-Veronica A. Shoffstall

Those who want and those who need.

Before I delve into this societal dichotomy let me first amend that very black and white assessment. None of us are absolutely one or the other. Those who need, want and those who want need, but one of these desires tends to trump the other in our lives and shapes the perspectives we articulate with and in turn the choices we make.

Those who want are drawn to the newest car model, the latest electronics, and the most fashionable clothing trend. Those who need tear through books, wander from place to place, and ask questions that many times they know cannot be answered. (I’m aware that there are an array of lifestyles that range in between these radical examples) The argument can be made for which life is more fulfilling, but as long as the individual is fulfilled the argument is mute. As I mentioned before we all have some portion of each inside of us, but based on the values of our society and the authoritative powers of the day I would argue we are primarily a society of want.

This want drives all parts of our lives. Want all but demands the sacrifice of our needs because the ideologies are intensely polarized. The general ideas of want and need contradict each other vehemently and we see this play out all over the world. Our society exploits the resources of other nations to fuel our wants and disregards the needs of people who populate those regions. We want oil to fuel our cars, luxury apartments, and fly our planes. We want cheap labor to provide us with the millions of products at the lowest prices possible and the third world supplies this labor chain. We want all of these things, but we forget that others have the same desire for their own needs.

Needs on the other hand are items like happiness, comfort, peace, and love. These items cannot be purchased or produced. There is no universal version of each and this subjectivity makes these items unique. It is impossible for these indefinable items to be transformed into commodities and provided to the masses through production lines and store aisles. The beauty of needs is they come from our own desires as opposed to the societal influences that often preach to us our wants. Some people are able to live a life where their perceived needs are fulfilled by their wants. In my opinion this is not a sustainable plan for meeting needs like happiness, but then again needs themselves are relative.

Happiness is one of these relative needs, and therefore different for everyone, but we should question what makes us happy. It’s easy to say that not everyone needs a car so just because an individual wants a car to make them happy doesn’t necessarily mean they should get one. It’s much harder to make that distinction when happiness is derived from things like proper nutrition or basic health.

There is no justification for compromising the needs of one group of people for the wants of another. But yet the western world does this every day. We mistake our wants for our needs and seek our happiness in the aisles of large stores and piles of merchandise. The merchandise we are addicted to is predominantly produced by people who have no choice between want and need because survival is their only goal. These people are lucky to find happiness in seeing their children eat a small meal each night as they themselves go hungry.

Those who want are never satisfied. The word itself implies a never ending desire. The word need could imply the same sort of infinity, but there is a difference. In this context want is tantamount to material goods and status whereas need is much more of a self-fulfilling search of the intangible elements of life. We all need food and water to survive, but I’m presenting need as something more focused on internal happiness and awareness that brings comfort with ourselves and the world we live in.

To want is not necessarily synonymous with evil just as seeking out your needs is not always evidence of goodness. The idea is not so much to push to be one or the other, but just simply to be aware of which is primarily influencing you’re choices and perspectives.

Both are endless journeys. We will always want and we will always need. There will never be enough stuff for those who want and there will never be adequate answers for those who need.

There is no quantifiable end to seeking either of these desires. The point is to be aware of the means we use as we move toward the elusive ends of either.

Such a provocative word. War has stood the test of time so far in human civilization. And actually I’m not real worried about War’s ability to endure or not, but on the contrary I’m much more invested in human civilization.

It’s completely backwards to believe that war is actually an inevitable part of human civilization. I mean in reality this belief is no different than the third grader that believes he has to fight on the playground when someone takes his pencil. It truly is that simple of a mindset. Certainly million of lives often hang in the balance, but the insecurities and human flaws that cause war boil down to a very simple, but irrational human mindset.

I actually should make a distinction before we move on.

The mindset is that of the citizens that still support the military’s incredible enormity. The government in this country goes to war for much more superficial reasons; primarily economic interests and I don’t know I’m still trying to figure out exactly why we dropped the hammer in the Middle East. My point is war isn’t genuine anymore. Not that it ever was, but it just seems even more arbitrary these days.

See that’s fucked. Millions of people are being killed, ungodly amounts of our money is being spent, and countries are being demolished for what in many ways are arbitrary choices made based on a mindset that is archaic.

