Patrick Kennedy....why so confused?

[Jesus Malverde]

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Patrick Kennedy to President Obama: Pot has changed
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/patrick-kennedy-president-obama-marijuana-102412.html

Patrick Kennedy Blasts Obama's Marijuana Claims
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Kennedy-marijuana-Obama-alcohol/2014/01/21/id/548090

Patrick Kennedy Disagrees To President Obama’s Belief Regarding Pot
http://www.counselheal.com/articles/8359/20140121/patrick-kennedy-disagrees-president-obama-s-belief-regarding-pot.htm

Obama's pot comments: The partisan reactions may surprise you
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2014/0121/Obama-s-pot-comments-The-partisan-reactions-may-surprise-you

Obama’s pot comments take hits from the right and left
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/01/21/obamas-pot-comments-take-hits-from-the-right-and-left/

Patrick Kennedy sounds like the worst kind of right wing panderer. What people will do for money...

Edit - Sorry all for insulting a scion of the Kennedy clan with my original title. The thought of him insulting the President and our collective intelligence as he promotes the failed Reagan Era status quo made me cranky.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Dry drunks.

Patrick had a huge drug problem and now he wants to make sure that anyone else with a drug problem is locked up for a long time, just like he wasn't.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. +1 for 'just like he wasn't' nt

[SolutionisSolidarity]

19. Well put.

The fact that assholes like this want to imprison everyone else who uses drugs is what is so infuriating. If drug users belong in prison, when are you going to serve your time, Patrick?

[Paladin]

31. Textbook case.

Somebody who's walked away from actual addiction, but who still maintains the same character defects and personality traits---along with an irritating mantle of entitlement which they believe allows them to lecture others. I've known a few in my time.

[Holly_Hobby]

2. Weed was made by nature, Patrick

Booze and pills are man-made.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Patrick Kennedy has been in and out of rehab for addiction to various

hard drugs for his entire lifetime. He has never been able to control his abuse of anything within arm's reach, and has been coddled because of his wealth and power.

[pnwmom]

5. He's a member of family in which numerous individuals have struggled

with drug issues, and he has struggled with it himself.

And it is a fact that the pot sold today is stronger than what was available 40 years ago.

I voted yes on the pot law in WA, but I don't think it's helpful to call Patrick Kennedy a "loon" simply because you disagree with him.

[Raine]

7. Totally agree with you! nt

[Octafish]

14. + 2

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, on drug policy or anything else.

That's one big reason why I support democracy.

[arthritisR_US]

34. They are disagreeing with the drug laws and

how they don't apply to the privalleged and his hypocrisy to such. His apparent lack of empathy and inability to put himself in another's shoes is telling.

[Octafish]

42. Great. Still, there's no need to smear a son of Ted Kennedy as a ''loon.''

Doing so smears a good man, labels a good Democrat as less than human, and sets back the Democratic Party.

Patrick Kennedy is against it vehemently, FWIU, due its potency. I don't know enough about the science to say if that's a bad thing or not.

My own take? Legalize it. Not just for medicine, but for recreational use as an intoxicant.

As for empathy, I don't know too many families that have done more for this country than the Kennedy family. I remember when Patrick's uncle was President. In JFK's administration, the government cared about each individual American.

Things have changed a lot since then. Consider what George W Bush said on Feb. 14, 2007: "Money trumps peace." That's NAZI, yet no one in the corporate broadcast media has publicly stated so.

[arthritisR_US]

45. There are many things Ivan agree with him on

but on this I disagree with him. It doesn't mean I am smearing him or his any other Kennedy. I am well aware of the family legacy but that doesn't give him a free pass in this, jmo.

[marsis]

22. Well hey,

I'll call him a loon.

His rhetoric based on outdated propaganda. Wonder if he started on mother's milk, maybe that is the culprit.

If I had a problem with overeating and wanted the food police to put those who ate too much fat/protein/carbohydrates in prison, then maybe I'm a loon also.
I guess he'd much prefer to put those pot smokers in prison, if I didn't know the family I'd say his thought processes and logic are much the same as teabaggers.

