I mostly just want to know if there is any possible validity to claims that the CB2 receptor present in many immune system cells may, along with hash oil, hold the keys to the end of disease as we know it.
I mean, some pretty wild sounding claims have been made recently about the healing powers of cannabis oil, but then on the other hand there are articles galore about one university or another doing limited studies that appear to show very good results, in very little time, fighting cancer with THC.
So I asked you off the top of my head what you thought.
Yet those same politicians oversee a cruel system that now stages SWAT raids on people’s homes more than 100 times a day. People die in these raids — some weren’t even the intended targets of the police.
Neill Franklin once led such raids. The 33-year Maryland police veteran, now executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, locked up hundreds of people for drugs and felt good about it.
“We really thought that these drugs made people evil,” he told me.
But 10 years ago Franklin decided that drugs — even hard drugs — do much less harm to Americans than does the drug war.
“Drugs can be — and are in many cases — problematic. But the policies that we have in place to prohibit their use are 10 times more problematic.”
The raids helped change his mind. “We end up with kids being shot … search warrants being served on the wrong home, innocent people on the other side of the door thinking that they are protecting their home.”
And the level of drug use remains about the same.
Still, most Americans support the drug war. Paul Chabot, White House drug adviser to Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton, told me: “We should be kicking down more doors. … They’re kicking the door of somebody who’s a violent person.”
Violent? People who get high are rarely violent. The violence occurs because when something’s illegal, it is sold only on the black market. And that causes crime. Drug dealers can’t just call the cops if someone tries to steal their supply. So they form gangs and arm themselves to the teeth.
“We have the violence of these gangs competing for market share, and people get hurt,” said Franklin.
Especially kids. Drug gangs constantly look for new recruits.
“Some of these gangs have better recruitment programs than Fortune 500 companies. They know what to say to kids.”
People think that if drugs were legal, there would be more recruiting of kids. Franklin says the opposite is true.
“Prohibition causes that. We don’t have kids on the corner (saying), ‘Pssst, I got a fifth of Jack Daniel’s.’”
Kids rarely peddle liquor, and there’s little violence around liquor sales because alcohol is legal. There was lots of violence before 1933, but that was because Prohibition forbade liquor sales. Prohibition gave us Al Capone.
“Organized crime existed well before Prohibition,” Chabot replied.
That’s true. But much less of it. The murder rate rose when alcohol was banned. It dropped when Prohibition was repealed.
“If we were to do away with our drug laws … we know drug usage numbers will skyrocket,” Chabot said.
But we don’t know that.
It’s logical to assume that, were it not for drug prohibition, drug abuse would be rampant. But 10 years ago, Portugal decriminalized every drug — crack, heroin, you name it. The number of abusers actually declined.
Joao Goulao, Portugal’s top drug official, said that before decriminalization “we had a huge problem with drug use … around 100,000 people hooked on heroin.”
Then they started treating drug use more like a parking ticket. People caught with drugs get a slap on the wrist, sometimes a fine.
Independent studies have found the number of people in Portugal who say they regularly do drugs stayed about the same. And the best news, said Goulao: “Addiction itself decreased a lot.”
At first, police were skeptical of the law, but Joao Figueira, chief inspector of Lisbon’s drug unit, told me that decriminalization changed lots of minds.
“The level of conflicts on the street are reduced. Drug-related robberies are reduced. And now the police are not the enemies of the consumers!”
And teen drug use is down.
All good news. But in American and in most of the world, the drug war continues, thousands are murdered and in ghettos the police are enemies of the people.
Governments should wake up and learn something from the Portuguese.
Until we break the power of big oil, and big pharma, the prohibition will continue. Cannabis is just too useful to allow access to, at least if you want to preserve the gatekeeper model for energy and medicine.
The Canadian Bar Association, representing over 37,000 lawyers across the country, has identified 10 reasons why the passage of Bill C-10 will be a mistake and a setback for Canada:
1. Ignoring reality. Decades of research and experience have shown what actually reduces crime: (a) addressing child poverty, (b) providing services for the mentally ill and those afflicted with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, (c) diverting young offenders from the adult justice system, and (d) rehabilitating prisoners, and helping them to reintegrate into society. Bill C-10 ignores these proven facts.
