Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 veggie
Registered: 07/25/04
Posts: 13,985
Loc: 
|
 Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired 
#7600196 - 11/05/07 07:32 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired
November 5, 2007 - AP Wire
 When his new boss at Ragingwire Inc. ordered Gary Ross to take a drug test, the recently hired computer tech had no doubt the results would come back positive for marijuana.
But along with his urine sample, Ross submitted a doctor's recommendation that he smoke pot to alleviate back pain — a document he figured would save him from being fired. It didn't, however, and Ross was let go eight days into his tenure because the company said federal law makes marijuana illegal no matter the use.
On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court is due to hear Ross' case, the latest example of the intensifying clash between federal and local authorities over marijuana use.
Ross, 45, contends that Ragingwire discriminated against him because of a back injury and violated the state's fair-employment law by punishing him for legally smoking marijuana at home.
He says he and others using medical marijuana should receive the same workplace protection from discipline that employees with valid painkiller prescriptions do. California voters legalized medicinal marijuana in 1996.
Eleven other states, including Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state, have adopted similar laws and many are now grappling with the same sticky, workplace issues over drug use by employees smoking medicinal marijuana approved by doctors.
In Oregon, for instance, two competing bills on the issue died in that state's Legislature this year.
The nonprofit marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, which is representing Ross, estimates that 300,000 Americans use medical marijuana. The Oakland-based group said it has received hundreds of employee discrimination complaints in California since it first began tracking the issue in 2005.
"It's an extremely widespread problem," said Joe Elford, the group's chief lawyer. At least one other similar workplace lawsuit has been filed in the state, but Elford has been advising the aggrieved to first file complaints with the state's Fair Housing and Employment agency. The agency issues "right-to-sue" letters after investigating complaints, giving a person up to a year to file a lawsuit.
"We're advising everyone to go slow, encouraging them to wait for a decision by the Supreme Court," Elford said.
Several national medical organizations and disability rights advocates have filed friend-of-the-court papers urging the Supreme Court to rule in Ross' favor.
Ross, who lives in Sacramento, said he permanently injured his back in 1983 while serving as a U.S. Air Force mechanic. He said it wasn't until 1999 that he found true pain relief with marijuana, though scientists are still split on the drug's effectiveness.
The American Medical Association advocates keeping marijuana classified as a tightly controlled and dangerous drug that should not be legalized until more research is conducted.
"I think I'm standing up for everybody else," Ross said. "My motivation is that I don't like to lose and that medical marijuana is effective."
So far, though, Ross has been losing.
Two lower courts have sided with Ragingwire's decision to fire Ross because federal law holds that marijuana is illegal in all guises.
Five current and former Democratic state legislators who argue that the lower courts misinterpreted a law they helped pass that banned smoking of medicinal marijuana at the workplace. The lawmakers said nothing in their law prevents employees with medical marijuana cards to smoke outside the workplace.
The lawmakers wrote that the state's fair employment law and the 1996 Compassionate Use Act legalizing medicinal marijuana, "authorize and protect the use of medical cannabis by employees away from the workplace and during nonbusiness hours, as exemplified by plaintiff-petitioner Gary Ross, and that the court of appeal's decision erred in concluding otherwise."
Employers are fearful of falling productivity and that they open themselves to the wrath of federal officials, who are armed with a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring that state medicinal marijuana laws don't protect users from criminal prosecution.
Ragingwire marketing chief Doug Adams declined to comment on the case.
Ragingwire, a small telecommunications company in Sacramento, has been joined in the Supreme Court by powerful corporate interests such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc., who said companies could lose federal contracts and grants if they allowed employees to smoke pot.
The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a friend-of-the court filing that employers could also be liable for damage done by high workers.
"History abounds with cases of employers found liable," the Sacramento-based foundation wrote, "because their employees were driving vehicles, operating heavy equipment or otherwise performing tasks made more dangerous by their being under the influence of alcohol or drugs."
|
johnm214
 
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,289
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: veggie]
#7601565 - 11/06/07 07:11 AM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I hate the falling productivity claim. How about you pay someone based on an objective measure of their preformance, or fire those that aren't preforming at levels others are?
