The following is the most ignorant statement I have ever read from a member of Congress. Here is the entire quote:
You have to have leadership from Washington. You can’t have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana … you are sending a message to young people that there is no danger in this process. It is false that marijuana use doesn’t lead people to more drug use. It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal.
It was the prevention movement that really was so positive, and it led to this decline. The creating of knowledge that this drug is dangerous, it cannot be played with, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with clarity, that good people don’t smoke marijuana.
Lady Gaga says she’s addicted to [marijuana] and it is not harmless.
-Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Now here's me tearing it a new one:
You have to have leadership from Washington. You can’t have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana … you are sending a message to young people that there is no danger in this process.
True leadership comes from We The People. We grant certain powers upon our elected representatives through elections. Those in Congress are our servants. The People do want to discuss marijuana reform. The recent elections have proven that. The reaction of the People toward the Drug Enforcement Agency when they raided lawful marijuana dispensaries was one of disdain and rightfully so.
It is false that marijuana use doesn’t lead people to more drug use. It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal.
What is Sessions asking? Does a little use of marijuana lead to a big use in marijuana or does marijuana lead to harder drugs such as crystal meth,heroin and cocaine? States that have medical marijuana report the decline in the use (and abuse) of opioid drugs because of it. DUI's (DWI's) declined while revenue skyrocketed. It got so bad that the State of Colorado had to give the excess money back to the taxpayers as per Colorado law. Oh the horror.
It was the prevention movement that really was so positive, and it led to this decline.
You mean as in those early dawn drug raids? The kind that tore a new asshole in the 4th Amendment and ruined a lot of people's day? Those ones? You know the kind that should have never existed the United States Of America,the land of the free,in the first place? Yeah,those. Amazing we were wagging our fingers at the Russians while we murdered our own Constitution. It lead to a slight decline in supply but not demand.
The creating of knowledge that this drug is dangerous, it cannot be played with, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with clarity, that good people don’t smoke marijuana.
Your hysteria Senator Sessions is quite comical. Marijuana is the one of the safest substances on earth. It has no death rate. The only problem with marijuana are legal ones and you are someone in the way of reform. A reform that is long overdue. That message is quite clear as well. Good people do smoke marijuana.
Lady Gaga says she’s addicted to [marijuana] and it is not harmless.
Nice try. Lady Gaga's problem is not America's problem.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Friday, November 25, 2016
Joining with Drug Policy Alliance in opposing Jeff Sessions' nomination
We at Among Other Things are joining in with Drug Policy Alliance in opposing the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as United States Attorney General. We fear Sessions will clamp down on marijuana dispensaries in states that have approved marijuana for medical and/or recreational use. If approved by the Senate Sessions will have the authority and ability to undo years of progress in a very short time with the DEA backing him up. If the dispensaries are closed down patients are going to be forced to buy from the black market. Opening them up to arrest and incarceration for marijuana that may be adulterated. With their money going to support a criminal organization. Closing down the dispensaries makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding people. Prohibition failed. It's time to move on to legalization.
Protect Net Neutrality
From Fight For The Future:
BREAKING: The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump transition team is preparing to “dismantle Net Neutrality.” Will you chip in to help save Net Neutrality?
No matter what you think about the election, one thing is clear: Net Neutrality is in the cross hairs.
Donald Trump has called Net Neutrality an "attack on the internet" and a "top down power grab," even though neither of those things is true.[1] Many members of Congress are already making plans to gut the rules we worked so hard to win.
And now Trump has has put Jeffrey Eisenach, an anti-Net Neutrality crusader funded by Verizon, AT&T, and Clear Channel, in charge of the FCC transition.
That's why The Washington Post is reporting that Trump is on the verge of "all but erasing” Net Neutrality.[2]
But this isn't the first time telecommunications lobbyists thought Net Neutrality was dead--and every time the public backlash has been enormous. Now we need to fight again.
Will you chip in to help save Net Neutrality?
The FCC's Net Neutrality rule is the only thing stopping Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner from blocking, throttling, and censoring the Internet either for political reasons or for profit.
Trump will definitely have the power to go after Net Neutrality if he wants to. He'll soon pick a new FCC chairman and shortly after will get to replace the swing vote on Net Neutrality at the FCC.
