like it and just stop, some go back at addiction full force, some go at it in a reduced level (some % less ), with continued treatments (2-3) most will have improved recovery levels. But rember people are somewhat un-altered by ibogaine treatment, it appeals less. It also depends if they have what it takes, recovery doesn't happen for most people all at once. Ibogaine can't make someone make a choice, it can give them that choice and make that choice a whole lot easier and more doable. It just isn't so hard with ibogaine treatment - that is the gist of what ibogaine does, IF you want it. The struggle is over, mostly anyway, there is still work to do, but not fighting ones self.sandyPosted: Mar 15 2004, 08:26 PM
bcal, Here's what I'm hearing you say.
An addict treated with Ibogaine, just like every other addict in the world, has the day where their sugar turns to sheeet and they have to look themselves in the mirror, clean and sober, and deal with what is looking back. Ibogaine just puts it off for a few months.
Which may be a good thing. As long as the person has support and is prepared for it when it happens.danaPosted: Mar 16 2004, 12:53 PM
QUOTE
"Ibogaine should be promoted not as an addiction cure,"
Should have read: "not be promoted solely as an addiction cure." To begin with, it has a number of other medical indications: anti-stroke, anti-tumor, anti-TB, and potential application to all forms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. But it is also an entheogen, which people take for spiritual enlightenment, and although it is an ordeal compared to--say--mescaline or a light acid trip, one of the rewards is frequently reduced use of substances.
QUOTE
Well, then why do you keep promoting it as a cure?
In some cases it is. After successful chemotherapy, if the cancer never comes back, people will say "I'm cured." If it just goes into remission and can be kept in remission only with more chemo down the road, we can speak of "effective treatment." Howard Lotsof is now free of leukemia for 4 years. The chemo almost killed him. Was it a cure?
QUOTE
"On Ibogaine, people see the reason why they're using."
Because they see the reasons they do all kinds of things.
QUOTE
People use because they're addicted. Most of the behavioral stuff is from creating excuses and patterns to use. Like the guy who gets in a fight with his wife so he can go get drunk. He may honestly think he's getting drunk because he has marital problems, but he's not. He's creating a crisis so he can drink, because he has to feed his addiction.
But most casual users of substances are not addicts. Your mantra seems to be "all use is abuse." Yeah, my father was an alcoholic, lost his job, etc. My mother drinks a little wine from time to time; she kept the family together as a single parent teaching high school. Only 1 in 6 people have a problem with alcohol. 1 in 8 with coke. 6% (not my figure) with cannabis. 95% with cigarettes.
QUOTE
And no, asking for actual recovery statistics is not unreasonable when you are claiming that Ibogaine is legal all over the world and has been used for decades and has a 70% recovery rate.
Should we withhold it from chronic relapsing nicotine addicts because it's only effective for cigarettes about a third of the time? One out of three sounds like pretty good odds to me, considering the survival stats on lung cancer. And what about the toxicities of the chemos for that?
QUOTE
"And what about the fact there is NO effective treatment for cocaine or speed addiction but ibogaine"
Well now you're back to claiming Ibogaine as a cure again. And I've seen just as many cocaine and speed addicts recover with traditional treatment as alcoholics. Heroin addicts are the only addicts with persistent recovery problems.
No--"effective treatment" is quite precise. It puts addiction into remission for extended periods of time. The problem is that you don't seem to HAVE any actual medical treatment in reserve for the drunks, speedfreaks and crackheads who CAN'T quit. Cold turkey detox followed by 12-step seems perfectly sufficient, as far as you're concerned. That and methadone. Half the people who come to me for treatment are trying to get OFF methadone. Which was sold to them as a bag of goods. And yes--some patients DON'T tolerate it well, and deserve an alternative that involves a relatively painless detox from the drug the system put them on to begin with.
Some of the shrinks I know give recovering speed and coke abusers welbutrin at least. Nor-ibogaine's lingering effect obviates the need for that kind of drug maintenance.
QUOTE
I have no idea of what John Kerry will decide to do in regards to Ibogaine. But I would think that there would be a much higher odds of Ibogaine receiving research funding if people are completely honest about its use. As I've seen Dr. Mash be in all of her reports, where she specifically says it's not a cure, just a helpful piece of the treatment puzzle.
Mash is one who has that data. She has longitudinal followup on more than three hundred people, and I'm certain that in the right political climate she'll share it all with the FDA. What bothers me is your dismissal of that fact that Ibogaine IS legal almost everywhere else but the U.S., and that it's use is spreading, with blythe assurances that that studies showing efficacy don't exist and therefore access to Ibogaine should be blocked for people in this country just because of what our local laws say.
It's legal to tell people that it's legally available across the border in Canada. Anything else is censorship.
I try not to respond to every post, but some days back Elijaah wrote:
QUOTE
I have personally lost good, talented, and beautiful friends from overdoses of black market drugs. My friend, Tim Hardin, (have you heard, "If I Were a Carpenter"? He wrote that) died from an overdose of Heroin. A tragic loss. I am opposed to addiction, both in my own life, and that of others, but the War on Drugs ISN'T the answer!!!!
I live on Bleecker St in the Village, not that far from folk music row. I'm not sure, but I believe that Tim Hardin was still alive during the beginnings of the Ibogaine Project. He definitely was alive during the 6 years before that when I knew about Ibogaine but was listening to people who told me to shut up about psychedelic drugs and concentrate on legalizing pot.
Tim Hardin could have been treated, if we'd tried a little harder, a little sooner.
So--should we be silent now? Should we bring this up with the Kerry campaign? If you are no longer moderating ths thread, who is?
Dana/cnw
bcalabresePosted: Mar 16 2004, 01:50 PM
QUOTE (sandy @ Mar 15 2004, 08:26 PM)
bcal, Here's what I'm hearing you say.
An addict treated with Ibogaine, just like every other addict in the world, has the day where their sugar turns to sheeet and they have to look themselves in the mirror, clean and sober, and deal with what is looking back. Ibogaine just puts it off for a few months.
Which may be a good thing. As long as the person has support and is prepared for it when it happens.