I hate this bullshit reasoning. If someone can't do their job, fire them.
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,448
|
 Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: veggie]
#7602385 - 11/06/07 11:07 AM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ragingwire, a small telecommunications company in Sacramento, has been joined in the Supreme Court by powerful corporate interests such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc., who said companies could lose federal contracts and grants if they allowed employees to smoke pot.
All about keeping the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ consolidated among the top 1%... just like everything related to cannabis; whether industrial hemp or medical marijuana, or recreational use via the prison-industrial complex.
If you don't like truth & the above paragraph troubles your simplistic, ethnocentric, comfortable worldview... then disregard it & believe the following: Cannabis prohibition has everything to do with keeping dangerous minorities suppressed & preventing otherwise wholesome white Amerikan youth from turning into deranged madmen, serial rapists & axe murderers.
--------------------
Every part of this country is sacred to my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove has been hallowed by some fond memory or some sad experience of my tribe.
Even the rocks... as they swelter in the sun along the silent seashore in solemn grandeur thrill with memories of past events... and the very dust under your feet responds more lovingly to our footsteps than to yours, because it is the ashes of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch, for the soil is rich with the life of our kindred.
And when the last red man shall have perished from the earth and his memory among white men shall have become a myth, these shores shall swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe.
- Chief Seattle
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7602755 - 11/06/07 12:45 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
 
Response to the story:
I hope for the significance of this case that Mr. Ross wins, but I think it's unfortunate for ragingwire to be the business that's caught up in this. In business, liability exceeds the law in some cases. They were acting on their interpretation of the law.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,289
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: Cowgold]
#7602760 - 11/06/07 12:47 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Why is federal law a question? They're suing under state law, and even if they were suing under ADA or other federal claims, the state common law governs all issues relevant to it.
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: johnm214]
#7602817 - 11/06/07 12:59 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Federal law is in question because that state is in the U.S. State vs. Federal has been a long standing issue and this is just one of the faces of that issue.
Mr. Ross is suing on his interpretation of state law and Ragingwire's defense is based on their interpretation of federal law.
I will say that Ragingwire shouldve been privy to the fact that firing Mr. Ross for his use of medical marijuana is a political hot potato that could land them in a court room. I'm wondering if Ragingwire's upper management are idiots or just some anti-drug crusaders.
OT: The bias of some people just makes them retarded. 
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,448
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: Cowgold]
#7604119 - 11/06/07 05:58 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Federalism this, Proposition that. You can trim a hedge all day if you'd like, but it's just going to grow back the next. It doesn't even matter if a majority of the population in a given area democratically votes for medical cannabis (or any other kind of cannabis); they will just send in their heavily-armed mercenaries to shut them down (as they are doing routinely). Unless you address the root system & have a plan to deal with it, then you are playing their game. And as long as it is their game, in which they define the rules, then you serving their interests, even if it appears on the surface that you are not.
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7605010 - 11/06/07 09:10 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Spare us the tune in and drop out BS.
The courtroom and voting booths will eventually reflect the benefits of medical marijuana.
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,448
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: Cowgold]
#7607343 - 11/07/07 02:08 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Spare us the tune in and drop out BS.
Acknowledging the origin & continuance of cannabis prohibition has nothing to do with being a hippie, as I am not one. In the U.S. today, the wealthiest 1% possess 30-35% of the wealth, and thus logically have virtually total control of society & its institutions. This is directly related to almost every aspect of the so-called "War on Drugs"... as well as the "War on Terror" (& U.S. militarism as a whole), but that's getting off topic. In summery, the so-called "War on Drugs" is almost entirely about economics, & has next-to-nothing to do public safety.
Quote:
The courtroom and voting booths will eventually reflect the benefits of medical marijuana.
The voting booths, in at least several locations in the U.S., have shown majority support for medical marijuana, as well as industrial hemp. But what does it matter if people without any power democratically decide one thing, while those with power undemocratically carry out another? From California to the Pine Ridge Indian reservation you can see the results of this. Whether raids, seizures & arrests in the case of the former, or crop destruction in the latter... one man with a gun will control one hundred without.