War implies that the battle of Good vs. Evil that it is often taught in religious texts actually exists. (The religious idea is alluding to the internal battle, it isn’t inevitable in human society necessarily) Cultures actually believe some other cultures are Evil. This is an absurd idea. It’s ludicrous but it drives the flow of 50% of our tax money and the human cost that has been paid by human civilization is humbling and disgraceful.

There is no reason to perpetuate war. At no point is it acceptable to perpetuate war. It is based on irrational logic. The defense of war is self-interest. As people we would rather kill someone else than have them kill us. Yes that can be attributed to the natural urge to survive, but that doesn’t make it logical and pragmatic thinking. It is in fact ancient thinking in human development.

But we overlook that and by taking another life we jeopardize the life that exists within ourselves. To believe your life is so absolute that you must take someone else’s life in the defense of your own is not just selfish, but it speaks to an incredible ignorance about life.

It is reasonable to expect that the side that concedes first would be putting themselves at the mercy of the other side. But what does our national religion teach about mercy? And if you’re not religious then let’s just think about it with common sense. For war to ever be eliminated and world peace to actually come to fruition there would have to be a consensus among all people. This is an overwhelming thing.

But hold on.

If you travel the globe, people everywhere are just living their lives like we do. They’re not protesting down the street everyday chanting “Down with America”. Of course that happens, but think about the ridiculousness that happens in this country on a daily basis.

Universally people just want to be happy. I really believe that. There are always going to be bad apples, but as the saying goes you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

War just fuels the same conflict based interaction that has chopped up and defined human civilization. We are human beings people. We’re not desensitized machines as much as we would like the comfort of that reality to do as we wish. I can’t sit here today and say my life is of some importance that its protection could justify the taking of another life.

Can you?

And if you can then you are victim to fundamentally flawed mindset I made note of at the start.

When I say “all”, I don’t mean “all” like the founders meant it, I literally mean “all” as in everything in the living world. Like the ant that you killed because it committed the outrageous act of entering your room.

(I’m still a little apprehensive about sharing this, but I actually make myself let ants climb up my finger and bring them outside the room. And I even walk away thinking “how badly did I just misplace that guy? I mean if I was here in Boston and then all of sudden I was dropped in a cornfield in Iowa I would be confused as fuck” I don’t know).

So before we tackle the validity of a universal connection lets establish some facts to work off.

First I would like you to recognize that energy is at the core of everything we know. Essentially everything is energy or at least that this is the most basic form we understand life to take. So at the most basic level everything is the same. I understand it is a very basic and for some abstract level, but it is something to build from.

We should understand how energy flows through our world. As we all know and modern science proves, the sun provides the energy that fuels this planet. I could have my science understanding wrong, but I think it is fair to say that life as we know it is completely dependent on the Sun. We need to be exposed to that energy to continue life.

The entire planet is devoted to the Sun in an absolute manner beyond any dependence that the human or even environmental world could subjectively demand. This theory is based on the accepted scientific belief that ultimately we are all connected at our core. Our scientific understanding of the world parallel’s the Buddhist idea of a universal connection and Buddhists themselves are able to reach a higher state of consciousness by acknowledging this connection.

So why is this sort of thinking so rare in the western world?

Well I believe there are a number of explanations depending on how tangible or intangible you want to get. It is obvious that this idea of a universal connection would likely contradict with our economic understanding of how our world and our lives are supposed to work. Certainly a society controlled by corporations and consumer demands is not going to easily accept the idea that the life they have invested so much in is in fact a farce. If you ask 95% of people they would never give up their innocence and a lot of them actually don’t and by doing this they choose a life of ignorance concerning the world and even more tragically themselves.

It isn’t hard to accept the idea of a universal connection if you allow yourself to shift the importance in life from the tangible world to that of something beyond. Things will always come and go, but our energy or as I would say our “soul” never wavers. I can’t claim to be truly aware of all of this sort of stuff myself. I still take part in the world I’m blatantly calling out. I question that choice frequently.

But why is this important?

Well we all just agreed that energy is at our core. Or at least the science we understand tells us this and if we don’t believe scientific consensus then why do we even give a shit about anything in the human realm? So if we are going to accept this scientific fact then we have to accept a distinct connection between humans and everything else on this planet. It can be taken further to say that “everything” is in fact one because as science also tells us energy cannot be created or destroyed but instead only transformed.