Sandy, that is not what I am saying. It does not just go away and does NOT go completely away. Some yes, all NO. It also fades over time, it isn't a light switch. I guess you could say it is SOMETHING LIKE (but not exactly like) weaning yourself back into life and off the ibogaine - or more likely off the nor-ibogaine that is long term bound in the brain/body. But once again, ibogaine un-alters someone, so after the effects of the iboogaine fade, someone is less altered by the long term use of drugs than they would have been say 6 months sober without ibogaine. Ibogaine is a bit like REMOVING some burned out fuses or bad circuit boards and putting them back to the way they were before drug abuse, after the overt feeling of ibogaine wears off, you still have those replaced/repaired thinking/behaviors - so long as (of course) you go with the ibogiane, do whatever recovery it takes. And yes, the recovery will STICK better with ibogaine then without. I felt better 3 days after doing ibogaine than I did 4 years clean. I never got rid of the angst, I was never at peace ( I had moments). Ibogaine gave me that, "recovery" never did, neither did the ZEN, self-help, spiritual stuff, yoga, vegetarian, thousands of meetings, working the "steps", and forgetabout treatment, years of it.
Ibogaine is a new paradigm, what people normally understand about addiction is now subject to a somewhat different set of rules. Someone can't just go "dose" and be un-addicted, Sure the physical addiction will likely leave them (with just a dose) but unless they have things like "set and setting" in place as well as doing the steps/work (CRITICAL!!!!!) they are likely to revert back to the way they were. Ibogaine makes making those changes easier, so that 6 months out (assuming you did the work) the person is stronger. They didn't spend the first 6 months (or longer) clawing for recovery and unscrambling their brain, ibogaine does the unscrambling - like bromocriptine is used to normalize cocaine addicts brain function - just a LOT faster and better than bromocriptine (parlodel), by orders of magnitude as it compares with all other forms of addiction "treatment" - IMVHO and my experience.
Ibogaine is also a tool like penicillin is a tool in the treatment of infection. There are other tools that penicillin didn't make obsolete, and alot it did. UROD is likely one of those "treatments' (a barbaric practice) that ibogaine certainly obsolete, so are the fist-full of post detox drugs used to keep recovering addicts feel better or maintain them Methadone has its place, some of it we can do without and some of it will be made easier by the fact that detoxing from methadone is far, far easier with a dose of ibo - even high doses are typically reduced 85+%, I know people on 200mg of ethadone that had zero withdrawal on a single dose of ibogaine.. Yes, ibogaine has its bumps, it isn't "take a pill and you are cured". I don't consider it a "cure" for making a choice just as penicillin may be a "cure" for veneral disease but isn't going to stop someones behavior. HOWEVER, ibogaine DOES remove/reduce some behaviors, drug seeking, drug thinking is reduced - even way 6+ months out, or longer. The compulsion is gone or greatly reduced. SOme people need additional doses, or small doses for periods they might be likely to be under "using" stress, a visit back home for instance. Even a small (tiny) dose of ibogaine will make it like it is something you did when you were 3 years old, and grew out of. Try to keep an open mind that what people normally believe/understand is different wth ibogiane. It doesn't make sense, sometimes sitting here (to me) it still doesn't make sense. If the drugs were free and there were no laws I would still have no interest in drugs. Maybe I am not "cured" but I just am not interested, same difference in practice, meaning the outcome is the same.
sandyPosted: Mar 16 2004, 03:31 PM
Bcal, I totally understand what you're saying. 100%. I am only saying two things. One, it would seem to me that if this is as widely used as Dana claims, then there'd be long term recovery studies. And second, from what I've read and even what Dana sometimes says, Ibogaine does wear off over time and isn't 100% anyway.
Try to follow my view here. This is what I hear people saying:
Prohibition doesn't work and is the reason for all the crime related to drugs.
We don't need prohibition because we have either Ibogaine OR doctor's prescribing drugs to addicts. They're presented as magic bullets.
All I'm saying is that while these might work for some, probably would for some, they aren't magic bullet cures.
They aren't going to resolve all the problems related to drugs, addiction, crime, etc.
Somehow because I don't buy into these magic bullet theories for dealing with drugs and addiction, I'm apparently advocating the continuation of jail for drug addicts and a tool of the corporate pharmaceutical or treatment industries. Oh, and I apparently also have some sort of self-righteous attitude about addicts, couldn't possibly imagine them in "my" family. Or I think everybody who uses is an addict. Can't quite reconcile those two interpretations of who I am.
Let's just be honest about it all. Every addict isn't going to want the restrictions of a doctor's care. Just like every heroin addict doesn't sign up for methadone, even if they know they're addicted. It can be a long haul before an addict realizes they're an addict and even wants Ibogaine. And even with Ibogaine, long term recovery will still require traditional treatment tools.
And in all of that, there will be lots of black market drugs. The problems of gangs and terrorists and drug-related crime won't go away.
bcalabresePosted: Mar 17 2004, 10:40 AM
"And second, from what I've read and even what Dana sometimes says, Ibogaine does wear off over time and isn't 100% anyway. "
You seem to be saying what is the point if it wears off and isn't 100%. What exactly is your argument against something not working 100%, by far most medications are far less effective than ibogaine, that does not mean they don't work and doesn't mean that for some folks they don't work 100%. This is the nature of medicine, nothing is 100% and everything has side effects, some people can't take it (for whatever reason), others won't - just like any other treatment or medication. What is your point, you are obviously trying to put down ibogaine.
Tell me one method of treatment of any illness that is 100%?
"Prohibition doesn't work and is the reason for all the crime related to drugs"
They are saying prohibition doesn't work and is the reason for most (not all) of the crime related to drugs. When prohibition for alcohol was lifted a lot of crime went away, all, of course not, a lot, yes. They are saying the "war on drugs" (prohibition) is an industry that wants more customers, bigger budget, votes, fear, contol over people... If it was working please show me the statistics over the past 30 years that show that drug use and crime has been going down due to the "drug war". My observation and the statistics I have read say it hasn't.
"All I'm saying is that while these might work for some, probably would for some, they aren't magic bullet cures. "
All medications "might work for some, probably would for some, they aren't magic bullet cures", and likely all future medications will be the same.
DO you know that FDA approved medications actually killed 112,000 people in 1999 (in the US). Do you know 2 of the side effects of naltrexone (used during and after UROD) is spontanious death and suicide, that is OK but ibogaine is not 100%, geez...
"I'm apparently advocating the continuation of jail for drug addicts and a tool of the corporate pharmaceutical or treatment industries"
Is it working? If it isn't then why continue to do the same thing and expect a different result? Makes no sense to me but that is what has been happening.
"It can be a long haul before an addict realizes they're an addict and even wants Ibogaine."