[Bandit]

30. The fact that pot is stronger today is exactly what makes it safer

People smoke less of it and therefor take in fewer carcinogens, and the only thing that has ANY effect on your health with pot is carcinogens. The active ingredients that make a person high have no harmful effects what-so-ever; and in fact have many beneficial ones.

[pnwmom]

32. There continues to be an issue when teens use it.

It hasn't been proven to be safe for them.

I voted for legalization, but I don't have blinders on -- and I'm not going to call people "loons" who continue to have concerns.

[Bandit]

35. I agree it should be for adults

It has a tendency to make kids lazy and they don't keep up with their studies. However as one matures a bit it seems to be just more of a relaxant.

[phleshdef]

37. Yea but even if it were safe for kids...

I think the vast majority of us that support legalization still don't want kids getting high for non-medical purposes. Kids shouldn't be drinking either.

[LukeFL]

65. My cousin had a car accident crashed into

Another car where a person lost her live. He had just smoke pot ( not too sure the quaintity) but it has been a life- altering event for him.

So teenagers smoking it ( depending the quantity and how often) IS DANGEROUS. Yes, just like alcohol is, yes, just like cigarette is. I don't have my blinders on either.

[pnwmom]

70. I'm so sorry about your cousin, LukeFl.

He and his family must be going through a terrible time.

[LukeFL]

71. Thank you. This was few years ago

[Jesus Malverde]

47. Legalization is not about if todays pot is stronger than yesterdays..

It about how many lives are being destroyed by prohibition.

This is what the war on cannabis is all about

(Warning extremely disturbing police behavior - Viewer discretion is advised.)

[pnwmom]

68. The first link you posted in claiming he was a "loon" was to an article

about how pot is stronger today. There's nothing loony about making that point.

[Jesus Malverde]

78. It's a complete sideshow..

The deadliness of todays marijuana is law enforcement.

There is nothing more or less intoxicating about cannabis today or yesterday. You get high or you don't. In the sixties total deaths from marijuana overdose...0 Today... total deaths from marijuana overdose...0.

The strength of cannabis is an attempt to distract the conversation from the very real damage that prohibition does to our communities.

The war on drugs and particularly the war cannabis leaves casualties all over the battlefield. Real lives are being destroyed through this madness.

[Spider Jerusalem]

75. Sure, but there are pretty simple reasons *why* it's stronger.

The stuff you could get 40 years ago? And can still frequently get in states where cannabis isn't legalised and there are no large-scale indoor growing operations? Was grown outdoors, and the female plants (the ones with the buds and THC) were fertilised. Once a cannabis plant is fertilised, the plant's energy goes into seed production. "Stronger" cannabis is grown under conditions that separate the male and female plants so the females aren't fertilised which results in higher THC and CBD levels. And most of the indoor strains are C. indica hybrids, anyway, which contain a higher proportion of CBD to THC and as a result have fewer of the negative effects of C. sativa (if you hear a story about someone having extreme paranoia or a psychotic break from smoking weed? It was a C. sativa strain they were smoking, not indica.)

[cali]

6. As others in this thread have noted, this is more about his own demons than anything else

He's not right wing and this isn't about pandering.

[Jesus Malverde]

8. Isn't calling President Obama uninformed and telling him to read his own government reports..

pandering.

Advocating the status quo of prohibition is as reactionary as you can get.

One day we'll live free and no longer in fear. Fear of losing jobs, fear of being raided, your dogs shot, your children kidnapped by the state. Your land stolen, and maybe even your life lost. Fear no more, the times are a changing.

[LukeFL]

12. Please. Stop dreaming..

[RainDog]

38. Funny. Medical professionals state publicly the govt reports are lies

It's all part of the propaganda produced by the Drug Czar's office...the DEA, the NIDA, the FDA...

Our entire system has been rigged to deny the reality that cannabis is safer than aspirin, from the agencies approving medical and harm-reduction research, to a bureaucracy whose ENTIRE PURPOSE is to LIE to the American people.

I would like to see the Drug Czar's office shut down - that's one agency that could be trimmed or eliminated to cut govt. spending. We don't need an agency in place to keep the drug war going when, as of 2010, the Senate found that the war on drugs is a failure, yet we spend billions each year to support drug war policies. The bulk of funding for the drug war goes to military contractors with no oversight on spending. Some beneficiaries of the war on drug money could not even be accounted for when a Senate subcommittee looked into this issue.

