Tom golisano is cool! - A forum for political discussion.

[Sir O]

Here's an interesting article I was just reading, talking about the role of the citizens in our supposed democratic government, and how over time, the citizens' role has been diminished due to many factors. Check it out, it's a good read, and sort of fits in with this discussion.

The American Political Paradox: More Freedom, Less Democracy

[The Jays]

There is not Right to Use Drugs in the Constitution.

[Sir O]

I think the right to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" would cover drug use, if not explicitly stated.

[The Jays]

I think the right to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" would cover drug use, if not explicitly stated.

Yes, it probably would, and the people of the United States have stated that drug use must be controlled in order to ensure those three rights to both the user and the people. And please do not be so naive to say that "pursuit of happiness" actually means the pursuit to be happy.

And the author of that article doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of what type of government we have in place in the United States.

[The Jays]

oh, and since you guys are bitching that you would like to see some of your ideas on drugs and such enacted into law, you should try voting for a change.

THIS UNDERREPRESENTATION of young voters is becoming more acute: If current trends continue, the number of people 65 and older who vote in midterm elections is likely to exceed that of young adults by a 4 to 1 ratio by 2022.
These findings emerge from a study conducted by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University, which surveyed the political beliefs and behavior of Americans of different ages and created a forecast of future elections based on population patterns and recent voting habits.
The study shows that young adults hold beliefs quite distinct from those of their parents and grandparents — more conservative in many of their views of government, more tolerant in many of their social values — and yet are not expressing them at the polls.
The net effect is an accelerating cycle of political disengagement. “If young people don’t vote, their issues don’t get addressed, which further diminishes their incentive to participate in the process and keeps the downward spiral going,” said Thomas E. Patterson, a Harvard political scientist, who studied public attitudes during the last presidential campaign. “We’ve got a real disconnect between the rational strategies for candidates to win elections and good strategies for maintaining a healthy democracy.”

[Sir O]

Yes, it probably would, and the people of the United States have stated that drug use must be controlled in order to ensure those three rights to both the user and the people.

I'd like to see where the people of the United States stated this. I'd also like to know how sending nonviolent drug users to prison helps anyone.

And please do not be so naive to say that "pursuit of happiness" actually means the pursuit to be happy.

No, it doesn't. The personal decision to use or not to use drugs falls under the "Liberty" category.

And the author of that article doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of what type of government we have in place in the United States.

Right now, we have a government that has greatly deviated from the ideals that the Constitutional Congress had in mind when they wrote the blueprint. While technically still a democracy, our government these days more resembles an aristocracy. I don't agree with everything in the article, I just said it was a good read.

oh, and since you guys are bitching that you would like to see some of your ideas on drugs and such enacted into law, you should try voting for a change.

I do.

On the subject of marijuana (not taking into account other, "harder" drugs), I think it's a pretty well known fact that it was a legal substance before 1937, and then criminalized by the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act, pioneered by one Harry J. Aslinger, Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics . Aslinger had strong connections in the paper (Hearst) and chemicals (DuPont) industries, among others, and these were industries that had much to gain from the criminalization of marijuana (and more specifically, hemp). Of course, as is usually the case in politics, he drew his strength from public fears at the time in order to fulfill his agenda. Some excerpts from Mr. Anslinger's testimony before a Senate hearing on marijuana in 1937, shortly before the passing of the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S. and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

But hey, your buddy is an irresponsible fuck who smokes pot. Who am I to argue?

[AdolescentMasturbator]

The right to privacy and one's own body is why drugs should be legalized. If a woman can abort a fetus then an adult should be able to inject Heroin into his eye.

[The Jays]

I'd like to see where the people of the United States stated this.

Nobody is jumping up and down to make marijuana legal. Please outline the benefits that would be created from making weed legal. The people of the US have nothing to gain from it. And plus, believe it or not, most people think drugs are actually BAD, and it is highly doubtful that they will support a proposal to make drugs legal.

And explain why you think the US is an aristocrasy. This should be could.

[Mad]

Nobody is jumping up and down to make marijuana legal.

Of course not. That's the way they wants it.

Please outline the benefits that would be created from making weed legal. The people of the US have nothing to gain from it.

Yes they do. First, if you have a 50% sin tax on the sale of weed. You would do a couple of things. You could use that money for health programs and or drug abuse programs. Help those who need it.