In this context then it is fair to enforce the same sort of precedent on life as we know it, because as we have realized life is only a transformation of energy. Animals, insects, trees, plants, and everything on this earth are a form of energy. That is true. Right?

So why does that matter?

It matters because its an idea that for some could end the suffering or “dissatisfaction” in life as it is claimed the Buddha really meant to say in modern terms. If we don’t define our lives as we know them in such black and white ways as life and death, then just maybe we will be able to consider the world in a different light.

And it matters to me because by acknowledging this I then cannot conceptualize how I am not part of life on all levels. I can’t look at the world so subjectively that I am forced into the ignorance that would allow me to believe that its ok to pretend to live in a bubble and believe that I cause no harm with choices I make day to day. Ignorance is overcome by the logic that forces me to accept the truth of the universal connection.

I’m still working on forming my own life so it is more in tune with the idea. I have tried to share with you part of that process because it has benefited me. I recognize everything is a process and the satisfaction of reaching a destination is in many ways misleading.

Life is in many ways similar to a circle in that there would be no place on a circle that you could point to and declare it as the start of the circle without it being an entirely arbitrary claim.

As people we understand our lives as life and death. The beginning and the end. We don’t think about those black and white distinctions on a daily basis, yet they dictate the way we live our lives. I think to believe you understand the beginning or the end in some concrete manner is just as ridiculous as declaring a spot on a circle as its origin.

If we think of our lives holistically, then the world we live in and the problems we face become much less complex. The atrocities that have been permitted due to ignorance and negligence would no longer be acceptable in our world. Fear would no longer exist in the human mind. Love would not be something we have to search for like a needle in the haystack, it would instead become the hay. This world is possible tomorrow if we wake up and accept the universal connection.

This simple epiphany could indefinitely stifle the ego driven minds that have torn through and fragmented human life across the globe.
The idea that we would all be able to do it at once is of course ridiculous.

And the tragedy is that most people don’t have the means to make themselves achieve such conviction without feeling the comforting acceptance of the greater society. So a majority could feel this way about the world, but the majority still won’t accept the idea enough in their heart to take a risk. A self-fulfilling prophecy based on the fear of social risk. A risk that in fact boils down to allowing yourself to search for inner peace and higher understanding and the only thing on the line is whether or not another individual chooses this path for themselves.

The path less traveled is usually not less desirable, but instead much harder, and as nature would teach us, much more rewarding.

You don’t need to be a Buddhist, but you did need to ask questions of what you believe and why you believe it?

If we’re all connected and were all one on some basic level then what drives the awkward and deceiving social system that we currently have? As I hinted at earlier it’s the ego. I’m no Sigmund Freud so I can’t really explain all about those sorts of theories, but I understand them enough to feel like I’m drawing a reasonable conclusion, about the control of the ego in human life.

Religious experience at it’s core is about a personal connection so I thought if I shared mine it would make you think about yours.

The only point I will take from the mining incident is the blatant choice of financial interests over human well-being. I’m sorry but in no case is this an acceptable distinction to make. I don’t give a flying you know what if the company goes bankrupt, but at no point should the financial means of the company, ever take precedent over the life of those who make the company what it is.

Now with that said I am a person who believes in having a real discussion about end of life treatment and the resources we devote on a daily basis. Society has stood by the conviction of sustaining the tangible human life for people who are so tragically tormented by their ego that can’t get themselves to find peace in anything intangible. This is a problem on a number of levels throughout society, but what we’re going to focus on is just the idea of resources.

Is it me or does it seem backwards that when human life is hanging in the balance, as a society we allow a company to put lives in jeopardy for economic interests? I mean because the argument against end of life treatment has been strong from the moral relativists who claim a price could never be put on a human life. (I was called a moral relativist by a religious fanatic on the street the other day and I actually think its a great term, but in fact it defines him much more accurately than it does me) My point is that as a society we devote excessive resources to sustaining life that is in no way natural, but within this same society a corporation feels it has the license to make choices about profits with disregard to their employees well being.

I actually don’t know if this case involves a corporation with 100% certainty, but I don’t think it really changes my point. Corporations are allowed to use profits to justify blatant disregard for human life and we won’t we even tackle the harm inflicted on animals and the environment, which I would argue are even more egregious. These ridiculous priorities are permitted because as a society we personally value “things” over other people and sometimes even ourselves.

