I subscribe to a lot of foreign news networks for a wider view, especially for their articles on the good ole’ USA. Let’s face it, mass media doesn’t tell you everything. Recently on Russia “Today” I watched a documentary on Youtube entitled Murder, Spies, and Voting Lies. This documentary describes how George W. Bush stole the past elections.
Of course this documentary freaked me out and made me curious about the main whistle blower, Mr. Clint Curtis. So I decided to do a Google search on him and found out he’s running for Congress in the 4th District. Curiosity got the best of me and am please by the results. Check out this e-mail back and forth with Mr.Curtis and I:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: mild Q&A
From: Richard Pryor <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, August 08, 2010 10:07 pm
To: [email protected]
Mr. Curtis,
I just saw a documentary showing you as a whistle blower and when I look you up find you running for politics. As scary as that info was wondering your stance on the recent California initiative to legalize marijuana. I contribute to a pro-marijuana website (www.theweedblog.com) and this will be for the record. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Miguel
— On Mon, 8/9/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: mild Q&A
To: “Richard Pryor” <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 3:10 AM
It is generally a state issue although I would be against the federal
government trying to enforce federal law should it be passed. As such I
would only have a single vote just like you. I will probably vote for it
because it will help balance the budget both in the tax it generates as
well as in the money saved by not putting thousands of people in jail
for marijuana use. I fully expect that marijuana will be dropped from
the controlled substance Schedule I if California proves that the
substance can be used without causing an increased risk to the public.
Most police I talk to say that the war on drugs has been as much a
failure as prohibition was on alcohol.
Having never actually used any drugs (I know, hard to believe there are
folks like me) maybe you can educate me on something. Part of the fear
from a police perspective is that alcohol can be tested and thus DUI
drivers taken off the street. I have been told that there is not test
available for intoxication via marijuana. Are they correct?
Clint
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: mild Q&A
From: Richard Pryor <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, August 09, 2010 9:05 am
To: [email protected]
Mr. Curtis,
Thank you for your non-politician response. in regards to your question I’m also unaware of any real time test for marijuana. Though in Marc Emrey’s (a Canadian extradited to the US for selling seeds to Americans) blog postings from Sea-Tac Prison in Seattle, Wa. he talks of “having to take a breathalyser” after 20 minute visits with his wife. Also I read in Popular Science where there is a breathalyser for methamphetamine which would lead me to believe cannabinoids and THC can’t be far off.
Unfortunately that is a good point in a debate but the counter question is while it is presently illegal how do they test for it now? People will bring up arbitrary numbers from studies like the RAND corporation that says its non-party affiliated but its hard to believe those statistics have any truth at all. If you have time you should listen to NPR’s “On The Media” article entitled “Prime Numbers”(https://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/07/30/05), its as eye opening as your whistle blowing.
Again, thank you for your time.
Miguel
On Mon, 8/9/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: mild Q&A
To: “Richard Pryor” <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 1:31 PM
I’ll check it out.
From what they tell me, if they think the driver is too stoned to be
safe they conduct a search, usually turn up something and take them in
on possession. Since it is presently illegal, that gets the driver off
the streets even though there is no way to verify the level. If the
police think they are Ok to continue, they simply let them go with a
warning to be more careful in their driving. Since they just got away
with a warning instead of an arrest for possession, the police feel most
will get off the streets until they are in better condition. I always
thought that the police stopped questionable drivers in order to check
for possession but I am told that the traffic stop is usually the main
point of the stop and that possession only comes into play if they think
the driver is going to be unsafe.
Probably something that will have to be worked out.
Clint
I guess being a whistle blower lets you see through the bullshit and lets you have some balls to make a simple statement we all want to hear. A simple yes or no without the filler. This guy gives me faith in people and now in politicians. If you live in California pass the word on this guy.