Or any other treatment, why single out ibogaine. Why not single out "meetings", what good are they, by the time they walk in "the rooms" they have broken through their denials. It is almost always "a long haul", that is what addiction is about, if it was easy to stop it wouldn't be addiction now would it. With ibogaine it is a shorter haul to get over the addiction, is something wrong with that? WIth going to meetings it can be a shorter haul, something wrong with that? By doing self-help stuff or any kind of recovery stuff/treatment it can be a shorter haul, something wrong with those? So why pick on ibogaine? IN my exeprience it is certainly a helpful addition to all that other good stuff, it is the single most important thing I have ever done in my "recovery". I don't own "addict" any longer, certainly I am recovered. I just don't use the word "cured" cause I can't and shouldn't have a few drinks or smoke a cigarette...
"And even with Ibogaine, long term recovery will still require traditional treatment tools. "
Once again you seem to be putting down ibogaine cause you STILL need traditional treatment and tools. I didn't use them, a lot of people don't but yes a lot of people need that, especially if they have never been clean/through treatment. Many people will need more traditional treatment and tools, why not one more (ibogaine)? Is it because it is some kind of threat? It is like "HEY I JUST DISCOVERED PENICILLIN? but no-one wants to hear about it because you can still catch Gonorrhea or clean the wound and change the bandages, if it worked 100%you wouildn't have to do that. Sorry Sandy but it makes no sense to me as far as treating the patient is concerned.It would in fact be more effective if patients were treated with ibogaine than not (mileage varies and that goes for every medicine, not just ibogaine).
"And in all of that, there will be lots of black market drugs. The problems of gangs and terrorists and drug-related crime won't go away."
You seem to be taking a stance and trying to justify it with a lot of awfulizing, there will still be drugs, there will still be problems, there will still be crime and terrorists -and that will happen NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. That is no excuse to not try to make the human experience better and fulli investigate what works and what does not work - on an even playing field, THE WAR ON DRUGS is a dismal failure. Much of those issues will go away once you take the crime out of the drug just as they did when alcohol was re-legalized. If prohibitionsolved a problem they wouldn't have over turned it, what prohibition did was create a problem, just like the DRUG WAR is doing right now. People need to be treated, not sent to prison (for one thing) if they have a drug problem.
PROHIBITION: A LESSON IN THE FUTILITY (AND DANGER) OF PROHIBITING
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/402.html
sandyPosted: Mar 16 2004, 02:25 PM
I don't know Dana, maybe you should just take it up with the Bush Administration and see how well that works for you.
danaPosted: Mar 16 2004, 03:41 PM
I think that's a pretty cavalier attitude. Number one, what makes you think people aren't taking it up with FDA and NIDA even as we sit here typing/
Number two, I'm committed to a Kerry victory, to the point of campaigning to persuade enough Nader voters to switch their vote to make the difference, so I'm concerned with Kerry's policy, not Tommy Thompson, who's had his chance.
We have a prior relationship with Kerry, from Vietnam days, and later with the Contra Coke investigation, so we expect more from him.
Are you saying that you're out to block Kerry from considering biomedical research into ibogaine and 18-MC--or that it has already been effectively blocked so that we might as well go back to Bush?
I'm not willing to accept that.
Dana/cnw
danaPosted: Mar 16 2004, 03:56 PM
QUOTE
They aren't going to resolve all the problems related to drugs, addiction, crime, etc.
No, but they will make things a little better, one addict at a time. No other approach will work for demand reduction. The Talmud, I think, has a saying that to save one soul is to save the whole world. This job of salvage is fundamentally retail. But if you had treatment on demand without waiting, a lot of crimes wouldn't be committed. In my youth I was a radical who espoused big changes. Now I understand you can cause a whole ecology to shift over time by changing one or two seemingly minor inputs.
danaPosted: Mar 16 2004, 04:26 PM
QUOTE
And in all of that, there will be lots of black market drugs. The problems of gangs and terrorists and drug-related crime won't go away.
Drugs are fads, like changes in hemlines. The Netherlands shows black markets can be managed to channel the average user into pot and psychedelics, instead of heroin and hard drugs. But that pre-supposes some kind of tolerance for pot and psychedelics, which will require breaking lock on the U.S. drugs debate of those whose policy is to deliberately lump marijuana and soft drugs in with hard drugs into order to smear cannabis users (yes, Kerry is not the only one being smeared, it's a common tactic).
If you want to stop terrorism, that's a totally different subject, and you've got to quit falling for the propaganda coming out of ONDCP. Instead of locking up druggies, which actually contributed to 9/11 (terrorism wasn't even on Ashcroft's original list of priorities when he took over-- it was all illicit drugs, nude statues and abortion), you might pay attention to the voters of Spain, and begin by quitting the Israeli strategy of demolishing secular elements like Arafat and Saddam so that there IS no opposition but Islamic rejectionists, who you can kill with impunity.sandyPosted: Mar 16 2004, 05:44 PM
"Are you saying that you're out to block Kerry from considering biomedical research into ibogaine and 18-MC--or that it has already been effectively blocked so that we might as well go back to Bush?"
I couldn't block Kerry from doing anything. One, because I don't remotely have any sort of power to do that. And mostly, because I don't think anybody blocks John Kerry from doing exactly what he sees fit to do.
And I wouldn't block John Kerry from it if I could and I can't for the life of me understand how you can construe that from anything I've said. Asking for the exact truth in what Ibogaine can and can't accomplish is all I've asked for. If everything stated in this thread were implemented as stated, it still wouldn't solve all the problems that you appear to be saying it would. Because NOTHING you promote stops a person from using which is sort of necessary before a person becomes an addict and needs any of the solutions presented here. And none of the solutions are cures. So in other words, there'd still be drugs all over the place. And all the problems associated with drugs.
I mean I just don't get it. "which will require breaking lock on the U.S. drugs debate of those whose policy is to deliberately lump marijuana and soft drugs in with hard drugs into order to smear cannabis users" Which is exactly what I said much earlier and exactly why I separated the threads. And I was criticized for that too.
Which is the kind of thing that led to the flippant George Bush remark. I just don't get what it is people want. John Kerry is suggesting a drug plan very similar to the Netherlands. Where, like I said, drugs are still illegal. But the focus is on treatment and prevention. That's what Kerry has said. I don't know what more you guys want.Well you, you want Ibogaine and that's reasonable. You'd just be more likely to get it if you stopped presenting it as the cure to everything and instead, presented it as a tool in the treatment process, the way Dr. Mash does. That's my personal opinion anyway.
danaPosted: Mar 16 2004, 07:50 PM
QUOTE
John Kerry is suggesting a drug plan very similar to the Netherlands. Where, like I said, drugs are still illegal. But the focus is on treatment and prevention. That's what Kerry has said. I don't know what more you guys want.