So, see, Democrats and Republicans can find common ground to cut wasteful govt. spending, if the Republicans can be honest.. oh wait, what am I saying... LOL.

[LukeFL]

11. Thank you

Just said that below. Some DUers really lose perspective when it comes to this issue.

[LukeFL]

9. Just because he may not have the same

Believes as you when it comes to pot doesn't mean he's a right winger. I personally think pot should never be legalized with merge exception of medical marihuana. I have seen too much in my family how this drug was and has been the cause to jump to other stronger drugs.

I am not a right winger. Iam actually a very socially liberal Person..but drugs? No thank you.
I know some of you have been smoking it throughout school, career and SUV and never anything happened to you- feel blessed your strong will didn't make you jump to other ones. Realize some people and specifically teenagers seldom have such same will.

Having said that- I of support MEDICAL marihuana.

[Arugula Latte]

13. People get it and smoke it whether or not it's legal.

(Personally, it does nothing for me and I stick to wine.) However, the societal cost of fighting the ridiculous Drug War on marijuana has been astronomically, staggeringly high, and it needs to stop now.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

16. Thank you.

Archaic drug laws and the war on drugs are not only a scam on the American tax payer, they are a racist ruse. Supporting these laws is supporting a racist, unfair system. I don't see how anyone who calls themselves a "liberal" can support the prison industrial complex.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

15. You're not socially liberal.

You think you should have the right to tell me what I can do in my own time, in my own house. That isn't "socially liberal".

[SolutionisSolidarity]

23. I don't think that poster knows what the term means.

Like self-claimed "Libertarians" who are anti-choice.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

26. Seems to be a trend these days.

People attach all sorts of words to things and they don't know what they mean. Obama is a "socialist" because of his market based insurance reform, tea baggers call themselves libertarians even though they want to government involved in marriage, abortion, etc.

[LukeFL]

53. I guess you know?

[SolutionisSolidarity]

86. It means that you believe personal freedom to be in line with the general welfare of society.

If you want to throw people in prison because they like a plant, personal freedom must mean less to you than forcing others to make choices you approve of. This being in spite of the fact that their choices don't even directly impact you. It's a strange stance to take as a "social liberal".

[LukeFL]

52. I don't care what you think. You don't

Know me. I don't want to tell you what to think, do or behave but at the same time you don't have the right to tell me -for views - what I am or not.

[RainDog]

50. Keeping MJ illegal makes other, harmful drugs more accessible

If mj were legal, regulated and sold openly, people wouldn't have to seek out someone in an underground economy just for that. But, because it is illegal, it will be found with other illegal substances.

That's the gateway - and this is the gateway: The long history of lies by our govt. about marijuana has led people to think they're just liars about other things too.

Iow, it's the govt's own propaganda that leads people to consider other drugs some times - when they realize the lies that have been repeated about marijuana.

(and, oddly - the effect of at least some anti-marijuana propaganda, according to a report when ppl were looking at funding for the Drug Czar's office - their commercials led more people than not consider trying marijuana. - you can read up on the office to find that info.)

Also - just as with alcohol, some people self-medicate. I would be inclined to view someone with a substance abuse problem as someone with a mental health issue or someone living in a society that creates unbearable stress that can and does break some ppl.

But, unlike with alcohol, people who use it to self-medicate aren't also in an environment that sells heroin or cocaine, etc.

More people are harmed by an arrest for simple possession than by use of marijuana.

Social liberals don't support keeping marijuana illegal because you are supporting ruining lives for using a substance that is safer than alcohol, which is currently legal.

Prohibition is not a liberal position. It just isn't.

It's a cudgel that the right has used to disenfranchise liberal voters and target political activists for attack. That's what you support. The equivalent of Jim Crow laws.

So, maybe you're a fiscal liberal and social conservative?

[Jesus Malverde]

56. [phone]...

More people are harmed by an arrest for simple possession than by use of marijuana.

Prohibition is not a liberal position. It just isn't.

[RainDog]

59. One marijuana arrest every 42 seconds in 2012

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/16/police-made-one-marijuana-arrest-every-42-seconds-in-2012

650,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012... but that is down from 750,000 in 2011.

