It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

On marijuana: What Clinton, Sanders would do

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: chiefsmom
Ok, maybe it's just me.


I do support the use of medical marijuana, and I think even there we need to do a lot more research so that we know exactly how we're going to help people for whom medical marijuana provides relief."


Anybody else think that statement is odd? How we are going to help people that marijuana helps?

I don't think she misspoke.

I do not trust her, one little bit.


No, I do believe you are correct in your reading of that statement. Hillary Clinton, like all establishment trash, are the toadies of the medical industrial complex, and thus, do not trust what they can't themselves fully control and regulate. Naturally, they are already trying to synthesize pills and other pharmaceuticals to try and substitute marijuana in a way they can regulate and profit from. They are no different from their statist brethren on the right, in that they wish to prevent adults from engaging in pastimes that they don't personally approve of. Same hypocrisy and fascist nanny state mentality.




posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Do you have a point to your arguments?

Could you sum it up for me?


Yeah, my argument is that the other poster is wrong. That simplify it enough for you?



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Really Alcohol?


Yeah, alcohol, because Prohibition and the war on drugs share similar attributes.


That is not why they ended the ban on booze or even why it started.


I am not interested in your opinion. Refute the evidence I posted earlier.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
On another note: Hilary's stance on Marijuana, or lack of one, could end up costing her some serious primaries in states like Washington, Colorado, Oregon, D.C., California, and other places getting ready to legalize pot. Even those places with medical only might hesitate.

You see, the marijuana issue isn't just about a couple of stoners out west wanting to smoke a bowl in peace without cops kicking in their door. It is has also become a states' rights/federal overreach issue. The traditional guardians of states rights, the conservatives, have dropped the ball and gone full blown ignorant hypocrite on this issue. Almost every conservative candidate has flat out said they care not what those legalized states wanted, that when they are the president, they are going to enforce federal law and shut them down. The Democrats, by contrast, traditional supporters of federal expansion and supremacy, are more content to back off the states that have legalized it, due to a growing support for federal decriminalization/legalization, or at the very least rescheduling it on the DEA's dope sheet. But not because they actually respect state's rights.

Whatever their reasons/intentions on this particular issue, they are still, at least, willing to consider ending one aspect of the Drug War madness. But I always like to remind myself of a proverb I once saw on Facebook: When will people realize that the left and the right wing belong to the same bird? Conservatives and liberals are out to rape your rights and enforce an artificial,unsustainable and unrealistic order upon you. The big difference being which rights they are out to rape, and which delusional world order they want to push upon you.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Keep reading sport.


"With the country mired in the Great Depression by 1932, creating jobs and revenue by legalizing the liquor industry had an undeniable appeal. "


Which was long after public sentiment was completely against it. I am glad you figured out that the 1920's, when public sentiment turned, took place before the 1930's.



The big money that people who benefit from drugs being illegal aren't the ones shelling out the 51 billion to fight it. So unless you own one of the companies I mentioned. Are one of the people I mentioned. Or a politician getting contributions for voting for anti drug laws under the line they are bad and we must fight them for the children. Then you see a net loss. We simply aren't connected enough to benefit. But there is a lot of money involved in it being illegal. And be it those benefitting themselves via campaign contributions or the the same type of misguided people who think more laws will help with guns, the drug problem is here to stay.


I see that simple economics and civics are beyond your grasp. It is a net loss for the United States. End of story.

The taxpayers (private citizens and businesses) lose money in the war on drugs. Still waiting on you to prove otherwise.

I frankly find it absurd that anyone would claim otherwise.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I agree completely. Did you see this thread I authored a while back?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks










Might as well legalize, tax, and regulate , rehab and education. Paid for via the tax on recreational drugs. Enforce quality, standards, age restrictions. No reason to keep fighting in a manner we can't win. Turn it into a tax revenue stream, and after rehab and education expenses. Our lovely politicians can argue over who can blow the rest the quickest and in the most wasteful possible way.





