Who is profitting from keeping Hemp illegal?
-
It's the economy in general that keeps it and all other drugs illegal. We have seen a huge increase in prison construction to house the prisoners taken in the war on drugs. Those construction projects mean jobs. The guards to staff the new prisons mean more jobs. The soldiers to fight the war on drugs are even more jobs. Plus, every prisoner taken means one less possible unemployed statistic to bring down the economy. If we make one illegal drug legal, that open the flood gates for more drugs to be legalized and soon none will be illigal, totally screwing up the economy. I agree it makes no logical sense to keep the drugs illegal, but it does make practical sense.
Erik Juhl wrote: Plus, every prisoner taken means one less possible unemployed statistic to bring down the economy. and one less democratic voter to worry about. (FYI, i found that link on WorldNutDaily, and it was entitled "If felons could cast ballots, Al would be in White House") -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
If marijuana is made legal I will loose out big time - I only net about £200k a year from my crop as it is now due to the flooded market, but legalise it and the prices will drop through the floor. *sigh* It's always the small businessmen who get hit first. :(
:sigh: /|\ /'\
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
David Wulff wrote: :( /|\ /'\
:( :)
/|\ + THC = /|\
/'\ /'\
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
David Wulff wrote: :( /|\ /'\
:( :)
/|\ + THC = /|\
/'\ /'\
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
Sorry Terry, this is how it is:
:( :laugh:
/|\ /|\
/'\ /|\
!THC THC-- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
-
We all know that the politcians will bow to public opinion - unless some special interest group is paying them money - in which case they follow the money. So what special interest group is paying our elected officials to keep hemp and marijuana illegal even in the face of overwhelming medical, industrial and economic evidence that it is a beneficial plant? It required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. It took a single law to outlaw hemp.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
How about the dope pushers? Keeps prices high being illegal, money they can use to keep it illegal. Just a thought. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
Erik Juhl wrote: Plus, every prisoner taken means one less possible unemployed statistic to bring down the economy. and one less democratic voter to worry about. (FYI, i found that link on WorldNutDaily, and it was entitled "If felons could cast ballots, Al would be in White House") -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: If felons could cast ballots Why can't they? Doesn't this go against the very foundation of your bill of rights/constitution? If someone has served time for a crime, that someone is free. That's kind of the deal of the imprisonment arrangement, isn't it? If you are convicted, you "pay back" by serving time. After the time served, the debts are payed. Is this "felons can't vote" law nation wide or only active in select states? (Very conservative states I'd imagine.) -- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
-
How about the dope pushers? Keeps prices high being illegal, money they can use to keep it illegal. Just a thought. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
Dope should be IMO legalized. That'll make the business less lucrative. A requirement for legalizing dope should be that pushers must use the drugs they sell. That would regulate the drugs. I doubt we'd see any China White being sold. Not for too long anyway ;) -- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: If felons could cast ballots Why can't they? Doesn't this go against the very foundation of your bill of rights/constitution? If someone has served time for a crime, that someone is free. That's kind of the deal of the imprisonment arrangement, isn't it? If you are convicted, you "pay back" by serving time. After the time served, the debts are payed. Is this "felons can't vote" law nation wide or only active in select states? (Very conservative states I'd imagine.) -- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Why can't they? some states prohibit it. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Doesn't this go against the very foundation of your bill of rights/constitution? yes, i think so. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If someone has served time for a crime, that someone is free. That's kind of the deal of the imprisonment arrangement, isn't it? i guess some states add other things to the deal, including loss of voting rights. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Is this "felons can't vote" law nation wide or only active in select states? yes, just some states. 32 let you vote after your sentence is over, 3 let prisoners vote, 9 ban you for life and 6 have varying limits. and, since blacks make up 35% of the prison population, and in some states, nearly a third of black men can't vote, there's fuel for a race-based argument... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/21/national/main235444.shtml[^] -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
We all know that the politcians will bow to public opinion - unless some special interest group is paying them money - in which case they follow the money. So what special interest group is paying our elected officials to keep hemp and marijuana illegal even in the face of overwhelming medical, industrial and economic evidence that it is a beneficial plant? It required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. It took a single law to outlaw hemp.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Why can't they? some states prohibit it. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Doesn't this go against the very foundation of your bill of rights/constitution? yes, i think so. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If someone has served time for a crime, that someone is free. That's kind of the deal of the imprisonment arrangement, isn't it? i guess some states add other things to the deal, including loss of voting rights. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Is this "felons can't vote" law nation wide or only active in select states? yes, just some states. 32 let you vote after your sentence is over, 3 let prisoners vote, 9 ban you for life and 6 have varying limits. and, since blacks make up 35% of the prison population, and in some states, nearly a third of black men can't vote, there's fuel for a race-based argument... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/21/national/main235444.shtml[^] -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: and, since blacks make up 35% of the prison population, and in some states, nearly a third of black men can't vote, there's fuel for a race-based argument... Disturbing. I fail to see any convincing argument for not letting convicted felons vote. I believe it's ok if people who are still serving time is not alowed to vote. A convicted person have been stripped of all rights until the due is paid. But afterwards it's just absurd to prevent someone from voting. With a little hope, it'll change... -- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
-
Sorry Terry, this is how it is:
:( :laugh:
/|\ /|\
/'\ /|\
!THC THC-- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
:( :laugh:
/|\ /|\
/'\ /|\
!THC THCDid you make the stoned dude's schlong bigger on purpose or was that a freudian typo?