It's selfish to only look at your own life when this issue harms so many people in this nation - and primarily African Americans because of the way in which prohibition is prosecuted in this nation.

4 out of 5 arrests are for possession. The overwhelming number of those arrested have no history of violence.

Yet, in some states, someone can serve a life in prison for arrest/conviction of possession of a small amount of marijuana if they are arrested three times because of our current sentencing laws.

[LukeFL]

58. This hAs nothing to do whith what the government

Is telling me, has told me and what I choose to "believe". I am not a child to fall behind fake outrage or established mindset whether be from the government, political party, church, or social group. I can very well think for myself.

Let's just say how I have been the witness of family member"a lives and future of young kids being destroyed by their habit or addiction to it? And later finding marihuana was not strong enough and jumped to more stronger options.

How about that? Will my personal experience be considerate and have some validation for all of you know-it-all?

[RainDog]

60. You can see into the future?

I'm impressed.

[LukeFL]

63. Apparently you and I have the same powers

[RainDog]

66. In places where cannabis has been effectively decriminalized

Traffic deaths are down, and those who have looked at this issue think it aligns with a move from alcohol to marijuana among those who choose to use an inebriating product.

Portugal's ten year experiment decriminalizing ALL DRUGS (i.e. possession of heroin is a fine, not a criminal offense) has resulted in fewer young people using hard drugs. Portugal has moved this things out of an underground economy, as much as possible, and has bureaus that allow those who are addicts to obtain clean drugs, not street altered drugs.

They also provide clean needles to decrease the incidence of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis among drug addicts. The result of Portugal's experiment is that they have saved HUGE sums by treating drug abuse as a medical problem, not a criminal one.

A study from a few years ago found that young people in The Netherlands, per capita, are less likely to use marijuana than American teens where it is illegal. In The Netherlands cannabis law is simply ignored rather than enforced (which led to the coffee shops for cannabis that have existed for more than a decade, as well).

You can find links for these and other studies in the drug policy forum.

I don't have the power to predict the future but I have the ability to look at the past and see what works and what doesn't.

[LukeFL]

69. Fair enough. As I stated above I am for

Legalization of medical marihuana. I am not completely opposed to it.

Maybe my mind will change in the future when it comes to full legalization. I do worry for our country's teens.

The last thing they need is something else to go crazy for. They are already going through a lot- they seem to be lost killing each other and not having any respect for anyone. our society is going insane.

So- my position is more worry than being righteous about it.

I wish I could have the perfect answer. To it. What we can't do is tear each other just because we don't agree in one issue. We can probably find a common ground.

It's difficult to say.

[RainDog]

73. I understand

and pardon my snark.

I think that most of us, when something bothers us, have that initial reaction to ban it. We just want it gone, if we don't like it.

But that initial reaction (like initial reactions to a lot of things) deserves to be examined and compared to evidence that either supports or debunks that reaction.

There is a philosophy toward social problems - and specifically to drug abuse and its surrounding issues, that focuses on the idea of harm reduction. Here's a little link that talks about the basic outline of such a view in regard to policy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024262548

Kurt Schmoke, former mayor of Baltimore, had this same philosophy and tried to reform laws long ago. For that, Charles Rangel called him "the most dangerous man in America". - which meant either his ideas were dangerous in and of themselves, or dangerous because they upset the status quo of targeting African Americans via drug laws.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002100735

(I guess it's evident I've spent some time trying to support or debunk arguments about this issue myself, from the links here.)

[Jersey Devil]

10. On Tweety's show last night he decried those using anecdotal experiences about drugs

citing Obama as an example using his own anecdotal experiences as a youth with weed. Then Kennedy said we should rely on the science. He appeared with one of the Lawford kids I believe, who essentially said the same thing.

Tweety agreed with them, never even mentioning that their opinions are almost definitely based on their own anecdotal experiences in their families.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I suspect the right and left breakdown on this issue may have more to do with

right and left side of the Mississippi, than political spectrum.

[bettyellen]

20. both sides of the river could use a more valuable cash crop.

i think once the numbers are in, states will go for it, just like gambling. they can't afford not to.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I think prohibition's days are numbered, for sure.

