(fairness act) conspiracy theories and free speech

[sac beh]

Its cool that the discussion in this thread has been mostly respectful. Keep it up!

Since we're in the Cannabis Law and Politics forum, I thought this question would be relevant to ask you all. What do you think about the history of cannabis regulation in the US and how it came to be illegal, in relation to your views about the Fairness Act and the question of the role of government? I'm sure everyone's familiar with Jack Herer's book which outlines the influence that private wealth and business had in the attack on hemp and marijuana. Other objective histories tell a similar story.

Would you have supported something like a "fairness" law or doctrine in this context, in order to ensure that the influence of private wealth didn't lead to a century of over-regulation of a natural plant, drug wars, and our current state of having to fight the influence of Pharmaceutical in our quest to free cannabis? In such a situation it seems you can't simply let wealth fall where it may allowing it to influence such an important issue for so long.

The Pharmaceutical industry now uses a similar argument to maintain itself and maintain a society free of natural medicines like cannabis. Legislation being passed in many states is basically a type of fairness doctrine, saying that even though we don't have the huge amounts of wealth to buy laws and politicians like Pharma, we want cannabis to be given an equal treatment under the law. Prescription drugs have a monopoly on drug advertising and information, not--as we all know--because they have a monopoly on truth or effective medicine, but rather because they have huge amounts of wealth. A private business solution to cannabis has failed for a century because of the huge imbalance in wealth and power between Pharma and citizens who would like to choose cannabis. Forcing the government to recognize these citizens and their freedom to request Pharma alternatives is necessary, isn't it?

Or how do you propose that cannabis regulation should have been fought at the start of the 20th century and how do you propose that it be fought now, if not by citizens petitioning their representatives to treat cannabis fairly and equally despite the overwhelming greater wealth and influence of its competitor--Pharma?

 

[Baba Ku]

Or how do you propose that cannabis regulation should have been fought at the start of the 20th century and how do you propose that it be fought now, if not by citizens petitioning their representatives to treat cannabis fairly and equally despite the overwhelming greater wealth and influence of its competitor--Pharma?

I mentioned before earlier;

Simply basing your opinions on the status quo of popular opinion is foolish to say the least.

I can sit down and tell you what should have happened. Hindsight is always 20/20. Won't change a thing.

But, what should happen now is really what should have happened then. Education of truth to the masses. It is the only answer in just about any given situation or topic. It is the misinformation that brings about strife and chaos.

Just who is it that big pharma has ties with, and just who is it that they manipulate? Those who control the laws, that's who. Your everyday politician of all flavors is who controls what we do and how we do it.
And just how do we stop big pharma and their buddies from manipulating our laws in favor of the demonizing of pot? Vote the buddies out, and vote in persons who will not vote and manipulate to the whim of corporations, but to the weal of the people!

But much of the problem lies in that people seem to not recognize who these people really are. They often let the people themselves tell them the way things are, and instead of researching and finding out if what they were told was the truth, they simply accept what they were fed as the truth.
So called truth tellers are often skilled magicians that can have even the best intended person on the wrong path. Even to a point of having this otherwise good hearted person willing to fight and bring pain in an attempt to back his side of the argument. Often these people think that they are actually on the side of good, when in fact they are on the other side...and their leaders are the ones that have manipulated them.

Who is to blame when a good man is led down a bad path by deception and slick words? The good man or the person who fed him the lies?
I can tell you that without question the fault of it all lies with the good man, and NOT the one who fed him the shit. HE, the good heart fellow, bears the responsibility alone. Not the evil minded politician with agendas. He has his own piper to pay in the end.

And to know who is and who isn't one must be educated with the truth. You must KNOW what it is these people are after in the first place, and not just simply take what they feed you at face value.

No need to lobby for who is right and who is wrong. There is only one right and that is the truth. The truth is what it is and cannot be changed. Only your perception of the truth can be changed, IF YOU ALLOW IT TO BE!

The answer is, wise up. No other answer will solve any of it. -Ever.