Second, you would no longer have a whole shit load of people in jail/prison for a victim-less crime.

Third, you would no longer have the illegal market and all of it's support system in place. (i.e. Drug gangs would no longer make money from the illegal sales. Thus then taking cash out of the underground economy.)

And plus, believe it or not, most people think drugs are actually BAD, and it is highly doubtful that they will support a proposal to make drugs legal.

Most people have been conditioned to believe what the government says is true. I prefer to think for myself. If drug's are bad then let me make my own choice. Please use the government as a quality control. That is if I want coke or smack it had better be what it says on the label.

Is that clear enough for you to understand?

[The Jays]

Yes, ok, the government telling us that drugs are bad , and that the entire US is nothing but sheep. Ok.

Third, you would no longer have the illegal market and all of it's support system in place. (i.e. Drug gangs would no longer make money from the illegal sales. Thus then taking cash out of the underground economy.)

Making drugs legal does not get rid of the illegal market. And with a sin tax on drugs, you will still have an illegal market where dealers will sell drugs without the tax on them. Look at cigarettes and alcohol. They are still sold illegally. Dealers will find a way to make money illegally.

[Mad]

Dealers will find a way to make money illegally.

How?

If I'm able to grow my own or buy it from a store legally how would they make money? Tax evasion? Maybe but I doubt somebody would go thru the hassle once it has been established in the market place.

Competition is good for the consumer. It makes things better and cheaper too.



:fuggin:

[The Painter]

The right to privacy and one's own body is why drugs should be legalized. If a woman can abort a fetus then an adult should be able to inject Heroin into his eye.

Absolutely correct!! The entire argument for abortion is based on the 4th amendment. The right to privacy. If you use this logic for abortion, then the same logic must apply to drugs. Jimmy Carter said he'd legalize pot in 1976. He didn't do it. If they do legalize it, I don't know where you'll smoke it. I can't even find a place to have a cigarette, and they're legal. It's a strange twist of fate that Russia actually has more freedom now, than we do

[The Jays]

How?

What I meant was that dealers deal drugs in the first place because it's an easy way to make money. They came to the decision on their own that make money illegally is better than making money legitimatly. If drugs are out of the equation, they find ways to make easy money in other ways, whether it be stealing, switching to drugs not legalized, etc.

Competition is good for the consumer. It makes things better and cheaper too.

It's not making cigarette any cheaper, but I do agree that the more competition, the better the market. There's alot of areas that local and state governments cover that would be better suited to free market and competition, such as health care, sanitation, education.



Edited By The Jays on 1035157022

[crx girl]

Yes, it probably would, and the people of the United States have stated that drug use must be controlled in order to ensure those three rights to both the user and the people.

whether the people have said that or not, how is the government controlling it right now? i do believe they're losing their "war on drugs" if all drugs were legal, then and only then, will the government be able to control them, thus then, the "war" would be over.

now, i'm not gonna get into a discussion about this, because everybody has their opinion and that's not going to change. although jays might have a better argument if he was able to come up with some actual factual information instead of just speaking his feelings based on what he's seen of other's drug use.

that said i'd just like to state my opinion that golisano is either an idiot who has no business being governor or he's being paid off by pataki. who the Hell uses a drug legalization platform for their big campaign right before the election, especially in a traditionally conservative republican state. all he's going to do with this is pull a nader and get some of carl mccall's liberal votes.

[The Jays]

Drug legalization isn't his platform. He states that gloucoma patients are having trouble receiving marijuana because Pataki has not followed through to ensure that heath companies get the weed to the patients. Golisano says he will fight for those patients. The rest of us ust kinda went off on the topic of weed legalization in general.

And I do enjoy the discussion with Mad, Sir O, and AM. Tis good to debate this....

[crx girl]

well, whatever his platform, my point is, that drug use in any form is not going to get someone elected in a conservative state. all this campaign is going to do is pull votes away from mccall...

[fbd]

that drug use in any form is not going to get someone elected in a conservative state

i dont think even many liberal states would let that win

[The Jays]

all this campaign is going to do is pull votes away from mccall...

... then it's doing what it suppose to.

[Mad]

The War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Poverty. Are just government expansion programs.