2. Rush job. Instead of receiving a thorough review, Bill C-10 is being rushed through Parliament purely to meet the “100-day passage” promise from the last election. Expert witnesses attempting to comment on more than 150 pages of legislation in committee hearings are cut off mid-sentence after just five minutes.
3. Spin triumphs over substance. The federal government has chosen to take a “marketing” approach to Bill C-10, rather than explaining the facts to Canadians. This campaign misrepresents the bill’s actual content and ensures that its public support is based heavily on inaccuracies.
4. No proper inspection. Contrary to government claims, some parts of Bill C-10 have received no previous study by parliamentary committee. Other sections have been studied before and were changed — but, in Bill C-10, they’re back in their original form.
5. Wasted youth. More young Canadians will spend months in custodial centres before trial, thanks to Bill C-10. Experience has shown that at-risk youth learn or reinforce criminal behaviour in custodial centres; only when diverted to community options are they more likely to be reformed.
6. Punishments eclipse the crime. The slogan for one proposal was Ending House Arrest for Serious and Violent Criminals Act, but Bill C-10 will actually also eliminate conditional sentences for minor and property offenders and instead send those people to jail. Is roughly $100,000 per year to incarcerate someone unnecessarily a good use of taxpayers’ money?
7. Training predators. Bill C-10 would force judges to incarcerate people whose offences and circumstances clearly do not warrant time in custody. Prison officials will have more latitude to disregard prisoners’ human rights, bypassing the least restrictive means to discipline and control inmates. Almost every inmate will re-enter society someday. Do we want them to come out as neighbours, or as predators hardened by their prison experience?
8. Justice system overload. Longer and harsher sentences will increase the strains on a justice system already at the breaking point. Courts and Crown prosecutors’ offices are overwhelmed as is, legal aid plans are at the breaking point, and police forces don’t have the resources to do their jobs properly. Bill C-10 addresses none of these problems and will make them much worse.
9. Victimizing the most vulnerable. With mandatory minimums replacing conditional sentences, people in remote, rural and northern communities will be shipped far from their families to serve time. Canada’s aboriginal people already represent up to 80 per cent of inmates in institutions in the Prairies, a national embarrassment that Bill C-10 will make worse.
10. How much money? With no reliable price tag for its recommendations, there is no way to responsibly decide the bill’s financial implications. What will Canadians sacrifice to pay for these initiatives? Will they be worth the cost?
Which passed regardless of the fact that they held a poll to see if people supported or opposed the idea and the poll revealed that people strongly OPPOSED the fee increase:
A large proportion of respondents who did not support the proposed increase to the user fee indicated that the increase would pose a financial burden to applicants, making it difficult or impossible for many to apply for a pardon.
These respondents also indicated that the proposed fee would make applying for a pardon difficult or impossible for people needing a pardon to help them obtain employment or pursue their education.
Many of these respondents also viewed the proposed fee as an additional punishment to that already imposed by the court.
They also indicated that the proposed fee would make a pardon inaccessible to many individuals, thereby impacting the contributions pardons can make to the rehabilitation of individuals and lower levels of crime.
Some of them also felt that the proposed fee would represent an additional tax by the Government.
A number of respondents said there should be a sliding scale for the fee, with the amount varying according to the seriousness and nature of the crime, or by their ability to pay, while others indicated that a pardon should be automatically granted after the passage of a certain number of years.
The inability to pay the proposed fee as a barrier to obtaining a pardon to facilitate travel to other countries was also raised by some respondents.
Some also indicated that they thought the proposed fee increase was politically-driven.
A large number of respondents who stated their opposition to the proposed fee increase gave no specific reason.
In terms of a breakdown of the responses received, 1,074 individuals/organizations did not support the proposed fee increasewhile 12 were supportive of the proposed increase.
C-51, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, which would allow police to get a) warrants to obtain information transmitted over the internet and data related to its transmission, including locations of individuals and transactions; b) orders that would compel other parties to preserve electronic evidence.
Among other things, the bill requires ISPs to install surveillance technology and software to enable monitoring of phone and internet traffic. Section 34 is there to make sure ISPs comply. So what, exactly, does it say?