 

[sac beh]

I mentioned before earlier;

I can sit down and tell you what should have happened. Hindsight is always 20/20. Won't change a thing.

Well historical events are very relevant to current situations. And in fact understanding what happened to encourage cannabis prohibition can influence our ability to change things.

But, what should happen now is really what should have happened then. Education of truth to the masses. It is the only answer in just about any given situation or topic. It is the misinformation that brings about strife and chaos.

Just who is it that big pharma has ties with, and just who is it that they manipulate? Those who control the laws, that's who. Your everyday politician of all flavors is who controls what we do and how we do it.
And just how do we stop big pharma and their buddies from manipulating our laws in favor of the demonizing of pot? Vote the buddies out, and vote in persons who will not vote and manipulate to the whim of corporations, but to the weal of the people!

But much of the problem lies in that people seem to not recognize who these people really are. They often let the people themselves tell them the way things are, and instead of researching and finding out if what they were told was the truth, they simply accept what they were fed as the truth.
So called truth tellers are often skilled magicians that can have even the best intended person on the wrong path. Even to a point of having this otherwise good hearted person willing to fight and bring pain in an attempt to back his side of the argument. Often these people think that they are actually on the side of good, when in fact they are on the other side...and their leaders are the ones that have manipulated them.

Who is to blame when a good man is led down a bad path by deception and slick words? The good man or the person who fed him the lies?
I can tell you that without question the fault of it all lies with the good man, and NOT the one who fed him the shit. HE, the good heart fellow, bears the responsibility alone. Not the evil minded politician with agendas. He has his own piper to pay in the end.

And to know who is and who isn't one must be educated with the truth. You must KNOW what it is these people are after in the first place, and not just simply take what they feed you at face value.

No need to lobby for who is right and who is wrong. There is only one right and that is the truth. The truth is what it is and cannot be changed. Only your perception of the truth can be changed, IF YOU ALLOW IT TO BE!

The answer is, wise up. No other answer will solve any of it. -Ever.

I agree with all of this, but it really is just repeating what I said, and the question still stands. My questions assumed we know who has ties to big pharma.

Again, I agree. Education is necessary, but it is only the first step. My question was: assuming all we know about the history of cannabis prohibition, how it came about, and the influence of the Pharmaceutical industry, how do you propose that the tables be turned against such power backed by wealth?

It is not good to elect new representatives without knowing what changes must happen and thus which representatives should be elected for the cause. Would you want your new representatives to create legislation that balance out the power of Pharma and give an equal voice to cannabis advocates and those who would prefer to use cannabis safely and without risk of punishment, rather than prescription drugs? This would be something like the Fairness Act.

Or would you propose another solution and if so what? Its not good enough to merely blame those who believe the lies of the drug industry as there is no other voice or option represented in mainstream media and cannabis advocates still do not have the financial power to out bid Pharma for mass marketing. Education on the mass scale you propose is difficult to impossible given this imbalance. Anyone else have an opinion?

 

[Baba Ku]

My first impulse is always that we need to first decriminalize cannabis. But that will bring on another set of issues. Once it is decriminalized, then it will be no time flat that big pharma will become involved on that side of it. They have the resources and means to take over the cannabis industry if it is made legal. They will then be lobbying with congress to pass laws controlling cannabis like other drugs are controlled. And who will be the controllers?

We have been mind numb dummies for way too long, and have allowed way too much.

 

[Texicannibus]

I honestly think the problem is the same as it was when the founders ... founded the U.S. Factions exist in all free societies. Factions are also the largest threat to any free society. A faction existed for the prohibition of cannabis that included big pharma, DOW, Georgia pacific (paper company), and folks like Hearst. Lets also not forget the great depression high unemployment and the ease in wich politicians used the new law to kick mexican immigrants out of the US. These various powerful influences had something that united them. They pushed there agenda and accomplished there goal.

Now we represent a faction as well. The problem being short of folks like George Soros (a powerful progressive), Ron Paul (a US republican congressman), and Barney Frank (a US democrat congressman) we lack influence and power to push our agenda. The critical part to increasing our faction is education. So I totally agree on education being the key. The biggest issue with education is there are atleast 2 versions of history in most respects. To much subjective opinion makes it into our history. These subjective opinions drive public opinion in many respects.

