Mark Stapleton

Are you guys talking about soccer, cricket, or badminton? I thought that the World Cup was soccer ("football"), but maybe there's a World Cup for everything? You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but to us Americans "football" means only one thing. The real thing! And a "cricket" is something that chirps.

I always said that American lacked culture. Cricket is a great game and is nearly as good as soccer. This murder is a real big story in those countries that play cricket. It is believed that Woolmer was about to expose a match-fixing scandal. It is possible he was murdered by members of the team he coached.

Any other suspects besides members of his team, does anyone believe their loss to Ireland was arranged?

Len,

I doubt if any members of the Pakistan side would have been dumb enough to do it, although it has been suggested that some hardcore fans with connections to the entourage may have been responsible.

Aussie cricket doyen Richie Benaud said he thinks it's unlikely that Woolmer was murdered because of what he knew about match fixing. Benaud wrote a foreward for Bob's yet to be released book and he claims it contained no new revelations on this issue. Either way, I think the case will soon be solved. The hotel had CCTV everywhere and DNA testing should wrap it up.

Was the game against Ireland fixed? That's a very good question. Pakistan were at very short odds to win and anyone betting on Ireland would have been handsomely rewarded.

Mark,

One of the episodes of Turner's 'The men who killed Kennedy' is called 'The Witnesses'. In this episode, former DPD Officer LC Graves states:

"Chief Curry did not have the final say on how LHO was transferred--it came from his superior which was the City Manager at that time, so again, we knew better than to transfer him under those conditions but we didn't have any choice".

Just on a little side note, for another reason I was reading the WC testimony of Justice of the Peace David Johnson.

In both arraignments of Oswald, one at 7:10 for the killing of Tippit, and the second supposed arraignment for the killing of JFK at 1:35, Oswald was informed of the charges against him and "remanded to the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff."

Why was he still in the hands of the Dallas City Police Department two days later?

Steve Thomas

Good question, Steve.

Maybe just a clerical oversight or maybe the DPD planned to hand LHO over to the Sheriff at 1.35am but were prevented from doing so.

Mark and Thomas

I served four terms as a city councilman in a council - manager municipality of what currently is a city of 140,000 people. While the city manager does in fact run the day to day operations of the city (with council oversight) the job of the council is, in fact, to set policy. If, in the opinion of a majority of the council, the council feels that the manager is not implementing the policy of the council, the manager, who is an “at will” employee, can be removed with a majority vote at any time. This power of the council is designed to curb the potential for abuse by a city manager.

I have observed that the system can get screwed up a couple of different ways.

First: If a councilperson attempts to micro manage the system on an individual basis (ie attempting to direct the manager or a department head to provide, perhaps, a “special favor” for someone or to approve a contract with a “special someone’s” company or to hire a “special friend” or to get a “special project approved) versus the council, as a whole, making decisions in a public meeting.

Second: If the manager attempts to set policy rather than the council or (as the person who hires department heads) attempts to micro manage each department (by demanding that “special” favors be provided to “special” interests) rather than allowing each “player” to participate in the symphony that a well run city must perform.

With this in mind it would seem that Manager Crull would in fact defer to Chief Curry in the situation that would have confronted the Dallas City Manager at the time of the Kennedy assassination. Yet Crull would still be the one person that would be ultimatly responsible for the way any situation was handled. Conversely, in a matter as important as the assassination of a President, you can bet that the "department head" (Chief Curry) would be conferring with and keeping the manager fully informed of what was transpiring. Once again in my opinion Crull would defer to Curry. To do otherwise would be overruling the expert in an area where Crull was not the expert whom he had hired to handle such situations.

In today’s litigious society any city manager that did not operate in this manner and had a prisoner that was in the custody of his city who would die in the manner that Oswald was executed could have personal liability attached for not following the advice of the “department head” in the matter.

Believe it or not I have personally seen to many cities get in a great deal of trouble for not following “expert” advice or accepted policies in areas as simple as where traffic signals should be placed, in what order that they should be placed (as opposed to another area) and why they were in fact placed at that location and at that time versus another location.

The job of city manager is a tough assignment and finding a good or great city manager is one of the most important things a council does.