These horrible hypocrisies don’t have to happen. Of course sacrifices have to be made for everything that is the way of the world. However I would suggest that the sacrifices we choose to make should be more conscious and personal as opposed to dictated by the interests of small groups of power and wealth seeking people. I know you think I’m a communist right now and I’m not so much suggesting a specific model for any political or economic system. Instead that we think about what we care about as well as what sacrifices in our day to day lives we make. People around the world are forced to sacrifice for our sake so its the least we can do.

I’ll continue on this later. Unless of course this bores the hell out of you and in that case you should let me know.

I just had one critique, or well not a critique necessarily but I guess more of a question and depending on the answer a critique of sorts. It recently came to my attention that computer technology is in fact much simpler to improve upon than needing to build and purchase whole new models on a yearly or even monthly basis. In fact the essential upgrades are sufficient on a very small piece. Forgive me for my lack of technological linguistic skills.

What I want to know is why does Bill allow us to be forced to by new expensive models constantly? He is preaching about creative capitalism, which is essentially the idea of perpetuating a more sustainable economic system as well as creating a domino effect of sustainability and responsibility throughout society. I think its great and I would love to shake his hand some day. But I want to know where Bill gets off preaching this great idealism, but not even living up to his own principles? Does he agree that he is perpetuating the flow of unnecessary resources and goods through a consumeristic society so chaotic the only real control lies in the hands of the corporations that produce to meet our drug like dependency for “things”? Why doesn’t he institute a new policy from here on out that allows for the small piece with the necessary technological upgrades to be purchased separately for the people who don’t have 800 dollars every year for a new computer? I’m sure it will probably cut into his profit, but from what I took from Michael Kinsley’s book thats in many ways is the sort of sacrifice he is suggesting.

Creative Capitalism speaks to a revolutionary notion starting to bubble to the surface in society. A member so high up in the power elite Bill probably sees himself as immune from any backlash or sacrifice that society will have to make when moving forward into an economic and social arena that once again values responsibility, integrity, and common sense over the all mighty dollar, which has become like our needle to get us high off consumerism. I would ask Bill why he is helping to perpetuate this? And I’ll go further and challenge him to actually consider implementing some sort of plan that acknowledges and works to fix this ridiculous wasteful practice in his own industry and company.

I recognize I could be naive about how this all works. I have never been one to let my ignorance hold me back. Worse case you click out of this and never pass this on and I don’t even get an answer to my question of whether or not I’m naive or Bill Gates is just a hypocrit? Best case I get to speak with Bill Gates or Michael Kinsley, but I suppose I’ll settle for some sort of genuine email justifying the genuine curiousity and in fact challenge I just vicariously posed to your superior through you.

I hope to hear from you.

–Neil Goldberg
——————————————————————————–
The Response:

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:37:29 -0700
From: Info
Subject: Creative Capitalism
To: “nkgoldberg@suffolk.edu”
>Dear Mr. Goldberg,
>
>Thank you for sharing your thoughts about Mr. Gates’ article on creative capitalism. We appreciate your taking the time to contact us.
>
>As he writes in the article, Mr. Gates believes that capitalism is a great way to help people improve their lives, but the world must find creative, new ways to expand the benefits of capitalism to more people. He hopes the article sparks a larger conversation about the best ways business, governments, and nonprofit organizations can make that happen. Mr. Gates is pleased to see this conversation taking place among people with a wide range of views.
>
>Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. For more information about the foundation, please visit www.gatesfoundation.org.
>
>Thank you for contacting us.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Stephanie Jones
>Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

My Response Again:

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:19:36 -0400 1 of 24
From: Neil Goldberg
Subject: Re: Creative Capitalism
To: Info

Dear Stephanie,

First of all thank you for taking the time to get back to me. When I received that automated response I assumed that would be the end of the responses.

I realize that you have the tough job of defending a point of view or practice that you may not have any control over. However your response didn’t address my question. You repeated a broad position outlined by Mr. Gates. In fact I’m calling into the question the specific actions of his company. First I”m asking if my understanding of the computer technology is fundamentally naive or if Mr. Gates recognizes that what I’m calling into question isn’t derived from my own ignorance, but instead maybe an inequity in our society that Mr. Gates and his company is perpetuating? You don’t really address that question in any real way.