I believe in self education. I believe in trying to find a variety of resources.

 

[trichrider]

right, education...the truth. good place to start. People must first desire education, the sorry state of 'education' in the America i knew is seriously lacking.
I know this is off topic but i'm throwing it out there nonetheless. People believe that TV is educational, and therefor believe what is fed to them. Begin by boycotting television, and begin thinking for onesself. You then begin educating yourself, if only out of boredom.
Nothing gets the attention of BigMoney as quickly as a falling bottom line.
Problem is the zombies that sit in front of the 5 0'clock news to digest their McShit sandwiches or their cardboard tacos are hypnotized by all the atrocities presented by the media, and find little impetus to advocate for such an insignificant thing as cannabis.
Rock the airwaves! get rid of the drug TV and begin target practice!!!

 

[Greensub]

That HealthCare Bill is going to cost us trillions if it isn't stopped..that's guaranteed. but this is all part of the same issue.

Just to clarify my opinion on the health care bill... I don't like what passed either, I'm hoping it can be fixed. I liked the original public option bill that was only 1000 pages long. That's the one I read, I haven't read the current one that passed.

This law may start out seemingly OK, yet who out their is asking why government is regulating speech to begin with? It will start with them cracking down on the smallest of minority's of conspiracy's. But in 10 to 30 years they will be cracking down on the conspiracy that marijuana can be medicinal. the conspiracy started by those evil old people about how many books used to be in the library. The conspiracy that their once was a free internet.

what law are you referring to? their isn't any actual law being proposed that is called the "fairness act 2.0". This is just the title of the blog. It's just one big slippery slope argument used to alarm people unnecessarily.

(*Edit... didn't really mean to respond to these posts again, I was checking out this thread again the other day because someone gave gave me some rep from it. I thought I'd clicked on the "last page" of the thread from "My IC" and I mistakenly thought these were new comments, I didn't realize I was repeating myself.)

 

[Greensub]

Education... what a great topic. I think we're actually in a period of dramatic change in education (the very beginning of a period of change).

Think about those new accredited high school online programs that can be done from home now.

Are we even going to have "schools" in the future?

I mean you can start out with the "Teach Your Baby to Read" video, and then shift to the computer

Imagine... if there are no textbooks then Texas can't screw them up. (sorry, couldn't resist the cheap shot).

We really need a huge change in the way we approach education. I propose turning it on it's head. There are many things we try to teach kids too soon. The human brain doesn't fully develop until about 25 years of age. Many children just aren't developed enough yet to be able to understand some subjects on a deeper level, so we make them go over the same stuff every year and still not remember it. (but then, after 13 years of college I may have an individual view of education, personally... most of grade school was just a waste of time for me in retrospect.)

 

[Texicannibus]

I think Greensub is demonstrating exactly what I was speaking about. The attitude that one of the two (or more) versions of history is right while others are wrong. History is written by people and as such is subject to perspective and opinion. People often change their opinion and occasionally their perspective. History should be more about facts than it is currently.

Fact about history is it is often written by those in power. Their opinion and perspective is the one recorded. Sometimes its written by the losers and sometimes its revised after a good while by someone new in power. This has happend a number of times in our history. A good example of how history is complex would be to examine the relationship between the founders and native americans. It can be said that Jefferson had a fondness for native americans (he did in his younger years). Most colonial Americans (and early post colonial) had a fondness for native americans. In 1785 Jefferson wrote a letter to Marquis de Chastellux in wich he said "I beleive [sic] the Indian then to be in body and mind equal to the whiteman". Yet just a few years before when writing the Declaration of independance he wrote "endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions". One could easily say that Jefferson was a friend to indians or that Jefferson was a enemey to indians. It simply depends on perspective. He later led the 'civilization' program that the federalist had started into full fruition. This was the process of 'Americanizing' the indians. In that process he wrote in a letter that if we (the U.S.) could get the indians to puchase more of our goods and get them in debt then we could sieze their land. Its important to note that Jefferson never took land from the indians but one could say he manipulated it from them.

