Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The 2 party system is unworkable. case; Obama vs Marijuana

Posted 2 years ago on April 26, 2012, 8:32 a.m. EST by jph (2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Read; Obama Defends War on Medical Marijuana With Lame Excuses http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2012/apr/25/obama_defends_war_medical_mariju

How can we support a president, or other 'representative', with this type of chicken sht approach to this or any other single issue? The two-party system provides no mechanism to address single issues where your preferred 'representative' is diametrically apposed to reason. Obama has made it clear with his actions, and lack of actions, that he is supporting the pharmaceutical industry over the rights and will of the majority of the people. If we had a true participatory democracy, a consensus based democratic system of social organisation, then we could all be heard and debated on the issues that effect us, and we would not be forced to "buy" the BS of the lesser of the evils the owners provide for us.

The drug war is lost, and is now transforming into a prison-industrial-complex tool of endless inmates for-profit. The casino-gulag has been realized.

80 Comments

80 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Obama isn't an idealist, he never was (and never will be). He doesn't take risks, he always takes what he perceives as the pragmatic approach, he's informed by economists with dubious theories about things like trade and debt spending, and the best I can say about Obama, is he appears to be the lesser of two evils (I also think Romney is cold, calculating, and detached, much like Obama, but at least Obama is tempered because he's beholden to, on balance, interests that are more favorable to the people). However, if anyone is hoping for an Obama who calls for something like the restoration of Glass Steagall, don't hold your breath. These reforms will only come as a result of years of sustained and large scale activism, but of course it's also worth noting that Obama hasn't done anything to address the assaults against American liberty that was a hallmark of his election campaign. We still have a Patriot Act, we still have a growing Homeland Security Department, now we're talking about deploying tens of thousands of drones in American skies over the next decade or so, we're quickly becoming an Orwellian state, and Obama hasn't done a damn thing to reverse this (indeed, just the opposite is true, NDAA, H.R. 347, etc.).

Really, these politicians appear to stand on opposing teams, but the evidence shows that both of these teams work against the people. Some politicians try to ram something like CISPA through, others try to score points by opposing it, yet those who oppose it still endorse ACTA, still refuse to do anything about our growing Orwellian state (except expand it further), so we're pretty much on our own.

The thing is, while progressives have (in the past) supported things like the right to hold recall elections (a right I believe should be enshrined in our Constitution), they also supported things like prohibition, so they still have a very "top down" mentality. So while we probably have an opportunity to change the democratic party (an opportunity that doesn't exist with republicans), any reforms we gain will only be temporary without far reaching societal change.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

yes, the lesser evil for sure. if anyone is voting, they better be voting for Obama, as the rethugs have shown nothing but hate for the people, for as long as I can recall. god and guns,. just ain't cutting it. and the dems are so weak willed it is hard to watch.

the current order seem impervious to reform,. supplanting it is the likely route to see any change.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes, and another thing we should be supporting (in addition to the right to recall the bastards when they screw up) is term limits (considering the degree of corruptness of a politician at least loosely corresponds with how long he or she has been in office).

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Or Gay Marriage? He apparently isnt too worried about that one either.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes, that was the one example that jumped up at me when I posted this.

The larger point is that in this silly system, you get TWO whole choices and these are, in some way, supposed to equate to your own positions on EVERY issue in our complex lives. It just seems so rudimentary and non-democratic.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm gonna post anyway.

The only NO-LABELS remedy to the situation, that I have found, is putting the people in control through a Direct Democracy. We have no control at all now. Our elections have morphed into auctions. 94% of the time - the guy with the most $ wins. Less than 200 people fund the super-pacs! The D's & R's keep us divided.

“What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free.” ~Albert Camus~

There are many different ways to structure a DD. One would be allowing ALL citizens to deliberate and then vote on EVERY issue, void of legislators. This type of government would be a significant change from our present system, and require heavy participation and heavy demands from our citizens. I question if most people want to be that involved in posting, debating, understanding, and voting on EVERY issue that comes up.

The system I advocate for can be seen in the diagram in the middle of this page, labeled "Government 2.0".

