The link at the bottom of this post points to an article in the Washington Post today. It draws attention to several matters the Latvian media and leadership lack:

1.  Any idea of how to attract tourists [I have been advocating the legalization of Johnsgrass (a synonym for marihuana) tea for a long time. I see it as means of attracting tourists to the rapidly depopulating Latvian countryside. Yes, I would have the law written in such a way as to exclude Riga and other major Latvian cities, because these already suck up most of the money available];
2.  Johnsgrass as a means of building up capital among the capital deprived;
3.  Guts to print such educational information as the WP and other major media do;
4.  To stop moralizing (BS and Thought Policing) from a leadership that has no idea how to lead by example. Just in case anyone does not know the Latvian word for “example”, it is “piemērs”.
5.  Send the Latvian government to Iquitos, Peru to have a taste of ayahuasca. As the article states, “…Ayahuasca may taste like ground-up earth, but many leave here praising the brew in reverential terms for having purged them of demons and shown them a clarity about life that they never thought possible.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/20/AR2010082002908.html?wpisrc=nl_headline

As the BBC article points out at the Latvian demographics site at LOL, a 20% loss of population in twenty years means an outmigration of nearly 500,000 Latvians. I hope the figure is wrong, but the Latvian media certainly are nearly mum on the subject of this catastrophe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/world/europe/18dutch.html?_r=1
“Maastricht now has a crime rate three times that of similar-size Dutch cities farther from the border.”
The Dutch people I know all hate the guests coming to enjoy “St. John’s healing grass”. All of Netherlands bigger political parties agree to limit or end the drug tourism (most would like to limit it to Dutch consumers, which would be against European Laws). The Latvian Tourism Industry is doing very well this year, no need for that kind of “stimulation”.

It is not a question of the survival of the Latvian Tourism Industry, but a question of the survival of the population of an indigenous native countryside without agricultural oligarchs and seasonal foreign immigrants prevailing.

If the Dutch are so wealthy that they cannot now cope with tourists, then perhaps we should remember that Johnsgrass contributed significantly to the survival of the Dutch in an earlier day. If fifty years from now the Latvians have accumulated surplus capital and Johnsgrass has proven itself to be a canard, then let the Lanvian Tourism Industry lobby lead the campaign against it.

A reminder to all concerned:
The ECAD (European Cities Against Drugs) meets in a Conference in Jūrmala on September 9-10, 2010. The statement of the ECAD mission at
http://www.ecad.net/mission-statement-en Among the mission’s statement is the following:

“Cannabis products are narcotic drugs
All forms of differentiation between so-called “soft” and so-called “hard” drugs must cease. The use of cannabis is detrimental to the health, causes passivity and is addictive. Cannabis and certain other drugs, in some countries regarded as being “soft” should be viewed as other types of narcotic substances in control policy, rehabilitation and preventive measures.”

The following link http://www.alternet.org/story/148013/5_things_the_corporate_media_and_government_don’t_want_you_to_know_about_marijuana to some facts about Johnsgrass. Note that NORML http://www.enzymepdx.com/2010/portland-marijuana-drama/ is having its 39th national (U.S.) conference in Portland, OR on September 9-11. The ECAD Conference in Jūrmala is obviously meant to detract from the positive information regarding Johnsgrass that is likely to come from the NORML conference.

The ECAD conference is Swedish led and sponsored. We may wish to remember that Sweden has a state sponsored religion, re Lutheranism http://lifecruiser.com/archive/the-swedish-faith-in-god-or-not/ . While it may seem far fetched connection to some, it is a relevant fact—under the circumstances—that Lutherans repressed the Herrnhuter movement in Latvia, which began in 1729. The Herrnhuters were chocked off by the Lutherans (most of German origin) by 1860 intending to prevent Latvians from asserting themselves as an independent nation. It seems that a similar repressive movement is sponsored now through a Lutheran supported affiliate from Sweden.