Greensub did it bother you that Texas changed the wording from democratic republic to constitutional republic? PM me with what exactly bothered you with Texas school book changes. Im curious exactly what it is you object to.

 

[Greensub]

Greensub did it bother you that Texas changed the wording from democratic republic to constitutional republic? PM me with what exactly bothered you with Texas school book changes. Im curious exactly what it is you object to.

I wasn't aware of that change, although I'd always read that the proper description is a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

I was thinking more of the downplay of Jefferson's importance.

Historians this week voiced concerns about the proposed revisions, many of which they have described as inaccurate. They are particularly angry that Jefferson's importance to the nation's founding fathers will in future be played down. That change to the curriculum was supported by evangelical Christians, who dislike Jefferson's support for the separation of church and state.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ssacre-rewrites-american-history-1929320.html

and

Such fears undoubtedly were exacerbated on Friday, May 21st, when the Texas State Board of Education announced that for the next decade, until 2020, the nearly five million students in the Lone Star state's high schools will be taught that the Founding Fathers really didn't intend the separation of church and state, that the slave trade was actually the Atlantic Triangular Trade, and that the "theory" of evolution and the concept of creationism are counterbalanced issues that each individual must choose between.
Other changes in the state's history and social studies textbooks will be the elevation of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, to equal status with Abraham Lincoln, but could anyone reasonably have anticipated that Thomas Jefferson would be pushed to the back of American history books, perhaps off the pages entirely and left as a footnote if at all? Mr. Jefferson, a deist as were many of the founding fathers, including George Washington, often took the lead in espousing the need for a separation of church and state. He was fully supported, since the other founders knew well the danger of state supported religion. But now the religious zealots of the ‘Christian Right' want to absent him from history's stage in their desire to declare America a Christian nation.
What these so-called ‘Christians' seem to clearly desire, as they revise American history, is not the establishment of an inclusive, gentle national religion, but a fire and brimstone codification of a Cotton Mather absolutism. If the Texas revisionists and their allies across the nation should succeed, they are far more likely to infect the nation with the spirit of an Elmer Gantry than that of a puritan zealot, however much they might desire to burn their perceived enemies at the stake.
That reality is illustrated by other changes the textbook revisionists have made relating to more recent American history. The Texas schoolbooks will now inform students that Joseph R. McCarthy was justified in the blacklisting and red baiting actions he took in the early 1950's, the dark era that commonly bears his surname and which generally is understood to have been antithetical to a democracy. Students will be taught that because, after the collapse of Russia, documents indicated there were Russian spies in America, Sen. McCarthy should be exonerated and his fascistic approach forgiven.
American history of the 1950's and 1960's will also be revised to diminish the importance of the civil rights and the anti-war movements. Martin Luther King will share space on the new pages with the Black Panthers, and the word capitalism will be replaced with the term ‘free enterprise system.'
Moving forward to even more recent history, the 5 million revised textbooks will emphasize the presidency of Ronald Reagan as the herald of a positive, conservative revolution, and in the same vein the books will canonize such figures as Jerry Falwell, the radio and TV evangelist who founded the ‘Moral Majority' crusade and who is credited with the ascension of the New Christian Right as a political force.
Along with former Pres. Reagan, the textbooks will make Phyllis Schlafly - the conservative political activist and columnist known for opposing feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment - a figure of historic significance, together with organizations such as the National Rifle Association and the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation.
Also elevated to historical significance is Newt Gingrich and his so-called ‘Contract With America,' which brought about the GOP's control of Congress in 1995. It was also Gingrich who introduced the GOP to the politics of vitriol and hate that continue today, but now Texan students and any other American students who are given the same textbooks will see him, Falwell, McCarthy and Phyllis Schlafly as heroes.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2010/05/25/the-texas-school-book-controversy?blog=94

The changes, which were preliminarily approved last week by the Texas board of education and are expected to be given final approval in May, will reach deeply into Texas history classrooms, defining what textbooks must include and what teachers must cover. The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html


It's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that the Texas Board of Education merely wants to change the wording from democratic republic to constitutional republic....