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

This system builds upon the government we have by adding two more branches. The "Technology Branch" and "The Peoples' Branch". The technology branch will keep the V2 maintained and secure, but the The Peoples' Branch will provide the checks and balances AND become the Executive Branch. The Peoples Branch will conduct live oversight of ALL OTHER branches using the V2. If either the Judicial, Legislative, Administrative, or Technology branch get out of line or creates laws or policies that collectively, we do not agree with or reject; the majority of The Peoples' branch can intervene and veto their decisions in real-time. An open source site would be used to help guide the legislators to do the peoples work and would allow them to interact with us. They would once again be working for us instead of acting as our RULERS.

Of course there are many other variations; but the idea that this is OUR government and we can create whatever government that suits US. Here's some links to promote thought:

The V2 - Internet Version 2 - http://osixs.org/V2_Menu_V2.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy

"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust. Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." ~Thomas Jefferson~

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes I agree the problem is systemic in nature and will not be fixed by regime change. This millionaire or that,. it makes too little difference.

I also agree that more a more direct system is needed,. best implementation of a plan I have seen is this one; http://www.globalsafe.org

specifically the voting and free banking are very convincing. Still need to see the tech,. but such systems are quite possible. This group seems to have an actual implementation plan, and it is underway.

I have looked briefly at your material and agree with many points,. however I found it needlessly complicated, and a bit convoluted. simple is always better when dealing with large scale systems. And also when trying to convince people of an new idea, less is more. Time will tell what approaches yield the best results.

I am sure we will end up with a mixture of many peoples ideas,. we just need to make sure they are vast improvements over the crap system we have toiled with for our lifetimes. we can devise many systems that eliminate the power hording we are witnessing now.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Thanx for the link - I like it.

I'm not saying the way I suggest is the only way. I would recommend that if we decided we wanted a DD, for similar organizations to bring ALL of their ideas and technologies to the table to make a workable system. The details are just semantics. The main goal is returning decision making power to the people. The rest we can figure out. I have more thoughts, but not a lot of time right now. Talk to ya later.

Cheers :)

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

cool,. I concur more ideas = better. in fact, any functioning participatory system, will bring a great many amazing ideas to the table immediately. this is one reason I favor a consensus system, it takes input from all interested parties, people with good ideas need to get them heard.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the USA with $35.8 Billion in sales.

Imagine if we were collecting tax revenue from that.

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/cashcrops.html

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

We do not have a two party system in the United States.

The people voting have made a conscious decision to ignore other parties. They are convinced that voting for a another party is "trowing your vote away"

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Sure I could have said the party-based system, or more celarly representative government. Any system where you elect a tinny group of 'representatives' to supposedly speak on your behalf,. the idea that some other individual can represent my view is silly on its face.

I agree they are throwing their vote away, whenever they vote for some person to represent them, it is simply not possible,. we need to all represent ourselves, period.

[-] 1 points by Johnw (44) 2 years ago

Please read this idea about creating a political party around surveys, it prescribes a remedy for what ails you. http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.com

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Bush, Obama or Romney, no real difference. They will all sign our freedoms away.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

yup that is the point,. all the window dressing is just that,. the 1% and corporate banksters have little real interest in 'social issues' these are distractions, and manipulated when profits can be made. (also used to show and enforce the power of the police state, power for powers sake)

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

One point that is rarely mentioned is that while concentrating on the Presidential race, the power of Congress is completely ignored, where all of the legislation removing our liberties is born.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

By focus on principle instead of party, constitutional principle, a movement stays completely within the 99%'s interests.

The repubs, libertoes, conservatives, dems, etc. that do understand the constitution well enough to know that the goverment we have has not been constitutional since at least the beginning of central banking in 1913.

The states musy have been stunned in 1911 when the requirement for Article V was met, there were less states, and congress failed to call delegates from the states. And the states were applying for Article V because they knew how far from constitutional the federal government had become. Then the Titanic conspiracy to remove the elite that refused to back the federal reserve.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i think you should blame congress. do the congressmen in your jurisdiction fight for the legalization of pot? if not.. vote them out and make it known that you want that type of representation

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6829) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Unless we have a constitutional convention, which I oppose, we are stuck with two parties, that’s why we should get rid of the GOP and make room for one that represents us.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

The point is that having to pick a party, also gets you ALL of their policies, like them all or not. There is so little actual choice, that calling this democratic really stretches the meaning of the word.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6829) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That's true, that's why all Republicans need to be defeated because they will support the leadership, no matter how good you think yours is, we must rid the system of them all, the only way to do that is by replacing them with Democrats right now, but once they are gone that will change.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

H.R.2306 -- Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 2306 IH

112th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 2306 To limit the application of Federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marihuana, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 23, 2011

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. POLIS, and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL To limit the application of Federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marihuana, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011'. SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT TO MARIHUANA.

