Beverage industry is not enthusiastic about merging NIAAA with NIDA

According to a summary of a recent presentation from Francis Collins (NIH Director) to the SMRB on May 29 provided by the Research Society on Alcoholism. Key points:

Collins:

"We are hearing from some of the lobbying organizations that are involved in the use and sale of alcoholic beverages - the wine, beer and liquor industry.
They are not particularly happy about this. We are going to have to see what response comes forward from them. They are very well connected from the political side of this. We are proceeding forward, but I want to give you a heads up that there could be some noise."

Sol Snyder asked why and Collins had this to say:

"Their view is that alcoholic beverages are an acceptable, social, desirable thing. Consider it to be a food. Noted that it has health benefits. Notion that it will be lumped with drugs of abuse, many of which are illegal, rubs them the wrong way."

Exactly what I've maintained all along. This proposal to merge the NIAAA with NIDA is, scientifically speaking, a no-brainer. It makes a lot of sense and if any ICs are to be merged, this is the first thing on the table. If this can't be done...there doesn't seem any point to discussing any other mergers.

However. I've also noted that the beverage industry has a HUGE amount of pull in Congress and and HUGE interest in not seeing alcohol defined as a drug like any other. They don't want to be mentioned in the same sentence with drug cartels! They sure as hell don't want people discussing, matter-of-factly, that their beloved product is really not substantially different* from cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin, save by historical accident.

So this whole proposal could come crashing down if the beverage interests can buy up enough support in Congress to quash this. Personally I think all this comes down to is the extent to which they care. I believe if they throw around enough cash in Washington DC they can halt this.

Question is, will they?

Will they be bought off by some careful wording** and policy statements that preserve the special status of alcohol within the new IC?
__
*by some ways of looking at things. First and foremost, addiction.
**Perhaps by keeping the word "Alcohol" in the title of the IC to distinguish it from "Drugs" and even "Substances"?

ps: as always, see Disclaimer. I'm an interested party in this process.

62 responses so far

  • Isabel says:

    "However. I've also noted that the beverage industry has a HUGE amount of pull in Congress and and HUGE interest in not seeing alcohol defined as a drug like any other"

    And a HUGE interest in keeping cannabis illegal, maybe, DM?

    "I believe if they throw around enough cash in Washington DC they can halt this. "

    So they are perfectly capable of keeping cannabis illegal.

    Fuckers. "Beverage industry" lobbyists are no better than the drug cartels. Why do we let them destroy our society for their profits?

    http://www.alternet.org/drugs/155405/tale_of_two_cities_nypds_racist_arrests_create_class_war_in_new_york

  • Didn't NIDA host a symposium about caffeine a couple years ago? There is precedence for it looking at legal mind-altering substances...

  • Grumble says:

    NIDA definitely has an interest in legal substances that are abused (for instance, prescription opiates). And there is an increasing push to recognize sugar as addictive - I'm sure NIDA funds some of the work that supports this idea.

    I would imagine that bev companies would be happy if the word "Alcohol" were kept entirely OUT of the title of the new institute. One compromise would be to call it "National Institute on Addiction" and give it a clear mission to fund research into all forms of addiction - drugs, alcohol, sugar, gambling, sex, caffeine, whatever.

  • Isabel says:

    "One compromise would be to call it "National Institute on Addiction" and give it a clear mission to fund research into all forms of addiction - drugs, alcohol, sugar, gambling, sex, caffeine, whatever."

    The beverage industry might have reason to separate the words "drugs" and "alcohol" but why do you, Grumble? Or did you mean to say "illegal drugs, alcohol, sugar, gambling, sex, caffeine, whatever."

  • jogface says:

    Since when is binge drinking "addiction"?

  • anon says:

    I suggest ADDING the word "Alcohol" to the merged institute "National Institute of Drug and Alcohol Addiction". Or have they already done that?

  • How about National Institute of Sparking Up and Drinking Spirits (NISUDS)?

  • Isabel says:

    The beverage industry and prison and police union lobbyists are doomed anyhow. When cannabis is legalized, will it still be a "drug"? Maybe the new organization should wait a bit longer before coming up with their title:

    56% of Americans want cannabis legalized.

    Only 36% support the status quo.

