We are in receipt of your e-mail messages and do not intend to ignore you. You need not direct any additional messages to Tony Newman for your request is not within his area of responsibilities nor copy our other e-mail accounts. Ethan Nadelmann has just returned from a very busy schedule of meetings in California and has many issues to resolve. I feel that I must advise you that have taken exactly the wrong approach to get his attention, especially in regarding his willingness to set up meetings with our funders as some sort of 'litmus test.' I suggest that you have your colleague Gregg Schmidt contact Mr. Nadelmann with a precise proposal which will be reviewed in a timely manner. I assure you that it is not necessary to capture our attention with anything but a professional and respectful communication style.
M. Felicity Daly
Special Assistant to the Executive Director
The Lindesmith Center - Drug Policy Foundation
925 Ninth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
During the next two weeks I continued to contact Ethan Nadleman through his assistant Felicity Daly. Then on 08/18/2001 I finally received the following letter from Felicity through Gregg Schmidt:
The e-mail that Greg Schmid has sent you, pasted below, is regarded as a welcome resolution to this situation. No one at TLC-DPF ever expressed a commitment to secure funding for this particular campaign. Greg put this quite well when he wrote, "Ethan never pretended to be a financial backer for PRA, but he is very amicable to our cause and wishes us the best." While Ethan supports the campaign ideologically he has no obligation to respond to your demands. Threats such as "this" could very well haunt you when you begin your own initiative efforts in the state of Michigan next year," will not deter us from the planned course of our work nor mar the relationships that TLC-DPF has with activists in Michigan and around the country. This is the last message from you on this topic that TLC-DPF will respond to.
So August 18th was the day that our hopes had been dashed. Ethan Nadleman had no intention of seeking finances for PRA through Soros. Nadleman basically screwed us. Of course I had never threatened anyone. I just wanted to see the efforts of my fellow activists succeed. Of course this is a common tactic that NORML, DPA and MPP use all the time. Whenever a "dumb stoner activist" has the audacity to get out of line they start making false accusations that you are nuts, or threatening or out of line.
[Note: What I'm about to say does not pertain to local NORML chapters that have been largely skeptical of National NORML for years.]
So in the end my projections proved accurate. Though a very respectable 270,000 signatures were finally collected we didn't even meet the minimum requirement of 303,000 signatures. All of those thousands of hours of signature gathering were in vain. And the dreams of the Michigan Marijuana Activist community had been dashed. Many of the petition gatherers confided with me that they would never waste their time on any similar future effort.
Gregg Schmidt defended Ethan Nadleman by saying that the real reason they didn't assist us was because they simply didn't believe that PRA had a chance of passage because a majority did not exist among Michigan voters. He rationalized that if PRA did get on the ballot, only to be defeated, it would be a set back for the drug reform movement. I could not disagree more vehemently. First, just getting on the ballot would have rewarded the petitioners for their incredible efforts. Second, even if it was defeated it would have illustrated a growing sentiment, among the American People, for our right to "grow our own." And third, I am confident it would have passed.
Ironically almost immediately after refusing to contribute a million dollars toward the success of PRA George Soros shelled out over two million dollars to gather signatures for the Michigan Drug Reform Initiative.
The Michigan Drug Reform Initiative (MDRI) is similar to "Proposition 36" which passed by the voters of California in 2000. The basic focus of the Initiative was to divert non-violent drug addicts from prison and into treatment. This stupid piece of legislation has pushed thousands of Marijuana consumers into "forced treatment" in order to avoid jail time and has resulted in false claims that they are addicted to Marijuana. It has also created an unnecessary Cannabusiness in the form of treatment centers that prey on Marijuana Consumers. The Campaign for New Drug Policies (CNDP), another Soros creation, was simultaneously running this initiative in Michigan, Ohio and Florida and was expecting to have this initiative certified for each of these states for the November 2002 elections. I'm not sure what eventually happened in Ohio and Florida but I do know what happened in Michigan. Soros's attorneys failed to properly compose the language of the initiative and it was ultimately rejected by the State of Michigan.
Then on September 3rd a further tragedy was to befall the Michigan Marijuana Re-Legalization Activists. Just a week before "911" struck New York 105 federal, state and local law enforcement "goons" descended upon Rainbow Farm. After a few days of human "fox hunting" both owner Tom Crosslin and his partner Rollie were murdered by law enforcement. The movement was in shock.
Looking back at this eight years later I still have many questions that are left unanswered. But a few things are now crystal clear. Soros, Nadleman, Schmidt -- and the rest of the Cannabusiness community -- continue to push a draconian "tax and regulate" model that will ultimately result in "Government Marijuana Dispensaries" whereby consumers will have no choice but to buy their Marijuana at the ridiculous price of $300 to $500 an ounce. Nothing illustrates this better than MPP's Arizona Medical Marijuana Initiative. Soros has provided much of the funding for this as he has for the previous 13 Medical Marijuana Initiatives. Accept this time the language has been changed so that, unless you live more than 25 miles from a dispensary, you will be prohibited from "growing your own." This will effectively end "self cultivation" for Medical Marijuana patients and their caregivers.
More evidence can be gleaned from reviewing the description of one of the panels at the upcoming "Drug Policy Alliance International Drug Policy Reform Conference" sponsored by Nadleman and DPA:
Imagining Victory: Make Your Own Marijuana Regulation Model
Taxation and regulation of marijuana has reached unprecedented levels of mainstream acceptance and political viability. But what does regulating marijuana actually mean? How should states control personal cultivation, retail distribution, advertising, and corporate involvement? What are the lessons of alcohol and tobacco regulation? Panelists will address a variety of approaches that are on the drawing board Ś and some that are already on the launch pad.