All they have accomplished is to create a new layer of bureaucracy to suck off the teat of tax-payers.

Those programs offer you nothing but empty promises and an empty pocket.

all this campaign is going to do is pull votes away from mccall...

I think you are right.

Pataki is a middle of the road type any way. He has moved from his Conservative base and is showing more Liberal colors over the past few years.

I'm voting for the Libertarian so I don't really care. I know it will be a wasted vote. But I just can't support any of these big government douche-bags.

Last Presidential election I was one of about 7,000 voters in NYS who voted Libertarian. I'd rather follow my heart then go with the winner.

Freedom is more important in the long run.

[Spitfire]

I'm voting for the Libertarian so I don't really care. I know it will be a wasted vote. But I just can't support any of these big government douche-bags.

RIGHT ON! Mad, you rule! Too bad more people don't feel this way.

Jays, just because your experience with weed was not positive doesn't mean that you have to condemn those who use it responsibly and who are productive members of society. Such as this country's founding fathers. Yup, Jefferson, Washington, etc. were all stoners, they grew hemp and weed. But that was before the paper, cotton and plastic industries held the government ear (and wallet) to make hemp illegal...even though it has almost no THC in it, you need an acre to get high.

By the beginning of the 20th century Cannabis Hemp medicines were very common. From 1842 through the 1920’s resinous hemp extracts were the second and third most used medicines for Americans, from birth through old age.[iv] Then in the 1930’s everything turned upside down.

For thirty years American business mogul and newspaper giant William Randolph Hearst had fed the public racist attacks on the Mexicans, caricaturing them as lazy “marihuana” smokers (an Americanized version of the Mexican term). This was probably because in the Spanish American war in the late 1800s, Pancho Villa and the marijuana smoking Mexican army had seized 800,000 acres of Hearst’s land.[v] Fortunately for Hearst, his newspaper empire served him with plenty of audience for his lies and propaganda. In those days there was no Internet and this served as mass communication. Hearst newspapers were a major factor in shaping public opinion.[vi]

The money William Randolph Hearst made came from more than just newspapers. His empire extended to many sectors of business and industry, including the production of paper. Alongside this a chemical company named DuPont had just developed a process for using chemicals to better manufacture paper products, and was also looking to forge a strong empire with synthetic fibers like nylon and rayon. These industries were about to be overthrown. New farming machines were going to make hemp more easily cultivated, and cannabis was about to become the number one crop in the country. The synthetic fibers DuPont patented could be easily replicated and replaced by Hemp products. DuPont and Hearst stood to lose millions of dollars. Their companies would be decimated.

For twenty years Hearst had proclaimed resinous cannabis the “killer weed” from Mexico. Now Hearst newspapers began to proclaim crazed Negroes were raping white women after getting high on “marihuana.” (Previously the press had made the same accusations and claimed it was from cocaine.) White people who smoked resinous cannabis were supposedly subject to moral lapse and would perform unspeakable and vile acts. The newspapers said that resinous cannabis led to “Voodoo-satanic” music, or “jazz,” and that the music was somehow anti-white. Hearst told the public (and was summarily believed) resinous cannabis led to “blood-lust” and violence.

Into the picture stepped Harry J. Ainslinger. The new head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (we call them the Drug Enforcement Agency now), in 1931 he began a thirty year campaign against resinous cannabis. He spent the 1930’s touring the country preaching the evils of the herb, filling Americans with blatant lies about the drug. He would often say, “if the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marihuana he would drop dead of fright.” Concerned mothers and citizens began to rally behind the anti-cannabis movement. Films like “Reefer Madness,” and “Marijuana-Assassin of Youth,” further destroyed the truth. Ainslinger lied with no abandon and the public was swayed.

( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thehempevolution.org/history/history.htm">http://www.thehempevolution.org/history/history.htm</a><!-- m --> )

I don't understand how people can have no compassion towards those dying of cancer, AIDS, etc. who can only find solace from the pain from a little bit of bud. It helps nausia and helps them eat a bit more. Furthermore, in states where medical marijuana gets passed by the people, the federal government still steps in over and above states rights and arrests people who are licensed to grow medical marijuana and destroy their crops.

Remember what Nixon said kids, "alcohol just makes you drunk, weed gets you high." That's why it's bad....mmmkay.