Friday, March 9, 2012

It's the Amurrikan Way

Why Can’t You Smoke Pot? Because Lobbyists Are Getting Rich Off of the War on Drugs

Yep. You are a criminal if you cut out Big Pharma's bottom line. Or the po-leece unions or the Prison Industrial Complex. Or the liquor lobby. I'm pretty sure the fix is in.

Thanks to YubaNet.


Fixer said...


David Aquarius said...

That's what going to happen when the gov't changes MJ's scheduling.

The best thing is to remove it completely but no, that won't happen. Even caffeine is listed. (at the lower schedules)

Next best is MJ being dropped to Schedule Three or Four. This will allow the states to decide, like alcohol, whether to legalize it within their borders. If that happens, look for the West Coast to levitate about 50 ft!

The worst is placing it at Schedule Two. This places it in the same category as Oxycontin and other narcotic pharmaceuticals. Prescription only, no home grows, no collectives, just through the major drug companies.

This will take the medical use argument out of the equation, leaving recreational users (and those who medical reasons aren't covered by the rules) out in the cold. The black market will thrive but the penalties will increase. Schedule Two gives total control of marijuana production to the drug companies with the gov't providing protection and muscle by eliminating their competition.

Time Line for this? Sativex, the newest cannabis based drug is finishing its final testing phase. It goes before the FDA for approval very soon. Sativex isn't synthetic THC, like Marinol, it's made directly from the plant. (it's basically a tincture)

In order for Sativex to be legally prescribed, cannabis must be removed from Schedule One.

We will see...

Gordon said...

Thank you, David. It can all be done with the stroke of a pen, paid for by Big Pharma.

purplepenquin said...

Unfortunately, this seems to be one of the few issues that both the Democratic and Republican parties agree on. Nothing will change on the national level until enough people start voting 3rd or 4th party.

Remember, a toker voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

David Aquarius said...

There isn't a third party viable enough to get noticed. Yea, my 'attitude' stinks but in order for any third party candidate to win, they have to appeal to independents, not just folks of their own stripe.

Many see these votes as a waste, and I agree. Why would I vote for someone who has little chance to win? And yes, this same 'attitude' permeates the electorate. People have to be a lot more pissed off then they are now and the perfect candidate has to be on the ballot to vote in a third alternative.

That's not just my 'attitude' but reality.

purplepenquin said...

Mr. Aquarius points out the classic Catch-22...there won't be a "viable" third party until more people start voting for 'em, but more people won't vote for a third party until they are actually viable.

Looking back at history, we can see how political parties outside of the Duopoly paved the way for massive changes such as Womens' Suffarage as well as both the passage and repeal of Prohibition. Granted, it is a slower process than some would favor...but voting for the same ol' same ol' is an even slower process.

Personally, I won't throw away my vote on a candidate that supports the War on Drugs...especially someone like Obama that has increased it to unprecedented levels....but if this issue isn't a big deal to ya then I can totally understand why you would think differently.