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
How about the dope pushers? Keeps prices high being illegal, money they can use to keep it illegal. Just a thought. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
That is always a first guess, but I can't imagine politicians being willing to risk taking money from drug dealers for fear of negative publicity (not that they wouldn't take it if they knew they would never get caught). Or maybe the drug importers pay off some shell company and that company makes the donations. It is very hard to take. Cannabis is so damned useful, fun and harmless. FYI - The reason we call canvas canvas is because that is the Dutch pronunciation of cannabis!
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
:( :laugh:
/|\ /|\
/'\ /|\
!THC THCDid you make the stoned dude's schlong bigger on purpose or was that a freudian typo?
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
Dum di dum di dii... *whistle* What? I don't understand what you're getting at. :rolleyes: -- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
-
We all know that the politcians will bow to public opinion - unless some special interest group is paying them money - in which case they follow the money. So what special interest group is paying our elected officials to keep hemp and marijuana illegal even in the face of overwhelming medical, industrial and economic evidence that it is a beneficial plant? It required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. It took a single law to outlaw hemp.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
A damn good question Terry. How any government can make a PLANT illegal just beggars belief, it really does. But I have no idea who would have a vested interest in keeping it illegal - other than the usual conservative middle-classes who think that if you smoke a joint on Monday you'll be a crack-addict by Friday. Sigh. Here in the UK, cannabis is more socially acceptable now than at any other time. In my age group I would be hard-pushed to find someone that hasn't even tried it once. There ARE problems associated with it, but the effects these problems have on the rest of society are minimal IMHO. Certainly no worse, and probably much better, than alcohol. There is definitely a more relaxed attitude about it in most parts of the country, especially in the cities where they have a REAL drugs problem to worry about. If it were legalised, the government would have a new source of income in the taxation that would be levied. This would potentially be an ENORMOUS source of revenue. The cigarrete paper manufacturers would be over the moon. Late night food stores would be happy. Chocolate manufacturers would be ecstatic. The only downside is that it would expose more people to tobacco, which isn't a good thing (yes, I know you could "take" it using other ways, but believe you me, eating it just isn't the same!). If I could choose between hash and booze, hash would win every time. It just annoys me that if I want to smoke a joint, I am breaking the law which could potentially lead to a criminal record. Me and millions of others - otherwise law-abiding people that could face the prospect of a criminal record - for smoking a fucking plant! Madness. However, attitudes are changing and though legalisation may still be a long way off, I think it is going to happen. Sure, it would need to be regulated in some way, same as booze (no smoking and driving thank you, or smoking and then, you know, driving buses and stuff) and there is also the problem of dealers turning to harder drugs to fill the gap (legalize them all and that problem goes away too!), but I think it is unstoppable.
-
That is always a first guess, but I can't imagine politicians being willing to risk taking money from drug dealers for fear of negative publicity (not that they wouldn't take it if they knew they would never get caught). Or maybe the drug importers pay off some shell company and that company makes the donations. It is very hard to take. Cannabis is so damned useful, fun and harmless. FYI - The reason we call canvas canvas is because that is the Dutch pronunciation of cannabis!