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7607417 - 11/07/07 02:26 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
This conspiracy of the wealthiest 1% trying to hold the poor down is just stupid.
Your second argument:
State vs. Federal...
I'm for legalizing not just medicinal marijuana, but marijuana in general. That being said, I don't let my personal opinions on marijuana cloud my rational with bullshit conspiracies about what the 'true' agenda of marijuana's current legal status is.
1% blaming the rich guys is just too easy. Get a little more creative. And by creative I don't mean crazy.
The legal system is faulty, but it does eventually work. Voteing and the court room is where our rights are found.
|
fastfred
Old Hand
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,242
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: Cowgold]
#7607652 - 11/07/07 03:25 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Just keep on believing that dream Cowgold. You'll wake up someday.
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: fastfred]
#7608778 - 11/07/07 07:40 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Which part of what I said is supposed to be the dream?
That the rich man isn't trying to hold the poor man down? That our democratic society will outlive any marijuana prohibition? That voting works?
There just seems to be a lot of posts about some underlying plot for why pot is illegal in the first place. Some posts talk about some very possible reasons, but the rich man trying to hold the poor man down? Give me a break. That's just radical and out of left field. Completely unrelated as far as any serious debate is concerned. And hopefully Mr. Ross' attorney has enough sense to agree.
One illegitimate reason is, according to the federal gov., there's no medical uses for marijuana? 11 states disagree creating a shit load of Gray area. Grey area that will be sorted out in the court system.
If you think that the voting system is a dream, then I say 11 states disagree. If you say the court system is a dream, then I hope like hell the California high court disagrees.
Nowhere in any of my posts did I say anything about the economical impact of legalizing.
If blaming someone makes you feel better, then you're better off placing your blame on the pharmaceutical companies (who coincidentally only make a small fraction of the rich 1%. ) They'll make more from synthetic drugs than a natural wonder plant. Now who do you think has the most lobbyists involved currently? At least focus on the right people instead of grouping anyone who's rich in with the bastards.
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,448
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: Cowgold]
#7608967 - 11/07/07 08:32 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There just seems to be a lot of posts about some underlying plot for why pot is illegal in the first place.
Is Jack Herer full of shit?
[The actual story behind the legislature passed against marijuana is quite surprising. According to Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes and an expert on the "hemp conspiracy," the acts bringing about the demise of hemp were part of a large conspiracy involving DuPont, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and many other influential industrial leaders such as William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon. Herer notes that the Marijuana Tax Act, which passed in 1937, coincidentally occurred just as the decoricator machine was invented. With this invention, hemp would have been able to take over competing industries almost instantaneously. According to Popular Mechanics, "10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average [forest] pulp land." William Hearst owned enormous timber acreage, land best suited for conventional pulp, so his interest in preventing the growth of hemp can be easily explained. Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. Herer even suggests popularizing the term "marijuana" was a strategy Hearst used in order to create fear in the American public. "The first step in creating hysteria was to introduce the element of fear of the unknown by using a word that no one had ever heard of before... 'marijuana'" (ibid).
DuPont's involvment in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. "According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the next 50 years" (ibid). Indeed it should be noted that "two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed a new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was an ideal substitute for hemp rope" (Hartsell). The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber or its economical process of manufacturing. "DuPont's point man was none other than Harry Anslinger...who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew MEllon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, DuPont's chief financial backer. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece" (Hartsell). It doesn't take much to draw a connection between DuPont, Anslinger, and Mellon, and it's obvious that all of these groups, including Hearst, had strong motivation to prevent the growth of the hemp industry.]
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_culture11.shtml
Quote:
...you're better off placing your blame on the pharmaceutical companies...
Yes, they are a villain in this, but there are many more influential & deeply-entrenched interests who benefit from cannabis prohibition (& the so-called "war on Drugs" as a whole) who stand to lose large sums & money if it were to end?
Why have textiles made from sweatshop labor in Asia or Latin American when it's just as (if not more) economically viable, & certainly more ethical & environmentally friendly, to grow fields of hemp & make better quality clothing locally from cannabis?