    Right now, 3/4 of Americans -- including 2/3 of Republicans -- want the federal raids against state-legalized medical marijuana dispensaries to end. These raids started under Clinton. George W. Bush said in the 2000 presidential campaign that, in the name of states rights, he would stop the raids. Instead, he ramped them up. Obama promised to stop them, and then he escalated them further. Since October 2009, the Obama administration has executed over 170 SWAT raids of dispensaries.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-gregory/war-on-pot_b_1554604.html

    We need to kick the lobbyists out of Washington. We need to declare a War on Lobbyists.

  • katia says:

    Grumble's idea is very good. National Institute on Addictions

  • drugmonkey says:

    There is already an NIA folks.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Also there are many problems with psychoactives that have little to do with addiction.

  • NISUDS!!!! You heard it here first.

  • Alex says:

    National Institute on Substance Abuse (NIAS)?

    National Institute for Motherfuckin' Jameson (NIMJ)?

  • Alex says:

    Blah, transposed letters. Should be NISA.

  • Grumble says:

    Isabel, to be honest, I don't really care what they call the new institute, as long as it still gives me money.

    Jogface, good point about binge drinking. Actually, given how much psychiatric disorders overlap (compulsivity in addiction, etc), maybe they should merge NIDA, NIAA, NIMH, NINDS and maybe a few others into a giant National Institute on the Nervous System.

    As for there already being an NIA, well, just change the title of that one to something else, like NIOOF (National Institute of Olde Fuckes).

  • Isabel says:

    All these institutes need to go! They are all too tied up with what is now being referred to as the American Inquisition. Send the money to NSF, where real science gets done.

    "Isabel, to be honest, I don't really care what they call the new institute, as long as it still gives me money."

    Yeah, it's all about the money. We get it. See above.

    "How about National Institute of Sparking Up and Drinking Spirits (NISUDS)?"

    Well, if you must have your cheech and chong humor fix, it should at least be funny:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/president-obama-marijuana-video_n_1552901.html?ref=marijuana

  • drugmonkey says:

    Cheech and Chong are an American treasure! why do you hate them?

  • DJMH says:

    National Institute on Beverages and Substances (NIBS)

    National Institute of Liquor is Quicker but Bath Salts Will Kill You (NILQBSWKY)

    National Institute of All the Fun Stuff Except Sex (NIAFSES)

  • drugmonkey says:

    You don't believe in sex addiction?

  • miko says:

    You want to see lobbyists go nuts, throw in sugar.

  • dsks says:

    I don't really get it. Surely the fact that alcohol currently has its own independent institution for abuse research is already a pretty damning advertisement for this drug's problem causing potential?

    A merge would attenuate that, if anything, wouldn't it?

  • DJMH says:

    Send the sex addiction researchers to NINDS. We could all use some more entertaining grants.

  • Brad says:

    Everything that can be categorized should be merged into said category, eventually making one big category. And then follow Drug Monkey's suggestions, "if you are an [NIH Branch X]-only person, take a look at [NIH Branch Y], even if you don't plan to do any specific studies." and "If you are a PI, consider recruiting a postdoc from the other side of the fence in the next year or two." This way, research in a given lab can be amazingly broad. It would be so fun. You might have one post doc researching cancer, and another working with computational models of memory. I for one think we should just get crazy with exploring categorical relationships between research focuses, and should use this merger as inspiration that anything can be united through semantics. Does alcohol, LSD, cocaine, and marijuana directly effect similar pathways in the brain... no. But they are all 'drugs' and they 'may' have a common -- addictive -- pathway. I think the first thing that needs to change though is the name "NIH". It's not broad enough. We should go with something like the National Institute of Human and Animal Research - NIHAR. kneehar!

  • Isabel says:

    "You want to see lobbyists go nuts, throw in sugar."

    Just throw them out. Why isn't lobbying illegal??? Can anyone answer that? They are out of control. Recently a long grassroots effort to improve kids' school lunches, joined by several major organizations and endorsed by the president, failed because of some rider added to an unrelated bill after intense last minute lobbying by the food industry. The result was world-wide publicity declaring Americans as idiots who think ketchup is a vegetable. After all the work of actual Americans, this was their reward.

    Lobbyists are running the country. They need to go. Fuck. Themselves.

    We need to declare a War on Lobbyists.

  • Isabel says:

    "marijuana "

    It's called Cannabis.

  • Loonabel, now you're the fucken Oxford English Dictionary?

  • Isabel says:

    "Loonabel"

    Get lost, jerk. Or learn to show some respect.

    No wonder your trainees have no motivation and you have to force them to punch a time clock; they probably can't stand your arrogant ass.

  • Isabel says:

    "Cheech and Chong are an American treasure! why do you hate them?"

    I don't hate them; I think they were funny. What is really disturbing is that the movie continues to inform your (and your colleagues') professional stance on the drug.

    Let me ask you, would an article about drinking alcohol and its effect on sperm counts be seen as so hilarious that you would email it around for laughs?

    You are supposedly a long-time professional in the field and you still giggle uncontrollably at the mention of cannabis use?

    Grow up already. Peoples' lives have been ruined- they are locked away in jail, or denied student loans. Or had their heads chopped off, or have been separated from their children, or ruined financially. A lot has happened since the 70's, thanks in part to you and your cronies. It's not funny anymore!

  • Dave says:

    You're all a bunch of winos and crackheads!

  • katia says:

    Hahahahaha!.

    DM a wino and crackhead!. THat's so funny

  • drugmonkey says:

    the movie continues to inform your (and your colleagues') professional stance on the drug.
    and what evidence do you have for this?

    would an article about drinking alcohol and its effect on sperm counts be seen as so hilarious that you would email it around for laughs?

    my motivations for "email it around" are available to you? Interesting. By which I mean, you are wrong. But yes, regardless of the motivation I would indeed "email it around".

    you still giggle uncontrollably at the mention of cannabis use?
    When did I "giggle" at the "mention" of "cannabis use"? Are you just making everything up in your head?

    thanks in part to you
    I would really like to see you draw a connection between anything that I have ever done, personal OR professional, and those outcomes that distress you so. Again, you may want to check that you are not just making stuff up out of whole cloth.

  • MonkeyPox says:

    Anything in the literature about cannabis ingestion causing mad rankings?

  • drugmonkey says:

    Well, there is a new paper showing that recreational cannabis users have impulse control problems compared with binge drinkers and non-user controls.

    that might explain going off half-cocked on blog commentary, I suppose.

  • Were the recreational cannabis users in the study high when they performed the tests of impulsivity? (I cannot tell from the abstract.)

  • Isabel says:

    "my motivations for "email it around" are available to you? "

    Yes, Scicurious said she posted it because it was funny, and that you sent it to her because it was funny. Go yell at her for her "lack of impulse control".

    "and those outcomes that distress you so."

    That distress ME so? A very telling statement, DM.

    "the movie continues to inform your (and your colleagues') professional stance on the drug.
    and what evidence do you have for this? "

    Every Single Time cannabis is mentioned, yes C & C jokes or Rastafarian lingo appears. Just watch.

    "thanks in part to you
    I would really like to see you draw a connection between anything that I have ever done, personal OR professional, and those outcomes that distress you so. Again, you may want to check that you are not just making stuff up out of whole cloth."

    We have been over this again and again. You are part of the problem, when you could be part of the solution.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Do you think my trolling you and your ilk with "[insert objectionable lay reference]" on this blog has something to do with my scientific studies? What exactly?

  • drugmonkey says:

    How am I supposed to be part of the solution Isabel? you wish me to fake data saying pot is totes awesome or something? Or publish in some particular area that is practically guaranteed to put pot in a good light? What are you imagining here?

  • MonkeyPox says:

    Stones are just like rednecks: an oppressed minority.

  • Isabel says:

    "Stones are just like rednecks: an oppressed minority."

    There's more than a grain of truth to this comment. When 1/6 of the prisoners in this country are there for non-violent cannabis offenses, when the millions of otherwise law-abiding users have to keep part of their lives secret from inquisitive neighbors, when people convicted of mere possession of the herb are unable to get student loans, are denied jobs and housing, and when users of the plant are constantly characterized as goofy, immature "potheads" no matter what their age and level of use...sounds like prejudice and oppression to me.

  • BikeMonkey says:

    What do rednecks have to keep "secret from inquisitive neighbors"? Their late night costume parties/weenie roasts or something?

  • MonkeyPox says:

    They don't want anyone taking away their god given right to burn crosses (and light their doobies on them).

  • Isabel says:

    "What do rednecks have to keep "secret from inquisitive neighbors"? "

    Hey Asshole, I'd respond in kind but it's not allowed. Only one-way racist insults are allowed on this blog. You must feel so powerful. The thrill of "revenge"!

    Your comment/joke was also stupid. Obviously the connection is "oppressed minority" and the details would be (again super obvious) different for each group.

    But it was a good illustration of the bigotry that is so popular and accepted on this blog.

    Meanwhile, there is no discussion of the fact that thanks to the racist Drug War against the American people, which DrugMonkey supports, there are more African-Americans in prison in the US today than there were in slavery in 1850.

    http://controversy.videosift.com/video/More-Blacks-In-Prison-Than-Slaves-In-1850-War-On-Drugs?loadcomm=1

  • BikeMonkey says:

    "Redneck" is not a race or ethnicity Isabel. It is, at most, a voluntary cultural affiliation defined by belief and behavior. A lifestyle choice. We've been through this before.

  • BikeMonkey says:

    Oh and funnily enough calling me "Asshole" would have sufficed for your equivalency but only if anyone had suggested that you are a redneck. Don't believe anyone did that?

  • Grumble says:

    Well, since we're playing bait-the-troll:

    Isabel says, "Yeah, it's all about the money." But that's what NIH is *for*: to fund (i.e., provide money for) research.

    I'm actually 95% on your side: I think the drug war is a complete waste of money and resources, I think cannabis should be legalized, I think it's a tragedy that so many Americans are in prison for non-violent drug offenses, and who in their right mind *wouldn't* agree with the sentiment that there are too many lobbyists.

    Where I disagree is on the sentiment that the NIH is somehow part of a gov'mint conspiracy to perpetuate the drug war, and therefore anyone supported by NIH is to be suspected of being part of the Drug War, American Inquisition, whatever. Some NIH-funded research may be used by Drug War advocates to support their position. But other NIH-funded research can be used to support the opposite position. Attacking the NIH for research that ends up supporting one side or the other is just as bad as attacking climatologists (and their funding agencies) for reporting that the atmosphere is getting warmer. Don't blame the messenger.

  • Isabel says:

    "Well, since we're playing bait-the-troll:"

    Playing?

    The Troll? Did you call me a troll?

    We are having a conversation here about the most crucial social issue of the day. I am a regular reader of this blog. But now I'm a troll?

    Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Have some respect.

    Dear Grumble, my attacks are meant to be *slightly* hyperbolic. This is the internet after all. But I have, and still do condemn the NIDA and think it should be disbanded. Their unscientific website (that makes cannabis sound more dangerous than meth!) and director's persistent use of "abuse" for any amount of use of cannabis (even the first use), for example, are clear evidence of bias and an agenda.

    "But other NIH-funded research can be used to support the opposite position. "

    But is it? Do you have any evidence that this has been done? Why don't we hear more about it on the science blogs?

    BTW, you are being a bit sneaky here. The truth is that there is NO body of evidence, from NIH studies or elsewhere, that would lead any rational person to support cannabis prohibition.

  • Isabel says:

    BikeMonkey, you know it's a racist and classist term. We've been over this also. You and Monkeypox trotted it out to "bait" me.

    Just callin' a spade a spade here. :)

  • Grumble says:

    "Why don't we hear more about it on the science blogs."

    Maybe because we're scientists, not policymakers. That's kinda my point. Scientists don't set out to test a hypothesis like "marijuana should be legal" because that isn't a hypothesis. It's a policy that could be based on actual biomedical scientific findings, but getting us to that policy does not necessarily have to be on an addiction researcher's agenda, even if she thinks it's a good idea.

    And anyway, the blogs don't necessarily reflect the sentiments of most scientists studying issues related to addiction. I've heard many colleagues complain about current drug policy, and have heard opinions ranging from "legalize everything" to "it should be easier to prescribe and dispense methadone". Just because Nora says something, and Nora is in charge of NIDA, doesn't mean all of us who receive research money from NIDA, or even anything close to a majority of us, necessarily agree with her. That would be like accusing me of being a Christian just because Francis Collins is a believuh.

    And just because Nora has a few opinions you don't like certainly doesn't mean NIDA should be "disbanded". Leadership change, maybe. But without NIDA, our understanding of addiction would be much less, and it would be even less likely that change along the lines of what you want would ever be implemented.

  • BikeMonkey says:

    Grumble, Grumble...didn't you get the memo? Right wing conspiracy -> ONDCP -> NIDA -> each and every funded PI is a direct and invariant pipeline. Conversely, if you ain't with the legalizers, you are against them.

    The world is nice and simple. At least, Isabel's world is....

  • BikeMonkey says:

    Racist? What other races are there where you can just all of a sudden decide not to belong to? Like I always maintain, I don't have any problem whatsoever with people who are poor, white and from disadvantaged backgrounds....til they start acting the racist, bigoted hateful redneck...then there's a problemo. With their behavior. Not with their (innate, unchosen) identity.

  • Isabel says:

    "Maybe because we're scientists, not policymakers. "

    You are scientists working at an institute that has a clear political agenda. I've posted examples of the connection on this blog before. Most recent example (briefly): Obama administration announces website where they will address any issue that gets enough signatures. In no time seven different questions about cannabis prohibition fully qualify. At first they are ignored then LUMPED TOGETHER and given a single, short stock answer by some drug czar dude (or some ex-cop - never heard of the guy) saying because of research by the NIH and NIDA the administration is against the idea of legalizing cannabis.

    "Just because Nora says something, and Nora is in charge of NIDA, doesn't mean all of us who receive research money from NIDA, or even anything close to a majority of us, necessarily agree with her. That would be like accusing me of being a Christian just because Francis Collins is a believuh."

    As far as I know, Collins keeps his Christianity to himself, not in official position documents so your comparison fails. A better analogy would be: imagine there was a huge and powerful National Institute of Climate Change under the umbrella of a much more massive (than now) NSF, that funded thousands of climate scientists. Then the administration starts an intense global-warming denying agenda, using the clout of the NICC as justification, cherry picking their results to spread doubt. And most of the scientists who disagree with this use of their work just shrug and say "well, it's politics" and keep taking the money. For decades. They even start having their own doubts after a while, and of course there's their own lives to lead, etc. Why rock the boat?

    "But without NIDA.... it would be even less likely that change along the lines of what you want would ever be implemented."

    What a deluded statement! The situation has already been researched, studied and the best course of action figured out and recommended - many times. Your arrogance here is unbelievable.

  • Memory hole says:

    "cherry picking results"? Wow that does sound bad.

  • Grumble says:

    "some drug czar dude ... saying because of research by the NIH and NIDA the administration is against the idea of legalizing cannabis."

    So what? The interpretation of scientific research is up to the individual. If you don't like the interpretation, go argue with them, instead of posting hyperbolic comments on scientists' blogs.

    "And most of the scientists who disagree with this use of their work just shrug and say "well, it's politics" and keep taking the money."

    Actually, this is pretty close to exactly what happened with climatologists (funded by NOAA, NASA, NSF) during the Bush Administration. They were jumping up and down screaming (or at least, the scientists' equivalent) that climate change is happening and it's driven by human activity, yet the Bushies kept on denying it. Was that a reason for the scientists to stop accepting money from the Bush Administration? Of course not. This completely reinforces my earlier point: we know much more about climate change after federally funded research than before, even though the Administration insisted on ignoring and misinterpreting the results.

    What you fail to realize, Isabel, is that the grant funding process at federal research agencies is, to a large degree, insulated from politics. Nora is not sitting in her aerie picking and choosing those applications that are most likely to yield results that perpetuate the drug war.

    "What a deluded statement! The situation has already been researched, studied and the best course of action figured out and recommended - many times. Your arrogance here is unbelievable."

    So, I'm arrogant for suggesting that research that leads to a better understanding of addiction as a biological process is likely to benefit the cause of ending the drug war and marijuana criminalization? Do you think climate change research should stop now that we're overwhelmingly convinced that it's happening? How moronic is that?

    Look, as I explained to you before, I support your basic position. If you insist on calling your allies arrogant, you will never get anywhere with your little armchair crusade.

  • Isabel says:

    "They were jumping up and down screaming (or at least, the scientists' equivalent) that climate change is happening"

    yet we hear nothing from NIDA scientists, despite the obviously tragic results of prohibition, a prohibition that gets the official stamp of approval from the organization that funds their work. And as the struggle for legalization (and a sane approach to addiction problems) is made all the harder because of all the government propaganda such as that found on the NIDA website. What I am really getting from your responses is that like many people, you are completely unaware of the seriousness of the problems that have resulted from the seven-decades long politically driven prohibition.

    "This completely reinforces my earlier point: "

    Your point was that the research at the NIDA will help with my goals. This is ridiculous. The matter has been decided already by rational people. Your research will go on as before, and you can keep helping drug addicts, but nothing you do in your research is needed to end prohibition.