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
A damn good question Terry. How any government can make a PLANT illegal just beggars belief, it really does. But I have no idea who would have a vested interest in keeping it illegal - other than the usual conservative middle-classes who think that if you smoke a joint on Monday you'll be a crack-addict by Friday. Sigh. Here in the UK, cannabis is more socially acceptable now than at any other time. In my age group I would be hard-pushed to find someone that hasn't even tried it once. There ARE problems associated with it, but the effects these problems have on the rest of society are minimal IMHO. Certainly no worse, and probably much better, than alcohol. There is definitely a more relaxed attitude about it in most parts of the country, especially in the cities where they have a REAL drugs problem to worry about. If it were legalised, the government would have a new source of income in the taxation that would be levied. This would potentially be an ENORMOUS source of revenue. The cigarrete paper manufacturers would be over the moon. Late night food stores would be happy. Chocolate manufacturers would be ecstatic. The only downside is that it would expose more people to tobacco, which isn't a good thing (yes, I know you could "take" it using other ways, but believe you me, eating it just isn't the same!). If I could choose between hash and booze, hash would win every time. It just annoys me that if I want to smoke a joint, I am breaking the law which could potentially lead to a criminal record. Me and millions of others - otherwise law-abiding people that could face the prospect of a criminal record - for smoking a fucking plant! Madness. However, attitudes are changing and though legalisation may still be a long way off, I think it is going to happen. Sure, it would need to be regulated in some way, same as booze (no smoking and driving thank you, or smoking and then, you know, driving buses and stuff) and there is also the problem of dealers turning to harder drugs to fill the gap (legalize them all and that problem goes away too!), but I think it is unstoppable.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: But I have no idea who would have a vested interest in keeping it illegal - other than the usual conservative middle-classes who think that if you smoke a joint on Monday you'll be a crack-addict by Friday. Sigh. It is this issue that makes me think that there may very well be a secret cabal running the show from behind the curtain. I know that hemp oil can do everything petroleum now does. Hemp fiber can do everything cotton does. Processed hemp seeds are the most nutritionally complete single-source food item on the planet. etc, etc, etc. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: If it were legalised, the government would have a new source of income in the taxation that would be levied. This would potentially be an ENORMOUS source of revenue. Not only that, but the govt. would be spending far less of our tax-dollars on elaborate pot-stings and would empty a lot of jails. I heard a stat recently that over 40 million prison years have been levied in the US against marijuana users. Multiply that by the average annual cost of keeping a person in jail for a year and you have an incredible amount of wasted money. Other stats: Annual deaths from alcohol, cigarettes & illegal drugs other than pot: >400,000 Annual deaths from pot: 0
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Dum di dum di dii... *whistle* What? I don't understand what you're getting at. :rolleyes: -- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
-
;) I checked out your Blog - cool! I noticed though that in your wedding picture you referred to as your wife as "lovely" but you referred to your dog as "beautiful". I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder :)
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and, since blacks make up 35% of the prison population, and in some states, nearly a third of black men can't vote, there's fuel for a race-based argument... Disturbing. I fail to see any convincing argument for not letting convicted felons vote. I believe it's ok if people who are still serving time is not alowed to vote. A convicted person have been stripped of all rights until the due is paid. But afterwards it's just absurd to prevent someone from voting. With a little hope, it'll change... -- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
we were discussing the absurdity of this at work the other day ( coz otherwise we'd have to code ). In Australia you only don't vote if you're in prison and then you need to provide that as your reason for not voting ( i.e. you can't get to a polling booth ). Otherwise you get fined. I don't think compulsory voting is good, but I also don't see any reason to ban someone from voting because they have been in prison. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and, since blacks make up 35% of the prison population, and in some states, nearly a third of black men can't vote, there's fuel for a race-based argument... Disturbing. I fail to see any convincing argument for not letting convicted felons vote. I believe it's ok if people who are still serving time is not alowed to vote. A convicted person have been stripped of all rights until the due is paid. But afterwards it's just absurd to prevent someone from voting. With a little hope, it'll change... -- Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: With a little hope, it'll change... Perhaps. Keep in mind though, we never really liked the concept of convicted felons being reinstated in society. Probably because we've never really made up our minds on just what debt they owe anway, much less how they're gonna pay it back. Also, we prevent people under 21 years of age from voting as well. Just in case it takes us that long to grind them down...
Your sincerity about keeping the soapbox organized and civilized is so obvious. I solute your effort. -- Anonymous, 10/18/03
-
We all know that the politcians will bow to public opinion - unless some special interest group is paying them money - in which case they follow the money. So what special interest group is paying our elected officials to keep hemp and marijuana illegal even in the face of overwhelming medical, industrial and economic evidence that it is a beneficial plant? It required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. It took a single law to outlaw hemp.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
Simple - public opinion. Most people are simply against making marijuana legal. Hemp is less clear - I know here (in Ky) they contempalte making it legal from time to time since it has many other uses besides... um... :-O I believe not too long ago Alaska had a referendum on making marijuana legal, and it overwhelmingly failed. Even here in Ky, where mary jane is a big part of the economy (unoficially, of course), candidates who champion legalizing marijuana are few and far between, and usually don't get voted in. Why is the public against it? Probably becuase the perception that it is a harmful intoxicant is still there. They are afraid that if it is legal, there will be a big increase of, for instance, driving while stoned, and the like. I am not saying that is right or wrong, but that's what most people think. If your nose runs and your feet smell, then you're built upside down.