From the information provided I would not read too much into the actions of the city manager in this case. The fact that Crull went to his houseboat could indicate nothing more than he in fact had complete faith in Chief Curry’s ability to handle the situation.

Just some random thoughts.

Jim Root

Jim,

Thanks for that. What you say basically squares with Crull's own testimony ie. that the City Manager is appointed by and answerable to, the Dallas City Council.

The conflicting versions of who arranged for Oswald's security--or lack thereof, is the main concern, imo.

Somebody ensured that Ruby was handed a golden opportunity to murder LHO. Ruby was in the DPD building on Friday night and, had he been granted an opportunity, may have killed LHO then and there. Crull admits in his testimony that the meeting between himself, Curry and Curry's deputy occured at 4pm on Friday. This is when the 'policy' of co-operating with the press--even if such co-operation placed LHO's life in peril--had its genesis (officially at least). Crull even states that the question of LHO's security was not discussed and was, in fact, secondary to the imperative of 'wrapping it up and showing the world that the killer had been caught'. At one point at least, Ruby claimed he was working as an interpreter for the Israeli press.

Detective LC Graves argues that the DPD heirarchy were unhappy with the arrangements and would have preferred to transfer LHO in secret, and at night, but they were overruled---by Crull. I tend to believe him and think that while it was made to look like incompetence by the DPD, the murder of LHO was made possible by the directive issued by Crull, and possibly backed by Mayor Cabell, that Curry comply fully with all requests by the print and electronic media for access to LHO. From 4pm on Friday the 22nd, Oswald was the proverbial dead man walking.

Mark,

A sidebar on Crull:

In 1966, he resigned from the City Manager position and was elected as Vice President of the Republic National Bank. There have been a few threads in the past regarding this bank which has some very interesting connections and board directors.

Crull below.

James

Thanks James. Obviously Crull was well connected. Crull actually appointed Chief Curry to his position, which, imo, made Curry Crull's man.

One of the episodes of Turner's 'The men who killed Kennedy' is called 'The Witnesses'. In this episode, former DPD Officer LC Graves states:

"Chief Curry did not have the final say on how LHO was transferred--it came from his superior which was the City Manager at that time, so again, we knew better than to transfer him under those conditions but we didn't have any choice".

The City Manager of Dallas at the time of the assassination was Elgin E Crull.

In his WC testimony (WC Hearings Vol XV p.138-145) Crull denies issuing orders to Chief Curry concerning Oswald's transfer but mentions that he had a conference in Curry's office about 4pm on November 22 in which "I agreed with him that we would continue our policy of trying to co-operate with the press", conveniently implicating Curry as the main mover behind this 'policy'--the one that got Oswald killed.

Crull goes on to state that he left City Hall about 7pm on Friday night. Next day, he went down to the lake-- Lake Texoma--to stay on his boat, and was informed of the Oswald shooting on Sunday by a DPD officer who rang through to the marina.

Isn't it a little odd that the Dallas City Manager would retreat to his houseboat at a time of such turmoil in Dallas?

Others have supported Graves's assertion that Crull ordered Curry to fully co-operate with the media when organising the LHO transfer, including motorcycle cop 'Steve' Ellis who stated in 1988 that Crull and Mayor Cabell ordered Curry to co-operate with the media's requests concerning the prisoner's transfer.

btw, do any members with knowledge of the legal aspects know if the City Manager would have outranked the Mayor on this issue? (although it's highly likely that both were recieving instructions from higher authorities).

I agree with some Chamish's comments in that 1999 article.

Connecting Dealey Plaza with the Chinese nuclear program, for example, is a long stretch for me. I also agree with Chamish that the genesis of the plot to kill JFK was American---and that it was the threat of losing Dimona which compelled Ben-Gurion into offering the considerable expertise of Mossad to assist in the scheme. Lansky is an interesting wild card. I've just finished reading a bio of Lansky (Robert Lacey's 'Little Man') and now believe he was far more deeply enmeshed in naval intelligence intrigue than most researchers believe. He regularly assisted in the interception of arms to Arab countries, often re-routing them to Israel. Interestingly, Lansky was even assigned his own code number as a naval intel contact, according to an enquiry commissioned by NY Governor Tom Dewey in 1954 and carried out by William B Herlands. (p.63 of the Herlands report). Connecting naval intel to Dealey Plaza is not difficult at all (Bethesda, William Pitzer etc).