And about damn time.

[bettyellen]

25. sad to think decriminalization would happen because of profit, and not in the interest of justice

but $$ often bulldozes the shortest path in our country.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

18. He is a member of the paternalist, authoritarian Left.

They know what's good for you, and if they have to throw you in prison and destroy your life to prove it, that's what they'll do.

[Comrade Grumpy]

33. Patrick Kennedy is no leftist.

[B Calm]

21. He probably is connected with the Mexican Drug Cartel.

The only ones against legalization of marijuana are the ones who profit by keeping it illegal!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. Yep.

Private prisons, prison guard unions, police departments, they all have a monetary interest in keeping it illegal, and keeping a constant stream of minorities in prison.

[B Calm]

40. Like they say, follow the money!

[cthulu2016]

27. He missed the non-prohibitionist part of 12-step programs...

...and his "fix everybody else" mentality is probably a danger to his sobriety.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

29. Well, why not ask him yourself? https://twitter.com/PJK4brainhealth nt

https://twitter.com/PJK4brainhealth

[get the red out]

36. Recovery culture

He's in it. Maybe bought in a bit too much in that he want's to control other people who do not have his problem.

[hack89]

39. He is a recovering drug addict (and my former Congressman)

a decent enough guy but his personal problems grew too large.

[RainDog]

41. Rehab stats for marijuana are lies

Drug warriors cite that 25 million have been treated for marijuana abuse but fail to indicate that the majority of those entering rehab for cannabis had not used it for more than a month prior to rehab (which indicates they were not addicted), or that the majority of people in the U.S. who go to rehab for marijuana in the U.S. do so to avoid a criminal record for simple possession.

Those rich enough to pay for rehab avoid a criminal record. Those too poor to navigate the gamed legal system go to jail.

[Vattel]

82. +1,000

[Tom Ripley]

43. He may be a friend of Bill, but he's no fucking friend of mine

[countryjake]

44. Not a RightWing panderer, at all. He's in Recovery.

There were quite a few junkies and addicts (recovering) here in the state of Washington who held views very similar to those of Patrick Kennedy when legalization was put to the vote in 2012. I had many discussions with such people during the months leading up to that historical ballot issue and their general concerns were the consequences that plopping pot in the same boat as alcohol might eventually have on the youth of this country. Mind you, these were folk who had suffered the effects of substance abuse (drugs and alcohol) throughout a goodly chunk of their lives and I do believe that their fears were both justified and reasonable.

If you think that Kennedy is stating his opinion for money, what, then, do you think of Corporate Alcohol's successful efforts at wresting regulation of liquor sales away from state's control in the name of "privatization"?

Would you say that disregarding the possible risks and the resulting effects on the health of a nation's people in order to dramatically increase the profits of a major industry is a Left Wing position? It's practically the definition of corporate capitalism, don't ya think?

[RainDog]

48. This is a problem - when people extrapolate their experience

as a universal.

I understand that those in recovery have to protect themselves. But just as not all who drink a martini are alcoholic, all who partake of weed are not dependent.

Actual dependency studies indicate cannabis is as additive as coffee.

If people are getting their dependence stats for cannabis based upon treatment - those figures are skewed WAY far above actual addiction b/c rehab is a way to avoid harsher penalties for possession.

What those in alcohol recovery often find - this is really the case in so many instances - is that the alcohol is self-medication to blunt the effect of an underlying mental health problem. Alcohol's status as an illegal or legal substance doesn't alter that, doesn't create that, and stopping use of alcohol doesn't solve the problem - but it makes it possible to address.

[countryjake]

49. Which is why former substance abusers are "In recovery"...

rather than "recovered". That addiction is a serious brain disease is no longer a question in our society, but addressing the strangle-hold that Pharmacy and major Alcohol businesses have over our collective consciousness (and our pocketbooks) is somehow always stomped down when attempts to curb their propaganda are brought up.

How long before RJ Reynolds or Philip Morris decide to recoup their losses from tobacco restrictions by jumping into pot production, once those long-experienced in the proper growing of marijuana smack up against failing to meet federal regulation and are wiped out by Big Business?