The Lutherans of Sweden shut their eyes to the exploitation of Latvians by their banks, which encouraged uneducated Latvians to borrow monies they had little chance of paying back. The same now wish to prevent the economic recovery of Latvia with an anti-cannabis campaign. As this writer has argued in other blogs, Johnsgrass (a Latvian name that readily includes the herb) has the potential of not only allowing countryside people to survive the current economic crisis, but to begin accumulating much needed capital if they are to have a future as a people.

The Herrnhuters originated with the Moravian Brethren, whose roots go back to the heretic Jan Hus (burnt 1415) and the Hussite movement. It was the Herrnhuters who began the choirs of Livland (the name of Latvia before independence) and from which evolved the Latvian choirs of our own day; and it was the Herrnhuters who built up the demoralized spirit in Latvian community, and without whom there would not be a Latvia today.

Even as the ECAD meets in Jurmala today and spreads its theology that marihuana must be included among the drugs called narcotics, the “soft” policy of ethnic cleansing of the countryside of Latvia of the native people by its own puritanical (yet corrupt) government continues. People are leaving Latvia in droves. http://www.delfi.lv/news/national/politics/visstraujak-iedzivotaju-skaits-saruk-latgale.d?id=34009743 Of course, at the same time, every small village weeps for the many alcohol intoxicated youths on its streets for the lack of jobs and a future.

Meanwhile, in another part of the world, in Mexico, war on Johnsgrass is causing thousands of deaths, while in the U.S. it is being legalized as a healing herb. Read in today’s Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090906988.html?wpisrc=nl_headline Such information as in this link provides is not available in Latvia. The reason? Not for lack of readers, but as a result of government and church dogma and propaganda.

Today in the Guardian, UK
Leading UK cannabis researcher calls for legalization.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/14/cannabis-licence-legalisation-pertwee

Livestreamhttp://www.ir.lv/2010/9/21/diskutes-par-marihuanu-latvija

Diskutēs par marihuānu Latvijā

Trešdien, 22. septembrī plkst. 18.30 ¼Satori grāmatnīcā tiksies organizācijas “Nezāle” valdes priekšsēdētājs Uģis Reķis (Pēdējā partija) un narkologs Jānis Strazdiņš (ZZS), lai debatētu par iespējamiem modeļiem likumu maiņai un to ietekmi uz Latvijas sabiedrību un tautsaimniecību, ziņo ¼ Satori pārstāvji.
un “Nīderlandes modeļa”, kas paredzētu iespēju izveidot legālus, valsts uzraudzītus tirdzniecības punktus, īstenošana Latvijas apstākļos. Tāpat tiks apspriesti pašreizējās striktās valsts nostājas ieguvumi un riski. Diskusiju vadīs žurnālists un publicists Juris Kaža.

Ieeja diskusijā - par viena lata ziedojumu. Klausītājus aicinām ierasties savlaicīgi, jo vietas pietiek ne vairāk kā 80 klausītājiem. Diskusiju tiešraidē paredzēts translēt internetā.

Pirmā diskusija šajā ciklā notika 31. augustā un tajā argumentus par labu savai nostājai jautājumā “Bībeles mācība skolu programmās?” pauda katoļu arhibīskaps – metropolīts Zbigņevs Stankēvičs, savukārt pretēju pārliecību aizstāvēja sociālantropologs Roberts Ķīlis.

...if anyone can find the link to the live discussion, please share and post it, 
hopefully Juris Kaža will share his experience on this discussion with us.

