School-Snitches, Christ, Aryans, Jews, Marijuana & Cannabis

I posted a message about a proposed snitch-for-pay system in American schools in order to show how unpleasant and unhealthy such schools can be. This led to a joke about biodynamic marijuana in Waldorf schools, which in turn opened a whole can of worms - especially with Michael Kopp at his keyboard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:14:14 +0100

--
From: "CHARLES KRISTIANSEN"
Newsgroups: no.samfunn.narkotika
Subject: "schools for snitches,"
Date: 18 Feb 1999 11:22:04 GMT

=======================================
For release: February 11, 1999
=======================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com
=======================================

High schoolers can get $1,000 bounty under new drug "snitch" program

WASHINGTON, DC -- A plan by three Oregon high schools to pay $1,000 bounties to teenagers who anonymously turn in other students on drug charges is a morally reprehensible program that will turn high schools into "schools for snitches," the Libertarian Party charged today.

"This is the first step towards turning America's teenagers into paid informants for the government," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "Are these really the kinds of values and skills we want to teach our young people?"

Starting this month, students in three high school districts in Portland, Oregon, will be paid up to $1,000 for snitching on fellow students who use drugs or alcohol on school property.

Under the new Crime Stoppers program, students will be given a direct, anonymous hot line to school police.

But Libertarians say the program charts a direct line to a new McCarthyism, where teenagers will live in fear of being turned in -- rightly or wrongly -- to the authorities by anonymous informers eager for a cash reward.

"This turn-in-your-friends-for-cash scheme at Judas Iscariot High School is a stark example of how Drug Prohibition has warped the morals of this nation," said Dasbach. "Instead of treating drug abuse as a medical problem that requires concern and compassion, this program treats drug abuse as an opportunity to earn 30 pieces of silver by ratting on your schoolmates."

There are many reasons Libertarians oppose the $1,000 bounty program, said Dasbach, including...

* It's ripe for abuse. "How many high school grudges will be settled by calling 1-800-BE-A-SNITCH?" asked Dasbach. "How strong will the lure of a $1,000 reward be to a student who suffered from a broken romance -- and wants revenge? For every honest report of drug abuse, how many anonymous calls will be made to settle a score?"

* It will create a climate of fear and distrust. "Programs like this will cause every student to wonder: Who will be turned in next? Betrayal, snitching, and anonymous informants are not the proper recipe for creating school spirit, respect, and trust," he said.

* It will funnel teenagers with drug problems into the criminal justice system instead of the medical system. "Like all Americans, Libertarians are concerned about teenage drug abuse," said Dasbach. "But reporting and arresting a teenager for smoking marijuana isn't a solution -- it's a bigger problem. For a high school student struggling with the challenges of adolescence, putting him in a jail cell and burdening him with a criminal record takes a temporary medical problem and turns it into a lifelong disaster."

* It won't work. "Last week, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section released a study reporting that illicit drug use in America had increased 7% from 1996 to 1997 -- while the number of people arrested on drug charges since 1992 has increased by 73%. If America could arrest its way out of the drug problem, it would have happened by now."

Ironically, reports of the $1,000 high school bounty surfaced at about the same time Vice President Al Gore unveiled the Clinton Administration's new anti-drug policy, and argued that drug abuse is partly a "spiritual problem."

"If Al Gore is correct, and drug abuse is a spiritual problem, we won't solve the problem by devilishly appealing to the worst in people -- and offering cash rewards to turn in your classmates," said Dasbach. "The solution to a spiritual problem is not to turn America into a nation of Soviet-style paid informants."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:17:38 -0800

Tarjei, there are other lists for discussion of important topics like drugs in schools. I don't see a connection unless your intent was to indicate how awful the conditions in public schools are in some places. But Waldorf students use the same drugs other kids do.

-Dan Dugan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 01:20:02 +0100

Dan Dugan wrote:

Tarjei, there are other lists for discussion of important topics like drugs in schools. I don't see a connection unless your intent was to indicate how awful the conditions in public schools are in some places. But Waldorf students use the same drugs other kids do.

But Waldorf schools would not *pay* teenagers for turning in their friends and parents, like *the Nazis* did, the East German Stasi regime, and U.S. public schools. Besides, my post is *as least* as relevant to this list as the one about religious sects denying medical treatment to children in favor of prayer.