Essentially, it says that government agents may enter an ISP when they wish, without a warrant, and demand to see absolutely everything — including all data anywhere on the network — and to copy it all. If that seems hard to believe, let’s walk through it.
First, Section 33 tells us that, “The Minister may designate persons or classes of persons as inspectors for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of this Act.” So we’re not talking about police officers necessarily. We’re talking about anyone the minister chooses — or any class of persons. (Musicians? Left-handed hockey players? Members of the Conservative Party? Sure, that’s absurd — but the bill allows it…)
Next, Section 34 spells out the sweeping powers of these “inspectors.” And, if they sound Orwellian, welcome to the world of Section 34.
The inspectors may “enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.”
The bill imposes the mandatory incarceration of groups of asylum seekers, including children, who arrive in Canada, even where there is no concern that the individuals present a danger or threat of any kind. The Minister can decide that any group of asylum seekers should be incarcerated upon arrival based on suspicion of smuggling, but also simply on the basis that the process of their identification cannot be done in a “timely manner”. This violates the International Convention on the Status of Refugee which prohibits the imposition of penalties for illegal entry for refugees fleeing persecution.
The bill prevents any review of the imprisonment and detention by the Immigration Review Board for 12 months. Currently, in compliance with constitutional guarantees, an initial review of whether a detention is warranted is done within 48 hours.
The bill creates a second class of refugees by denying even people whose refugee status is eventually established rights given to other immigrants: even people whose refugee status is confirmed cannot obtain travel documents nor even apply to become permanent resident for 5 years. This again violates the International Convention which obliges countries to issue travelling documents.
5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if
(a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;
(b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents;
(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents; or
(d) the passenger presents more than one form of identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.
These are only some of Stephen Harper’s horrible plans. we should not sit idly by and passively allow him to turn Canada into a fascist police state.
We did not allow Paul Martin to remain as our Prime Minister when he cheated us. Why have we not kicked out Stephen Harper yet?
I hope that the robocalls allegations prove to be true and that it is found to be sufficient reason to throw him out of Parliament immediately. But even if they aren’t true, I believe we should get rid of Stephen Harper nonetheless.
First of all, Hitler never left the church. He was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant and was a communicant and altar boy in his youth. In fact, he mentions his devotion to christianity numerous times in his writings. For example, he said,…
i sing of Olaf glad and big whose warmest heart recoiled at war: a conscientious object-or
his wellbelovéd colonel(trig westpointer most succinctly bred) took erring Olaf soon in hand; but—though an host of overjoyed noncoms(first knocking on the head him)do through icy waters roll that helplessness which others stroke with brushes recently employed anent this muddy toiletbowl, while kindred intellects evoke allegiance per blunt instruments— Olaf(being to all intents a corpse and wanting any rag upon what God unto him gave) responds,without getting annoyed "I will not kiss your fucking flag"
straightway the silver bird looked grave (departing hurriedly to shave)
but—though all kinds of officers (a yearning nation’s blueeyed pride) their passive prey did kick and curse until for wear their clarion voices and boots were much the worse, and egged the firstclassprivates on his rectum wickedly to tease by means of skilfully applied bayonets roasted hot with heat— Olaf(upon what were once knees) does almost ceaselessly repeat "there is some shit I will not eat"
our president,being of which assertions duly notified threw the yellowsonofabitch into a dungeon,where he died
Christ(of His mercy infinite) i pray to see;and Olaf,too
preponderatingly because unless statistics lie he was more brave than me:more blond than you.
it’s a piece of shit, he talks about “dashboard rape” as if rape is something funny, iamwinrar is a worthless pile of shit
Hoping to dear lord god of lulz that this is sarcasm or a joke lol
Nope you are fucking disgusting and I hope you die a violent death. Rape is not funny and if you think it is you are a rape apologist and that means you deserve to die. You are a worthless piece of shit
aw and it’s totally cool to wish death on someone, you need to get a grip, doll.
it is perfectly okay to wish death upon a rape apologist. you forfeit your right to life when you make a rape joke.
No. You are like, too mad. You only forfeit your right to people treating you like what you just said is a joke.
