Patrick Kennedy's SAM spam, redux
Now on tape. Had such an effect on me, I had to write him a letter.
Dear Paddy -
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you are the face for liberals who don't want to admit they oppose allowing people who use marijuana to have the same rights as those who use alcohol or tobacco. Because, face it, that's inequality; this is what people like you, Paddy, are marketing to the public...unequal application of the law.
But you do it under the guise of care about the general population, and most especially, as with all the right wing attacks over the years.. the emotional appeal is "think of the children"... as though everything that might somehow not be right for children should be prohibited to adults.
That's a stupid fucking argument. But that's the argument that's being made, basically, because any time marijuana opponents want to argue with fact, they lose.
Because the reality is that in every issue that you, Paddy, bring up, the argument has no merit.
(Paddy is worried because marijuana is on the way to legalization. He's suddenly paying attention after more than a decade of changes that the American people have voted for - in 18 states that allow regulated medical marijuana - and 2 that now intend to have legal marijuana.)
To your claim that "we don't need a new legalized drug," Patty.
Tell the truth. You don't really mean this. You don't really mean that pharmaceutical cos should not do research and create drugs intended to help others (tho, in reality, the side effects of these many, many legal drugs are far, far, far more harmful than anything related to marijuana...) but, tell the truth.
The truth is that you were addicted to a pharmaceutical drug, not marijuana. The truth is that you don't know the first thing about the lives of those who are not addicts. Why don't you focus on making pain killers illegal? Oh, because some people use them responsibly. So everyone shouldn't have to suffer because a few have a problem with addiction. That's common sense - that you seem to be unable to supply when it comes to the issue of marijuana. You don't oppose bringing new drugs onto the market, even if they cause addiction, because, at least in that case, you can recognize that not everyone reacts to things in the same way. But you seem unable or unwilling to apply this same common sense to marijuana. It's almost like...madness. Reefer Madness. redux.
The truth is - You are targeting marijuana - not all drugs. The truth is that marijuana isn't even a drug. It's a plant. It's not processed, like poppies, to make a drug. It's a plant in its natural form.
You want to keep a plant illegal, Paddy, not a drug.
The basic dishonesty begins with the claim that marijuana is a drug. Nutmeg isn't a drug, nor are bananas. Both have psychotropic properties. Not illegal. Poppies that are used to make heroin are legal to grow in the U.S. It's illegal to make heroin. The plant is not illegal. You support the idea that a plant should be illegal. Not a drug. Of course, Paddy, you didn't begin this basic dishonesty. It started with Nixon and his desire to get rid of his enemies (those enemies included your dad, while those who have consistently been pro reform of marijuana law were also those who supported your family members when they ran for office.)
Your reasoning is faulty because it is marinated in right-wing ideology.
But let's talk about illegality and what it means. What happened when alcohol was illegal?
A lot of crooks made a lot of money smuggling alcohol. You may have known one of them. One of them was your grandfather. That's why anyone cares to hear anything you say, because your grandfather made money smuggling alcohol. He bought legitimacy with his money and sent his kids to good schools. But, face it, he made his money off of alcoholics, some of them, and, if you are so up in arms about this issue, why don't you give away your inherited wealth and ask your family members to do the same?
Otherwise, it's like you're complaining about the competition.
But back to reason. The first nationwide organized crime syndicates came into being because of prohibition. Women began to drink, more than ever before, because alcohol was illegal and with that came a certain cache. More people died from poorly made alcohol. Government corruption was rank and file since ALL WASHINGTON POLITICIANS had access to booze IN THEIR OFFICES. After alcohol was made legal, crime plummeted. The prohibition was the cause of the crime.
But, you are proposing to maintain another two-tier quasi-legality - those who have money don't have to worry and can do whatever they wish regarding bad law. Those who are everyday folks have to face consequences those in your social set will never know.
That's just wrong. It was wrong when Dan Burton's son got off after caught transporting LSD. Wrong when Mitch Daniels was given a slap on the hand for dealing drugs in college. It will still be wrong when a black guy on the street is targeted and given an arrest record while your children's friends can indulge as they wish with no consequences at the private homes and private pool that privilege bring.
That's not the kind of Democrat I want to see speaking about any subject, one that supports a two-tier version of justice, whether it's based upon the substance (alcohol vs. marijuana), or the citizen (a poor kid vs a rich one.) That's like the Jim Crow South Democrat during segregation. Don't be that person, Paddy.
You conflate the problems of alcohol with marijuana. Marijuana is not related to incidences of domestic abuse. That's your family's brand, son, not the effect of marijuana.
If you're worried about "big marijuana," like big tobacco, as an entity in American society... and, so interesting, isn't it, that the heir of big alcohol worries about this... but anyway, if you're worried about that - limit the number of acres that can be used for recreational marijuana, or make it a product that may only be grown by farmers who live on their land - give them something to grow that the agri-bizzes can't. Obviously regulation isn't the issue - you want marijuana regulated to the point of keeping it illegal.
Let agri-biz grow hemp, instead, and compete with the petrol industry over plastic products. Wow. What a great p.r. stunt for agri-biz - to grow something that requires little to no pesticides, that can be used for virtually any petrol-based product... now that would be something worth talking about.
Here's the truth, Paddy, and all you other Democrats who oppose legalization. Anslinger is dead. thankfully. And the American people are burying his corpse with the repeal of laws that were then and are now based upon lies.
Reactionaries are not going to rule this day.
= new reply since forum marked as read