I’m not trying to create a back and forth with you nor am I trying to be obnoxious by responding when I’m sure you were hoping I would take the courtesy response and move on. Unfortunately thats not who I am and I would request that the issue I brought up in the first email be acknowledged on your end.

You end that email talking about the goals of the Gates Foundation and their wish for people to live healthy and productive lives. I’m curious how Mr. Gates justifies running a foundation with these ideals, but also rationalize maximizing profits at the sake of our citizens, resources, and environment around the world? If it is true that there is extreme waste and excess in the computer industry how does he defend his actions that at the very least permit this waste? You say Mr. Gates wants the conversation to take place. That’s great, but he is not immune from taking part in it nor is he immune from facing the facts about the inequities he may or may not perpetuate as the discussion takes place.

I just think people should be held accountable. Creative Capitalism offers a different way of looking at the world. I would argue it is based in idealism, but that idealism could mesh with capitalism to form something incredible for the greater good. Accountability is the first step in moving towards this sort of system that Mr. Gates suggest with Creative Capitalism. So I guess I think I’m doing my part by trying to ask for Mr. Gates accountability no matter how naive that may or may not be.

Sincerely,

Neil Goldberg
—- Original message —-

I’m not catholic and Easter has never once been something my family held sacred. Easter to me was much more about the Cadbury eggs than it was about the resurrection of Christ. I’m not even going to dive into the religious history, but I am going to talk about how Easter has become to mean more than processed candy.

About 4 or 5 years ago Easter became something else to me. Of course the Cadbury eggs were still a highly anticipated Easter accompaniment, but now there was something more. The parents of two of my best friends, who just happen to be brothers, put on an Easter brunch every year.

When I say Easter brunch I don’t mean they take 8 of our delinquent asses out to a nice restaurant. By brunch I mean they open up their doors to the community and literally feed anyone who comes even if they happen to stumble upon the brunch unknowingly.

I can’t tell you how many times I have heard someone ask Nancy or John how much they owe them for the wonderful food. And I have to say as delicious as the food is, what really makes the brunch is how happy Nancy and John are to volunteer their time, home, and dollar to give anyone and everyone who treks up the stairs a unique and delicious Easter experience.

They never expect nor would they accept money and you don’t even have to do your own dishes. I should make mention of the others who do help make this happen, but due to the fact that my personal relationship is primarily with Nancy and John I’m going to focus on them, but certainly all the others who help in ways I probably don’t even know about play just as pivotal a role.

This morning when I woke up in Boston with nothing on the agenda for Easter I knew what I had to do. The second to last thing I wanted to do was drive two hours to Vermont, but it turned out the very last thing I wanted to do was be absent at Easter brunch.

It’s interesting because coming to a city you would sort have thought that the sense of community would be even stronger than it was in my rural upbringings. I was of course wrong because I could have walked the streets around my house for hours and never found an open door for brunch. But in Vermont I know I always can and that’s comforting actually. In a world full of hate, violence, anger, depression, anxiety, confusion, and injustice there are still people like Nancy and John who willingly offer themselves up for others despite what they may or may not get in return. Like I said the food is amazing, but the people who put it on are what makes this Easter tradition incredible.

The traditions of American society have become incredibly fragmented. The diversity of our nation has created an environment where tradition is less universal than it used to be. New and old parents always have to decide how to guide their family through the seas of the holiday traditions. We all have our ideas and opinions and of course the only thing we should try to control is our own choices. However in the name of the Easter brunch that takes place on Main St. in Brattleboro VT every year I would like to offer a challenge for all of us.

Let’s try to mold our traditions in the core of what makes the Easter brunch the unique and special event that it is. Our tradition would of course have to include great food, Nancy’s cinnamon bread, happiness, lots of smiling faces, good friends and family, someone with a beard who cooks (trust me if you saw John you would understand), and a mimosa is optional, but mandatory if your part of my Easter tradition. Alright so the cinnamon bread, beard, and mimosa aren’t vital, but certainly help.

I’m sure some would say this demeans the holiday and all it represents, mostly because I said a mimosa was required. I see your point, but I raise you one. I raise you the Easter brunch. The Easter brunch that has absolutely nothing to do with Easter besides the fact that they happen on the same day. The Easter brunch that brings all sort of people together in the home of two people who invest their own time and money to maintain a tradition that has come to have a sacred spot in the hearts of so many.