Simply put, the Dutch system has plenty of room for improvement. Nothing says we have to repeat their mistakes. What I first said was that we advocate the Dutch coffee shop model, plus ibogaine. And you apparently took that as saying that the Dutch model worked because of Ibogaine. What I said was that market separation could be make to work even without government cooperation if the pot scene in general became the font of Ibogaine information, since just propagating the infomation vigorously tends to be offputting for folks who are into heroin chic.
Heroin chic is what spreads actual use to the newbies.
QUOTE
Well you, you want Ibogaine and that's reasonable. You'd just be more likely to get it if you stopped presenting it as the cure to everything and instead, presented it as a tool in the treatment process, the way Dr. Mash does. That's my personal opinion anyway.
Damn right it's reasonable. Ibogine's anti-addictive effect was discovered in America, by Americans, for Americans. And by the self-same survivors of the movement against the Vietnam War who later worked to sound the alarm against Contra Cocaine and Oliver North, I might add. Sure the Netherlands is vastly superior to what we have here, but they have the same bureaucratic indifference, the same problem of the professionals being unwilling to process any information that comes from the drug users, and the same lock by the opiate docs in the addiction biz. It's hard for me to get anyone other than Brett from the Ibogaine List to respond to you, but I did get the following from Sara, who is a treatment provider in Holland:
QUOTE
Sara Glatt <sara119@...> wrote:
How many medications do you have for the treatment of depression available on the market legally? And why?
For the same reasons you have different ways of treating withdrawals from Hard drugs.
Each person has the freedom of choice as to what kind of medication or treatment is the most acceptable for them.
Do I want a drill [trepanation is big right now in Russia]? Methadone? Coma for three days? acupuncture? Heroin/or synthetic opiate for free ? Or maybe Ibogaine? Or nothing ? Or Homeopathic remedies? TAI medicine? or change blood every year?
But if you like to come off a high dose of Methadone and you are above 45 years old who is going to help you to come off?
No methadone clinic will help, none here in Holland.
They'd rather make an addict believe that there is no way out and keep them coming for the daily dose.
A few of my Dutch initiates were interviewed by MAINLINE, which is an addicts magazine. They told of going back to the methadone clinic after ibogaine treatment to ask why the clinic wouldn't help with ibogaine detox. They were thrown out. No one wants to listen.
Sander the Dutch guy on the video I distribute from 2 years ago is still clean, he talked to many people about his success in overcoming his years of addictions, but there is no ear that wants to listen.
There is a good reason for Dana to keep on talking about Ibogaine. I have to thank Dana for giving me his trust and support. Which helped me help others.
SaraI suggest anyone who wants to follow up contact Sara offlist.danaPosted: Mar 17 2004, 12:26 PM
From: nicks22@...
QUOTE
Okay, try to get back in here a little bit.
Dana, I think you don't understand my position on Ibogaine completely. As a moderator, it was my job to enforce the rules of the board. This forum cannot allow links directly to sites that promote illegal activity. The gun people cannot link to sites that explain how to illegally modify a gun, for example. They can discuss the Constitutionality of not being able to modify weapons and they can link to sites that discuss that, as long as there are no instructions or selling of the actual parts, stuff like that. That's the line I was drawing with Ibogaine links.
Yes, all sounds pretty fair to me.
QUOTE
As to Ibogaine itself, you seem to be saying the Netherlands program works because of Ibogaine. At least at one point. That is not true, Ibogaine is not a routine treatment in the Netherlands. I posted an article that outlined their treatment program. Addiction treatment is too important to too many people to distort. There are some experimental programs and that's the best you can honestly say about Ibogaine treatment.
Absolutely, couldn't disagree with this.
QUOTE
Now, as to my own personal view of Ibogaine, I do not see it as a magical cure. That's not to say it might not have a place in treatment, although I'm really having a tough time figuring out what that would truly be.
What!?!
Dear Sandy, are you truly trying to say that you are incapable of conceiving a role for a multi-dependence interrupter, that has not only been empirically demonstrated to remove the symptoms of drug withdrawal, but has further been seen to allieviate drug craving for a period of time after use, and open the user up to meaningful introspection of their drug-using behaviour? Is this really what you are trying to say? I wonder...can you see a need for umbrellas when it's raining?
QUOTE
Perhaps heroin addiction because that's the toughest one to break. And for whatever reason, heroin addicts seem to be pretty well aware that they're addicts and motivated to get off of it.
In about one paragraph's time you are going to write "Addicts who are fully aware of their situation That is the minority of addicts." Whilst you don't specify heroin use for latter, it still concerns me that, from a position of responsibility, you can write such apparently contradictory statements back to back.
In addition, as to the statement "heroin addicts seem to be pretty well aware that they're addicts and motivated to get off of it" itself, I doubt many drug workers would agree with this. In fact, I'd say they'd shake their heads in bemusement.
QUOTE
Moreso than other addicts, but it's just tough to kick. It also might be just the thing for dual diagnosis, it seems for those people the medication is sometimes worse than the illness. It might even be good for cigarette addiction for the same reason. Most smokers really don't want to smoke, it's just a tough addiction to break. So there could be specific scenarios where Ibogaine could be essential.
Look, I'm sorry, but you are just waffling here and seemingly attempting to "please" the ibogaine crowd by accepting some use for the drug. I put it to you that you have NO meaningful knowledge or understanding of the issues surrounding drug use and treatment. What do you say?
QUOTE
But, as I'm sure you know, the key to most other addictions is denial. Which is where I have a hard time understanding how Ibogaine would be the broad panacea you describe. As I've said before, breaking through the denial is still going to be required to get someone to agree to Ibogaine in the first place.
That's true of any treatment. If you're going to criticize the drug in this way you need to isolate things ibogaine is not useful for that other treatment options are. Frankly, I think you're the one in denial - denying your complete lack of knowledge of the issues. This is not a put-down, just an observation.
QUOTE
Maybe you do an intervention and get them to do the Ibogaine treatment instead of a treatment program. But then when I read Dr. Mash's reports, they specifically say the effects only last 30 days - 6 months. Then what? You can't give somebody the emotional tools to deal with sobriety if their mental/emotional state is altered by Ibogaine. So like I've said before, what happens when the Ibogaine wears off and the person opts for their drug of choice instead of Ibogaine because it's easier or cheaper.