That's why one top industry analyst this week said that under Trump, "Net neutrality has a big target on its back."[3] And Breitbart News, the alt-right news website run by Trump strategic advisor Steve Bannon said last week that "Net Neutrality is dead."[4]
But we heard the same predictions of doom for Net Neutrality when George W. Bush and Barack Obama were in office too. Every time, we used the collective power of the internet to defend freedom of expression and openness online. And we still haven’t been beaten.
When Barack Obama proposed bad policies on Net Neutrality, we stood up to him, and won. Now we'll do the same with with the new president. And all the evidence so far says that under President Trump, Net Neutrality is in deep, deep trouble.
But we've fought too long and too hard to win Net Neutrality to let it all get erased now. Will you chip in to help save it?
Yes, I'll chip in to help save Net Neutrality.
[1] Twitter
[2] The Washington Post
[3] The Denver Post
[4] Breitbart News
BREAKING: The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump transition team is preparing to “dismantle Net Neutrality.” Will you chip in to help save Net Neutrality?
No matter what you think about the election, one thing is clear: Net Neutrality is in the cross hairs.
Donald Trump has called Net Neutrality an "attack on the internet" and a "top down power grab," even though neither of those things is true.[1] Many members of Congress are already making plans to gut the rules we worked so hard to win.
And now Trump has has put Jeffrey Eisenach, an anti-Net Neutrality crusader funded by Verizon, AT&T, and Clear Channel, in charge of the FCC transition.
That's why The Washington Post is reporting that Trump is on the verge of "all but erasing” Net Neutrality.[2]
But this isn't the first time telecommunications lobbyists thought Net Neutrality was dead--and every time the public backlash has been enormous. Now we need to fight again.
Will you chip in to help save Net Neutrality?
The FCC's Net Neutrality rule is the only thing stopping Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner from blocking, throttling, and censoring the Internet either for political reasons or for profit.
Trump will definitely have the power to go after Net Neutrality if he wants to. He'll soon pick a new FCC chairman and shortly after will get to replace the swing vote on Net Neutrality at the FCC.
That's why one top industry analyst this week said that under Trump, "Net neutrality has a big target on its back."[3] And Breitbart News, the alt-right news website run by Trump strategic advisor Steve Bannon said last week that "Net Neutrality is dead."[4]
But we heard the same predictions of doom for Net Neutrality when George W. Bush and Barack Obama were in office too. Every time, we used the collective power of the internet to defend freedom of expression and openness online. And we still haven’t been beaten.
When Barack Obama proposed bad policies on Net Neutrality, we stood up to him, and won. Now we'll do the same with with the new president. And all the evidence so far says that under President Trump, Net Neutrality is in deep, deep trouble.
But we've fought too long and too hard to win Net Neutrality to let it all get erased now. Will you chip in to help save it?
Yes, I'll chip in to help save Net Neutrality.
[1] Twitter
[2] The Washington Post
[3] The Denver Post
[4] Breitbart News
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Sorry Rush
On today's Rush Limbaugh show Rush brought up a few people considered for Trump's cabinet that the leftists objected to. Amongst them was Senator Jeff Sessions. Rush pointed out that their fears about these cabinet members was unfounded. Usually the left's fears are unfounded. This time however the left is correct on this one. Recreational and medical marijuana have been approved by several states. If Jeff Sessions becomes Attorney General those rights and laws that have been severely fought for may be taken away from us by systematic raids by the DEA with the blessing of Sessions himself. We can't take that risk. We have to oppose the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. The best way we can do that is to contact our Congressional Representative along with our Senators. Let's tell Donald Trump himself here and here.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Pussies on campus
Many undergraduates, their fawn-like eyes wide with astonishment, are wondering: Why didn’t the dean of students prevent the election from disrupting the serenity to which my school has taught me that I am entitled?
Campuses create “safe spaces” where students can shelter from discombobulating thoughts and receive spiritual balm for the trauma of microaggressions. Yet the presidential election came without trigger warnings?
The morning after the election, normal people rose — some elated, some despondent — and went off to actual work. But at Yale, that incubator of late-adolescent infants, a professor responded to “heartfelt notes” from students “in shock” by making that day’s exam optional.