Who gets the contracts to build more & more facilities to house what is the largest prison in the world?
Who gets the contracts to spray poison into the ecosystems of South America?
What better excuse than "combating drugs" to give billions of dollars of military & police aid to a repressive government in Colombia that provides your corporations an ample supply of cheap, beaten-down labor & natural resources to be exploited?
Who gets the contracts to arm more & more police officers/federal agents & supply them with all manner of high-tech gadgets for the purpose of violating peoples' Constitutional rights?
Why cut down trees for paper when it's both more efficient & more environmentally sustainable to use cannabis?
Plus, it's always a good idea for a repressive government to have a loyal force of heavily-armed personnel throughout the nation in case some event(s) were to ignite a currently passive populace.
Also it makes sense to have large numbers of potentially subversive elements of society (i.e. poor, dark-skinned, younger males) either locked up or under some kind of legal surveillance. If you can give a job arresting these people to (predominantly) middle to lower middle class whites who aren't going to excel in college, then you kill two birds with one stone.
Prosecutors, defense attorneys & judges like the job security that prohibition guarantees, as well.
There are a lot more forces at play in all of this than just pharmaceutical company interests, & one of those forces sure as hell isn't concern public health & safety (or a wise use of taxpayer dollars, for that matter). The "War on Drugs", like the phony "War on Terror", have much more to do with robbing citizens of their earnings (which in turn diminshes their political power) & restricting civil liberties by consolidating wealth & power into fewer & fewer hands while using propaganda to keep the population scared & ignorant than they do with anything else.
Edit:
Quote:
They'll make more from synthetic drugs than a natural wonder plant
Exactly. Who will pay ridiculous amounts for (a lot of) their pills when they can have marijuana, and any other plant, basically for free? I don't know about you, but if I could I'd have a garden (hell, more like fields) of marijuana, opium, coca, & a lot of other plants (& fungus if I could ever figure how to grow the damn things outdoors); and I'd liberally share them with everybody... especially attractive females. I don't think big pharma would like that very much.
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (11/07/07 09:42 PM)
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,289
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7609659 - 11/07/07 11:54 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
holy shit... I'm agreeing with EntheogenicPeace here... that's rare :-)
didn't read your last post though, maybe tomorrow
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7610239 - 11/08/07 07:55 AM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I have made no arguement denying that there are those that stand to profit from marijuana being illegal. It's quite obvious that people are profiting from it being illegal. Which is why I made a point to mention a current industry that stands to gain from it being illegal, the pharmaceutical industry.
Dupont is one particular business that has in the past directly gained from it being illegal. Dupont has created all kinds of synthetic products that would have competed with products derived from marijuana. Now I don't even know if Dupont's current products would even be greatly threatened by marijuana these days. Really, that's an arguement I don't care to involve myself with because I don't give a damn about DuPont's products.
One thing you seem to completely miss with my posts is that I am simply stating that: yes, pharmaceutical companies make up an incredibly rich industry with lobbyists fighting for what they want. Dupont is an incredibly rich and powerful corporation also with lobbyists fighting for what they want. Every major industry has lobbyists fighting for what they want.
One of my arguments is that the field these lobbyists are fighting on is at our voting and in our courts. These lobbyists fighting lobbyists. Swaying political interpretation what should be the law. If you think we should be fighting through a different medium, then do it.
My other argument is that the pharmaceutical industry and corporations like DuPont are very very wealthy and are a part of the rich 1%. A small fraction of the 1% mind you. An us against them (poor against the rich) attitude makes you seem rightfuly angry, but mostly ignorant.
Your other arguments about prisons and all that you have no opposition from me. Before you get all excited and jump on the first person who doesn't agree with your biased view against the rich, actually listen to what I say. Seems like you just wanted someone to sharpen your debate on this subject.
Money very well is at the root of why it has become illegal and why it remains, but I tell you if anything is going to make it legal it will be money.
Edited by Cowgold (11/08/07 08:03 AM)
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,448
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: Cowgold]
#7620547 - 11/10/07 10:04 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Money very well is at the root of why it has become illegal and why it remains, but I tell you if anything is going to make it legal it will be money.