Have you read, or heard, any of the results from Portugal legalized drug policy?
Your last statment seems to suggest we may need to do something similar to theirs.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: tinymind

Damn right we should. The ENTIRE war on drugs needs to be ended. If we don't want to flat out legalize the harder ones, I'll settle for them being decriminalized. Addiction is a disease. Jailing someone for shooting up heroin is the same as jailing someone for catching Syphilis.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes her handler soros wants it legalized snd funds various lobby groups to push it. Soros knows it's a death drug and coats the brain cells dulling the mind and memory thus rendering whole generations of people a non threat to the one world socialist superstate



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes her handler soros wants it legalized snd funds various lobby groups to push it. Soros knows it's a death drug and coats the brain cells dulling the mind and memory thus rendering whole generations of people a non threat to the one world socialist superstate


Could your post have been any more conspiracy propaganda laden? I mean damn, you didn't get a single thing correct about marijuana in this post, but you seemed to tick a TON of marks on the marijuana misinformation bingo card.

I mean how can you call something a "death drug" when it hasn't killed a single person in recorded history? I really hope you were just trolling with this post and not serious, because it shows a startling lack of education about this plant (and a startling excess of propaganda influence about the plant) if you were serious.
edit on 15-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Really Alcohol?


Yeah, alcohol, because Prohibition and the war on drugs share similar attributes.


That is not why they ended the ban on booze or even why it started.


I am not interested in your opinion. Refute the evidence I posted earlier.


en.wikipedia.org...

It all falls in the lap of one congressman that had a serious vendetta against alcohol because he was stabbed by a drunk.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Keep reading sport.


"With the country mired in the Great Depression by 1932, creating jobs and revenue by legalizing the liquor industry had an undeniable appeal. "


Which was long after public sentiment was completely against it. I am glad you figured out that the 1920's, when public sentiment turned, took place before the 1930's.



The big money that people who benefit from drugs being illegal aren't the ones shelling out the 51 billion to fight it. So unless you own one of the companies I mentioned. Are one of the people I mentioned. Or a politician getting contributions for voting for anti drug laws under the line they are bad and we must fight them for the children. Then you see a net loss. We simply aren't connected enough to benefit. But there is a lot of money involved in it being illegal. And be it those benefitting themselves via campaign contributions or the the same type of misguided people who think more laws will help with guns, the drug problem is here to stay.


I see that simple economics and civics are beyond your grasp. It is a net loss for the United States. End of story.

The taxpayers (private citizens and businesses) lose money in the war on drugs. Still waiting on you to prove otherwise.

I frankly find it absurd that anyone would claim otherwise.



Quest diagnostics made a net loss from their drug testing business? Money launderers lost money, doing it with illegal drug money? You just haven't gotten it yet. Doesn't matter our net loss, we aren't benefitting from it being illegal. This really isn't complex. Sorry you don't get it, can't help you. Again you haven't the connections to benefit from drugs being illegal, you see a net loss, people with the connections and resources benefit. Because you Do not do have the access to politicians or have other services, you don't benefit. Again this is not hard to understand.

The great depression started in 29 so not sure what point you think you made about sentiment in the 20,s , public opinion didn't mean much until the tax revenue and jobs were needed.

None of this is complex. You can keep saying Apple's when I'm pointing out oranges. You can keep relating the taxpayers to the people who actually benefit, even say I just don't get it. Very easy to follow and I bet no one else has this much trouble understanding this. You are dug in with your fingers in your ears. Cool. You are wrong. There is big money with drugs being illegal. Just because you haven't got the connections or resources to see a benefit doesn't mean it's not happening. You simply try to compare those that do to you as a taxpayer. There isn't a comparison.
edit on 15-10-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

en.wikipedia.org...

It all falls in the lap of one congressman that had a serious vendetta against alcohol because he was stabbed by a drunk.


You source says no such thing.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Quest diagnostics made a net loss from their drug testing business?


The is a net overall loss from the war on drugs. While certain persons or groups may profit from this endeavor the overall affect is a net loss. Just like Prohibition.