Cheers,

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bruce
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:50:18 EST

In einer eMail vom 20.02.99 01:03:33 MEZ, Dan wrote:

Tarjei, there are other lists for discussion of important topics like drugs in schools. I don't see a connection unless your intent was to indicate how awful the conditions in public schools are in some places. But Waldorf students use the same drugs other kids do.

Dan, I agree - but do you or PLANS have knowledge whether waldorf schools are better?

Bruce

I know its lent!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:57:46 +0100

Dan Dugan wrote:

But Waldorf students use the same drugs other kids do.

There may be a difference in the quality of marijuana here. Waldorf students are more likely to smoke the biodynamic variety while other kids get high on pollutants like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more dangerous than the controversial herb in question.

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Woody E. Allen
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:02:57 +0100

Tarjei Straume wrote:

There may be a difference in the quality of marijuana here. Waldorf students are more likely to smoke the biodynamic variety while other kids get high on pollutants like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more dangerous than the controversial herb in question.

Tarjei, you forgot the ;-) !

An investigation on the kids in a number of waldorf schools in Jaerna showed that (if my memory serves me correctly) 13 % of them had some form of allergic problem compared with about 26 % in other non-waldorf schools in the area. The investigation, done in cooperation between a doctor at the Vidar Clinic in Jaerna and the Institute of Environmental Medicine at Karolinska Institute (the Institute appointing the Nobel Proize in Medicine ...), was reported on National Television some time ago, here in Sweden.

I have a small hunch an investigation on the use of drugs by pupils in waldorf- and other schools would give a result in a similar direction.

Woody E. Allen
New York, New York

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Woody E. Allen
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:39:04 +0100

P.S.

An investigation on the kids in a number of waldorf schools in Jaerna showed that (if my memory serves me correctly) 13 % of them had some form of allergic problem compared with about 26 % in other non-waldorf schools in the area.

This is not to say that waldorf schools or WE as such are/is better than other schools or Educational methods.

Again, if my memory serves me correctly, a similar low incidence of allergic problems is also found in at least one of the Baltic(?) countries, with, I think close to 0 waldorf schools.

The authors of the report discuss a number of factors possibly contributing to the low incidence in waldorf kids, among them nutritional ones like the not negligable tradition of eating lactic acid fermented products both in "waldorf homes" and schools and the Baltic country in question.

I think the authors are now preparing for an investigation on a larger, maybe also European, scale of the questions raised by the first study.

Woody E. Allen
New York, New York

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:39:06 +1300

Tarjei Straume wrote:

Dan Dugan wrote:

But Waldorf students use the same drugs other kids do.

There may be a difference in the quality of marijuana here. Waldorf students are more likely to smoke the biodynamic variety while other kids get high on pollutants like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more dangerous than the controversial herb in question.

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

So, if I understand you correctly, there is marijuana grown by biodynamic techniques.

This means it must be being grown by those people who either practice or are dedicated to Anthroposophy.

The conclusion is that either dope-growing, dope-smoking, Anthroposophical parents are personally supplying their children (a serious possibility, I would say) -- then there is a market for and commercial supplier of Anthroposophically-superior dope.

This is not at all flippant -- I know young people in our former Steiner school who obtained marijuana, alcohol, and other substances from their Anthroposophical parents. My son attended parties at some parents' homes where the parents either ignored, or had provided, such substances.

When I tried to inject some control into these parties by attempting to get the parents group of my son's class to discuss a "substances policy" for our group, it was a very uphill battle to get them to recognise that there might be some advantage in limiting substance use.

While the parents all said they didn't want to see their kids become heavy drug users or use drugs at school (a natural thing, as it's against the law here, and, like the U.S., this country has a "war on drugs"), there was a vocal majority of parents who said that kids should be allowed to experiment under "friendly" circumstances, and that parents should be allowed to give their kids anything then want in the privacy of their own home.

Drug use by students in the upper school at our former Steiner school was common, according to my children and numerous other sources, both child and adult. It was not unknown to occur on the school grounds (where it was technically prohibited). I should note that all of the teachers were tobacco smokers, who frequently broke the school's "no smoking on school grounds" policy. One risked one's health going near the staff room. And the children all thought the teachers to be hypocrites. The children were even aware (since some of the kids in the school were children of teachers) that some of the teachers grew or obtained -- and used -- dope.