Perhaps you also forfeit your right to respect and acceptance from those you told the joke to until you see the error of your ways and make amends.
Nothing is a forfeit of your right to life.
Ok, maybe premeditated murder in cold blood for fun or profit. And genocide for any reason.
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea… It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal… but also procreative.
That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act… And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are… I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.”—
I can call you Rick, right? You seem to want to get to know me on an awfully personal level. Well, I have something to say about that: Please get the hell out of my vagina. I did not invite you up in there. Nor did I invite you to poke around my uterus and ovaries, or anywhere else in my bathing suit area.
I think it’s important that people “are who they are” too, which is why I don’t care what two (or more) consenting adults want to do to get freaky. I don’t care if you and Karen do it twice a year with the lights out, socks on, and magic sweater vest flung on the floor. I don’t care if you have a secret furry fetish involving My Little Pony and jars of marshmallow fluff.
I. DON’T. CARE. ABOUT. YOUR. SEX. LIFE. Is that clear?
In exchange, it would be super cool if you stopped giving a fuck about mine. It’s getting creepy. You look out from the TV screen like we’re just pals, chatting about “intimacy” and making sure I’m barefoot, pregnant, and making men sandwiches because Jesus said reasons.
Let’s get one thing straight, mmmkay?
Go have some sex for pleasure, Rick. I bet you’ll have fun, Karen will be shocked, and your litter o’ kidlets will wonder if daddy and mommy are demonically possessed because they’ve NEVER heard those kinds of noises.
The difference is, racism = prejudice + power. While it’s entirely possible to be prejudiced against white people and most whites don’t deserve that, they still hold most the power.
I get what you mean, but I feel like people like hating on other people. Well yeaaa they do :P It’s just.. whatever :S lool
So, according to that logic, you can be racist against white people in say, China, or perhaps India and Korea, but not in the North America and Europe?
What if you are my boss, and I am white, and you are Filipino? You are my boss, even if it is just at Target or some shit, can you be racist against me then? Maybe a bad example, because I can get another job, but what if it’s a very small town and there is 40% unemployment?
How about if I am a second generation Polish Jew, and you are a secretly Hitler loving Austrian? Can you be racist against me then? How about if I look really white, but I am the product of a mixed British Isles mother, and and the aforementioned Jew’s baby by a full blooded Iroquois Original American? (this last bit is the actual truth) Where is the line then? Is it when I tell you that I only look white that hatred towards me based on my perceived race turns into racism?
I do not believe there is any reason to split hairs like this.
If you choose to treat someone differently than someone else, based on real or perceived race, you are a racist. Period. Anything else is just rhetoric promoted by all the people that would like to keep this issue at the forefront, instead of just letting this outdated and useless concept of race go out of fashion like most people would love it to do.
“…understanding that there are some morally deficient monsters out there that may force themselves on a another person is not being a rape apologist anymore than saying that if you go near bears they may maul you is being a bear apologist.”—
KITCHENER — A Kitchener father is upset that police arrested him at his children’s’ school Wednesday, hauled him down to the station and strip-searched him, all because his four-year-old daughter drew a…
Who the fuck do these scum think they are? Strip search!!! Where the fuck did they think it was! His four year old! They used his fucking four year old as a “investigative” tool!!
If I have ever seen an argument for home schooling, this was it.
This is something everyone should know. War enriches the state. The longer the war, conflict, or whatever the more freedoms and liberties the state can take from us all in the name of national security. Anyone who believes in a free society, small and limited government, and a healthy economy should be against war.
It is a testament to the power of government propaganda that several generations of self-described conservatives have held as their core belief that war and militarism are consistent with limited, constitutional government. These conservatives think they are “defending freedom” by supporting every military adventure that the state concocts. They are not.
Even just, defensive wars inevitably empower the state far beyond anything any strict constructionist would approve of. Prowar conservatives, in other words, are walking contradictions. They may pay lip service to limited constitutional government, but their prowar positions belie their rhetoric.
“War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne said in his famous essay of that title. Statism, moreover, means central planning, heavy taxation, fascist or socialist economics, attacks on free speech and other civil liberties, and the suffocation and destruction of private enterprise. Classical liberals have always understood this, but conservatives never have. (Neoconservatives either don’t understand it or don’t care.)