Part A of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: `SEC. 103. APPLICATION OF THIS ACT TO MARIHUANA.

(a) Prohibition on Certain Shipping or Transportation- This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.(b) Penalty- Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'. SEC. 3. DEREGULATION OF MARIHUANA.

(a) Removed From Schedule of Controlled Substances- Schedule I(c) of section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended-- (1) by striking marihuana'; and (2) by strikingtetrahydrocannabinols'. (b) Removal of Prohibition on Import and Export- Section 1010 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended-- (1) by striking subparagraph (G) of subsection (b)(1); (2) by striking subparagraph (G) of subsection (b)(2); and (3) by striking paragraph (4) of subsection (b). SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

(a) Section 102(44) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(44)) is amended by striking marihuana'. (b) Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended as follows: (1) In section 401-- (A) by striking subsection (b)(1)(A)(vii); (B) by striking subsection (b)(1)(B)(vii); (C) by striking subsection (b)(1)(D); and (D) by striking subsection (b)(4). (2) In section 402(c)(2)(B), by strikingmarihuana'. (3) In section 403(d)(1), by striking marihuana'. (4) In section 418(a), by striking the last sentence. (5) In section 419(a), by striking the last sentence. (6) In section 422(d), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by strikingmarijuana'. (7) In section 422(d)(5), by striking `, such as a marihuana cigarette,'. SEC. 5. CONSTRUCTION.

No provision of this Act shall be construed to affect Federal drug testing policies, and each Federal agency shall conduct a review of its drug testing policies not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act to ensure that the language of any such policy is in accordance with this section. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2306:

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Any President has a sworn duty to uphold the law; even if they don't agree with it.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and to change that law when the people demand the change

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

The President doesn't have the power to change the law. They are duty bound by oath to uphold the Constitution. It is the job of the Congress to write and change laws.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Uh...yeah, like Obama supports and defends the Constitution (NOT!) You're so funny, Misfit! Thanks for the chuckle. :-))))

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

I never said that Obama supports or defends anything, I was refering to the office and what it is supposed to do. We haven't had a President restrained by the Constitution since before Teddy Roosevelt.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

12) Can issue special "executive orders" which are special laws that do not require congress approval.

Mr. Bush, for example, failed to persuade Congress to pass a bill allowing religiously affiliated groups to receive taxpayer grants — and then issued an executive order making the change. so you see.. presidents CAN make the law. just pointing out that indeed.. it is the presidents role to pass laws , change laws, implement laws. you do know that no law gets passed without the consent of the president?

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Yes I know that the President passes law, I also know that executive orders are not laws and can be over turned by the next President quite easily. The President cannot arbitrarily write laws to please his base, no mater how much the base wants it.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

maybe.. but you see that the war did not end.. soo following that theory.. if ever the law was to say pot was legal.. it most likely would stand once it was in place.

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Both parties in Congress kept voting to fund and expand the war. The war powers act is separate from Congress writing laws or the POTUS writing an executive order. Congress could have stopped Iraq after the initial phase, but they kept it going.

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

exactly.. and once the executive order was passed to legalize drugs.. congress would keep passing it on through. they are money makers.. not concerned with the people.. so when it became apparent that legalized drugs was bringing in money.. permanence just like the wars

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28141) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

In service to the people with the peoples will and approval. For the true benefit of all. The people can not be left out of the process. EVER.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

This is typical. Instead of opposing the Republican-DEA trends, the Democrats blew their House majority, by passing the 2700-page Obamacare debacle, and they avoided drug law reform AND related hemp biomass research, to establish at least hemp and switchgrass, for industrial uses. No change, from FDR, who signed the Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938, when it passed the Democrat-controlled Congress, in 15 lousy minutes! It took until 1972 for the USSC to rule this travesty unconstitutional, whereupon Nixon founded the DEA. SS, DD, Republicans AND DEMOCRATS are both fascists. Any other view is idiotic.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Given all that, the very idea that an oscillating two party system provides some kind of democracy is asinine. to end this manipulative system we need to establish a participatory consensus democracy.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

H.R.1983 -- States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 1983 IH

112th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 1983 To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana and for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 25, 2011

