sac beh
Member
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?
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?