But I don't know if it was biodynamically grown dope.

I am not blowing smoke here.

There is absolutely nothing to say that Anthroposophical schools should have less propensity towards drug problems than public schools.

Cheers from Godzone,

Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 02:10:37 +0100

Michael Kopp wrote:

So, if I understand you correctly, there is marijuana grown by biodynamic techniques.

I have no first hand knowledge, but I think it would be a swell idea.

This means it must be being grown by those people who either practice or are dedicated to Anthroposophy.

Anthroposophists support biodynamic farming. Criminal anarchosophists like myself would prefer biodynamic grass.

The conclusion is that either dope-growing, dope-smoking, Anthroposophical parents are personally supplying their children (a serious possibility, I would say) -- then there is a market for and commercial supplier of Anthroposophically-superior dope.

Very nice. I only wish it were so. If not, I'd be happy to initiate it. But it would be strictly for adults though. (On a more serious note, marijuana or any other intoxicant is counter-productive to spiritual work, and growing marijuana as a business, biodynamic or not, would bring highly questionable karma to the Anthroposophical Movement.)

This is not at all flippant -- I know young people in our former Steiner school who obtained marijuana, alcohol, and other substances from their Anthroposophical parents. My son attended parties at some parents' homes where the parents either ignored, or had provided, such substances.

They must have been criminal anarchosophists like me. (Bourgeuois, law abiding anthropops frown at us though.)

When I tried to inject some control into these parties by attempting to get the parents group of my son's class to discuss a "substances policy" for our group, it was a very uphill battle to get them to recognise that there might be some advantage in limiting substance use.

Sounds like enjoyable parties. No violence I hope.

While the parents all said they didn't want to see their kids become heavy drug users or use drugs at school (a natural thing, as it's against the law here, and, like the U.S., this country has a "war on drugs"), there was a vocal majorityof parents who said that kids should be allowed to experiment under "friendly" circumstances, and that parents should be allowed to give their kids anything then want in the privacy of their own home.

Interesting. I have a Moroccan-Norwegian friend who has told me some interesting things about family affairs in his old country, that are also very different from ours. (Norway has the strictest drug laws in Europe.) I have never heard anthroposophists or anybody else suggest that kids should be supplied intoxicants. Never. But in Morocco, a father will pass his cannabis joint to his son when the latter comes of age. It may be compared to serving alcohol to a 17 or 18 year old, but it is a disputable topic altogether.

I can understand the thought of supervising the teenagers when they experiment with drugs, keeping them off the street. But I don't know if it's right. All anthroposophist families I know personally are completely drug free.

Drug use by students in the upper school at our former Steiner school was common, according to my children and numerous other sources, both child and adult. It was not unknown to occur on the school grounds (where it was technically prohibited). I should note that all of the teachers were tobacco smokers, who frequently broke the school's "no smoking on school grounds" policy. One risked one's health going near the staff room. And the children all thought the teachers to be hypocrites. The children were even aware (since some of the kids in the school were children of teachers) that some of the teachers grew or obtained -- and used -- dope.

Reminds me of "The Greening of America." What hypocrisy is concerned, it is certainly not more widespread among anthroposophists than other people. You seem to suggest that Waldorf teachers and anthroposophists in general are cunning, conniving, evil and intoxicated hypocrites. To begin with, I thought you had been up against a Waldorf school with an unfortunate staff. As your biased tirade continues, your credibility is fading.

But I don't know if it was biodynamically grown dope.

If it was, I would sure like a taste, though it would probably be expensive - especially if imported to Europe.

I am not blowing smoke here.

Perhaps you should. It might reduce some of your aggression and hostility against anthroposophy and help you sleep better. On the other hand, homeopathic medication would be a lot healthier, safer, and get at the causes and not just the symptoms.

There is absolutely nothing to say that Anthroposophical schools should have less propensity towards drug problems than public schools.

How do you know? Has any research been done on this?

Cheers,

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bruce
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 06:14:27 EST

In einer eMail vom 21.02.99 00:54:44 MEZ, Michael Kopp wrote from Godzone:

Tarjei Straume wrote:

Dan Dugan wrote:

But Waldorf students use the same drugs other kids do.

There may be a difference in the quality of marijuana here. Waldorf students are more likely to smoke the biodynamic variety while other kids get high on pollutants like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more dangerous than the controversial herb in question.