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. STARK, and Mr. POLIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana and for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act'. SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

(a) Schedule- (1) Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, shall submit to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration a recommendation on the listing of marijuana within the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and shall recommend a listing other than Schedule I' orSchedule II'. (2) Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration shall, based upon the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences, issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for the rescheduling of marijuana within the CSA, which shall include a recommendation to list marijuana as other than a Schedule I' orSchedule II' substance. (b) Limitations on the Application of the Controlled Substances Act- (1) IN GENERAL- No provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict in a State in which the medical use of marijuana is legal under State law-- (A) the prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use by a medical professional or the certification by a medical professional that a patient has a condition for which marijuana may have therapeutic benefit; (B) an individual from obtaining, manufacturing, possessing, or transporting within their State marijuana for medical purposes, provided the activities are authorized under State law; or (C) a pharmacy or other entity authorized under local or State law to distribute medical marijuana to individuals authorized to possess medical marijuana under State law from obtaining, possessing or distributing marijuana to such individuals. (2) PRODUCTION- No provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict an entity authorized by a State or local government, in a State in which the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes is legal from producing, processing, or distributing marijuana for such purposes. SEC. 3. FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT.

(a) In General- No provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict in a State in which the medical use of marijuana is legal under State law-- (1) the prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use by a medical professional or the certification by a medical professional that a patient has a condition for which marijuana may have therapeutic benefit; (2) an individual from obtaining, manufacturing, possessing, or transporting within their State marijuana for medical purposes, provided the activities are authorized under State law; or (3) a pharmacy or other entity authorized under local or State law to distribute medical marijuana to individuals authorized to possess medical marijuana under State law from obtaining, possessing, or distributing marijuana to such individuals. (b) Production- No provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict an entity authorized by a State or local government, in a State in which the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes is legal from producing, processing, or distributing marijuana for such purpose. SEC. 4. RELATION OF ACT TO CERTAIN PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO SMOKING.

This Act does not affect any Federal, State, or local law regulating or prohibiting smoking in public.

homas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1983:

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes these are good bills,. one with a 4% the other 2% chance of being enacted. :(

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2306

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1983

The point is Obama when campaigning lead us to believe, he would keep the feds from interfering in state laws, (and also that he was interested in legalization) and is currently worse than Bush Jr. in doing so,. .

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh, I know what your point was.

My point is that this is something that is being pushed from the states and you have to change the law through congress. Now, both of those bills have 22 other co-sponsors.

You won't get the public to go for full legalization. You might have a shot if you work towards decriminalization for those who need it for a medical. However, no one can make a real move till you get it through congress.

Now, a good half a dozen of you are going to have to realize that you are up against the faux privatization of prisons. You should probably tailor your arguments and fight accordingly.

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

The public is already in favor of legalization look at a good poll.
What ever does "faux privatization of prisons" mean? there is nothing 'faux' about it they are privatizing them. For-profit casino-gulag is the model they are after.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No, you aren't going to have all of America go for legalization of pot. Sorry. Ain't going to happen.

Faux privatization. Your tax dollars are still covering the cost.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Support for medical is at 80%, legalization is over 50%... and if you look at the trend it's been moving upward at a 45 degree angle for the past 10 years or so.

This is an issue that has support from both the right and the left, it's becoming increasingly obvious that warring against cannabis users is a colossal waste of time and money, and small government right-wingers are starting to see it as a states right issue.

President Obama is a complete idiot to be raiding some of the most well respected dispensaries in the face of public opinion.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Fact: there are three directions that this can go with three very different consequences. There is a difference between the medical community and the puff puff pass crowd.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

and this difference is? both groups are helped by smoking pot,. and this bothers you how exactly?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Three different legal directions, jph with each path having three different sets of consequences.

Law Enforcement does just that, enforce the laws until it isn't a law anymore or the law changes. So, the vested interest crap is just that crap. Your privatized prison industry does have a vested interest in all criminal sentencing.

See, when the puff puff pass crowd discusses this issue, by and large, this comes down to "Yeah, man, it don't bother nobody and it comes from the earth, man. All drugs should be legalized, man...and then tax it and use it for drug rehabilitation, man."

That isn't how it works.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I see, you are somehow invested in law enforcement. clearly, as most of us have experienced 'selective law enforcement' first hand, and understand that discretionary enforcement can lead to all sorts of abuses of power, you seem to gloss right over that, with this "enforce the laws" line.