Academia should consider how it contributed to, and reflects Americans’ judgments pertinent to, Donald Trump’s election. The compound of childishness and condescension radiating from campuses is a constant reminder to normal Americans of the decay of protected classes — in this case, tenured faculty and cosseted students.
As “bias-response teams” fanned out across campuses, an incident report was filed about a University of Northern Colorado student who wrote “free speech matters” on one of 680 “#languagematters” posters that cautioned against politically incorrect speech. Catholic DePaul University denounced as “bigotry” a poster proclaiming “Unborn Lives Matter.”
Bowdoin College provided counseling to students traumatized by the cultural appropriation committed by a sombrero-and-tequila party. Oberlin College students said they were suffering breakdowns because schoolwork was interfering with their political activism.
Cal State University, Los Angeles, established “healing” spaces for students to cope with the pain caused by a political speech delivered three months earlier. Indiana University experienced social-media panic because a priest in a white robe, with a rope-like belt and rosary beads, was identified as someone “in a KKK outfit holding a whip.”
A doctoral dissertation at the University of California, Santa Barbara, uses “feminist methodologies” to understand how Girl Scout cookie sales “reproduce hegemonic gender roles.” The journal GeoHumanities explores how pumpkins reveal “racial and class coding of rural versus urban places.” Another journal’s article analyzes “the relationships among gender, science and glaciers.” A Vassar lecture “theorizes oscillating relations between disciplinary, pre-emptive and increasingly prehensive forms of power that shape human and non-human materialities in Palestine.”
An American Council of Trustees and Alumni study — “No US History? How College History Departments Leave the United States out of the Major,” based on requirements and course offerings at 75 leading colleges and universities — found that “the overwhelming majority of America’s most prestigious institutions do not require even the students who major in history to take a single course on United States history or government.”
At some schools that require history majors to take at least one US history course, the requirement can be fulfilled with courses like “Mad Men and Mad Women” (Middlebury College), “Hip-Hop, Politics and Youth Culture in America” (University of Connecticut) and “Jews in American Entertainment” (University of Texas). Constitutional history is an afterthought.
Small wonder, then, that a recent ACTA-commissioned survey found that less than half of college graduates knew that George Washington was the commanding general at Yorktown; that nearly half didn’t know that Theodore Roosevelt was important to the construction of the Panama Canal; that more than one-third couldn’t place the Civil War in a correct 20-year span or identify Franklin Roosevelt as the architect of the New Deal; that 58 percent didn’t know that the Battle of the Bulge occurred in World War II; and that nearly half didn’t know the lengths of the terms of US senators and representatives.
Institutions of supposedly higher education are awash with hysteria, authoritarianism, obscurantism, philistinism and charlatanry. Which must have something to do with the tone and substance of the presidential election, which took the nation’s temperature.
Source
Could you get through this without laughing? I couldn't. Not at George Will,not this time but at the nation's university and college campuses. Hey kids,you know who your safe space will not protect you from? ISIS that's who.
Campuses create “safe spaces” where students can shelter from discombobulating thoughts and receive spiritual balm for the trauma of microaggressions. Yet the presidential election came without trigger warnings?
The morning after the election, normal people rose — some elated, some despondent — and went off to actual work. But at Yale, that incubator of late-adolescent infants, a professor responded to “heartfelt notes” from students “in shock” by making that day’s exam optional.
Academia should consider how it contributed to, and reflects Americans’ judgments pertinent to, Donald Trump’s election. The compound of childishness and condescension radiating from campuses is a constant reminder to normal Americans of the decay of protected classes — in this case, tenured faculty and cosseted students.
As “bias-response teams” fanned out across campuses, an incident report was filed about a University of Northern Colorado student who wrote “free speech matters” on one of 680 “#languagematters” posters that cautioned against politically incorrect speech. Catholic DePaul University denounced as “bigotry” a poster proclaiming “Unborn Lives Matter.”
Bowdoin College provided counseling to students traumatized by the cultural appropriation committed by a sombrero-and-tequila party. Oberlin College students said they were suffering breakdowns because schoolwork was interfering with their political activism.
Cal State University, Los Angeles, established “healing” spaces for students to cope with the pain caused by a political speech delivered three months earlier. Indiana University experienced social-media panic because a priest in a white robe, with a rope-like belt and rosary beads, was identified as someone “in a KKK outfit holding a whip.”