I disagree with Chamish on a few points, most notably that the culture of political assassinations in America was ramped up under Clinton. He must have forgotten about the murders carried out in the sixties. There were many political assassinations in America and elsewhere in which Mossad involvement was a distinct possibility, imo.

Things just keep getting more bizarre. Now Bob Kerr, former boss of the Irish Cricket Union (ICU) has collapsed and died from an apparent heart attack in Jamaica:

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/wc2007/con...ory/286549.html

I didn't notice it before, but Pakistan's ill fated match against Ireland was played on St. Patricks Day. If I had known this, I probably would have backed Ireland myself.

The most crucial game of the series so far will be played at the Queens Park ground in Jamaica on March 23 between India and Sri Lanka. Having lost earlier to Bangladesh, India must win or they will join Pakistan as early casualties of this tournament. I think India will win. Sehwag is in top form (I predict he will emerge as player of the tournament).

I see the police in Jamaica now regard Bob Woolmer's sudden death as suspicious. Gambling interests have been mentioned as possible suspects.

The timing of his death was quite bizarre, imo.

I believe David Talbot's Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years will have some interesting things to say about the death of Monroe.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brothers-Hidden-Hi...1581&sr=1-3

I think the timing of this "news" is to try to discredit Talbot before his book comes out.

And Ray yes Jim Di's article is great.

Dawn

Perhaps John could ask Philippe Mora to join the forum?

It would give Mr Mora a chance to explain how he came to write this 'new' story - and provide him with the opportunity to counter suspicions that he is participating in an orchestrated campaign, wittingly or unwittingly.

Good suggestion, Sid.

Books implicating the Kennedys in murders suffer a fatal credibility defect--they weren't murderers.

IMDB credits Mora with one 1997 film about a mercenary's mission to free hostages. Mora is art director. It recieved a rating of 3.2/10. I vaguely recollect seeing his byline in the SMH over the years but I can't remember what he wrote about.

Maybe if he joined the Forum we could find out whether his aim was just to make a buck or whether he is the newest recruit in a long running and orchestrated campaign.

At the same time, William Gaines' EC Comics, which published the satirical Mad and various first-rate horror comics (e.g. Tales from the Crypt), was driven out of business for its "poor taste" and bad influence on youngsters. (I was an avid EC reader as a kid, so I'm a good example of what such publications can do to you.)

From the Wikipedia (article on William Gaines):

"Gaines was negatively depicted by the nation's media as its foremost amoral publisher. By 1955, EC was effectively driven out of business by the backlash, and by the Comics Magazine Association of America. The Association was an industry group that Gaines himself had suggested to insulate themselves from outside censorship, but he soon lost control of the organization to John Goldwater, publisher of the innocuous Archie teenage comics. The Comics Code that was approved and adopted by most of the country's prominent publishers contained restrictions specifically targeted at Gaines' line of horror and crime comic books."

I remember when Marvel caused a controversy in 1971 when they published a three part drug related story in their Spider Man title which failed to display the Comics Code seal of approval.

Spider-Man #96-#98. Hit the link for a look at Gil Kane's excellent artwork on the cover of issue #98.

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?...1105&src=pr

Good post and interesting links, Sid.

Why are Americans perplexed at the hatred they arouse in the Moslem countries? Are there corresponding Judeo-Christian populations of that size suffering at the hands of Moslem Governments? And for this long? It's genocide by stealth.

Israel is a nation paralysed by fear. They are terrified, permanently at odds with the region. Totally incapable of the most meagre concessions because of this fear. The fact that they became a nuclear weapon state was a considerable achievement but it's been a failure. While it has prevented neighbouring forces from invading it hasn't resulted in the peace of mind they expected.

What a pitiful nation it is.

Is it that you don't believe a Zionist movement exists?

Certainly a Zionist movement exists. But it's oil the U.S. is primarily after in the Middle East.

Or that you believe the 'PNAC' is more powerful?