However you get people off drugs long term abstinence is going to be difficult.
I very much doubt that ibogaine is chemically active in the body to a meaningful level much after a few weeks (meaningful as in at an agonist-antagonist level, or via subsidiary psychological effects). What keeps you off is the learning, if it's taken place. And it won't always. No one is responsibly suggesting that ibogaine is a "magic bullet" or a "cure," but it would revolutionize drug treatment were it adopted more widely. I have no doubt of this.
QUOTE
You quoted a 70% recovery figure, that's the same figure any decent treatment program has and is usually a monitored 1-3 year recovery figure. I don't see any similar data on Ibogaine for a substance that has supposedly been used since the 80's or before.
For programmes claiming 70% - I'd check out how they're creating data. What are the in-check criteria? How many follow-ups, over how many years, and what happens to the guys they can't find? I doubt ibogaine gets 70%. I very much doubt anyone else is getting 70%. Data on ibogaine is inevitably limited because the stuff isn't easily legally available. This will likely continue until it is. This isn't a meaningful argument for not developing it. What we do know is that it most definitely is effective short term and that's it's likely safe to use in clinical setting - native tribespeople have been using the plant form for millenia.
QUOTE
Ibogaine may be useful for those who have been through the treatment process numerous times and continue to use. Addicts who are fully aware of their situation That is the minority of addicts. If Ibogaine became legal tomorrow, the vast majority of users in this country wouldn't run to get it because they don't see themselves as addicts in the first place.
Sandy, I don't know if you're a guy or a girl but you really need to check out how your mind is functioning here. One minute you're running the stuff down in so meaningless a fashion it just makes you look stupid; the next you're making contradictory statements; and the next you try and please people by magnaminously allowing some creedence to their view in your own disfunctional perspective.
In earnest hope of some clarity
NicksandyPosted: Mar 17 2004, 05:17 PM
Dana, This is why debating with you is pointless.
"Understand, I can get 70% of addicts off heroin with as-needed Ibogaine treatments,"
This is what you said earlier. I challenged you to provide any sort of data to back that up since you have said Ibogaine is legal all over the world and has been used to cure addicts for decades.
Then you come back with this:
"For programmes claiming 70% - I'd check out how they're creating data. What are the in-check criteria? How many follow-ups, over how many years, and what happens to the guys they can't find? I doubt ibogaine gets 70%."
And SubHuman and Pineapple, no, my personal views on various subjects had nothing to do with quitting being a moderator. Every moderator I know of posts their personal views.
bcalabresePosted: Mar 17 2004, 06:08 PM
Sandy,
Dana was posting a reply by Nick from the ibogaine list, it says
From: nicks22@..., on top and Nick on bottom.
People have different opinions ibogaine, that is all you are seeing. Dana thinks it is 70%, Nick doesn't think so, I don't know. As for ibogaine working on the acute physical withdrawal of opiates it is far higher in effectiveness in reducing withdrawal and associated symptoms (craving, drug seeking, drug use) than 70%, what they do after is what you are debating.
What is it you are grasping for, something wrong with ibogaine because Dana has an opinion and can't prove it? I think all anyone is asking for is a fair chance to investigate and talk about the drug war and the effect ibogaine could certainly have in helping addicts. It does things in ways that defy logic and often known science, I have seen it, I have felt it. This is where I am suppose to share my "experience, strength and hope", hey this stuff is great and I get "no, it can't be" because, because, because, this problem, that issue, it isn't a 100% cure...? I mean come on, do you know what you sound like? Challenge... give it a rest alright? This isn't a game, this is life and death, ibogaine can save lives, return lives, it deserves a flat playing field and you are trying (obviously) to tilt the game.
If you are keep looking in the BOX, Ibogaine isn't in there. Trust me, I know, you don't.
sandyPosted: Mar 18 2004, 05:28 AM
"Understand, I can get 70% of addicts off heroin with as-needed Ibogaine treatments,
Addicts are lining up for Ibogaine, because the buzz is that it really, REALLY works.
We can now take 14 beds and use them three times a week for total detox, with the person moving immediately into some kind of after-group outpatient status. Cost would be LESS than maintenance, and our success-rate, with easy access to re-treatment in cases of relapse, would be more like 70% than the 5% cited here.
but what would you do if you found out the government already knows about a medical cure for addiction to methamphetamine (i.e, an addiction interrupter, not a maintenance drug), as well as crack, heroin, cigarettes and alcohol; and had even developed their own, safer variant of this cure, but were not releasing it because there was no great public outcry for it--and therefore no money to do it? What if I told you the advocates of more established treatment modalities were engaged in a little concerted effort to keep this information from the American people?"
No, BCal, I'm referring to quotes like these, from Dana. If he wants to report the facts on Ibogaine, then report the facts. The problem of addiction, as you well know, is just way too important to play games with the truth. And that's all I'm trying to get at here, the truth about how Ibogaine works, who and which addictions it works best with, what kind of long term traditional treatment is helpful for best results, continuing treatments, etc. And the acknowledgement that treatment is only one piece of the puzzle on the problem of drugs anyway. And the acknowledgement that ending alcohol prohibition ended one kind of crime, but it didn't end all the social and criminal problems and the costs associated with those problems. Ending drug prohibition is no more a magic solution to drug problems then ending alcohol prohibition was. With or without Ibogaine.
bcalabresePosted: Mar 19 2004, 06:05 PM
Sandy, what you are doing is called "SPLITTING HAIRS"
There is nothing wrong with Dana's quote, other than you find something wrong with it.
"And that's all I'm trying to get at here, the truth about how Ibogaine works, who and which addictions it works best with, what kind of long term traditional treatment is helpful for best results, continuing treatments, etc. "
You have a long time to wait if you want to know how ibogaine works, cuz we don't exactly know how it works, just like 1/2 the meds in the PDR! It works great for physical addictions, opiates in particular, alcohol, not so with benzo's, works on coke, speed, nicotine. People have used it to detox from a number of medications, to clear them out - as in DETOX, return the body/brain/emotions/sprit... to pre-toxed state.