Who is behind the repression of discussion about Johnsgrass in Latvia?
The following link tells how it is in America.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_the_pot_legalization_campaign_really_threatens_20100923/

“The times they are a-changing” B. Dylan

This article outlines why conservtives, ideologicaly, should support the legalisation of drugs:
http://bit.ly/dafgrC

And this one points to the wormhole Obama is in regarding Prop19 in California. On November 2 Californians will vote to legalize marijuana (kaņepes). Polls today show 52% agree to 38% against with 10% undecided. (don’t hold your breathe prohibitionists)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/californias-marijuana-initiative-a-problem-for-obama/63681/

The debate around Prop 19 has worked wonders in pointing out the futility and corruption in the billions upon billions of dollars spent in fighting the drug war, not even including the cost in lost productivity of having millions and millions of americans incarcerated, for non-violent crimes.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/28/piper.decriminalize.pot/

Every argument put forth by the anti-drug warriors has been proven wrong, misleading, and outright lies.

“As goes America, so goes the world”

>this article was blacklisted and prevented from being included in my previous post>

Drugs and Conservatives Should Go Together
By Jeffrey A. Miron, Los Angeles Times - Wednesday, September 29 2010
TAGS: HEADLINE NEWS CONSERVATIVES PROHIBITION
Legalization would not only promote specific policy objectives that are near and dear to conservative hearts, it is also consistent with core principles that conservatives endorse in other contexts.
For decades, the U.S. debate over drug legalization has pitted conservatives on one side against libertarians and some liberals on the other. A few conservatives have publicly opposed the drug war (e.g., National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr.), but most conservatives either endorse it or sidestep the issue.

Yet vigorous opposition to the drug war should be a no-brainer for conservatives. Legalization would not only promote specific policy objectives that are near and dear to conservative hearts, it is also consistent with core principles that conservatives endorse in other contexts.

Legalization would be beneficial in key aspects of the war on terror. Afghanistan is the world leader in opium production, and this trade is highly lucrative because U.S.-led prohibition drives the market underground. The Taliban then earns substantial income by protecting opium farmers and traffickers from law enforcement in exchange for a share of the profits. U.S. eradication of opium fields also drives the hearts and minds of Afghan farmers away from the U.S. and toward the Taliban.

Legalization could also aid the war on terror by freeing immigration and other border control resources to target terrorists and WMD rather than the illegal drug trade. Under prohibition, moreover, terrorists piggyback on the smuggling networks established by drug lords and more easily hide in a sea of underground, cross-border trafficking.

Legalizing drugs would support conservative opposition to gun control. High violence rates in the U.S., and especially in Mexico, are due in part to prohibition, which drives markets underground and leads to violent resolution of disputes. With the reduced violence that would result from legalization, advocates of gun control would find it harder to scare the electorate into restrictive gun laws.

Legalization could ease conservative concerns over illegal immigration. The wage differences between the United States and Latin America are a major cause of the flow of illegal immigrants to the U.S., but an exacerbating factor is the violence created by drug prohibition in Mexico and other Latin American countries. With lower violence rates under legalization, fewer residents of these countries would seek to immigrate in the first place.

Beyond these specific issues, legalization is consistent with broad conservative principles.

Prohibition is fiscally irresponsible. Its key goal is reduced drug use, yet repeated studies find minimal impact on drug use. My just-released Cato Institute study shows that prohibition entails government expenditure of more than $41 billion a year. At the same time, the government misses out on about $47 billion in tax revenues that could be collected from legalized drugs. The budgetary windfall from legalization would hardly solve the country’s fiscal woes. Nevertheless, losing $88 billion in a program that fails to attain its stated goal should be anathema to conservatives.

Drug prohibition is hard to reconcile with constitutionally limited government. The Constitution gives the federal government a few expressly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the states (or to the people) under the 10th Amendment. None of the enumerated powers authorizes Congress to outlaw specific products, only to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, laws regulating interstate trade in drugs might pass constitutional muster, but outright bans cannot. Indeed, when the United States wanted to outlaw alcohol, it passed the 18th Amendment. The country has never adopted such constitutional authorization for drug prohibition.