I made the drive there and back this morning because the Easter brunch holds one of those spots in my heart. I didn’t realize how incredible an event it was until I moved to an environment where such a concept was foreign.

Easter isn’t about religion to me because in fact it doesn’t play a significant role in my beliefs about the way of the world and the sublime. But instead Easter now is about a tradition called the Clement’s Easter Brunch and let me tell you, that is a big step up from Cadbury Eggs.

If you’re looking for a new Easter experience or your just curious stop by any Easter Sunday, the doors always open just follow the signs upstairs, but be warned its more than a meal, it’s a tradition. A tradition rooted not in cultural or religious practices, but in the universal values of generosity, caring, friendship, and great food.

I don’t care what religion or belief system you subscribe to, traditions like the Easter Brunch are the ones we should look to when shaping our own customs, primarily because what it represents is so much simpler, but surprisingly so much more fulfilling.

I would argue however that the talk is just as important as STD’s. The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution allows for citizens to bear arms. Before we continue lets remember when this was written. And if your waiting for me to tell you what year that was, then please don’t believe that you will be able to legitimately defend the irrationality of American gun laws.

Anyways 1791 was the year this amendment came to life. At that time we were in the very first years of the Union. A Union that had been established by a movement of the people against an unjust authority that was in no way democratic. They created a revolutionary system in the wake of this movement and at the time weapons were even more authoritative vehicles than they are now.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the new government from ever restricting people’s ability to bear arms. The British had tried to take away guns in an attempt to stifle the militias that made the founding possible. Guns were to be used to control the government…a government of the people I might add.

Compromising a constitutional amendment is a big deal and I’m actually not proposing that. What I am proposing is that people understand how gun laws shape a society either strict or lack. The fact that when I traveled abroad people told me they were to scared to come to America because they legitimately thought they would be shot made me laugh and then realize how depressing that was. I mean, fuck, thats not the kind of country I want to live in.

Its not that guns should be completely outlawed, even though I personally would have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever, but from a legal basis at this point in history its not feasible because I believe certain individuals would tragically take advantage of this incredible societal evolution for their own gain. (Wow wicked run-on)

Right now we have people who are actually taking up arms in the midwest against our president who they believe is the “anti-christ”. I don’t even want to get into how incredibly off base this is from both a political and reality standpoint as well as understanding of religious history. But under our laws people this crazy and irrational can get guns and commit attacks in our own nation and justify what is TERRORISM under our own sacred amendments because as citizens they are legally allowed to carry and intimidate with weapons.

I know there are plenty of responsible gun owners. I’m not attacking you or your lifestyle. Just as there are responsible alcohol drinkers, and pot smokers, but on both these items we still have varied levels of regulation because the consequences (which are far less immediate and dangerous than guns) are recognized as harmful.

We need to understand how the system works, because are you gonna pick up the gun when they come knocking? Oh ya your right, they won’t. And I agree they won’t because I think we will recognize this incredible flaw in our society and work to fix it. But I’m an optimist (or I try) so remember that.

Works Cited
“About the Marijuana Policy Project.” MPP Homepage. 06 July 2009 .
Drug Policy Alliance Network: Alternatives to Marijuana Prohibition and the Drug War. 06 July 2009 .
Kaufman, Marc. “Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection.” The Washington Post 26 May 2006. 12 July 2009 .
Klein, Joe. “Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense.” Time 2 Apr. 2009.
“Marijuana – InfoFacts – NIDA.” National Institute on Drug Abuse – The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction. 06 July 2009 .
Morgan, John and Zimmer, Lynn. “Marijuana Is Not a Gateway Drug”.
Contemporary Issues Companion: Marijuana. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
EarleyWine, Mitch. “Marijuana Is Not a Gateway to Other Addictive Drugs”.
Opposing Viewpoints: Addiction. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004.
“SAFER – Alcohol vs. Marijuana.” SAFER – Home Page. 20 July 2009 .
Szalavitz, Maia. “Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work”? – TIME.” Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews – TIME.com. 06 July 2009 .
Stein, Joel, Matt Baron, Laura A. Locke, Viveca Novak, and Sean Scully. “The New Politics of Pot.” Time 4 Nov. 2002.
Sterling, Toby. “Amsterdam To Close Many Of Its Brothels, Marijuana Cafes, Sex Shops.” Huffington Post 6 Dec. 2008. 14 July 2009 .