Latest
Drug Cartels Are Terrified of Marijuana Legalization
Legalizing marijuana wouldn't end the criminal drug trade and its violence. Addicts still would crave heroin, cocaine and other hard narcotics. But decriminalizing [he must mean legalizing] marijuana would be a body blow to drug cartels. Half the annual income for Mexico's violent drug smugglers comes from marijuana, one Mexican official told the Wall Street Journal last year. Imagine how many smugglers and street-corner reefer hustlers would be put out of business. [Chicago Sun-Times]
See, this is the mental exercise everyone needs to perform. If you're undecided about legalization, then try to put the politics aside for a moment and just think for yourself about what legalization would mean for the cartels. They have to lose something don't they? Let's please stop acting like this is an all-or-nothing proposition. If we can take some money from the cartels, that's awesome. We don't have to destroy them to make it worthwhile; we need only save a few lives from the cartels' brutal violence to achieve a massive victory.
Anyone who hates drug cartels owes it to themselves to muster the courage and curiosity to give this a chance.
Illegal Growers Are Terrified of Marijuana Legalization
If California legalizes marijuana, they say, it will drive down the price of their crop and damage not just their livelihoods but the entire economy along the state's rugged northern coast.
Local residents are so worried that pot farmers came together with officials in Humboldt County for a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday night where civic leaders, activists and growers brainstormed ideas for dealing with the threat.
Funny how the "threat of legalization" means such different things to different people. If anyone still doesn't understand how legalization will impact the black market, well, try asking the black market what it thinks. These people are freaking out and you really shouldnât need an advanced degree in economics to understand why that is.
This is the reality that legalization's opponents are incapable of addressing. The marijuana economy already exists and the debate over taxation and regulation is merely a question of how the industry will be structured. This is not a matter of whether or not California should have marijuana. California already has more marijuana than it knows what to do with.
A vote against legalization is a vote for illegal growers and dealers. And they thank you for your support, as always.
We're Not Giving Up!
Call Congress Today! |
Dear Friends,
Over the past year you all have scored some huge national victories. Not least among them helping to convince our long-time opponent Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) to scale back the HEA Aid Elimination Penalty that he created over a decade ago. Â
As you probably already know, in September 2009, The House of Representatives passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), which included language that would repeal the Aid Elimination Penalty for students convicted of drug possession offenses. Â
Since we know that many distribution cases are pleaded down to simple possession, this change will reinstate financial aid to a large number of students who would otherwise be affected by Souder's amendment. Â Â
Last week Congress was poised to include the entirety of the SAFRA legislation into the health care reconciliation bill, including our provision. But I have some unfortunate news. According to the rules of the now famous reconciliation process, amendments that directly change policy, as ours does, are subject to votes that require a 60 percent majority. So, in the eleventh hour, our amendment was taken out of the bill for procedural reasons. Â
The good news is that this turn of events does not represent a lack of political will on the part of our allies in Congress . With leading Democrats devoted to changing this horrible provision - and with your letters and phone calls - I still believe we will successfully amend the Aid Elimination Penalty by the end of 2010. We'll need to keep up the pressure, but I have every confidence that these recent events only delayed our inevitable victory.Â
Sincerely,Â
Matthew Palevsky
Acting Executive Director
Students for Sensible Drug PolicyÂ
P.S. Do you want SSDP to continue pressuring Congress to ensure financial aid for students? If so, help us by making a donation today so that we can hire a policy director to keep the pressure on our elected representatives in Washington.
Disenfranchisement News: Democracy Restoration Act - For and Against
| |||||||
| |||||||
An Argument to Avoid Making, Part 2
My point isn't so much that politicians never benefit in any way from doing these things, but rather that it's less true than it used to be and that we shouldn't be reinforcing that belief if we want political support. Just a few years ago, everywhere I looked, I saw reformers complaining publicly that politicians wouldn't support our cause because it might cost them votes. I saw prominent journalists like Joe Klein at Time Magazine calling for legalization and then in the next breath giving politicians a great reason to oppose it:
â¦the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio.
See, this is the kind of thing that supporters of reform shouldn't be saying. This is why I've been arguing for years that we should always emphasize the potential political benefits of taking our side rather than lamenting the possible harms. For example:
Bad = "Politicians won't support ending the drug war because they're afraid of losing votes."
Good = "Politicians are starting to get the message that the drug war isn't as popular anymore."
Am I making sense here?
4 Stars Drug Truth 03/29/10
International Cannabis & Hemp Expo
Pagination
- First page
- Previous page
- …
- 475
- 476
- 477
- 478
- 479
- …
- Next page
- Last page