That's all fine & well, but... how many people with money (i.e. power) in the U.S. want to see the plant fully decriminalized and, just as importantly, are opposed to Prohibition-related realities & policies (e.g. the largest prison population in the world & billions of $ of "aid" to the Colombian government, etc.) If you can cite some rich & influential people/organizations who fall into this category that passionately & articulately make these points, then that would be great. I imagine, though, that for every person you're able to list, I would be able to list someone else with 100x more money who wishes the status quo to remain intact.
Another problem that arises is how do "we" get the money to change things if you suggest that's the only way it can be done. Maybe you have some connections that I don't, but unlike the Carlyle Group I'm not able to show a $200-300 million dollar profit on a good day. That alone doesn't bother me because I value freedom infinitely more than all the money in the world, but it is problematic when those who have (almost) all the money in the world also wish to deprive the freedom of those less fortunate than themselves. Just out of curiosity, how many people with significant amounts of money, regardless of they acquired it, do you think really care one iota about the freedom of those who have less of it? What about you? If you won the lottery tomorrow, or your stocks suddenly shot through the roof, or whatever... would you still passionately be committed to freedom? I know it's easy to say so when you don't have it, but if you all of a sudden got it are you sure it wouldn't change you... or others?
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7620804 - 11/10/07 11:34 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not even sure of the point you are trying to make. Sounds like you hate people with money. That because they have money they must like everything the way it is. I don't know and don't care think, but I would like to see Mr. Ross win.
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,448
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: Cowgold]
#7621747 - 11/11/07 10:51 AM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not even sure of the point you are trying to make.
Simply put: It's not possible for an individual or an organization that desires the complete decriminalization of cannabis (& is fundamentally opposed to the idea that nature can be made illegal in the first place) to ever have anywhere close to the amount of money of those who want things to remain the way they are. Also, once they got the money their priorities would no longer be as such.
Quote:
Sounds like you hate people with money.
I hate anyone who achieves a personal fortune by causing or continuing the suffering & repression of countless others, & also at the expense of a healthy environment.
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7625781 - 11/12/07 12:48 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
If you ever get a little bit of money, you will realize that people act like you are somehow responsible for everything now. It's like you have a bullseye on your back with even your friends taking a shot. Money doesn't change you as much as people change toward you.
Simply put: Money shows you the nature of others.
BTW, Are you an American? There are many people around the world who feel that we are causing the suffering and repression of their citizens and at the cost of their environment. Where should a person draw the line? Do we draw this line so that we're not hypocrites?
Things do change and right now there may not be as much to be made from legalizing MJ, but there will eventually be a market for it. What you say isn't possible is simply put: an opinion. A very closed minded opinion.
This debate we're having has nothing to do with California's high court or Mr. Ross.
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,448
|
Re: Calif high court considers whether medical pot users can be fired [Re: Cowgold]
#7626742 - 11/12/07 04:01 PM (4 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BTW, Are you an American?
I am designated by the American government as such, but I view myself as a citizen of the world.
Quote:
...but there will eventually be a market for it.
There presently is a huge market for it... from textiles, paper, rope, building materials, seeds for nutritional content, the buds for recreation, medicine & spirituality, & perhaps even as a sustainable energy source from... but the mass market is actively being suppressed in the U.S.
Quote:
If you ever get a little bit of money, you will realize that people act like you are somehow responsible for everything now.
Well, let's take a look at a specific issue: the U.S. military invasion & occupation of Iraq. People with money made that decision, no one in the middle to lower classes of the U.S. contributed to that decision at all. That's not to say everyone above a certain income line supported it, but it is the case that no one in the under-classes contributed to the decision, nor is it in their interests for the U.S. military to be there (or Afghanistan for that matter).
Quote:
What you say... an opinion. A very closed minded opinion.
Acknowledging the economic aspect of cannabis prohibition (& drug prohibition as a whole) is not an opinion. Cannabis prohibition is against the interests of the broad majority of people in the U.S., yet it remains intact because the government doesn't serve their interests; it serves the interests of the small minority who benefit from it.
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: veggie
2,567 topic views. 7 members, 37 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
