Urge AG Holder to let states decide their own marijuana policies

[Hotspring 44]

Urge AG Holder to let states decide their own marijuana policies (https://secure2.convio.net/dpa/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=881&autologin=true)

The text of the (“Urge” ing) letter that can be personalized (add to or edited) is:

“A recent Gallup poll found that marijuana legalization is supported by a majority of independent voters, a majority of people in Western states, a majority of people in Eastern states, a majority of people in the Midwest, and almost a majority of Americans in Southern states. 17 states and the District of Columbia have already legalized marijuana for medical use. 15 states have decriminalized marijuana for personal use. Three states -- Washington, Colorado, Oregon -- will vote on legalizing and regulating marijuana like alcohol this November.

States are getting smarter on marijuana policy. They've been able to implement these laws with oversight and regulation and realize the potential fiscal benefits to states. Letting states regulate their own marijuana policies respects patients' rights, reduces the contact individuals have with the criminal justice system and helps alleviate the prohibition-related violence in Mexico.

If passed in Colorado, Oregon or Washington -- marijuana legalization will begin to bring the unregulated marijuana market under the rule of law, helping curb the crime, violence and out-of-control youth access that flourish under the current prohibition. If Coloradans, Oregonians or Washingtonians vote to legalize marijuana, I urge you to respect their choice.”


Source: DPA (Drug Policy Alliance (https://www.drugpolicy.org/))

[Karen the KAT]

Our Federal drug laws are ridiculous, it's all about money, making a substance people want illegal simply because for some people they can be self destructive can only be explained by frightened parents and the money it brings into the economy via the justice (or lack of) system. Why people have not learned from the mistakes of the 1920's is a clear sign that we need some sort of test of intelligence, common sense and logic in order to register to vote. Take away the illegality of drugs, and the criminal side all but vanishes. Along with all those tax paid and union jobs...

Doesn't it make far more sense to make people responsible for themselves? Couldn't we find a better place to spend those tax dollars? If you're going to buy jobs with taxes, at least make them something that actually benefits society. Put the money into re-hab programs, and tax the products...

Does anybody really think that making drugs illegal keeps kids from getting them? It's harder for a high-school kid to buy a beer than a bag of weed or meth nowadays, because it's so organized among the Mexican gangs. Make it legal and the gangs will become powerless, and it will actually be harder for children to find.

No, I don't use anything anymore, and yes, I am a mom...

It's just frickin CRAZY...

[Hotspring 44]

Our Federal drug laws are ridiculous, it's all about money, making a substance people want illegal simply because for some people they can be self destructive can only be explained by frightened parents and the money it brings into the economy via the justice (or lack of) system. Why people have not learned from the mistakes of the 1920's is a clear sign that we need some sort of test of intelligence, common sense and logic in order to register to vote. Take away the illegality of drugs, and the criminal side all but vanishes. Along with all those tax paid and union jobs...
Yes I do agree with you about our Federal drug laws are ridiculous”.
You have covered quite spread-out array of topics in those few sentences above.
However, I don't think it's “all about money” per se.

I think that in large part it was and still is about money at the time the first federal laws against marijuana were enacted.

I don't believe that's the whole story or the only reason, but Über (https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/%C3%9Cber) –capitalists like William Randolph Hearst and the DuPont family, and of probably the Rothschild family has or has had some sort of vested interests related to being advantageous for them, the prohibition of marijuana.

But it had a lot to do with racial and cultural discrimination against several particular segments of the population (so, therefore), considering the likelihood of that intentionally being coupled with the real concerns regarding opioids and the hype against marijuana which is in large part what created the so-called mass-fear of the people who they believed at the time smoked marijuana and the segment of the population that was using opioids at the time, which did exist relating to heroin addiction (laudanum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum) which is still, BTW; a Schedule II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_II_drugs) drug in the United States, as far as I know (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum#United_States) and marijuana is still Schedule l (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I_controlled_substances)).

But I think it is absolutely absurd to even suggest requiring some sort of an intelligence test for voting! That goes beyond the pale (https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+the+pale) as far as I'm concerned.
Why not instead mention the press being required (like it used to be) to show all sides, within reason (the) opinions and options that we really do have within the actual topic of the particular news report or article being presented to the public.

What about questions that are not asked (not being allowed to be asked) to the politicians that would more accurately show what that particular politician is really all about instead of the press being such a pushover and allowing you to either state the question were allowing the politician and were there reelection or election committee to dictate what questions can or cannot be asked in the first place.

Instead of blaming uninformed voters, (or even worse, preemptively blaming first-time voters with some sort of absurd, ridiculous and unconstitutional “intelligence test”!!), I think there should be some sort of requirement like we had in 1970s and earlier that all newspapers, and broadcast stations, claiming that what they present is actually “news”, including cable and satellite news, should be required by the FCC to have an equal segment of space during the same time frame; in other words, if one opinion is Aired during prime time, so should be the opposing opinion or two be Aired on prime-time for the opposing side/s, regardless of which opinion the broadcasters owners themselves believe, is the better side.

The electromagnetic radio spectrum they are using belongs to all of us not just owners of broadcast radio, television, satellite, and cable etc.
Is there really enough good in-depth journalism for the average American voter to access without disrupting their work, family, and needed sleep time to be able to have the information to make an ‘intelligent’ vote?
I think making that statement: ...we need some sort of test of intelligence, common sense and logic in order to register to vote. ...is more blaming of the victim; that (test of intelligence, common sense and logic in order to register to vote) if made into law would, make things exponentially worse than they already are.

