It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tribaltrip
"2) The drug opens the mind of the population, and we can't have that--marijuana, psilocybin, '___', etc. Use of these types of drugs seems to go hand in hand with distrust of the government and deciding that mainstream culture is unacceptable"
Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Originally posted by beastamerica
because your government can't tax it and corporations can't make money out of it...
That argument makes no sense. If drugs were legal, they could tax it and corporations could make money off of it .
Originally posted by ElusiveGoddess
Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Originally posted by beastamerica
because your government can't tax it and corporations can't make money out of it...
That argument makes no sense. If drugs were legal, they could tax it and corporations could make money off of it .
Marijuana that you buy is produced by criminal gangs and is modified so that it's as addictive and harmful as the chemical alternatives. The price is grossly inflated to reflect it's illegality.
In it's natural state it's strong enough be effective without causing psychosis.
DuPont had developed a lucrative business making the chemicals
needed to create paper from trees. William Randolph Hurst owned huge
tracts of forest in the Pacific Northwest. Henry Anslinger, Andrew Mellon’s
nephew by marriage, had been appointed head of the newly created
Bureau of Narcotics by his uncle who occupied duel positions as head of
the Mellon Bank and head of the US treasury. Mellon Bank had large
outstanding loans to DuPont. Since Hemp offered an excellent source for
the fiber needed to produce paper and for the constituents of cloth,
Dupont’s monopolies in the nylon and chemical business could have been
threatened as well as Hurst’s lumber holdings.
The 1937 laws were reportedly passed in response to public outrage created by the newspaper empire of William Randolph Hurst using information supplied by a U. S. Government official named Henry Anslinger.
Originally posted by Blue10110
Why does there have to be a MAIN reason?
There is no MAIN reason. Every negative side effect of drugs is equal IMO
Originally posted by Blue10110
Why does there have to be a MAIN reason?
There is no MAIN reason. Every negative side effect of drugs is equal IMO
Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Originally posted by beastamerica
because your government can't tax it and corporations can't make money out of it...
That argument makes no sense. If drugs were legal, they could tax it and corporations could make money off of it .
Originally posted by ToolFanMael
Originally posted by Blue10110
Why does there have to be a MAIN reason?
There is no MAIN reason. Every negative side effect of drugs is equal IMO
well when you go into a doctor and yer sick and they decide to give you drugs... its a risk/reward ratio they use... all drugs have side effects.. if the benefits outweigh the possible side effects then they choose that drug.. they explain what it does.. and you decide... sometimes it doesnt feel like a choice because some drugs are needed to make you healthy.. anti biotics for an example..
but indeed all drugs do have side effects.. its the choice whether you would rather have the side effects over the ailment is what it comes down to.. its not like you ACTUALLY have to take the drug... theres no gun to yer head.. its about what yer willing to put up with lol