HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Patrick Kennedy spouts no...

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:09 PM

Patrick Kennedy spouts nonsense on Amendment 64 (Legal Cannabis in Colorado)

Earlier this week I posted about Kennedy's alignment with David Frum (former Bush staffer) and their attempts to FORCE people who are found in possession of ANY amount of marijuana to go into a treatment program. SAM is the group he's shilling for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022155872

Then Patrick went to Colorado to tell people there they didn't know what they were doing when they made their historic votes to legalize cannabis in November, 2011.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/01/11/patrick-kennedy-spouts-nonsense-amendment-64/32000/

op in the Denver Post -

In Denver on Thursday, the former Rhode Island congressman and son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, made an absurd claim. According to The Denver Post, he said marijuana legalization “slipped under the radar” both in Colorado and Washington and that organizations bent on countering the idea didn’t have time to mobilize. As a result, voters “didn’t know what their stake was in the debate.”

Kennedy is free to claim that Colorado voters didn’t understand the issues as well as they should, because that’s a matter of opinion. But “slipped under the radar”? Amendment 64 got huge amounts of publicity precisely because its favorable polling prompted the media to take it seriously.

...as Mason Tvert of the Marijuana Policy Project reminded me today, parts of Colorado have “been having a pretty significant discussion about marijuana policy” even longer, at least since “Denver became the first city in the world to approve a measure removing all penalties for marijuana possession” in 2005. Tvert estimates “there have literally been upwards of 1,000 print and TV news stories in the state in just the past few years.”

This was not an isolated claim by Kennedy, either. He earlier told the Boston Globe much the same thing in explaining why he was now committed to opposing pot legalization. “I can’t stand by and let this move forward without any kind of debate or questioning,” he said. “This thing could pass right underneath the radar and we will wake up one day and say what were we thinking?”

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22350842/former-congressman-patrick-kennedy-launches-sam-project-meets

Before former Rhode Island congressman Patrick Kennedy Jr. could introduce his new national initiative to educate the public and policymakers about the health risks of pot use, he was asked to step down as head of Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

"If Patrick Kennedy and his new organization want people to be educated about marijuana, he should start with himself," said Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project and a leader in the successful campaign to legalize recreational pot use in Colorado . "The evidence is clear — marijuana is far less addictive and less harmful to the body than alcohol."

Tvert said that anyone attempting to be a public educator about the health risks associated with marijuana must openly and honestly address how much more dangerous legal controlled substances like alcohol and tobacco are to public safety.

"Like everyone else who woke up after Election Day and saw that (marijuana legalization) was moving fast in states like Colorado, I realized it looked as though the domino effect could move to other states quicker," Kennedy said. "I want to slow this train down and begin a discussion before other states rush to judgment."

So, Kennedy wants to pretend his actions are warranted because others are too stupid to know what they were doing. What a conservative pov - to think you know better and must force your view on others who disagree.

Again, I cannot state how ironic it is to have a kid whose inherited wealth rests upon smuggling alcohol attempt to prevent others from choosing another source of intoxication. Maybe his vision has been distorted. Maybe it's a problem with the northeastern US and their long association with alcohol via rum running, immigrants and urban life. Who knows. All I know is that this stance and action by Kennedy is a joke to anyone who has followed this issue for any length of time.

42 replies, 2900 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Patrick Kennedy spouts nonsense on Amendment 64 (Legal Cannabis in Colorado) (Original post)
RainDog Jan 2013 OP
Scuba Jan 2013 #1
RainDog Jan 2013 #4
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #2
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #3
Taverner Jan 2013 #9
RainDog Jan 2013 #15
Romulox Jan 2013 #5
RainDog Jan 2013 #40
Romulox Jan 2013 #42
tech3149 Jan 2013 #6
RainDog Jan 2013 #7
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #16
RainDog Jan 2013 #18
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #19
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #13
RainDog Jan 2013 #20
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #22
RainDog Jan 2013 #23
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #24
RainDog Jan 2013 #8
Taverner Jan 2013 #11
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #21
RainDog Jan 2013 #25
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #26
RainDog Jan 2013 #30
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #33
RainDog Jan 2013 #10
didact Jan 2013 #12
RainDog Jan 2013 #35
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #14
RainDog Jan 2013 #17
think Jan 2013 #27
RainDog Jan 2013 #31
MindMover Jan 2013 #28
RainDog Jan 2013 #29
Tabasco_Dave Jan 2013 #32
RainDog Jan 2013 #34
TeamPooka Jan 2013 #36
RainDog Jan 2013 #37
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #38
RainDog Jan 2013 #39
MrMickeysMom Jan 2013 #41

Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:19 PM

1. Patrick has his own drug of choice. Perhaps that industry is fronting him some aged stock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:46 PM

4. You know the alcohol industry was a big backer of the "war on drugs"

Their support was contingent upon leaving alcohol out of that conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:23 PM

2. Focus on your own drug demons, Patrick. Pot isn't among them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:25 PM

3. The anti marijuana people are mostly hypocrites and crazies. Anti science, usually 'former' abusers

of alcohol, as Mr Kennedy is, or other drugs (again, Mr Kennedy) the marijuana haters almost universally have personal addiction issues with liquor and hard core drugs like cocaine or opiates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:51 PM

9. Yep.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:01 PM

15. Former addicts are often pretty black and white in their thinking

Because it's hard for them to understand that others don't have the same physical reactions to substances, or that others do not have the desire to use one thing or another at all.

My ex could not drink alcohol, so, to make it easier on him, I simply didn't drink for more than a decade, beyond wine or beer with meals at with his family at holiday dinners, etc.

It was nothing for me to simply stop drinking alcohol because I'm fortunate that I don't have the genetic makeup that predisposes me to a problem with that particular substance.

I don't like or dislike alcohol beyond occasionally having a beer. I don't like the effect of alcohol on me after if I don't drink in moderation because I tend to get headaches and nausea anyway.

Chocolate, on the other hand, is my "drug of choice." It's hard for me to resist. But, you know, I would never try to take away anyone else's right to consume chocolate just because I have a problem with moderation in relation to that drug - b/c, yes, chocolate is as much of a drug as cannabis, according to the way "drug" is considered by the CSA, and sugar is a much more dangerous drug than cannabis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:55 PM

5. Patrick Kennedy's caused the death of a young woman while under the influence of alcohol.

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)

The man has no shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:17 PM

40. why don't you delete this post?

it's more than inflammatory and doesn't go to the issue at hand. it's also a standard right-wing attack on a dead man.

it would be a good thing to do, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:58 PM

42. Because it's a well-known fact? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:55 PM

6. I've listened to him on a couple of show interview over the last week

He truly seems sincere on his position and some points have validity. Pot today is waaay better than it was in the '70's but most people I know that still smoke don't ingest anymore than they want or can handle. That usually means a few tokes is good for a buzz when it might have been a joint or two.
Already there are those that question the validity of the study he bases his opinion on re: effect on IQ over long term regular use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:14 PM

7. People know that marijuana is more potent now

And anyone who would commercially sell marijuana would likely have it tested to note its THC content - therefore providing MORE information to a cannabis consumer.

Providing information about your product is the way someone in honest retail sells the product so that the purchaser will have a positive experience... that's just basic shit for anyone who knows anything about marketing. You sell your ability to provide a trusted provider, which is why, among x number of people who offer many of the same products, a person would choose you to be the provider of that product.

Like alcohol, I think cannabis should be restricted to adults.

This is more likely in a regulated seller's market, not one that goes into high schools with illegal product. If you remove the glamour of illegality, you also remove the incentive to buy for people who would be attracted by that idea - those who want to rebel against their parents, for example.

The study dealt with teenagers, and with HEAVY use. Yes, I saw that it had been disputed in another study.

In a 2002 study that was published in the Canadian Journal Medical Association, light cannabis use showed an increase in IQ.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.abstract

Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6).

So, if I wanted to talk honestly about the issue, I would have to say the issue of IQ tests has to do with frequency and amount consumed, not with cannabis itself, and I would have to note that LIGHT use of cannabis may have a positive effect on IQ testing that was statistically higher than that shown in non-users....