A doctoral dissertation at the University of California, Santa Barbara, uses “feminist methodologies” to understand how Girl Scout cookie sales “reproduce hegemonic gender roles.” The journal GeoHumanities explores how pumpkins reveal “racial and class coding of rural versus urban places.” Another journal’s article analyzes “the relationships among gender, science and glaciers.” A Vassar lecture “theorizes oscillating relations between disciplinary, pre-emptive and increasingly prehensive forms of power that shape human and non-human materialities in Palestine.”
An American Council of Trustees and Alumni study — “No US History? How College History Departments Leave the United States out of the Major,” based on requirements and course offerings at 75 leading colleges and universities — found that “the overwhelming majority of America’s most prestigious institutions do not require even the students who major in history to take a single course on United States history or government.”
At some schools that require history majors to take at least one US history course, the requirement can be fulfilled with courses like “Mad Men and Mad Women” (Middlebury College), “Hip-Hop, Politics and Youth Culture in America” (University of Connecticut) and “Jews in American Entertainment” (University of Texas). Constitutional history is an afterthought.
Small wonder, then, that a recent ACTA-commissioned survey found that less than half of college graduates knew that George Washington was the commanding general at Yorktown; that nearly half didn’t know that Theodore Roosevelt was important to the construction of the Panama Canal; that more than one-third couldn’t place the Civil War in a correct 20-year span or identify Franklin Roosevelt as the architect of the New Deal; that 58 percent didn’t know that the Battle of the Bulge occurred in World War II; and that nearly half didn’t know the lengths of the terms of US senators and representatives.
Institutions of supposedly higher education are awash with hysteria, authoritarianism, obscurantism, philistinism and charlatanry. Which must have something to do with the tone and substance of the presidential election, which took the nation’s temperature.
Source
Could you get through this without laughing? I couldn't. Not at George Will,not this time but at the nation's university and college campuses. Hey kids,you know who your safe space will not protect you from? ISIS that's who.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Congressional drug prohibitionist arrested for possession of cocaine
WASHINGTON — In September, Rep. Trey Radel voted for Republican legislation that would allow states to make food stamp recipients pee in cups to prove they’re not on drugs. In October, police busted the Florida Republican on a charge of cocaine possession.
“It’s really interesting it came on the heels of Republicans voting on everyone who had access to food stamps get drug tested,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told BuzzFeed Tuesday. “It’s like, what?”
The House over the summer approved an amendment by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) that would let states drug test people on food stamps. The amendment passed by voice vote, meaning members’ individual yeas and nays were not recorded. Radel later voted in favor of a broader food stamps bill that included Hudson’s measure.
In support of his drug testing legislation, Hudson cited the many state legislatures around the country that had considered similar requirements for other means-tested programs in recent years.
“This is a clear and obvious problem in our communities as nearly 30 states have introduced legislation to drug test for welfare programs,” Hudson said. “We have a moral obligation to equip the states with the tools they need to discourage the use of illegal drugs.”
Most of the state legislation was authored by Republicans. Oftentimes, state Democrats responded by suggesting lawmakers should be subject to tests as well. If the government’s going to make sure recipients of taxpayer-funded benefits are clean, the argument went, then why not also make sure the recipients of taxpayer salaries are clean, too?
In June, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) made that very suggestion when he questioned why recipients of crop insurance and other government benefits weren’t also targeted for drug tests like people on food stamps.
“Why don’t we drug test all the members of Congress here,” McGovern said shortly before the drug-testing measure passed. “Force everybody to go urinate in a cup or see whether or not anybody is on drugs? Maybe that will explain why some of these amendments are coming up or why some of the votes are turning out the way they are.”
The fate of the food stamp drug testing provision is in the hands of a House-Senate conference committee hashing out differences between food stamp and farm legislation that passed the two chambers. It’s got a chance. Last year, Congress passed a law to let states drug-test some unemployment insurance recipients.
Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he’d seek treatment.
“I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice,” he said.