Drug prohibition is hopelessly inconsistent with allegiance to free markets, which should mean that businesses can sell whatever products they wish, even if the products could be dangerous. Prohibition is similarly inconsistent with individual responsibility, which holds that individuals can consume what they want — even if such behavior seems unwise — so long as these actions do not harm others.

Yes, drugs can harm innocent third parties, but so can — and do — alcohol, cars and many other legal products. Consistency demands treating drugs like these other goods, which means keeping them legal while punishing irresponsible use, such as driving under the influence.

Legalization would take drug control out government’s incompetent hands and place it with churches, medical professionals, coaches, friends and families. These are precisely the private institutions whose virtues conservatives extol in other areas.

By supporting the legalization of drugs, conservatives might even help themselves at the ballot box. Many voters find the conservative combination of policies confusing at best, inconsistent and hypocritical at worst. Because drug prohibition is utterly out of step with the rest of the conservative agenda, abandoning it is a natural way to win the hearts and minds of these voters.

Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron is the author of “Libertarianism, from A to Z” and blogs at jeffreymiron.com.

I really do hope that Latvia can lead the way in producing environmental hemp products for the world and bring the people of Latvia wealth & health in the process. The farcical laws incriminating the young & old alike who smoke marijuana and fill our jails (which has also stopped hemp production) has to be stopped. Is it any wonder the polulace have little or no respect for the law when the laws are so outdated, putting innocent people in jail for smoking a joint or having a criminal record for simple possession like myself. I’m not allowed into the United States because I got “caught” with a small bag of homegrown weed in the 80ties (LOL). If any government/law enforcement wants respect they better get their heads out of the sand and see the light of their oppressive and wrongful ways. The rhetoric they push is so out of whack it simply makes people laugh and push their credibility into the non-existent catagory. If they only knew how stupid they look and are being surely they would stop this insanity.

Documentary “marijuana inc”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAbewt6ZGO0

Tommy Chong from jail talking of the raid on his house and arrest for selling glass bongs, Sargent Stadanko in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bszt7hlX_64&feature=related

Power belongs with the people, not governments, put it to a referendum and letts be free from the bullshit governments push down our throats. Free to make environmental products from a natural growing plant that need no chemicals or pesticides to grow. Letts be free!

Cannabis hemp was the largest agricultural product around the world,
Riga was the largest export port of these products. 
Yet Latvians say we have no historical cultural connection, say like the Netherlands.
When petrochemicals developed products (and private patents)
to replace the natural God given tree of life in the Bible,
they began a GENOCIDE against the cannabis culture.
Mainly through modern medicine, which for almost all of the world is controlled and dictated by politicians.
How does a politician get to power, through donations from corporations whose goal is profit. (WALMART)
thereby destroying and sanitizing our history our culture our bodies our minds.
1970 US presidential commission reports that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.
1974 University of Virginia finds that the natural ingredients in cannabis marijuana destroys brain cancer cells in mice
2000 researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. http://www.alternet.org/story/9257
Anyone who ignores this is a criminal against humanity,
what don’t they understand about…

repent or perish

If the Latvian government were not so inane and tied inself in knots over an anti-Johnsgrass policy (re Prezident of Latvia and other government officials playing incestuous footsie games with the church), but supported a long-term Johnsgrass program as the foundation of countryside tourism, perhaps 200,000 or more Latvians would not have left the country, never mind that the country would still have a population worth calling a self-sustaining population. Instead, we are in a demographic death spiral and falling ever faster.

It is interesting what more enlightened investors are supporting in California, re
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11506438

It is still MUST TIME for Johnsgrass in Latvia.
Meanwhile, you may wish to remember the tune of
“What if… “, and the doggie in question lived in Latvia,
the police came, and rushed him to the hospital?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/12/AR2010101205691.html?wpisrc=nl_headline
What if the doggie belonged to a “tantinja” (auntie) who lived in the countryside,
who had so much fun living the good life among the weeds about her house
and so much money left over from her fat pension from the government
that she simply could not resist sharing in it?