Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamaiden
VV! You're kicking linkage ASS! 
 Whoa..! I missed this one. My grandmother has Alzheimer's, as does my ex-father-in-law (who's also former LAPD homicide dick, emphasis on the "dick"). They believe all the rhetoric and misinformation about weed, yet accept cigarettes and alcohol. Those two items alone, in my opinion, completely negate all arguments against allowing those of us who prefer weed to those to use. |
I am telling you everyone is really missing on the alcohol front. One of hte arguments put forth by the DEA is that the person drinking the glass of wine may actually be improving their health. Arrticles came out last year saying women that average between on and two drinks a day increase thier risk of cancer by a factor of 10, they are 10 times more likely to get cancer than women that don't average a drink a day. He states, with absolutly no back up that most alcohol use is in moderation. If that's the case why are we constantly being told to drink but do it in moderation. Many of these ads just like the ones about gambling responsible, are paid for with your tax dollars.
*********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*************************
DrugSense FOCUS Alert #364 - Friday, 25 April 2008
This week the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times featured a
drug war debate between Jacob Sullum, who needs no introduction; and
Charles "Cully" Stimson who was a local, state and federal
prosecutor, a military prosecutor and defense attorney, and a deputy
assistant secretary of Defense. Currently, he is a senior legal
fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
The series is MAP archived as follows:
Monday's DUST UP
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n414/a05.html
Tuesday's DUST UP
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n415/a09.html
Wednesday's DUST UP
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n418/a05.html
Thursday's DUST UP
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n421/a02.html
Friday's DUST UP
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n426.a01.html
Besides being targets for letters to the editor the series provides
arguments we are likely to see as efforts are made for and against
initiatives which will be on the ballot in various states.
Tuesday's DUST UP about medical
marijuana presents arguments we may
see about the Michigan initiative
http://StopArrestingPatients.org/ Already one Detroit TV station
has been broadcasting anti-initiative ads you may see at
http://stoparrestingpatients.org/video.html
The other OPEDs present arguments we may see used for or against the
California's initiative, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act
of 2008
http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/california/nora/
What happens on Election Day is up to you. If you are not registered
to vote, there are websites that provide help, like Rock the Vote at
http://drugsense.org/url/Ylqy68Vz
If you have followed this post this far you are probably wondering where the fellow from the DEA gets his information. He acts like alcohol is good for us. Scare tactics, costs to society? Not one logical argument, and many that contradict his other statements. If this were an 'actual debate' this guy should have been 'hacked'. His 'grey market' statement explained for meaning, would go like this, "So let me see if I have this right?? The reason to not tax and regulate drugs is because you will create this 'grey market' and not everyone will want to pay the tax, so you will still have the same problem you have with the 'black market' the current system creates?? It just won't be as lucrative as the 'black market'. Wouldn't that mean the terrorist would get less money? And we would collect the tax for most of it? And not have to spend billions on 'enforcing the unequal drug laws'.
Well, I do have to get something else done today. VV
