video/text here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/end-drug-war_n_5275078.html?utm_content=buffer765ae The report, titled "Ending the Drug Wars" and put together by the London School of Economics' IDEAS center, looks at the high costs and unintended consequences of drug prohibitions on public health and safety, national security and law enforcement. "The pursuit of a militarized and enforcement-led global ‘war on drugs' strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage," says the 82-page report. "These include mass incarceration in the US, highly repressive policies in Asia, vast corruption and political destabilization in Afghanistan and West Africa, immense violence in Latin America, an HIV epidemic in Russia, an acute global shortage of pain medication and the propagation of systematic human rights abuses around the world."
Don't for a moment forget that economists have had a huge role in prohibition over the years. Take their words with a grain of salt. "Treatment for everyone" is not ending the drug war.
are you just trollin or are you serious? i really can't tell anymore. if not for the masses, scientists, doctors, economists telling the governments and the world to "end the war on drugs" is not a way to end it.. then what is?
You did see that our war hawk president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, right? If you don't understand such commissions are the same people that bring you prohibition, I can't help you. They're not telling the world to end the drug war. They are telling it to allow a certain few to continue it under the name "legalization."
nobel prize was just the quote from the article. i don't think it takes away form the essence of what they are saying. i know you are against legalization. got the hint a while ago. still why do you have to put down any talk to that relates to some movement towards relaxing the laws? what do you suggest, full decriminalization? leaving things as is? you fail to answer that all the time.
I READ the laws and know that there is no "relaxation of law" therein. It's legalese on steroids. I look up who bankrolls them and they are prohibitionist interests. Being informed is the only reason I am in opposition. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, PEOPLE. COME ON. I am 1000% FOR legalization. Repeat, 1000%. But what is being placed before us is NOT legalization. Do you understand? De-crim is actually what you're looking at right now with these "legalization" laws. It will only be de-crim'd for certain entities to profit, however. The drug war will most certainly continue, if not worse than it was. We're talking about protecting BILLIONS of dollars in pharma profits and patent licensing by the Feds. A highly complex form of prohibition or regulation, whichever you prefer. They can't make that kind of money below ground, so they want it above ground now. What someone will pay for a treatment for Epilpetic seizures for their kid pales in comparison to what they'll pay to catch a buzz in a recreational world. How much do you think treatments for MS, Alzheimers, Epliepsy is worth in synthesized form? The economy is run by people looking to make money, not deliver compassion. THAT is reality, and we have a shit ton of history from which to draw our examples.
i applaud your detective work. you seem to be well spoken... so... again... can you clearly explain what do you support? what is your proposition to improve the current situation with the way the plant is treated and the laws that surround it? (and if you can please try not to go off tangent on how you read a lot of things... i got it).
Do you? Why can't you and the other three members of my fan club here look shit up for yourselves as to what I am saying. Others here have no issues understanding. Why do you? I didn't have anyone spoon feed me a quick link or their own version of how the world should work to come to my conclusions. Just shows how lazy or prohibitionist your fan club is.
lol. once again, you've avoided the answer. there are no clubs. i didn't get an invite, i didn't pay a membership fee and i didn't get my fucking club sandwich. just tell me what do you stand for and i will never reply to you again. i promise.
I started on this site years ago due to medical mj legislation, and I was all about supporting almost anything that was "anti-prohibition." My stance has obviously changed from supporting everything to looking at who is behind bills, what are the conflicts of interest, etc. If you're seeking unfettered positivity as it relates to all these bills, I'm not your huckleberry. I cannot believe that I can point out the caveats of these bills, and people here largely are no longer more informed than any of the rest of the masses. If you read and comprehended who is behind all of the "legalization," maybe you'd understand it better. And why I have little patience for people here who seem no more well informed than the totally uninformed.
< silly sarcasm> haven't you listened to a word they have said...conspiracy theory types don't have to show evidence and proof...they use the same logic and fallacies as the prohibitionist....so it has to be legit... duh.. </silly sarcasm> Just keep working on the good cause...ignore the prohibitionist and their collaborators. If they want to help the enemy, that is their choice.
Yep, its a conspriracy every time I look up who the authors of bills are, who their financial donors have typically been, who they rub shoulders with, etc. Only to have people like yourself say its tinfoil hat time. Obviously, one of us does their homework. The other suggests ANY bill is worth our support, and the devil of the details can be worked out later. WRONG. Yep, folks, only on GC can people with horrible medical issues who have been following these topics for years be called a prohib. That shows just how sad and confused the "movement" has become. When if you don't support the "movement" then you are the enemy. Sounds like fascism to me. Glad I'm no part of it.