You seem to frequently make the assertion that money has made so corrupt (which in at least some cases I agree with the gist of that assessment)... ... it also seems to me that not only the politicians have been hijacked from us by the biggest money interests (some of whom are international and not even American) also the media, which is where we generally are supposed to be able to get our information from to make decisions, particularly during election season and times of national despair like a declaration of war were an economic depression and such things that concern you have an effect in a real substantial way.
Instead, we have been relentlessly fired upon by weapons of Mass deception (https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/weapons-of-mass-deception/).

It is rather unfortunate that so many people on both sides right left and in the ones in the middle being hit by the crossfire many of whom out of sheer frustration, say words that make me believe that they somehow been manipulated into believing “the government” is the; “them” instead of the; “us”.

As long as the masses all sides, right left center, etc. think that it is that way we don't have much of a chance to fix things and make them right because so many people are parroting the BS the mega-business press and media such as what Randolph Hearst and Rupert Murdoch etc. owned media organizations have repeated over and over again, which has a tendency to cause people believe certain things that they normally wouldn't believe if they had enough of the actual factual and scientific, as far as marijuana is concerned; information about what's really fact because lies and obfuscation is for the most part all they hear from the vast majority of the media that they have access to and or are being pummeled with from the average American so-called press releases etc..

Here is one “article” about that which I am referring to: the sophisticated editing and or reporting, which insidiously blames the victim of it on the disinformation that they themselves are actually perpetuating:

you can either go to the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EBFP8ZochG0) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EBFP8ZochG0 )or read (https://www.fair.org/blog/2012/10/03/time-obamas-lies-are-worse-because-theyre-more-accurate/) it ( https://www.fair.org/blog/2012/10/03/time-obamas-lies-are-worse-because-theyre-more-accurate/ ).

So go ahead and blame the victims, which is us if you want to; if that's what you are doing by saying there should be some sort of an intelligence test to be allowed to register to vote... ...That's your prerogative... ...But I am absolutely certain that an ‘intelligence test for the right to vote’ would be used to reinstate slavery and legalize horrible human rights abuses or something that very closely resembles either one or both of those or something else just as despicable that I haven't even thought of would be called something other than what it really is in another attempt to obfuscate the truth and ultimately blame the victims of it instead of telling the truth.

Instead there should be a reenactment of the requirement that all news broadcasts or newspapers would be required to allow an equal amount of space for at least both of the or maybe even a minimum of three opposing arguments if there are that many about the particular, specific topic which they choose to do an article on or broadcast about. That would be far better than some sort of absurd, arbitrary, ridiculous and; unconstitutional I might add, intelligence test being required to register to vote.


Doesn't it make far more sense to make people responsible for themselves?
I am not so sure what to make of that statement. Do you mean; force people to be ‘responsible’ for themselves?... LOL!! ...

Of course, I get the point that with all the spin in the direction that it's been going has been disempowering the citizenship instead of keeping it vigorous.

I also realized that progressives need to become more forceful in getting their voices heard. “Occupy”, is about 1/100 of what needs to happen to really make anything anywhere near the progressives desired changes.


Couldn't we find a better place to spend those tax dollars?
Yes.


If you're going to buy jobs with taxes, at least make them something that actually benefits society. Put the money into re-hab programs, and tax the products...
That's one way to look at generating revenue for the current existing need for rehabilitation centers and jobs too . But, I would add to that education about drugs, all drugs, including the ones that can already be purchased over-the-counter without a prescription, caffeine and alcohol must be included in the education too.
That would minimize (but not eliminate) the need for the rehabilitation situation that you have also mentioned.


Does anybody really think that making drugs illegal keeps kids from getting them?
I think the idea (the one that I've heard some people express anyway) is that if the drugs are illegal, the adults that have kids would be less likely to have drugs in their house where the kids could get to them easily if they were otherwise legal, I think some of them think that way because they know what they did when they were kids. I'm sure that some of them remember stealing their parents booze and getting drunk on it or going to their friend's house and their friends stealing their parents, booze stash, getting drunk, and even sharing it with even more of their friends etc.
So yes, I can understand why some of them would be so “concerned”.
Just because they were so uneducated does not mean their children or their grandchildren have to be as misinformed as they were.


...Make it legal and the gangs will become powerless, and it will actually be harder for children to find.
I'm not so sure that in actuality it (marijuana) would be” harder for children to find” if it were legalized.
I know it's easier to blame the victim than it is to deal with actual the problem/s, that's one of the most insidious things I think is wrong with our society today (pointing fingers and blaming the victims) that keeps us going far beyond where we are (today) within a much shorter period of time as compared to how long it's taking us to make any substantial and beneficial changes at this point in time have been up to now.

Anyway, at this point I have ranted too much here on this thread so if I'm going to continue with it, I think there would have to be another thread started or one that already exists to go to for me to continue with this conversation.
So unless there are any other things specifically about the letter to the AG about states having more say-so with Marijuana laws, I am done here.

[Karen the KAT]

My comments about requiring an "intelligence test" were meant in jest.

But now you've got me thinking. There needs to be some way to ensure that people are educated about both sides of the issues, so that they can then vote their conscious based on the realities of the issue they are voting on, instead of voting for the spin that sounds most appealing.

A good example is Prop 37, which seems like a great idea until you read the "fine print"...

Whether by requiring all advertising to be factual, which it should be, or some other idea. Sadly many people vote for lies, and then can't figure out why they didn't get what they wanted.

I believe that if all the positive and negative effects of making drugs illegal were laid out side by side with no spin allowed, people would vote to legalize them. Look at the few countries that have legalized drugs, and you find they have the lowest rate of abuse...