"And the acknowledgement that ending alcohol prohibition ended one kind of crime, but it didn't end all the social and criminal problems and the costs associated with those problems"
SO lets not do anything that is not 100% effective in your eyes, is that it? NOTHING is 100% effective, you are NEVER (that is ever) going to get rid of crine as long as there are more than people on this earth. This is the nature of the beast, HUMANS. Great EXCUSE, there will still be problems so lets not do it. OK people relapse after going to detoxes and treatment centers, there is still crime so lets not do that. Maybe we should just kill they do in Singapore, that is 100% effective, the addict will never steal or use drugs again.
danaPosted: Mar 18 2004, 09:37 AM
From: jfreed1@...
>I think Sandy is not an addict and has NO understanding of addiction or
> the different phases of recovery.
> Her statement that "heroin addicts seem to be pretty well aware they're
> addicts and motivated to get off it", is an observation a child could
> make.
> If desire and awareness were all that was needed to end addiction there
> would be no relapses!
ehe... that's an excellent point.
It's easy to rattle off a sentence or two "explaining" what "causes"
addiction, but the fact of the matter is that what causes and maintains an
addiction in an individual is a complex and subtle web of motives,
experiences, emotions, and behaviours.
Awareness is certainly an integral part of addressing an addiction, but
just being aware of a problem and motivated to fix it is only a small part
of the puzzle...
> The term dual diagnosis is very over used and misunderstood.
> It is like the old 'which came first, the chicken or the egg' saying.
> Personally, when I began using I wasn't depressed. I was young and looking
> for a good time. Things just progressively got worse.
> Of course I am speaking of depression as the other diagnosis in my
> personal case.
> There are many schizophrenics and manic depressives that are addicts but I
> feel instead of labeling them as having dual diagnosis the condition of
> addiction should be separated and treated independently.
Well, in the case of dual diagnosis, I'm not sure the diagnoses should
really be treated independently, as they are often interrelated. Substance
abuse and the addiction that follows are often precipitated by an
underlying psychopathology. In my case, my heroin addiction (and drug use
in general) was largely an attempt to self-medicate my depression and
panic attacks. Until I really began addressing my emotional problems,
there was no way I was getting off dope. And until I began addressing my
dope problem, there was no way I could really approach my emotional
problems with any clarity.
I think the term dual diagnosis is used so frequently because it is quite
a common occurance. People with various psychological problems often
attempt to self-medicate, and that often leads to addiction.
While the converse is also true (that addiction leads to psychological
problems), I don't think cases of this nature ought really be considered
dual diagnosis. If someone say, starts exhibiting symptoms of depression
after becoming addicted to heroin, I would question whether the personshould be diagnosed with a depressive disorder.
In any case, I think it is vital to determine what the order of causality
is . Otherwise, it's very difficult, if not impossible to resolve things.danaPosted: Mar 18 2004, 03:33 PM
QUOTE
I'm getting tired of checking out a new forum only to see Dana's already there, trying to overpower it with his wild claims for Ibogaine. I have been on methadone for over thirty years and never once encountered someone who's tried it. I *have* read countless horror stories of people who have tried the stuff and been ripped-off, !@%$ed over, and the damn 'treatment' did nothing.
Where are the countless horror stories of folk whose ibogaine treatment failed? One person whose email name is Antelope has spammed countless lists creating that impression, but there's a lot of people on ibogaine@... for whom it has worked, and no comparable list anywhere for the people who failed, probably because there aren't enough of them.
My complaint here was that access to Ibogaine websites is being blocked here by the moderator. Why don't you try your rap out on people who have a way of checking out what you're saying--and who know better. Get on the ibogaine list, if you dare: To join the Mindvox ibogaine list just send an email to ibogaine-subscribe@... if you please. Nothing more to it. You don't have to write anything in the subject or text area. Are you flat-out claiming Ibogaine doesn't work for acute detox?
QUOTE
He is entitled to press any cause or venture he likes but he always throws in copious condescending comments about addicts. He once wrote me that he was ripped-off by a "junkie" (we resent the slight) and developed animus from that. I replied that there are good addicts and bad addicts (just as there are good drinkers and bad drinkers) and that the good ones have survived by staying in the closet. Unfortunately that leaves the jerks and/or severely addicted (co-occuring mental disorder figures largely in the cohort) to put a face to addiction.
The real story is more interesting. I was harassed and physically assaulted for years by an addict who claimed I OWED him money because he was smacked out and forgot that I paid him. Not only that, he got other people to denounce me as a rip-off (it was over a lousy thousand dollars) who were NOT junkies, but influential in Yippie and HIGH TIMES circles. AND he blew up my door with an M-80 just as Alice was answering it (she could have been blinded.) And when I responded in kind by setting off a firecracker in a wastebasket, they had me indicted on a seven year felony.
Our group responded by beginning the development of Ibogaine. You can read about it in THE IBOGAINE STORY at http://www.cures-not-wars.org/ibogaine/iboga.html
QUOTE
It's one thing for a Bob Bennett or a Mark Souder to malign us; know us by who our enemies are. But when I see MediMar and cannabis supporters hot to throw addicts to the mob just to make their cause look one iota more palatable to the Right, it really disheartens me. We are supposed to be more progressive and charitable!
All I ever did was advocate Dutch market separation, in a situation where methadone is prescribed, and pot is totally banned. Your situation is legal. Medical marijuana patients are not!
QUOTE
Furthermore, if you think the "lock up all the junkies but free all cannabis prisoners" tact is going to get legal cannabis one second sooner you are wrong. I think it is counter-productive. After all, you cannot say that legalizing marijuana makes sense for getting it out of the hands of gangster dealers and then deny the same connection for the other drugs - it makes your argument a non sequiter. It also has the effect of making you look like you'd do anything, say anything, to get your pot - it confirms suspicions our enemies use.
The original statement was made in response to a rightwing talkshow host who was saying marijuana decrim would lead to an explosion of hard drugs, pointing out-- "If you take 20 milllion people out of the equation (tokers, growers, dealers)--leaving the huge drug enforcement establishment that we have now with nothing to do but go after hard drugs--you're chances of getting busted for DEALING coke and heroin would go up ten times." This is hardly a non sequitur--it's why Holland changed their laws in 1977, and why they've done a better job than us of controlling hard drugs without turning into the biggest police state with the most prisoners on the planet.
Are you advocating a Kerry amnesty for people who deal coke and dope? I'm not necessarily against their legal provision under a doctor's care. But would you insist--as a matter of equal access--that everywhere pot is sold, heroin and hard drugs must be available also?
QUOTE
Addressing addiction progressively does not have to be an albatross around pot's neck.
Only as long as it is ONDCP strategy to lump marijuana in with hard drugs as part of a smear campaign.