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

So, if I understand you correctly, there is marijuana grown by biodynamic techniques.

This means it must be being grown by those people who either practice or are dedicated to Anthroposophy.

The conclusion is that either dope-growing, dope-smoking, Anthroposophical parents are personally supplying their children (a serious possibility, I would say) -- then there is a market for and commercial supplier of Anthroposophically-superior dope.


Bruce: You are assuming that there is no medical market for marijuana, which there is. MOST "drugs" (in the sense we are now talking about marijuana) are also medicines.

This is not at all flippant -- I know young people in our former Steiner school who obtained marijuana, alcohol, and other substances from their Anthroposophical parents. My son attended parties at some parents' homes where the parents either ignored, or had provided, such substances.

Bruce: You are only too right. Marijuana smoking is no longer illegal in some european countries (I have no idea what goes elsewhere, but would like to be enlightened). It is a problem in ALL schools (whether greater or lesser in waldorf would be impossible to ascertain), and the effects of smoking pot can be seen clearly. I am sure ALL teachers and parents would like to know how to stop it - well almost all; I too know parents who smoke quite openly)

When I tried to inject some control into these parties by attempting to get the parents group of my son's class to discuss a "substances policy" for our group, it was a very uphill battle to get them to recognise that there might be some advantage in limiting substance use.

While the parents all said they didn't want to see their kids become heavy drug users or use drugs at school (a natural thing, as it's against the law here, and, like the U.S., this country has a "war on drugs"), there was a vocal majorityof parents who said that kids should be allowed to experiment under "friendly" circumstances, and that parents should be allowed to give their kids anything then want in the privacy of their own home.

Drug use by students in the upper school at our former Steiner school was common, according to my children and numerous other sources, both child and adult. It was not unknown to occur on the school grounds (where it was technically prohibited). I should note that all of the teachers were tobacco smokers, who frequently broke the school's "no smoking on school grounds" policy. One risked one's health going near the staff room. And the children all thought the teachers to be hypocrites. The children were even aware (since some of the kids in the school were children of teachers) that some of the teachers grew or obtained -- and used -- dope.

But I don't know if it was biodynamically grown dope.

I am not blowing smoke here.

There is absolutely nothing to say that Anthroposophical schools should have less propensity towards drug problems than public schools.


Bruce: There is a very active group fighting against the use of drugs in school, and elsewhere, and there are several very well known "drug-clinics" run anthroposophically here in Europe.

BTW: Since this thread has virtually nothing to do with waldorf, I would like to ask "critics" if they are against genetic manipulation? There is a large international campaign centred at the Goetheanum (Switzerland) called IFGene.Anyone interested please contact me OFFLIST

Bruce j

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:32:30 +0100

My fellow subscribers,

As an anarchosophist, I am always in danger of putting my hand into a hornet's nest on this Waldorf Critics list. Sometimes the opportunity presents itself to throw in an anarchist bomb, and when I can't resist the temptation, there is always the risk that I may cause problems for my fellow anthroposophists. My humorous remark about Waldorf students being more likely to smoke biodynamic marijuana is a classic example of this.

Several anthroposophists have expressed their concern about the marijuana-related articles and links on my website. The articles are in Norwegian, and one Waldorf school in Norway with drug problems among the students refused to exchange links with me because of these articles and links.

My reasons for supporting the marijuana legalization movement are strictly personal and unrelated to anthroposophy. They date back to 1969, when I spent six months in prison for cannabis. Because I am still suffering serious legal consequences of being convicted for cannabis exactly thirty years ago - it's a lifetime punishment - I activiely support the international legalization effort.

I had to leave the U.S. after twelve years, banned for life, because of this conviction twenty years prior. For the full story, go to

http://www.uncletaz.com/immigintro.html

Today, I am being refused employment in a toll booth because of this conviction, which is now thirty years old.

This movement has many active smokers in its camp, and I have still made the choice of being their ally in spite of the fact that my own consumption is limited to once or twice a year. These once or twice a year inhalations are basically what I call "my socio-political civic duty," because I never fail to mention my occasional illegal inhalations when engaged in public debates with the narc police.