Source
Fuck him. Throw him to the wolves. I'm tired of hypocritical assholes like him. He comes off so self righteous only to a be a sinner himself and the worst kind. Like Lamont Hill said this asshole had no problem taking food out of the mouths of you and your children. He has no problem denying you food because you used medical marijuana to save your life and now that you've come up positive for drugs you are cut off from food stamps. A program you need to feed yourself and your family. This prick asks for love and compassion when it comes to him but he has no problem imposing draconian measures on the rest of us. This clown needs punishment. I say we contact our Congressperson and the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and let them know of our disgust and that We The People are not going to take it anymore.
“It’s really interesting it came on the heels of Republicans voting on everyone who had access to food stamps get drug tested,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told BuzzFeed Tuesday. “It’s like, what?”
The House over the summer approved an amendment by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) that would let states drug test people on food stamps. The amendment passed by voice vote, meaning members’ individual yeas and nays were not recorded. Radel later voted in favor of a broader food stamps bill that included Hudson’s measure.
In support of his drug testing legislation, Hudson cited the many state legislatures around the country that had considered similar requirements for other means-tested programs in recent years.
“This is a clear and obvious problem in our communities as nearly 30 states have introduced legislation to drug test for welfare programs,” Hudson said. “We have a moral obligation to equip the states with the tools they need to discourage the use of illegal drugs.”
Most of the state legislation was authored by Republicans. Oftentimes, state Democrats responded by suggesting lawmakers should be subject to tests as well. If the government’s going to make sure recipients of taxpayer-funded benefits are clean, the argument went, then why not also make sure the recipients of taxpayer salaries are clean, too?
In June, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) made that very suggestion when he questioned why recipients of crop insurance and other government benefits weren’t also targeted for drug tests like people on food stamps.
“Why don’t we drug test all the members of Congress here,” McGovern said shortly before the drug-testing measure passed. “Force everybody to go urinate in a cup or see whether or not anybody is on drugs? Maybe that will explain why some of these amendments are coming up or why some of the votes are turning out the way they are.”
The fate of the food stamp drug testing provision is in the hands of a House-Senate conference committee hashing out differences between food stamp and farm legislation that passed the two chambers. It’s got a chance. Last year, Congress passed a law to let states drug-test some unemployment insurance recipients.
Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he’d seek treatment.
“I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice,” he said.
Source
Fuck him. Throw him to the wolves. I'm tired of hypocritical assholes like him. He comes off so self righteous only to a be a sinner himself and the worst kind. Like Lamont Hill said this asshole had no problem taking food out of the mouths of you and your children. He has no problem denying you food because you used medical marijuana to save your life and now that you've come up positive for drugs you are cut off from food stamps. A program you need to feed yourself and your family. This prick asks for love and compassion when it comes to him but he has no problem imposing draconian measures on the rest of us. This clown needs punishment. I say we contact our Congressperson and the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and let them know of our disgust and that We The People are not going to take it anymore.
Trump won the popular vote
Ever since the presidential election, liberals have been whining about the fact that Hillary Clinton should have beaten Donald Trump because she won the popular vote. However, some massive voter fraud was just uncovered that reveals that in reality, Trump was the one who won the popular vote.
Infowars reported that a whopping 3 million votes were cast by illegal immigrants in this election. This disturbing find was uncovered by Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization, who found that without the illegals, Trump likely won the popular vote.
“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after saying that his group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.
“Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,” he continued.
Current statistics say that Clinton won the popular vote by 630,000 votes, even though 7 million ballots are still uncounted at this time. Since basically all of the 3 million votes from illegal aliens were for Clinton, it appears that Trump actually won the popular vote by over 2 million votes.
Many illegals used the names of dead people to cast their ballots. On the morning of the election, there were 4 million dead people on American voter rolls.
Most states require IDs to vote, but there are also many that don’t. California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C., all require no identification from voters.
Source
Infowars reported that a whopping 3 million votes were cast by illegal immigrants in this election. This disturbing find was uncovered by Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization, who found that without the illegals, Trump likely won the popular vote.
“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after saying that his group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.
“Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,” he continued.
Current statistics say that Clinton won the popular vote by 630,000 votes, even though 7 million ballots are still uncounted at this time. Since basically all of the 3 million votes from illegal aliens were for Clinton, it appears that Trump actually won the popular vote by over 2 million votes.
Many illegals used the names of dead people to cast their ballots. On the morning of the election, there were 4 million dead people on American voter rolls.
Most states require IDs to vote, but there are also many that don’t. California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C., all require no identification from voters.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
