I think so. AVAAZ has started a petition that has people sigining at lighting speed. It asks WHO to end the war on drugs.
Avaaz - 24 hours to End the War on Drugs
Avaaz - 24 hours to End the War on Drugs
Is the War on Nicotine part of the War on Drugs?
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
There are so many pro & cons to this and I would hate to see a rise in addicts but in many countries this never happened.
I have always believed they are never going to win the war against drugs. They'd probably have more control if it were legal and would at least get rid of dealers putting God knows what out there. It would also eliminate a whole lot of criminal activity.
It's like prostitution---it's going to be here so regulate it.
I don't know if Nicotine is considered here. It is already a legal drug and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I have always believed they are never going to win the war against drugs. They'd probably have more control if it were legal and would at least get rid of dealers putting God knows what out there. It would also eliminate a whole lot of criminal activity.
It's like prostitution---it's going to be here so regulate it.
I don't know if Nicotine is considered here. It is already a legal drug and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
The only winners in the war on drugs are those who profit from it. Though nicotine is legal, as cigaratte taxes continue to increase, I believe that will only open a new profit avenue for the black market.
The war on drugs is big, big business. If you examine it from a trickle-down perspective, look at all the government agencies, politicians and various others who have made the war on drugs a way of life. There is a lot of money involved. If you end the war on drugs, the money goes away...
I've been reading up on NORML sites for years. This is a tidbit that could apply to ecigs for sure, but since it is on topic and is actually a little known little publicized bit of information (and the general public is clueless about it), here goes something shocking:
The director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is an advocate for the government position regarding the drug war. But not everyone knows that he and his office are mandated to tell lies as part of their Congressional authorization.
According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998: H11225:
Office of National Drug Control Policy - Reauthorization Act of 1998
Responsibilities. The Director [...]
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that
A. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
B. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;
Now, lets take as a simple example, the issue of medical .......... If the government finds that ......... Has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision, then by law, ......... cannot remain in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.
But by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form). Despite the fact that there is extensive evidence of medical .........s safety and effectiveness (including the fact that even the federal government supplies it to patients and in light of US Patent 6630507 Awarded to the US Government in 2003 by the Department of Mental Health and Hygiene Cannabinoids as antioxidants that states MULTIPLE medical uses) the drug czar would know about all this information, however he is required by law to lie about it all.
Oh, yea. They really do "own" the patent on ........!
United States Patent: 6630507
The director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is an advocate for the government position regarding the drug war. But not everyone knows that he and his office are mandated to tell lies as part of their Congressional authorization.
According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998: H11225:
Office of National Drug Control Policy - Reauthorization Act of 1998
Responsibilities. The Director [...]
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that
A. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
B. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;
Now, lets take as a simple example, the issue of medical .......... If the government finds that ......... Has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision, then by law, ......... cannot remain in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.
But by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form). Despite the fact that there is extensive evidence of medical .........s safety and effectiveness (including the fact that even the federal government supplies it to patients and in light of US Patent 6630507 Awarded to the US Government in 2003 by the Department of Mental Health and Hygiene Cannabinoids as antioxidants that states MULTIPLE medical uses) the drug czar would know about all this information, however he is required by law to lie about it all.
Oh, yea. They really do "own" the patent on ........!
United States Patent: 6630507
Last edited:
In one way yes. Arms manufacturers, criminal organisations, law enforcement agencies and corrupt third world governments would probably lose out. But the Government would likely more than make up for that with tax revenue.
Only through legalization. Doubt that will ever happen, honestly. You have to think about who is employed by the things you mentioned, too. There are some pretty powerful lobbies at play (and I'm talking strictly of legal agencies, etc.) Take a look at all of the money funneled into something like the Department of Homeland Security. I don't feel any safer since 9/11, but my wallet is lighter. Social entities like Family Planning are under attack because so much money has been diverted to countless, arbitrary agencies to fight terrorism. It's a many fanged cobra... *sigh*
- Status
Similar threads