QUOTE
The provisions for sweeping change already exist in laws written to regulate treatment with methadone and buprenorphine. The successful examples of it's use exist and are spreading because it's been such a success. I'm talking about lifting restrictions somewhat on which drugs can legally be used to treat and maintain an addict. The Swiss heroin trials of the late Nineties were an overwhelming success ( No, I'm not referring to the infamous Needle Park which was unregulated laissez faire and drew legions of drug tourists) and were adopted permanently in a plebiscite. The treatment is spreading across Europe, being greatly expanded in Great Britain, and soon will be trialed in three Canadian cities. It was only incredible US threats (Louie Freeh) not to purchase any of the Tasmanian poppy crop for pharmaceuticals (and a misanthropic PM), that kept Australia from moving ahead as well. We can do that here as well. There are excellent drugs for all the various addictions. We can use Ibogaine where a person wants to try it and fund more research into noribogaine - a derivative with far less side effects and potentially better outcome. The idea is to free patients from government-mandated monopolies. Currently addicts are being gouged ruthlessly by methadone clinics where there is no feasible competition. And some addicts just don't respond well-enough to methadone.
The reason that they're not doing well on methadone is that their teeth are falling out. And Trexan makes you go bald and impotent.
18-MC is probably preferable to Ibogaine, and more effective than nor-ibogaine by itself.
As for the sweeping changes you refer to, they do nothing for 9 out of 10 causual users who just smoke pot and maybe do a little X from time to time. Why would I want to do opiates to begin with--especially burprenorphin, which is available here only with trexan in it? Which makes you go bald and impotent. (It's owned by Dupont.)
QUOTE
As for the soft drugs I would suggest we legalize anything Nature has given us (because it was given to us all equally) in the form of a plant. Thus, pot, coca leaf, opium, mushrooms, etc would be legal. We could use this to save the family farm by limiting the size of plots on which these products could be grown. Tax could be levied to pay for drug treatment.
Are you sure you're not just trying to preserve a market niche for people who deal pot to support their heroin or coke addiction? There's a lot of people dealing pot to do just that. And when they run out of pot in September before the new harvest, they naturally offer their customers what they have in stock. It's human nature.
Marijuana decrim (which we have in New York already) won't do squat with making certain the people dealing the pot aren't pushing other drugs on their customers. That is the principal acheivement of the Dutch-- who do enforce laws against dealing big amounts. One uniontended consequence is that 90% of the Dutch now smoke domestically produced hydro--compared to 90% doing hash as recently as a decade ago.danaPosted: Mar 18 2004, 03:45 PM
Patrick Kroupa adds--
From: digital@...
On [Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 01:18:53PM -0500], [Dana Beal] wrote:
| Voletear wrote:
| >He is entitled to press any cause or venture he likes but he always
| >throws in copious condescending comments about addicts. He once
| >wrote me that he was ripped-off by a "junkie" (we resent the slight)
| >and developed animus from that. I replied that there are good
Hmmmm. I can see the problem right here. If being ripped off by a junkie
caused someone to develop Animus; well ... perhaps being ripped off by abasehead would cause them to develop Anima, thus, PERFECTLY BALANCING
everything, and realigning the whole entire universe.
There ya go. Problem solved. That'll be $350 dollars please.
Dr. Kroupa
p.s., Antelope is on MindVox. She's been on the DrugWar list for years.
I don't think she's ever figured out how to actually sign up for the
ibogaine list ... probably, there is a PLOT and/or CONSPIRACY to keep her
off it.danaPosted: Mar 18 2004, 04:24 PM
Patrick K. Kroupa is employed by Dr. Deborah Mash at the U. of Miami Brainbank. He was recently featured with her at http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201652207
and http://cbs2.com/specialassign/local_story_321191402.html . He is an Ibogaine success story, clean for 4 years after two treatments, and in to my mind presents a more balanced view of the Ibogaine phenomenon, and is much more accessible than Dr. Mash. But talking to him is like talking to her. Requests for information should be directed to Patrick, because Deb is busy with about 10 other projects. Getting a lot of patentable discoveries out of dead brains.
Dana/cnwTimeForChangePosted: Mar 18 2004, 04:56 PM
QUOTE
But when I see MediMar and cannabis supporters hot to throw addicts to the mob just to make their cause look one iota more palatable to the Right, it really disheartens me. We are supposed to be more progressive and charitable!
Voletear,
I pay very close, daily attention to what is being said publicly by Cannabis law reformers and Medical Marijuana advocates and I just don't see much of this sort of narrow-minded talk. Most people in these groups, IMO, came into the movement because, through some circumstance, they became acutely aware of the injustice inherent to prohibition laws and the obvious lack of actual solutions offered by such policies.
In the scope of the War on Some Drugs, a positive turn for Cannabis reformers, again IMO, is good news for the whole reform community! Why? because nearly 90% of all "Illegal Drug" arrests are for Cannabis! If pot laws are reformed, what would be the justification for the gargantuan infrastructure of the WoD?
It's really no mystery why the Drug Czars of the world squander so much effort on Cannabis - They're fighting to maintain their very reason to exist.
We are a progressive and charitable community - but we have some supporters who will only go so far - I think they just need to be furthur educated and that takes time - rational agrument will ultimately win these people over.
As for Dana's advocacy for Ibogaine, God bless him! If not for the efforts of a few people like him it wouldn't even be on the radar screen. The question of whether or not it should be is one that needs to be answered by both Scientific AND Spiritual inquiry - two persuits for which WoD fanatics have no frame of reference.
His posts are long but informative, ubiquitous but purposeful. Best of all, reading them is a matter of choice.
Your comments about Dana and his cause seem, on the surface, to be very much akin to the sort of intolerance you're complaining about coming from Medical Marijuana activists. That's just my observation.
danaPosted: Mar 19 2004, 12:01 PM
Another take on Ibogaine's success rate. The explanation for the difference? Hattie's figures are based on one or two treatments, in a situation where access is still fairly limited. The figure of 70% is based on life-time treatment involving as many episodes as are necessary to clean up.
Remember, every year about 5 % of junkies, mostly in their late 30's, spontaneously "nature out" and stop using without any treatment at all. The brain begins to become middle-aged, decreasing aggression. Ibogaine makes that happen faster, and if subsidized as part of a national health program, could drastically cut the time most people are strung out.
QUOTE
Wednesday 17th March 2004 - The "alternative" approach to drug problems
An African rainforest plant offers drug addicts a "window of opportunity" to break their destructive habits.