Glad you see the corporate prison system for what it is,. invested in profiting off incarcerations.

And I am asking you why, you believe this silliness ? This is how it works, when the majority of people want to legalize, and our 'elected representatives' can not get this done, we clearly have too many vested interests with too much control over our legal system, period. This is the only point.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I can see that you are somehow invested in dealing drugs.

Really?

Is this how we want to approach this?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

you have given nothing like a point,. only claiming that "That isn't how it works." give me something to go on, as you provide no answer as to why you are opposed to legalizing pot. My only interest is not wasting resources on something the majority does not have a problem with,. and people needlessly suffering families destroyed all because of corporate profits and this is what this is about. make a point to support you position or stop talking.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Please see my response to alexrai below.

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

You could have said that about gay rights, women's rights, black rights... but those groups stood up for themselves and made change happen. We're seeing the same thing with people discriminated against because they smoke cannabis. They are getting organized and standing up for themselves.

Support for legalization only like 10% in the 1970s if I remember correctly; but in any event, it becomes very difficult to take the anti-marijuana crowd seriously when someone with glaucoma can smoke the stuff for 20 years and the only consequence they have to speak of is the fact that they can still see out of their eyes.

There are a lot of high profile people jumping on board, Pat Robertson even. I expect it will start in Colorado this year, but if not then within the next 10 for sure.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No. I'm talking about the actual law.

You aren't discriminated against for getting high.

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

There were once anti-sodomy laws too... and laws against women voting.

Are you sure about that? There is recreational use (non-discriminatory) and habitual abuse which is usually called Substance Abuse Dependency Disorder. Meaning that we do indeed jail people who have a disorder which makes it near impossible to just say no, because their brain has developed in such a way that it does not function well without it.

Even aside from SADD, co-morbidity rates between addiction and mental health issues are quite high (no pun intended). So, we do systemically discriminate against people with ADD, Bi-polar depression, major depressive disorder, etc. Simply because we have policies in place that tend to disproportionately impact these vulnerable groups.

Incidentally, you are far more likely to be jailed for smoking pot if you are not white (unless you look like a hippie), so in that sense it is also a racist policy. Can't jail someone because they are black, but there is a good chance you can jail them if they happen to smoke pot.

Before you comment and say its a choice, remember that gay people could also choose to be straight, they'd just be miserable.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You jail people who have possession of it or are driving under the influence.

They have medication for those disorders. Try again.

The racism thing doesn't play because you may as well say that there is a disproportional amount of white people that go to jail for meth.

It isn't discrimination. Nice attempt to bullshit though.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The paradigm that makes racism so easy for some is the old adage "Might is right". This mindset is responsible for convincing human beings that it is ok to remove the freedoms of someone who has victimized nobody. "As long as it's the other guy" & "I'm a better person so it could never happen to me" are the typical rationalizations but it all boils down to the ape like belief that an entity more powerful than myself says it's so, so it must so. As if to follow the silver-back and we are all to cowardly to say otherwise. This also is a good explanation on one of the other types of fear in eliminating racism and serves to perpetuate it; social exclusion from circles that support bigotry such as family and friends. So yes, racism in drug laws are correlated to non-race based arrests in that they prey on the disenfranchised.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Richard: sentencing. When you do more time for crack than you do for powder coke..........it's racism. When you spend your time pulling people of color on the streets to search them, it's racism. But, there comes a point in time when you have to say BULLSHIT.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

lol, I know what you're talking about. The shifting debate. Always moving the topic just enough to never be countered. There are only about 15 actual people visiting this forum these days. At least one of them is paid opposition and at least 3 are paid supporter, probably union or similar. The others are friends of the site owner or the NYC encampment. This is why I don't bother with this very much. They have added some social button but it's a little late in the game. I wouldn't place to much energy in this forum if I were you. Occupy will begin fading soon but not from lack of support but people are starting amazing things born out of this and as they take hold and become part of the new America, I would find some of those and see how to get involved. The attempt by myself and other to reach out to the tea party has also gotten traction and soon the protests will be smaller but more of them in more locations, less coordinated, and unbranded. People are waking up.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I don't think the distinction is deserved or productive until the issue leaves no doubt which is which. As of now, the problem is too widespread to discount the potential for even the absurd to be reasonable.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Pretending that possession of marijuana is racist or that people who get high are discriminated against or attempting to make a comparison with LGBT.....is absurd.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Pretending that possession of marijuana is racist or that people who get high are discriminated against or attempting to make a comparison with LGBT.....is absurd.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17032_7-species-that-get-high-more-than-we-do.html

Whats worse than discrimination is believing one group has an exclusive right to such claims, thereby discriminating against others they feel not worthy of said claim. A discrimination paradox. Yes, getting high is natural and deserves such claims. Please try to separate use and abuse.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No. Please try to pick a direction and the follow through.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Its not an attempt but thanks.