The great depression started in 29 so not sure what point you think you made about sentiment in the 20,s , public opinion didn't mean much until the tax revenue and jobs were needed.


Public opinion was firmly against the Volstead Act long before the Depressions started in the 1930's. Black Friday was in late October of 1929, try to get your facts straight.


You can keep relating the taxpayers to the people who actually benefit, even say I just don't get it.


Not sure why you do not get it. The taxpayers are footing the bill for the war on drugs. The war on drugs is a net money loser. Therefore the taxpayers get hosed. Really quite simple.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Quest diagnostics made a net loss from their drug testing business?


The is a net overall loss from the war on drugs. While certain persons or groups may profit from this endeavor the overall affect is a net loss. Just like Prohibition.


The great depression started in 29 so not sure what point you think you made about sentiment in the 20,s , public opinion didn't mean much until the tax revenue and jobs were needed.


Public opinion was firmly against the Volstead Act long before the Depressions started in the 1930's. Black Friday was in late October of 1929, try to get your facts straight.


You can keep relating the taxpayers to the people who actually benefit, even say I just don't get it.


Not sure why you do not get it. The taxpayers are footing the bill for the war on drugs. The war on drugs is a net money loser. Therefore the taxpayers get hosed. Really quite simple.


My facts are right I said it started in 29 what's the issue????

The people who benefit don't have a net loss, taxpayers do. Pretty simple. Right there with 1+1.

You don't get it.that's fact. The people benefitting don't take a loss. The companies and people I have listed have what you don't. The ability to profit. They also have the other thing you don't. The money to access politicians. It sucks you see a loss as a taxpayer. Taxpayers aren't suppose to see a profit from it. The people that matter in the illegal drug business do profit. You just aren't one of them and neither am I. But the people that do profit will continue to do so as long as drugs are illegal.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: deadeyedick

en.wikipedia.org...

It all falls in the lap of one congressman that had a serious vendetta against alcohol because he was stabbed by a drunk.


You source says no such thing.


I really do not get why you post such nonsense.

It was called the Volstead act.

If you want to know about the life of Andrew Volstead then look him up. Logic would tell you these things if you simply put forth an effort.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

I really do not get why you post such nonsense.

It was called the Volstead act.

If you want to know about the life of Andrew Volstead then look him up. Logic would tell you these things if you simply put forth an effort.


The Temperance Movement was around and advocating Prohibition long before Volstead was allegedly stabbed. Stop inventing things.



And I did look up Volstead being stabbed and found nothing. Provide a link.






edit on 15-10-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

My facts are right I said it started in 29 what's the issue????


Opposition to Prohibition was in full force prior to the last couple of month of the 1920's. The Depression had nothing to do with anti sentiment to this act, it only further spurred Congress to repeal.


The people who benefit don't have a net loss, taxpayers do. Pretty simple. Right there with 1+1.


Except the people that benefit are far outweighed by those who do not. Just like Prohibition.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Many replies on this posting have some how been about the differences in alcohol, and its legality, and pot.

I have a question to whichI would like a seriously like an answer.

By real statistics can someone show how the number of traffic fatalities involving alcohol compares to the same number of traffic fatalities involving pot?

I think this should have some, even a mininscule amount, bearing on which one should be legalized.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

My facts are right I said it started in 29 what's the issue????


Opposition to Prohibition was in full force prior to the last couple of month of the 1920's. The Depression had nothing to do with anti sentiment to this act, it only further spurred Congress to repeal.


The people who benefit don't have a net loss, taxpayers do. Pretty simple. Right there with 1+1.


Except the people that benefit are far outweighed by those who do not. Just like Prohibition.




And despite all that sentiment nothing changed until economics dictated it. Same reason why drugs will be legal in the US

It's doesn't matter if less people benefit. They have the money, resources, access. You and I don't have those so honestly doesn't matter how it negatively impacts us. There is big money in drugs being illegal with many benefits. Believe what you choose though.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join