The PNAC as an organization is of course not in power. What I'm saying is that the most powerful ideologues who have been running the Bush regime and led us to war - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and various lesser officials - are members of PNAC, signatories to its agenda, which they have attempted to carry out as U.S. foreign policy with disastrous results. This is all a matter of record. It is no secret and is indisputable.

Ron, the problem is that while the PNAC is an organisation (think tank) dedicated to Pax Americana hegemony (maintenance of world order through strong American leadership), it's position on the Middle East is a mirror reflection of the Zionist agenda. PNAC Chairman William Kristol was a vocal supporter of Israel's invasion of Lebanon last year. Indisputable fact.

While the PNAC website carefully avoids mentioning Israel, its views are strongly influenced by Zionism, imo. The fact that US policy has been subverted by a mindset which includes a healthy dose of Zionism is one which many Americans seem reluctant to acknowledge.

I fully agree, Sid.

It always amuses me when shockjocks and journalists in the populist media scream about the evil of drugs. I hope they never get drunk because that would make them awful hypocrites---my consciousness altering substance is fine but yours is evil. That line is absurd regardless of the current legal status of any drug. The oft repeated theme that drugs like cannabis, heroin and cocaine etc are dangerous and thus deserve their illegal status is equally absurd because alcohol tops all the lists as the major killer and cause of crime. It has only one rival when it comes to causing damage to society and that is the havoc caused by prohibition itself.

Some of these talking tabloid heads behave as if they don't know the difference between a crime and a vice. Of course, their livelihoods depend on maintaining this ignorance.

I saw this on Ebay for 99 cents. Great title! Has anyone read it?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Passion-for-Truth-Arle...1QQcmdZViewItem

By comparison, it would appear to be a bigger whitewash than was the WC.

Personally, I have also spoke with Anita Hill years ago, and rest assured that she is considerably more believeable than is Arlen Specter.

99 cents is about what it is worth to find out that one is a xxxx, when in fact they already know that they are a xxxx.

Tom:

I totally agree. I watched the hearings and completely believed Anita Hill. David Brock who wrote a smear book about Hill has also confessed in "Blinded By the Right" that he lied about both Hill and his Clinton articles.

Interesting that Specter is now preceived as a liberal.

Dawn

Specter was spewing just yesterday about the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act to spy on the public. Methinks his Warren Commission experience taught him ALL about the executive branch's misuse of the Justice Department for political purposes. Some contrived nonsense about a single-bullet theory, which Specter was forced to concoct to save the Oswald did it foregone conclusion, tells me so... The irony is that the creators of the conclusion--Johnson and Hoover--NEVER believed Specter's lie manufactured to save the conclusion, and told others as much. Talk about biting the hand that feeds.. How ungratefu!

Kid yourself not!

Specter is still a master of diversion and distraction from his true nature.

Fortunately (or unfortunately for him) he is also subject to political blackmail for his actions on the WC.

Anyone who has read his book and believes the hogwash about why he voted Not Guilty against Clinton, would believe the WC also.

Spot on Thomas.

I find Pat's suggestion that Specter was 'forced' to concoct the SBT is bizarre.

Where's the evidence for that, Pat?

As for Specter's current posturings - I'd be inclined to treat them with the scepticism one usually reserves for a serial xxxx.

Sid, I think the legal counsel for the WC were probably given their riding instructions by the executive branch at the outset. Specter was a bright young lawyer but a low ranking member of the power elite at the time, imo.

You're right about him, though. He undoubtedly knew it was a sham but he was given the task of finding an explanation which the public--a much more trusting public than today's public--would buy.

He has certainly earned a special place in US history, albeit a shameful one. He'll have to live with that for the rest of his days.

I think that's right Sid--repeal of the drug laws will cause a realignment in the financial system. The initial shock will be gradually blunted by counterveilling forces, mainly the fact that there will be more disposable income to be spent on other things. It would be interesting to observe the economic outcome as prohibition has artificially heated up the economies of western nations, imo. One thing's for certain---it would be a shocking result for organised crime and, to some extent, the stock market. The stock market would shed wealth as it, too, has been artificially inflated by prohibition.

There could be hope on the horizon. A British report calling for a reappraisal of the current laws has met with approval from certain parts of the media. Of course, the tabloids are up in arms about it because drug prohibition is their bread and butter.