It's a human rights issue, not a recommended lifestyle. My point is that in Norway, a good friend of mine got 12 years imprisonment for cannabis, and I visited him in the cage, which was mainly occupied by violent killers and the like. You get three to five years for homicide on the average and fifteen for drugs. My friend was threatened with 21 years, which is the maximum penalty in Norway, the very worst you can do against society.

I have noticed that the police and the drug-policy-supporting bourgeoisie are extremely provoked by my profile what marijuana and cannabis is concerned. Good. The Justice Department has made strong efforts to silence the debate about the issue of changing the laws.

The only possible link here might be the nebulous borderline between banned stimulants and alternative medicine. The political noise around medical use of marijuana as a prescription drug is very interesting when we consider the fact that many medications are extracted from herbs. The question is if it is moral to declare a plant to be illegal.

Nevertheless, as soon as I make a frivolous remark about smoking biodynamic marijuana in Waldorf schools, hardcore Waldorf critic Michael Kopp immediately seizes the opportunity to portray Waldorf students, Waldorf parents, Waldorf teachers, and anthroposophists in general as dopey pot heads engaged in some super-marijuana production and trade business. My sincere apologies to the "defenders of the faith" for sending Kopp off on this tangent!

Legalization or decriminalization of mariuana is more of a concern for anti-authoritarian anarchists than it is for anthroposophists. With our anarchist magazine Gateavisa, we did a stunt a few years ago after someone in the Center Party - the old Farmers' Party that was the Norwegian Nazi Party during the occupation under Vidkun Quisling - recommended that cannabis be legalized and sold at pharmacies. The Center Party leadership did not support this, but on the big speech day immediately before election day, we made ourselves T-shirts with their green leaf logo and made it look like a hemp leaf; we made a thousand flyers, "With the Center Party for Free Hash." For the story, see the photos at

http://www.uncletaz.com/anarchistphotos/

Cheers,

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:10:35 +1300

Tarjei Straume apologises to the defenders of the faith [TM] for unintentionally tarnishing the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical (SWA) movement with the vile weed:

My fellow subscribers,

As an anarchosophist, I am always in danger of putting my hand into a hornet's nest on this Waldorf Critics list. Sometimes the opportunity presents itself to throw in an anarchist bomb, and when I can't resist the temptation, there is always the risk that I may cause problems for my fellow anthroposophists. My humorous remark about Waldorf students being more likely to smoke biodynamic marijuana is a classic example of this.

Several anthroposophists have expressed their concern about the marijuana-related articles and links on my website. The articles are in Norwegian, and one Waldorf school in Norway with drug problems among the students refused to exchange links with me because of these articles and links.

My reasons for supporting the marijuana legalization movement are strictly

[snip Tarjei's views on marijuana legalization, his own plight, and the international drug war]

Nevertheless, as soon as I make a frivolous remark about smoking biodynamic marijuana in Waldorf schools, hardcore Waldorf critic Michael Kopp immediately seizes the opportunity to portray Waldorf students, Waldorf parents, Waldorf teachers, and anthroposophists in general as dopey pot heads engaged in some super-marijuana production and trade business. My sincere apologies to the "defenders of the faith" for sending Kopp off on this tangent!

Michael KOPP says:

This is total bullshit. I did not portray Waldorf students, parent, teachers and Anthropops in general as "dopey pot heads", nor did I suggest that the SWA movement or any part of it was engaged in a "super-marijuana production and trade".

I said I was aware of students at one SWA school in my personal experience who used marijuana, including on school grounds during school time.

I said I was aware of SWA parents at this school who provided dope (as well as another illegal substance, alcohol) to their (and perhaps other) kids, at parties or at home.

I made a joke -- much like Tarjei's -- about there being an SWA drug business. The object of that joke -- and the subsequent points I made -- was to take the wind out of the SWA movement's `holier-than-thou' attitude in general.

That said, I have been contacted privately by someone in the U.S. who cannot post to this list about similar drug and alcohol use in a SWA community that they are aware of. As a journalist I cannot confirm this because I have no secondary source and cannot mount an investigation trans-Pacific. But it sounds like a reasonable report, and the illegality there does extend to SWA parents growing for selling, and others escaping punishment for their kids when caught because of their wealth and position in the community. Such things are not unknown, of course.

I am also reminded of stories I have heard in New Zealand about marijuana use at other SWA schools here. Again, I cannot confirm these without extensive personal investigation which is beyond my capacity at the moment. I do not allege that these stories are true, only that they are current and believable.