If you want to split hairs and call something that is highly addictive and comes with harsh debilitating side effects a "medication" and call something benign which has no side effects and does the same thing a "drug" because Richard Nixon said so, perhaps you should join the pharmaceutical lobby.

Fact is many people who use illegal drugs are self-medicating undiagnosed conditions. Big pharma knows this and actually markets their products towards them. "Stop doing those drugs, try ours instead... this guy is on like 5 different ones at the same time and he feels great."

Anyway. Look up the word "systemic" you'll see what I mean by systemic discrimination. It's like an apparently neutral policy that says you must be over 6' tall to be a police officer.... which would tend to exclude almost all women.

Either way, putting addicts in jail is no better than jailing people for other mental health issues, or jailing functional alcoholics for that matter. Its discriminatory.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh, but it is bullshit. Once again: there are only three directions that the law can go.

I don't give a damn how high you are, how high you get, or how much you smoke a day.

I know that people get high to self medicate. However, marijuana is not known to treat any of those disorders. It sure as hell isn't used to treat bipolar.

Further, unless you follow the harm reduction method fully-those addicts are going right back in. It isn't my problem if an individual robs someone to feed their addiction and the rest of society says...po' thang.

Three directions. Play all three scenarios out in your head.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

No. Please try to pick a direction and the follow through.

Oh, sorry, I was injecting my own views, not picking sides in the preexisting debate. I made my point and direction up front, but you then pitted me up against drawing a parallel between getting high and begin LGBT and I can't refuse a good debate. You're one of the good debaters on here, I had to go for it :D Don't be mad ;)

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I'm not mad @ you. I found it difficult to shift gears. I agree with your assessment on racism.

What I am encountering are arguments that are picked from different areas and these are bits and pieces thrown together and voilà that is the argument. 'Cept it isn't. The arguments don't hold water because they have been taken out of context and have become centered around....because I want to get high. That's dandy but doesn't change the law. It's very difficult to explain to someone else what dealing with an individual who had a psychotic break and has become homicidal is or someone on a permanent vacation that is homicidal is and it's role in substance abuse, self medication and incarceration.

If you tell me that racism is found in marijuana busts because of marijuana-it isn't there. You can break out stats and I can point out that these stats over here say that most meth busts are whites. We can do that all day long. But, the racism isn't found in marijuana. Now, you can say well it is because there are more cops that are policing all black or specific neighborhoods and the cops are not policing the lily white neighborhoods. Now we have something. But, it isn't marijuana. We can take that further and say that in areas where there are stop searches and people are singled out based on race and this is not occurring in lily white neighborhoods and we got something. It isn't marijuana. Too, are there other members of the same community that are requesting this to stop violence? Legalizing marijuana does not alter the racism. It doesn't even begin to address it.

Damn. Now, I'm just all over the place. My apologies.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

The point is the legal drugs increase dopamine/serotonin levels, just like the illegal ones. It's more a question of who gave you permission, and who are you giving your money to. Prescription to pad the pockets of Eli Lilly? No problem, you're properly medicated rather than addicted. (Maybe not Marijuana for Bi-Polar, maybe Ketamine works better, some scientists say that)

I'm not sure which harm reduction method you are referring to but I agree the war on some drugs is very harmful to some people, usually our most vulnerable, abused, or disenfranchised people; who did not grow up in the same kind of loving environment.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No. Using mental illness to justify your own high is an invalid argument. Now, you could make the argument that mentally ill people do not belong in prison. I agree with that. Unfortunately that has to do with deinstitutionalization and the revolving door with those that cannot function in society. Further, that isn't a failure on big pharma right there that squarely falls on society and their inability to step in when that faux privatization thingy didn't work out. It actually costs money to care for those individuals and you will pay for it anyway through repeated court costs and incarceration and others that are physically harmed in the process. Nobody wants to hear about it until you wind up with a Maurice Clemmons and then look all surprised and say, "Who dropped the ball?" Pfft.