UK: Editorial: A Startling Injection of Common Sense

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n291/a02.html

Newshawk: JimmyG

Votes: 0

Pubdate: Fri, 09 Mar 2007

Source: Independent (UK)

Copyright: 2007 Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd.

Contact: letters@independent.co.uk

Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/209

Note: See The RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public

Policy website http://www.rsadrugscommission.org and the 335 page

report as a .pdf file at http://www.rsa.org.uk/acrobat/rsa_drugs_report.pdf

A STARTLING INJECTION OF COMMON SENSE

The report from the Royal Society of Arts Commission on Drugs tells us what most thoughtful people have known for some time: Britain's drug laws have been shaped by moral panic, rather than a rational analysis of the problem of substance abuse.

The two-year study argues that the focus of government policy should be on harm reduction. In common with last year's report by the Parliamentary Science Select Committee, it recommends that the existing "ABC" classification system be scrapped in favour of an "index of harms", which would extend the definition of drugs to include alcohol and tobacco. It also argues that there should be an emphasis on "medicalising" the problem of heroin abuse, urging the roll out of "shooting galleries" for heroin users and wider prescription of the drug by doctors.

The report's authors feel addiction should be seen as a health and social problem rather than simply a criminal justice issue. If drug taking does not harm anyone, criminal sanctions should not be applied. Jail should be reserved for only the most serious drug-related crimes.

They also correctly identify the major reason why this is not already happening: politicians. The response of the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, to the proposals yesterday sums up the problem. He rejected the arguments of the RSA in favour of reform and argued that the present approach by the Government is working perfectly well. Meanwhile, the former Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith, who is shaping the Conservative Party's own policy on drugs, was also critical of the RSA recommendations. Mr Duncan Smith does at least have a strategy for improving on the present situation. He stresses the need for residential rehabilitation for addicts. But by arguing that getting people off drugs altogether should be the only objective of government policy, he too demonstrates why politicians are failing on this crucial issue. Too many in Westminster feel it is their responsibility to stigmatise addicts, rather than help them.

Of course, the reason ministers are clinging on to the crude policy of prohibition is that there is still a wide-spread mindset in this country, stoked up by the populist press, that all drugs are "evil" and that, by extension, so are those that take them. The summersaults performed by ministers over the downgrading of cannabis demonstrate just how in thrall to this popular prejudice they remain. The RSA report argues that: "The evidence suggests that a majority of people who use drugs are able to use them without harming themselves or others. The harmless use of illegal drugs is thus possible, indeed common." One can already predict the shrieks of alarm that will emanate from the prohibitionist lobby at this eminently reasonable statement.

The political classes have been afraid to challenge those who demand a "hard line" on drugs. They must begin to do so urgently. The present blanket prohibition is not working. A vast proportion of crime committed in Britain is related to the drugs economy. The Home Office has estimated that the social cost of drug abuse is between UKP10bn and UKP17bn a year. Our jails are bursting because they have been forced to take in so many drug addicts. As Professor Anthony King, the head of the RSA Commission, pointed out yesterday: "The quickest way into treatment is to commit a crime". What this shows is a society with its head in the sand when it comes to the question of drugs. It is high time we pulled it out.

The clock cannot be turned back when it comes to drugs. The reduction of harm must become the explicit goal of government drug policy, or we will all continue to pay a heavy price.

see below

It's not really surprising that whenever decriminalisation of illicit drugs is suggested, it is so vehemently attacked from all quarters. Prohibition has become a huge industry in itself--a parasite sucking the lifeblood out of modern society while masquerading as a bulwark against society's moral collapse.

The list of groups who benefit from destroying the lives of many of our people is almost endless. I've read that illicit drug funds represent some 30% of the wealth washing through the stock market. Even the welfare industry benefits--the Salvation Army here in Australia argues strongly against drug law reform as sending the wrong message to kids but (surprise, surprise) they recieve $800 from the Federal Government for every person they place on their rehabilitation program. They never mention this fact, of course. No wonder talk of drug law reform gets Brian Watters so hot under the collar.