This makes my point again: there is no reason to believe that SWA schools should be exempt from such activities by students and parents. Marijuana is not a class-conscious affair: even a certain president of a big firm (the U.S.A.) has more-or-less admitted using it. (If he didn't inhale, he probably chewed MJ brownies. Yeechh.)

STRAUME:

Legalization or decriminalization of mariuana is more of a concern for anti-authoritarian anarchists than it is for anthroposophists.

KOPP:

Straume may be surprised to learn that it is my personal opinion that he was the victim of an hypocritical American aberration that has cost the world huge numbers of lives. It is Prohibition all over again. Until about 1900, even opiates were legal almost everywhere. Now one can't even legally grow poppies in one's garden as flowers! The American `war on drugs' is doomed to failure, but it keeps a huge, repressive apparatus in business for geopolitical and financial reasons. The U.S. government (the politicians and the bureaucrats) are all self-serving shits in this instance, in my view.

I sympathise with Tarjei over his plight. It is not totally unlike my shunning by mainstream media here in New Zealand because I talk back to editors on the ethics and professionalism of themselves and their proprietors, and because I was getting too close to exposing government corruption. The result is the same: economic deprivation.

(There's my paranoia, Flannery, and it's real and not imagined. That, and the possibility that someday I may say something that pushes my former Steiner school's owners and operators -- who have the money to do it -- into suing me for defamation. I may be right, and totally, provably truthful, but in this country, the defendant has to prove innocence in defamation cases, unlike the U.S. situation. And there's no First Amendment here. I would be bankrupted by proving my innocence of such an accusation against me.)

I am also for marijuana decriminalisation, if for no other than the practical reason that the witchhunt is both wrong and unsuccessful -- although I do think it has some negative health effects, as to most of the pleasurable things humans ingest. There is certainly no worse effect on people's brains than there is effect on their lungs and brains from tobacco, which, of course, is hypocritically legal because of the huge money and power involved. U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, mentioned elsewhere on this list, is a tobacco state representative, and has fought tooth and nail to preserve tobacco as a legal business, while being totally opposed to marijuana. Doesn't politics make strange bedfellows? The people running the U.S. drug war don't care if it's successful, and they don't care if it means greater suffering, misery and criminality than previously. They are amoral.

I'd be pleased (but surprised) to see Straume retract his accusation that I am trying any means to discredit SWA, fair or foul. I am simply reporting what I know, and use barbed humour no worse than do supporters of SWA.

Cheers from Godzone,

Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:50:32 +0100

I wrote:

Nevertheless, as soon as I make a frivolous remark about smoking biodynamic marijuana in Waldorf schools, hardcore Waldorf critic Michael Kopp immediately seizes the opportunity to portray Waldorf students, Waldorf parents, Waldorf teachers, and anthroposophists in general as dopey pot heads engaged in some super-marijuana production and trade business. My sincere apologies to the "defenders of the faith" for sending Kopp off on this tangent!

Michael KOPP says:

This is total bullshit. I did not portray Waldorf students, parent, teachers and Anthropops in general as "dopey pot heads", nor did I suggest that the SWA movement or any part of it was engaged in a "super-marijuana production and trade".

I said I was aware of students at one SWA school in my personal experience who used marijuana, including on school grounds during school time.

I said I was aware of SWA parents at this school who provided dope (as well as another illegal substance, alcohol) to their (and perhaps other) kids, at parties or at home.

I made a joke -- much like Tarjei's -- about there being an SWA drug business. The object of that joke -- and the subsequent points I made -- was to take the wind out of the SWA movement's `holier-than-thou' attitude in general.

Fair enough, but in view of the general witch hunt by yourself and some of your fellow critics against Waldorf teachers - a pillory that you seek to chain all anthroposophists onto for ridicule, scorn, and moral discredit (divisive, dangerous, racist, exclusive, elitist, abusive, etc. etc.), your gave the impression of adding the drugging of children to the long list of sins in "the Waldorf approach."

<snip>

(There's my paranoia, Flannery, and it's real and not imagined. That, and the possibility that someday I may say something that pushes my former Steiner school's owners and operators -- who have the money to do it -- into suing me for defamation. I may be right, and totally, provably truthful, but in this country, the defendant has to prove innocence in defamation cases, unlike the U.S. situation. And there's no First Amendment here. I would be bankrupted by proving my innocence of such an accusation against me.)