Thus, you have the celebrated neoconservative writer Victor Davis Hanson writing in the December 2, 2009, issue of Imprimis that antiwar activism and other “factors” that make people “reluctant” to resort to war are “lethal combinations” that supposedly threaten the existence of society. Hanson was merely repeating the conservative party line first enunciated by the self-proclaimed founder of the modern conservative (really neoconservative) movement, William F. Buckley Jr. Murray Rothbard quoted Buckley as saying in the January 25, 1952 issue of Commonweal magazine that the Cold War required that
we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged … except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.… [We must support] large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington.
“We” must advocate the destruction of the free society in the name of defending the free society, said “Mr. Conservative,” a former CIA employee.
It also enriches the very worst kind of private interests.
I support the civilization of war. Belligerence is unlikely to go away, however we do have the option to place true restrictions on how war may be waged, and then actually follow them.
A good start would be banning all weapons that are larger than man-portable, and all war machines for the delivery of deadly force. This first step could come along with a resolution that all lethal weapons be phased out altogether in the pursuit of belligerent contests.
There is no reason for anyone to die in these contests, when we have so many non-lethal and less than lethal weapons that we have already dreamed up. There will likely never be a time when the desire to fight completely leaves the human species, however it has already been shown that fighting can be restrained, performed to injury, and not death.
We have that capacity, what we need to do is teach our institutions to behave in the same way, to fight with no weapons at all even. We as a species built the current paradigm, and we can build another one to take it’s place whenever we please.
If war were to be reduced to a few hundred champions from each side having a martial arts tourney, or something similar, then we could truly say that we had civilized it, and thus tamed the worst specter of human existence.
And yes, I know that you will all laugh at me, and say that what I am saying is unrealistic foolishness, but then, once upon a time we burned old ladies who had cats, because we thought they had congress with the devil. There were people who went to the gallows for saying that the earth was no disk, and it went around the sun. Times change, and humanity changes, and I think the time for us to start to ritualize our darker urges into something that will release them harmlessly, not just wallow in them to the detriment of all.
True peace can never occur without us finding the courage to diminish the power of violence as a tool. As it stands, it is the final arbitrator, and in my mind that is only acceptable if everyone comes home, and no-one is injured or damaged except the contestants.
If this could be accomplished, than perhaps we could work towards de-fetishizing death, and instating a tradition of true respect for life that would well serve us all.
Ron Paul’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act has has stirred much controversy during the campaign trail. I’m reading way too many posts by individuals who have clearly not read or heard what he had to say on…
Do you, like Ron Paul, truly believe that the relations between PoC and whites improved despite of the 1964 civil rights act? Do you honestly believe that white property owners really would’ve hired PoC regardless of this act? If so, you’re naive. If the act didn’t come in society would’ve remained as extremely racist it was then.
The reasons for the advancement of better race relations is the desegregation, did the KKK come about because of desegregation? The KKK are an example of racial tensions.
It never diminished individual liberty it increased them but it looks like Ron Paul cares more so for white liberty than PoC liberty. Ron Paul decides to defend white property over PoC liberty and for that reason, as a leftist, it’s among the reasons why I despise the man.
Well, perhaps I do not understand the level of tension in the area, and perhaps I do not even know exactly the contents of this Act. These things are possible. It is also likely that this particular government overreach had some positive effects.
However, I resist on principle the idea that any government can dictate the choices or actions of an individual, unless those actions take away the rights of another individual.
I am also of the opinion that the extremely wealthy former slave-holding families of America have a continued, extant legal obligation to the descendants of those they displaced and enslaved, and in any just legal system would be class-action sued to bankruptcy.
You will note, that Ron is the only politician available who does not seem to be deeply in love with the Wall St. crowd. Also, he seems to believe that people should be held responsible for what they do/have done.
Beyond that, Ron wants to end the invasions that America has been involved in since it’s inception. There is no more racist policy in America than it’s constant war for resources against the whole world’s brown people. I think you should think about that before you take his hypothetical and symbolic objection to government overreach as a flag that he is a racist.