If rational, sane drug laws were ever enacted it was result in a large spike in unemployment--in the short term at least. This must be acknowledged. However, it would lift a massive burden from the taxpayer and from the wider population. Less crime, ruined lives and drug deaths. At present, Western Governments value the economic imperative over the human misery cost. While the US, the major force behind the global war on drugs, has such a powerful influence over Western Governments this will remain the case.

see below.

Sid,

Yes, the evil of terror appears to be limitless. But WHO are the terrorists? Hmmm....

I suspect that UNODC report was ghost written by the DEA.

This spike in drug production will of course require taxpayers to cough up for more cops, courts, judges, lawyers, jails, insurance, hospital emergency room staff and doctors. The social costs of increased assaults, murders, HIV cases etc. will also be borne by the public in general.

Is all this damage to society (to keep us 'drug free') worth it?

Yes, says the DEA (annual budget in 2004 was $1.6 billion). Of course, they would say that. Without the War on Drugs many of them would be unemployed.

Yes, says the US prison building industry (2.1 million in American jails--highest in the world--80% are nonviolent offenders--so much for the land of the free).

Yes, says the pharmaceutical industry. Since the patent on heroin has long expired, the industry would suffer massively from competition from generically produced heroin, the world's most effective painkiller and still used in British hospitals, under the name Diamorphine, to treat many patients, including women experiencing difficult childbirth. Big Pharma is a multi-billion dollar industry, so it can afford two lobbyists to every US Congressman in order to make sure there's no fancy legislatin'.

Yes, say Western Governments. But its not heroin they fear but cannabis. So hardy it can grow almost anywhere, why would people pay for the production costs and associated taxes of a product they can grow themselves? Yes, its the unkindest cut of all, I can barely bring myself to say it---the Government would be cut out of the equation. There's little, if any, revenue from cannabis for them. Ouch.

Yes, say the media. What would the world be like without salacious drug scandals, disgraced athletes, politicians and celebrities, major drug busts, and record high crime rates to report? It doesn't bear thinking about.

Yes, (and many thanks) say the drug barons.

Finally, here's an interesting article from Lester Grinspoon:

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/48749/

Marijuana Gains Wonder Drug Status

By Lester Grinspoon, Boston Globe. Posted March 3, 2007.

A new study in the journal Neurology is being hailed as unassailable proof that marijuana is a valuable medicine. It is a sad commentary on the state of modern medicine -- and US drug policy -- that we still need "proof" of something that medicine has known for 5,000 years.

The study, from the University of California at San Francisco, found smoked marijuana to be effective at relieving the extreme pain of a debilitating condition known as peripheral neuropathy. It was a study of HIV patients, but a similar type of pain caused by damage to nerves afflicts people with many other illnesses including diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Neuropathic pain is notoriously resistant to treatment with conventional pain drugs. Even powerful and addictive narcotics like morphine and OxyContin often provide little relief. This study leaves no doubt that marijuana can safely ease this type of pain.

As all marijuana research in the United States must be, the new study was conducted with government-supplied marijuana of notoriously poor quality. So it probably underestimated the potential benefit.

This is all good news, but it should not be news at all. In the 40-odd years I have been studying the medicinal uses of marijuana, I have learned that the recorded history of this medicine goes back to ancient times and that in the 19th century it became a well-established Western medicine whose versatility and safety were unquestioned. From 1840 to 1900, American and European medical journals published over 100 papers on the therapeutic uses of marijuana, also known as cannabis.

Of course, our knowledge has advanced greatly over the years. Scientists have identified over 60 unique constituents in marijuana, called cannabinoids, and we have learned much about how they work. We have also learned that our own bodies produce similar chemicals, called endocannabinoids.

The mountain of accumulated anecdotal evidence that pointed the way to the present and other clinical studies also strongly suggests there are a number of other devastating disorders and symptoms for which marijuana has been used for centuries; they deserve the same kind of careful, methodologically sound research. While few such studies have so far been completed, all have lent weight to what medicine already knew but had largely forgotten or ignored: Marijuana is effective at relieving nausea and vomiting, spasticity, appetite loss, certain types of pain, and other debilitating symptoms. And it is extraordinarily safe -- safer than most medicines prescribed every day. If marijuana were a new discovery rather than a well-known substance carrying cultural and political baggage, it would be hailed as a wonder drug.