You are suggesting that the Waldorf school in question is owned and operated by wealthy criminals who may do something unpleasant to you if you rub them the wrong way or get too close to their illegal activities. That's fine with me as long as this profile is not blamed upon anthroposophy and its founder.

I am also for marijuana decriminalisation, if for no other than the practical reason that the witchhunt is both wrong and unsuccessful -- although I do think it has some negative health effects, as to most of the pleasurable things humans ingest. There is certainly no worse effect on people's brains than there is effect on their lungs and brains from tobacco, which, of course, is hypocritically legal because of the huge money and power involved. U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, mentioned elsewhere on this list, is a tobacco state representative, and has fought tooth and nail to preserve tobacco as a legal business, while being totally opposed to marijuana. Doesn't politics make strange bedfellows? The people running the U.S. drug war don't care if it's successful, and they don't care if it means greater suffering, misery and criminality than previously. They are amoral.

Allen Ginsberg is no longer with us, but I had the opportunity to meet the old legend at the Blindern University on Oslo a few years back, and I brought up the issue of marijuana and the war on drugs in America. Ginsberg held the opinion that the mafia with vested interests in the tobacco and alcohol industry was responsible for the witch hunt against pot smokers because they didn't want that kind of competition. Anyway, it goes back to J. Edgar Hoover and the "reefer madness" propaganda. When it was a black phenomenon, it was ignored. With the emergence of the jazz bands where blacks and whites were mixed, it became a racial thing; it was part of a reaction against white youth adopting black culture in America. When rock and roll came along, there was panic in the Southern white bourgeoisie. Pot smoking was cultural heresy in the white community. They couldn't ban the music (though certain lyrics were banned), so they used marijuana as an excuse for arrests and raids. And they still do. But the rich get away with everything.

There are plenty of drug busts in Norway, and there has been all kinds of noise about parties with cannabis and ecstasy and funny mushrooms. But nothing about cocaine. Why? Because cocaine is still so expensive in Norway that only the richest people use it. The ship owners, friends and peers of the king. That is where the coke is. No wonder the cops never make a bust.

I'd be pleased (but surprised) to see Straume retract his accusation that I am trying any means to discredit SWA, fair or foul. I am simply reporting what I know, and use barbed humour no worse than do supporters of SWA.

If I have given the impression that you are deliberately using foul means to discredit SWA, I'm happy to apologize.

Cheers,

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:31:28 -0700

On 22 Feb 99, at 0:50, Tarjei Straume wrote:

(There's my paranoia, Flannery, and it's real and not imagined. That, and the possibility that someday I may say something that pushes my former Steiner school's owners and operators -- who have the money to do it -- into suing me for defamation. I may be right, and totally, provably truthful, but in this country, the defendant has to prove innocence in defamation cases, unlike the U.S. situation. And there's no First Amendment here. I would be bankrupted by proving my innocence of such an accusation against me.)

You are suggesting that the Waldorf school in question is owned and operated by wealthy criminals who may do something unpleasant to you if you rub them the wrong way or get too close to their illegal activities.

He's suggesting that he might get sued for defamation. He's not suggesting that the school might hire thugs to blow off his kneecaps.

Allen Ginsberg is no longer with us, but I had the opportunity to meet the old legend at the Blindern University on Oslo a few years back, and I brought up the issue of marijuana and the war on drugs in America. Ginsberg held the opinion that the mafia with vested interests in the tobacco and alcohol industry was responsible for the witch hunt against pot smokers because they didn't want that kind of competition.

I suspect that organized crime is interested in stamping out marijuana farming for another reason. Pot farmers are, for the most part, relatively small, independent operators. Smuggling is more easily controlled by organized crime, and independent growers cut into the smuggler's profits.

Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:35:39 +0100

Steve Premo wrote:

He's suggesting that he might get sued for defamation. He's not suggesting that the school might hire thugs to blow off his kneecaps.

Well, with wealthy and well-connected organized criminals whose philosophy of evolution is taken from Alfred Rosenberg you never know. They may even have secret torture chambers in their basements.

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

 

The Uncle Taz "WC Posts"

Tarjei's "WC files"

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind