We have quite a dilemma here.
Our elected government(s), which purport to represent the will of the people, the electorate, for whatever misguided 'nanny protectiveness' are ignoring both rational argument and collective desire, in criminalizing a significant number within our society.
Perhaps even worse, they deny those in medical need of treatments which are far more efficacious and far less addictive than that currently provided by our pharmaceutical companies. This, in spite of recent international developments, and research which is in diametric opposition to claims made during a time in our past which delighted in witch-hunting and asserting the right of those elected to know what is best.
Long gone are the days in which 'politician' isn't compared to 'used car salesman'.
People do not have the same inbred respect for those in power as did those who fought in the Korean War.. or the 'Leave It To Beaver' generation which followed.. More and more are posing questions which those who hold office are uncomfortable with; more transparency is demanded, and more justification for Acts of Parliament.
Yet despite the growing demand for changes to a law which is patently absurd, it remains in place.
Begs the question: 'Why?'
Who benefits from the criminalization of cannabis? Who's holding legislation back which, if passed, would permit hundreds of thousands of the population to enjoy a non-addictive substitute for such as OxyContin or Vicodin?
Who's profiting from the incarceration of users of cannabis?
How can such an enlightened group of legislators stick fast to inherited opinions on the effects of the plant, when current research denies their 'facts'? For what profit?
How deep is the bushel?
Our elected government(s), which purport to represent the will of the people, the electorate, for whatever misguided 'nanny protectiveness' are ignoring both rational argument and collective desire, in criminalizing a significant number within our society.
Perhaps even worse, they deny those in medical need of treatments which are far more efficacious and far less addictive than that currently provided by our pharmaceutical companies. This, in spite of recent international developments, and research which is in diametric opposition to claims made during a time in our past which delighted in witch-hunting and asserting the right of those elected to know what is best.
Long gone are the days in which 'politician' isn't compared to 'used car salesman'.
People do not have the same inbred respect for those in power as did those who fought in the Korean War.. or the 'Leave It To Beaver' generation which followed.. More and more are posing questions which those who hold office are uncomfortable with; more transparency is demanded, and more justification for Acts of Parliament.
Yet despite the growing demand for changes to a law which is patently absurd, it remains in place.
Begs the question: 'Why?'
Who benefits from the criminalization of cannabis? Who's holding legislation back which, if passed, would permit hundreds of thousands of the population to enjoy a non-addictive substitute for such as OxyContin or Vicodin?
Who's profiting from the incarceration of users of cannabis?
How can such an enlightened group of legislators stick fast to inherited opinions on the effects of the plant, when current research denies their 'facts'? For what profit?
How deep is the bushel?
No comments:
Post a Comment