The pharmaceutical industry is scrambling to isolate cannabinoids and synthesize analogs, and to package them in non-smokable forms. In time, companies will almost certainly come up with products and delivery systems that are more useful and less expensive than herbal marijuana. However, the analogs they have produced so far are more expensive than herbal marijuana, and none has shown any improvement over the plant nature gave us to take orally or to smoke.

We live in an antismoking environment. But as a method of delivering certain medicinal compounds, smoking marijuana has some real advantages: The effect is almost instantaneous, allowing the patient, who after all is the best judge, to fine-tune his or her dose to get the needed relief without intoxication. Smoked marijuana has never been demonstrated to have serious pulmonary consequences, but in any case the technology to inhale these cannabinoids without smoking marijuana already exists as vaporizers that allow for smoke-free inhalation.

Hopefully the UCSF study will add to the pressure on the US government to rethink its irrational ban on the medicinal use of marijuana -- and its destructive attacks on patients and caregivers in states that have chosen to allow such use. Rather than admit they have been mistaken all these years, federal officials can cite "important new data" and start revamping outdated and destructive policies. The new Congress could go far in establishing its bona fides as both reasonable and compassionate by immediately moving on this issue.

Such legislation would bring much-needed relief to millions of Americans suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and other debilitating illnesses.

See below

For those who say that the collapse of the buildings was widely predicted hence there's nothing suspicious about the BBC's Nostradamus-like performance, may I say that I watched the whole thing--from the first TV reports showing the smoke coming from Tower A to the collapse of the towers--and never heard any commentators postulate about the towers collapsing until seconds before it occurred.

The collapse "was widely predicted " by the fire department AFAIK only the BBC and CNN said anything on air before the collapse. But a few networks like CBS had cameras trained on the building which futhur indicates the collapse was expected. In one TV clip a reporter said something about the collapse having been expected "all afternoon" or somethin to that effect.

Maybe so but it was never mentioned on the channel I was watching--I think it was a CNN feed to one of the free to air channels in Australia.

I think you're fighting a losing battle here, Len. 9/11 smells very bad.

The 9/11 saga gets more interesting by the day.

I don't have anything new to add but I would simply note that, in light if the BBC collapsing tower 7 story, controlled demolition is looking a much stronger possibility than it did before. Until recently I was only a disinterested onlooker to this debate. The thought of 9/11 being part of an elaborate plan to elevate the war on terror seemed too big an ask, but now I think its a chance.

For those who say that the collapse of the buildings was widely predicted hence there's nothing suspicious about the BBC's Nostradamus-like performance, may I say that I watched the whole thing--from the first TV reports showing the smoke coming from Tower A to the collapse of the towers--and never heard any commentators postulate about the towers collapsing until seconds before it occurred.

Also, the fact the BBC has conveniently lost the video of the transmission in question is a strong indication that something's up. The BBC doesn't 'lose things like this all the time'. What rubbish.

You've got to have an open mind when looking a issues like this. There's massive precedent for media mendacity--they lie all the time. And don't forget the War on Terror has been very good for business. Rupert Murdoch has made a fortune out of it. His tabloid rag here in Sydney has been a staunch advocate of the WOT. Nearly every unsolved crime HAS to be the work of persons 'of Middle Eastern appearance'. Draconian legislation is applauded as a small price to pay 'to keep us safe from terror'. It's quite obvious that the major media has a financial stake in maintaining the public fear and uncertainty which goes hand in hand with the WOT.

This is a very interesting thread. Sid Walker's posts are quite persuasive, imo.

I rate India, the West Indies and Australia as the best chances--in that order.

Australia have a lesser chance than that of Bermuda - both being teams of fat old men with the Australians being somewhat fatter and somewhat older

Maybe a little harsh, Andy. Merv Hughes retired several years back.

It's a pity I couldn't make it over there. I'm curious to learn whether they really pass the duchie from the left hand side.

Gough strategy?

You've got me there, Steve.

You're either going to maintain the rage or go gunning for the Governor-General. Both have merit.

I tend to agree.

I rate India, the West Indies and Australia as the best chances--in that order.

Scotland have more chance than England.