    "What you fail to realize, Isabel, " enough with the condescension already, please.

    "So, I'm arrogant for suggesting that research that leads to a better understanding of addiction as a biological process is likely to benefit the cause of ending the drug war and marijuana criminalization?"

    How could this possibly happen? How likely do you think this is to happen??

    "Do you think climate change research should stop now that we're overwhelmingly convinced that it's happening? How moronic is that?"

    Yes, that would be moronic, and I have no idea how this has anything to do with this discussion.

    "your little armchair crusade.'

    Yes, you are living in isolation.

  • Memory hole says:

    The current regime at ONDCP is pursuing a science based, addiction-focused agenda more than ever before. And yet because it is not ideologically pure enough for the marijuana fans, they claim to see no difference. What foot-shooting assholes. You don't know who the current Drug Czar even is, Isabel? Perhaps you should look into his background and what he has done.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Were the recreational cannabis users in the study high when they performed the tests of impulsivity? (I cannot tell from the abstract.)

    they had to be clean for at least 3 days.

  • Memory hole says:

    Maybe Isabel should submit a grant: Proving Marijuana is Totally Harmless to the NIH. It would be fantastic. Aim 1: Smoking MJ affects absolutely none of these cognitive tests. Aim
    2: Driving after smoking a bong load is safe because they adjust their speed. Aim 3. Bong water cures melanoma

    I can recommend a couple of study sections if you want. This thing will do awesome.

  • Isabel says:

    It does not need to be "totally harmless" to be legal, trolls. Why do you think cannabis is held to a higher standard than alcohol? Answer that, geniuses.

    We don't need a drug czar. Kick him/her out of DC along with the lobbyists.

    You people think that because cannabis is addictive in some cases, people who are caught using it should be thrown in a cage? Sadists.

    The worst thing anyone could possibly do, according to you guys, is use drugs. I just filled out the FAFSA yesterday. The ONLY people denied student loans are those convicted of a drug violation, and most of those, as we have learned, are for cannabis. Most of the 850,000 people arrested each year are black and Hispanic, btw.

    Meanwhile, convicted rapists and child molesters, extortionists, whatever, are welcome to apply, no questions asked.

    Have you ever received federal student aid?

     Yes
     No

    Have you been convicted for the possession or sale of illegal drugs for an offense that occurred while you were receiving federal student aid (grants, loans and/or work-study)?

     Yes
     No

    Have you been convicted for the possession or sale of illegal drugs for an offense that occurred while you were receiving federal student aid (grants, loans and/or work-study)?

     Yes
     No

  • Isabel says:

    "And yet because it is not ideologically pure enough for the marijuana fans, they claim to see no difference. What foot-shooting assholes."

    What the hell are you talking about? Arrests have INCREASED. After making a campaign promise to leave medical dispensaries alone, SWAT raids have instead skyrocketed! Mexico is littered with headless bodies for crying out loud. What difference????

  • Isabel says:

    Apologies for the long quote, but just came across this really interesting comment over on huff post re prejudice against and persecution of cannabis users:

    "I have an important project that I am working on and I believe that if you looked at it we would be of "like" minds. If we are then I would appreciate your signature and some help promoting it. I have been getting signatures and kind remarks from all over the world. I hope that you will see fit to lend your considerable support to this project.
    Thank-You,
    Dan Richeson

    Mission Statement: To bring an end to cannabis prohibition in 2013 by gathering signatory members through promotion and declaring our rights through the document, "Declaration of Rights of Cannabis Users". Giving prohibitionists reasonable opportunity to affect appropriate, timely and agreed upon change and, if necessary enforcing our rights in a peaceful way. After April 20 2013 adopting a zero tolerance for acts of brutality and injustice by prohibitionists.

    The laws regarding cannabis were born on the wings of lies and pampered by propaganda such that now the tightly held belief systems are going to have to reckon with the desire of all humanity to live with dignity, free from the oppressive tyranny that ignorance and bigotry have spawned.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/all-elected-represenitives-and-the-united-nations-recognize-the-rights-of-cannabis-users "

  • Liam Turner says:

    It’s now legal and you cant do something about that.

  • Kurtis Rozell says:

    Yeah your right you can read it here Click here its an article about marijuana legalization hope these will help.

Leave a Reply


6 + three =