Ignoring the control that corporations in this nation demand over any "profit" (and it's foolish to think that there aren't billions to be made from a marijuana market) make all of this groovy legalization a sleeping dragon that our capitalist system will most assuredly take advantage of.

I shudder to think that future generations will be toking Wall Street Weed.

[RainDog]

51. So, Jim Crow is better, huh?

disenfranchising African American voters at rates substantially above the white middle and upper class young adults that Paddy knows, putting kids in prison because they can't afford to buy rehab rather than jail, creating ONCE AGAIN the LIE that African American males are criminals while white Wall Street assholes have COCAINE delivered to their offices...

yeah, that's the solution.

We can regulate cannabis to keep it like a craft beer industry for recreational use and tobacco companies can plant fields of hemp for insulation or medical cannabis for things like Sativex, which will be on the market soon (I predicted by 2013 two years ago).

I'm sorry, but I DON'T BUY THE BULLSHIT from the growers who want to keep it illegal or the alcohol industry, that lobbies to keep it illegal, or propaganda-sayers like Kennedy who thinks his experience WITH A LEGAL SUBSTANCE - a pharma drug, gives him the authority to speak about the millions who use cannabis with no harmful effects - other than the effect prohibition creates.

The East coast is WAAAY out of the loop and far behind on this issue. They need to play catch up. But the east coast has far more African Americans than the west, so, again, since this law has been used to target African Americans, maybe that's why.

[countryjake]

54. So you think that Kennedy wants more Black kids in prison?

Do you honestly believe that's what's behind his reasons for questioning our prez?

[RainDog]

57. I'm saying support for prohibition is support for Jim Crow

If you don't know this, I suggest you read Michelle Alexander's excellent book, The New Jim Crow.

I was being sarcastic - and I was also noting that maybe there's some bias in the Northeast that aligns with bias in the South, which has the most draconian marijuana laws in this nation, and these are used, along with other tactics, to deny African Americans the right to vote.

NYC is a cesspool as far as this issue goes.

[RainDog]

55. Interestingly

Another Kennedy family member came up against another president in the misty mists of time...Jimmy Carter. He deregulated the beer industry, giving big alcohol a sad.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/05/international-beer-day/

If you’re a fan of craft beer and microbreweries as opposed to say Bud Light or Coors, you should say a little thank you to Jimmy Carter. Carter could very well be the hero of International Beer Day.

To make a long story short, prohibition led to the dismantling of many small breweries around the nation. When prohibition was lifted, government tightly regulated the market, and small scale producers were essentially shut out of the beer market altogether. Regulations imposed at the time greatly benefited the large beer makers. In 1979, Carter deregulated the beer industry, opening back up to craft brewers. As the chart below illustrates, this had a really amazing effect on the beer industry:



...Maybe instead of using regulation or deregulation as starting points, we should look at ways to create more transparency in Washington and more oversight of the regulators themselves. I’m not sure how to close the many revolving doors between industry and Washington, D.C. I’m not sure it’s even possible.

Patrick is also going to be on the losing side of this argument with a president.

[countryjake]

61. Were you even alive then?

Carter did not deregulate the beer industry, he never touched Big Alcohol, at all. All he did was make it legal to brew your own in your home in 1979 and I remember when it did eventually became legal to actually sell such home-brewed concoctions here in wa.

I fail to understand what your point is.

[RainDog]

62. The point is not "touching big alcohol"

the point is the market was opened to craft breweries by lifting restrictions that favored big alcohol.

[countryjake]

64. Not in '79 it wasn't. Nobody was allowed to sell their stuff.

But I still don't quite get what that has to do with Patrick Kennedy being worried about the effect that a major marijuana industry in this country might have on our population.

[RainDog]

67. Patrick is spouting propaganda

the analogy was between presidents who favor liberalizing laws.

[countryjake]

72. Okay, now I get that point, but where is the propaganda...

in asking what is there to be done about Big Alcohol, the comparison that Kennedy brought up in his criticism of President Obama's statement? Going back to my original post on this thread, the cunning "privatization" that they are currently engaged in, to increase their own corporate profits, is capitalism at its finest.

[RainDog]

74. "Cunning privatization"

LOL. no, no propaganda in that characterization.