"Ibogaine is 95 per cent effective in alleviating the withdrawal symptoms of heroin, cocaine, alcohol and nicotine," claims Hatty Wells, a London researcher.
And in her experience this relief results in complete rehabilitation for one in three addicts.
The dramatic effects of the plant, which is still widely used in Central Africa as a medicine and in rituals, were discovered in the 1960s by a New York drug user, Howard Lotsof.
Brian Mariano, who runs a clinic in Prague visited by English people, has achieved "remarkable results" even with those addicted to methadone, the so-called heroin replacement (see below). *
"Ibogaine give people freedom of choice," he says. "Thereafter it is up to the addict. It depends on the level of commitment."
Wells affirms this: "The key is the journey to find out what is the cause of the addiction."
Wells and Mariano have tried the plant extract on those suffering from food and sex addictions, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder. They are both optimistic about the results.
They are campaigning to get this "wonder cure" accepted by the medical establishment. They hope to create centres of residential treatment, along the lines of the Healing Visions Clinic, in St Kitts, West Indies.
Mariano is clear that without a healing context the effects of Ibogaine can be diminished. "It is not painful, but it is hard work. The treatment must be supervised and it is best to stablise the addicts health by insuring proper nutrition."
Despite a mounting body of evidence, neither the medical profession, nor, surprisingly, the pharmaceutical industry are supportive of what could be a life-line for our nation's ever rising tide addicts.
For more information: visit - www.ibogaine.co.uk,www.ibogainetreatment.net
1. Drug users
Government statistics say that there are over a quarter of million heroin addicts in the UK. That?s greater than the population of York. But many experts believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg with the true figure more like the size of Leeds at three quarters of a million.
2. * Methadone; the FALSE CURE
Detox or "rehab" treatments are labour intensive. Junkies suffer terribly in withdrawal and have to be nursed through a long, painful process. After this they have to learn how to live without drugs. Health authorities don?t much like to fund these facilities. Instead, they favour a "cheap and cheerless" solution. Methadone.Methadone has a very poor success rate for curing addiction but it is good at helping heroin addicts keep withdrawal symptoms at bay. Unfortunately it does this by hooking them onto a drug that is even stronger - and harder to give up. Worse, because it offers no "high", most junkies just use methadone to keep them going till they can next afford heroin or crack cocaine. So they end up addicted to both.
The best that can be said for methadone is that it keeps the crime rate down. Users are slightly less likely to break the law to pay for their next fix.
(Methadone... a special note - we criticise the effectiveness of methadone in the treatment of heroin addiction. We do not retract our remarks but would like to point out that, in the absence of any alternative treatment... and provided a person is truly and deeply determined to stop taking heroin, methadone can be greatly helpful.)
Mark Winter
From: epoptica@...
The daily mirror is a major tabloid over here with huge readership. And on the astrology page which is a sure read for many mirror readers.
Bit exaggerated but quite a good plug definitely.
More coming out in Observer soon I think too......
Hattie
bcalabresePosted: Mar 19 2004, 06:39 PM
QUOTE (sandy @ Mar 19 2004, 06:19 PM)
BCal
He says he can get 70% of addicts off heroin and then turns around and makes a 5% claim, and you call that splitting hairs?
Nobody knows whether it works with first time addicts as well as it does with addicts who have been through traditional treatment. Nobody knows whether it works best in conjunction with traditional treatment or apart from it. Nobody knows how to best prevent relapse with its use. Nobody knows whether it works equally well with all addictions or whether some addictions respond to other treatment better. And you wonder why you can't get any movement from politicians or the medical community.
I'm not asking for it to be 100% effective. I've never said that anywhere and I am really tired of you and Dana putting words in my mouth. I was just asking some simple questions, the same questions I'd ask of any treatment facility.
"He says he can get 70% of addicts off heroin and then turns around and makes a 5% claim, and you call that splitting hairs?"
What in the world are you talking about, 5% of what?
That was HATTIE in the UK, talking about the PHYSICAL ADDICTION, al la Withdrawal symptoms. YOu know, cramps, diarrhea, chills... That is what Hattie is seeing. I personally put the number at about 90%+ for most OPIATE ADDICTS. In the group of OPIATE ADDICTS there are your short term opiate addicts (dope, oxycontin, morphine) and yourlong term opiate addicts, like Methadone but would also include LAAM and Levo or other LONG acting opiates. In short actiong opiates it is a bit easier of a withdrawal than long term opiate addicts - this goes for ibogaine or not ibogaine.
We are talking a bunch of things about addiction as well as using ibogiane to treat various addictions, part of that is physical addiction to opiates. I already told you that for physical addiction (just the acute part) it is greater than 70% effective, generally 85%+ for long acting opiates and maybe 90%+ (that is a PLUS sign, not an absolute number) for regular old dope fiend (short acting opiates). Many factors determin how much, the patient, the dose, the medication/dope they are addicted/habituated to, the length of time they are on the drugs...
Once again and very clearly you are splitting hairs and making up arguments for your own reasons, I can tell by the triple talk...bcalabresePosted: Mar 19 2004, 08:11 PM
"Remember, every year about 5 % of junkies, mostly in their late 30's, spontaneously "nature out" and stop using without any treatment at a"
Sorry I missed it, thought you were talking about Hattie's 95% reducing w/d symptoms,
Is that so hard to believe that people just grow out of it? Not everyone of course, some people die, some, well we won't talk about them. Does someone have to have references to each piece of knowledge they post. In any case people do grow out of addictions more or less as Dana stated, I don't know what is wrong with the statement that upsets you.sandyPosted: Mar 19 2004, 09:23 PM
The 5% figure came a long time back and I misunderstood his post going back anyway.
But it doesn't change Dana's claims that Ibogiane is a cure, then a 70% success rate, then not. And now you're claiming 70-85% success rates. With nothing to back it up except your word. And that's just not going to be good enough for any legislator or medical professional. And that's the point I'm trying to get to. I don't think it's that complicated. Sorry if you think documentation and consistent claims are splitting hairs. But when it comes to getting government support for any medication, a little more is required than ones' word.danaPosted: Mar 19 2004, 10:00 PM
You're probably right. We're just going to have to go into protest mode. I guess we could start by chaining ourselves to the doors, and getting arrested. That will get their attention, and maybe get them to furnish some one to talk to and moderate this thread besides you.
Dana/cnw
(Message over 64k, truncated.)
Offline 
Send Email