Harm reduction?! Reducing the harm to society created by law and addiction. We want needle exchange programs. Why? Because AID's and hepatitis C are more expensive to treat. We want safe injection sites. Why? It incorporates the use of the needle exchange and having someone available in case you OD. Secondly, it allows safety from those that would harm people (prostitutes) by beating or robbing while attempting to or after having shot up. We want prescribed heroin in extreme situations. Why? It keeps those addicts from robbing people to get a fix. It has in other countries created an ability to hold a job and to begin to repair relationships in families. This in turn creates a support system. Run a search on Harm Reduction. Fun filled fact: addiction doesn't recognize class lines. What does all of this do? It reduces your discrimination. Which would have been a great argument..........'cept it won't work. Decriminalization does not equal discrimination-far from it.

It just isn't the war on drugs there has to be a follow through. I'm telling you right now that without an end goal you are merely handing that money to pharma in a different method, turning the government into a dealer for potential tax profit, and handing the money to those so called rehabs. Those rehabs that you have failed to hold accountable at this point and allowed them to only track the success rate no further than three months. Do you really think that the rest of the United States is going to be willing to stand there with their wallets open because of a convoluted argument? Pffft. Think twice.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

That is an older one, 2011, the pro-legalize majority continues to grow. It is only those with vested interests (law enforcement, prison industrial complex, pharmaceutical/petro-chem corporations, current cartel/dealers, etc.), and those hopelessly clinging to drug-war propaganda that is clearly based on lies and distortions that hold the anti-human 'keep it illegal' view,. this will change as the older people die off, and the lies of the vested interests are disposed of. obviously you fall into one of those groups. suggestion; try pulling head from arse!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It isn't about vested interest. I have listened to those elected officials who talk about legalizing marijuana and taxing it. When they discuss future profit, they have then become dealers. It isn't about keeping it illegal. It is about decriminalizing it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28141) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey Girl - have a good May Day?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep. May is here. It looks great from here. Did you?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28141) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes and no. I spent most of the day with my step dad while my sister took my mom in for a check-up. So I was unable to follow events as they were happening.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Is everything ok?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28141) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well I hope so. She is 87 and going on 18 - this year She will be 88 going on 18. Unfortunately She may need a valve replacement, but fortunately that type of thing is not as completely scary as it used to be.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh, jeeze. It's always scary.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28141) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes it is. But I have faith in her - she is too stubborn to let this slow her down. She has had more than one health confrontation in her life that she refused to let get the better of her. Many people would have been dead at least three times by now. She has a positive attitude that you would not believe - in fact I think her picture appears next to the definition of a positive attitude.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That is good to hear.

[-] -1 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

Everybody here around the country should keep in mind the unfinished business with the 9/11 investigation. Occupy the Romney campaign.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Agreed, there never was any real investigation of the events of 9/11, and the official conspiracy was just pushed with little evidence. As well, leaving all other issues aside, steel framed building do not fall in on themselves from a simple fire, this defies physics. The THREE buildings (remember WTC7!) that where destroyed this way, are the first and only examples of this ever happening. If we accept that a fire caused these three buildings to fall then building codes and fire regulations should all be re-written, and physics texts as well need to be updated to reflect the new reality. Not to mention the use of this attack by the hawks, warmongers, and police-state to justify so many wrong actions for the last decade. The "who benefits" question was just ignored. Anyway, I could go on and on,. 9/11 was used to change the culture and build up the war-machine and police-state. Why we never got, and will never get, a real investigation from the 1% in control? It should be clear to any thinking person.

[-] 2 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

9/11 collapse of WTC buildings is a crime. By bringing attention to it in OWS movement the discussion is put in front of the cameras and on the front page again where it needs to be.

Steve Jones has researched the science. His conclusion compels a new investigation

[-] -2 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

Oh, yes of course, let's go see Meat the Muppet-Master, at his campaign events. I hear he's an idiot-savant; it's his religion. I can't wait to go check that out.

[-] -1 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

It should be covered on FOX or CNN. He would either ignore the fact 9/11 terrorist attacks happened or let the bogus 9/11 Commission Report stand or support a new investigation, which is what we want and need.