Some people have looked at this issue and think big tobacco, etc. are just not going to be interested because the profits, after all the hubbub dies down, will not make it worthwhile.

In addition, cannabis culture is much more like craft beer culture than "buying a pack of cigarettes" - the emphasis is upon small quantities of a bud, not a leaf.

No one smokes cannabis leaves anymore.

That stuff is thrown away or used to create butter for use in baked goods, etc.

Personally, I am ALL FOR cannabis products as a spur to the American economy. Not just buds for sale. Cannabis is also grown for its other properties (anti-spasmodic) for health reasons - CBD rich cannabis, rather than THC rich (the two exist in inverse proportion to one another in a single plant, fwiw)

Hemp, which is also cannabis, is the best insulation for housing, etc. etc. etc.... the first legal hemp fields in the U.S. were planted after CO legalized - it's not just about recreational uses. eta: first legal since Anslinger made it impossible in 1937.)

Bio-tech firms are looking at cannabis for treatment of various disorders and illnesses - I'd rather have U.S. firms doing this research, rather than Israel (where we, btw, fund A LOT of cannabis research - and where hospitals now allow patients to smoke cannabis when undergoing chemo, in a designated space.)

I'm not anti-capitalist.

I am pro-regulation of capitalists - in every large or small industry that impacts the health and well being of our citizens and the world.

Where cannabis has been effectively legal for a long time - it's coffee shops, not big tobacco, that's the model.

[countryjake]

76. Yes, cunning.

Here in wa, nobody much bothered to investigate who it was sponsoring the campaign to dismantle the state-run liquor stores, before we all voted on it. Now, those who gripe about the rising cost of a fifth in my state rue the day that they ticked that box on their ballot.

I'm not anti-capitalist.

And there you have it. I am.

[RainDog]

79. I'm a mixed economy kinda girl

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

What's often referred to as democratic socialism, with a mix of public and private.

That's how, some argue, the UK has been able to remain a "nation of shopkeepers" - i.e. small businesses that benefit their local communities.

I want cannabis to be legal because I think it offers many health benefits, not just a buzz. Scientists in the mid-2000s finally were able to see and describe the way in which cannabis produces apoptosis in cancer cells. The way cannabis kills cancer cells (various cancers) is by surrounding the mitochondria of a cell (the part of a cell that produces energy for a cell) and isolating it. This "suffocates" the cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells intact. Chemo blasts away at both healthy can cancerous cells.

Research into this is not going to happen while cannabis is illegal here.

If your anti-capitalism makes you also anti-science - well, that's not me. (edited to add - sorry for being rude. my apologies. my point was that I think there are multiple reasons to choose legalization.)

Washington citizens need to be involved in the creation of their laws.

[countryjake]

84. Well, that may be your solution to the monster that controls us...

but revising a system that is contrary to social well-being at its core, that maintains unrestrained power across the entire planet, may prove to be a fruitless, impossible task for lots of well-intentioned folk, in the long run. And many wa citizens who are doing their damnedest to "be involved" in setting up all of the rules for this new enterprise are finding themselves stymied, in towns and counties all over the state, so we'll just have to see how this all turns out.

I've not said a thing here about what my own position is on the legalization of marijuana, either in my state or the nation. I don't appreciate your implication that my discussion on Patrick Kennedy's opinion regarding Pres. Obama's statements is somehow evidence that anti-science nonsense is lurking within what I've written.

[RainDog]

85. I'd love to hear about what's happening

If you wouldn't mind sharing specifics, so we can all know how this is playing out there.

[RainDog]

77. Would you rather buy and eat a homegrown tomato

or one that came to you on a truck from far away while still green and, when "ripe" is hard as a rock?

That's an apt comparison, not big tobacco, imo.

Cannabis is a natural substance. Its chemicals degrade and change over time, and depending upon storage conditions. THC becomes THC-V, for instance, over time. Not the same.

Big tobacco would offer an inferior product in every way because of this reality.

[countryjake]

80. You mean like the cigarettes that are sold today?

My grandpa raised tobacco one hundred years ago and what is marketed as "tobacco" in 2014 is absolutely nothing even vaguely comparable to what grew in his fields.