 

[Greensub]

How will we ever be able to properly educate about the history of Marijuana with people like that in charge?

 

[Texicannibus]

PM means private message... and the quotes are quite laughable. I wont go into retorting them as its taking the subject way off base but is a excellent example of how complex history is. Its also a excellent example of perspective and opinion playing into it.

 

[Greensub]

PM means private message... and the quotes are quite laughable. I wont go into retorting them as its taking the subject way off base but is a excellent example of how complex history is. Its also a excellent example of perspective and opinion playing into it.

I know what PM means, if you wanted to keep it private you should have PM'd me rather than airing it online. I can only assume you wanted to give the appearance that Texas only wants to change one little wording in history books. That's just not the case, I'm not going to just PM you after you make a misleading statement like that.

I'm fine with your concession if you don't want to retort the quotes. They're just the first 4 returns on Google for the search "Texas Schoolbook Controversy" (I didn't include the piece from MSNBC).

Considering that you linked to Breibart (what a joke!), your opinion of sources is highly suspect. (*Edit... actually, you didn't link to his page, the story you linked to did.)

But really... how are we going to change education about marijuana when things like this go on.

Well... I guess like I mentioned before, if we get away from textbooks altogether and rely more on primary & secondary sources instead.

 

[Texicannibus]

Greensub you related to discobiscuit? Im starting to think your just another handle for him. Anyhow I never stated that was all that was changed nor inclined it sorry you assumed it. Your post only illustrates the fact that some people feel there perception perspective and opinion of history is valid.

addition...
This thread is not to argue politics but rather to discuss cannabis and its relevance to politics. I listed off powerful folks from all sides of politics in our faction. I also listed off some of our powerful advesaries. Exactly what are you bringing to this thread other than trying to derail it into a partisan debate. You think because there is no bill called 'fairness doctrine 2.0' there is no new incarnation of the farirness doctrine being considered. You seem to be living in a fantasy land where everything and everyone is outfront and truthful about their agenda. Unfortunately thats not the real world. Here where I live people use deciet at every turn and manipulation and word smithing to keep the sheeple in line.

 

[Greensub]

Greensub you related to discobiscuit? Im starting to think your just another handle for him.

That's Funny... I am surprised he hasn't chimed in on this.

Anyhow I never stated that was all that was changed nor inclined it sorry you assumed it.

You Clearly Implied It. (Denial isn't just a river in egypt)

Your post only illustrates the fact that some people feel there perception perspective and opinion of history is valid.

What a totally useless statement... the fact is that every person feels that their "perception, perspective and opinion" of history is valid... Duh. There isn't anyone who feels their ideas are invalid.

addition...
This thread is not to argue politics but rather to discuss cannabis and its relevance to politics. I listed off powerful folks from all sides of politics in our faction. I also listed off some of our powerful advesaries. Exactly what are you bringing to this thread other than trying to derail it into a partisan debate. You think because there is no bill called 'fairness doctrine 2.0' there is no new incarnation of the farirness doctrine being considered. You seem to be living in a fantasy land where everything and everyone is outfront and truthful about their agenda. Unfortunately thats not the real world. Here where I live people use deciet at every turn and manipulation and word smithing to keep the sheeple in line.

This thread was created to scare people about some slippery slope informal fallacy created in the mind of a political hack. (the original writer you linked to). As far as agenda's... I see you time and time again doing exactly what your implying that I'm doing. (I get to be the Pot, you can be the Kettle)

You still haven't answered my direct questions regarding Marijuana education. That's what you guys were last talking about. How is the writing of our children's textbooks not germane to the conversation.

I assume you live in Texas, are you going to do your part to help change the direction of education in this country by voting for anti-prohibitionist candidates for your school-board?

Obviously the current board has no interest in addressing the truth about marijuana.