That's capitalism and the effect of Corporate takeover of an industry.

[RainDog]

81. My relatives grew tobacco too

And, to this day, some of them still supply the eggs for most all of the independent grocers in one of the major cities in this nation.

But thank you for agreeing that big tobacco is not the appropriate comparison when looking at this issue. In a hundred years from now, if we could actually live to see it, I'd make a bet that natural cannabis will still exist, just as homegrown tomatoes do, and people will still sell small-scale cannabis in the same way.

but we'll never know.

[countryjake]

87. What the Tobacco Industry did to small farmers...

isn't relevant? Excuse me for getting a chuckle out of that. A naive view of what our corporate-controlled government has done, is doing, and intends to accomplish, regarding anyone who simply wishes to earn an honest living from the fruits of their labor is definitely not gonna give us "homegrown" pot here in a hundred years.

And the same goes for good old homegrown tomatoes.

[RainDog]

88. so, homegrown tomatoes no longer exist?

where I live, people grow them in their backyards and we have a great farmer's market three days a week from spring until fall (early and late at an indoor location). We have a local food co-op grocery store whose goods are sometimes more expensive, but they use local vendors amap. This small biz co-op is so successful they have just opened a fourth, iirc, location.

People can choose to shop at WalMart or the farmer's market or the locally owned and operated co-op. As you can see, people where I am make a decision, often, to support the local economy. Yet, big grocery stores exist here, along with wally world and target, etc.

Even tho corporations influence policies in our nation far more than the majority of voters do - people can still influence the quality of their lives and the lives of others by the personal choices they make.

I live my life in a way that embodies my values as much as possible - tho, I know I use a computer and the way in which they are made exploits children in other nations.

In any case, as I mentioned before, if you would like to share, I and others, I'm sure, would be interested in hearing how this issue is playing out in WA.

[countryjake]

89. Well, since you've touched on the actual benefit that Medical Marijuana...

could bring to so many who needlessly suffer from devastating diseases in our country, you might be interested in the ongoing battles that are being waged up here in wa, over how to protect our long-time legal practice of medical use while incorporating the new recreational policies into law. It has been a year-long circus and not a fun one.

http://liq.wa.gov/pressreleases/board_approves_filing_of_proposed_rules_to_implement_initiative_502_sept_4%20
September 4, 2013

http://liq.wa.gov/pressreleases/lcb-issues-medical-mj-recommendations
December 18, 2013

http://www.spokesman.com/topics/medical-marijuana/

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-state-says-this-pot-isnt-technically-marijuana/Content?oid=16576041
April 24, 2013

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/federal-crackdown-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/nXdjQ/
May 1, 2013

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/05/02/feds-order-30-seattle-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-to-shut-their-doors
May 2, 2013

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2013/may/16/marijuana-rules-grow-inside-felons-not-eligible/#more
May 16, 2013

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/13/feds-force-washington-to-change-marijuana-measurement
September 13, 2013

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/20/seattle-city-council-pushes-marijuana-dui-legislation&view=comments
September 20, 2013

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/council-tries-to-ban-medical-marijuana/Content?oid=18082533
October 30, 2013

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/oct/22/medical-marijuana-system-overhaul-draws-criticism/
October 22, 2013

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/can-the-medical-pot-law-be-saved/Content?oid=18082509
October 30, 2013

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/01/ag-cities-can-block-recreational-marijuana-business/
January 16, 2014

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Lawmakers-No-agricultural-tax-breaks-for-pot-production-241322391.html
January 21, 2014

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jan/22/pot-bills-concern-access-and-safety/
January 22, 2014

[RainDog]

90. Thanks!

I'll have to wait to read all these - but great links. Thanks so much, again.

If you're interested and want to share what's going on in WA, the drug policy forum here is where some of us are trying to keep track of changes in legislation by state and at the federal level.

If you want to cross post this as an original post there, that would be great too, so others can see and read these links.

[B2G]

46. It's the Ambien talking n't

[bluestate10]

83. Some of the most virulent and unrealistic opponents to a vice are former addicts of

said vices. Patrick Kennedy need to admit that some people will get addicted on anything, while other people don't get addicted. Kennedy should focus on the mental triggers for addiction instead of what people get addicted on.