I know of no study that demonstrates that cannabis kills brain cells. We do know, however, that alcohol can kill brain cells.

This, to me, is how you know this is nothing but a propaganda group. They are cherry picking "evidence" to present to make themselves sound serious - but they're just another iteration of reefer madness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:05 PM

16. There was a study that showed it killed brain cells in monkeys

 

It was flawed, though. To quickly provide the drug dosage, a machine was concocted where a mask was placed over the moknkey's face and 30 joints worth of pot smoke was pumped into the monkey's lungs over about ten minutes.

Brain cells died, but the cause of brain cell death was due to suffocation, not the pot. The methodology of the study was not released for several years after the results, thus the bogus claim that pot kills brain cells.

ETA: BTW, it's not that the pot is more potent, it's that there is much more good pot available than there was in the 70s. Same genetics and the quality is the same, it's just that it was harder to find the truly quality stuff in the 70s than it is today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:21 PM

18. Yes, Reagan flouted that bogus study

It took YEARS for NORML to gain access to that study after filing requests. Years. Who, if they have important research, HIDES IT from others who want to review the methodology, etc.?

Who? Someone who was doing research intended to produce a result that could further the goals of propaganda campaigners, that's who.

And, yes, the study was discredited because carbon monoxide, not cannabis, was what killed brain cells.

This action on the part of government and their shills is why they and the "war on drugs" is harmful. When people know they have lied repeatedly in order to force laws upon people that were initially based upon lies - why should anyone believe anything they have to say.

It's like Bush and the Iraq war. After all the lies - who would think neocons are honest about anything or should be in any position of power? Not me. The only way such groups maintain power is through lies.

This is why I find it so disturbing that Patrick Kennedy has chosen to associate himself with a propaganda group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:24 PM

19. Hopefully he'll never run for office again.

 

I could never find myself supporting somebody so irrational.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:58 PM

13. "Pot today is waaay better than it was in the '70's" is the biggest lie told by the anti-pot people

 

Most of the pot today is just as good as the good Columbian Gold or Roja, the Thai, or the Afghani from the 70's. There's still a ton of Mexican scwhag on the streets, but more of the pot is as good as the good pot of the 60s and no better. All the illicit breeders are working with are the genetics from the 70s and there's been no underground genetic engineering of the stuff.

One thing is for certain, though, NONE of the pot today is even close to being as potent as Vietnamese Black from 70s, and it never will. That land race was completely eradicated by '78. Those genetics are lost forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:27 PM

20. I think the difference is that people moved away from Mexican brick

After Reagan ramped up the war on drugs, he persuaded the govt. of Mexico to spray fields with the poison, Paraquat.

No matter that this spraying was poisoning groundwater and crops for food for people who lived in the area... they were peasants, after all. No one cares about the peasants. Ever. Till they start calling for heads.

Anyway, the big explosion in indoor pot cultivation that resulted in so many hybrids was done in the 1980s, under the Reagan administration.

Without Reagan, hybrid strains would not be the dominant product in the commercial (quasi) legal market.

This is what the prohibitionists don't get. Today's market is like winemaking and small breweries who cultivate various strains for various experiences, including strains with very low THC in order to boost the CBD levels.

The more people are educated about the function of different cannabinoids, the better they are able to make informed choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:31 PM

22. 45% of USA consumed pot is grown in the USA.

 

40% is grown in Mexico, but even Mexico has discovered they have to keep the quality up to hope to supplement the US grown pot.

5% is grown in Canada and 10% from all other countries.

And yeah, people don't get how many different strains there are available, how most of the strains, once established, end up having a prime example of the strain cloned for consistency, and a host of other details about the plant.

Organic pot is so important these days, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:56 PM

23. I saw a study that estimated 15-26%

From 2010 figures. Although it seems nearly impossible to get really accurate figures on an illegal market when studies are done by agencies with vested interests in promoting one pov or another.

Simple reports that poll the numbers of current users and their ages and other demographic data, for instance, will be skewed toward those who are younger, with fewer professional or societal reasons to avoid answering such a question at all, or to answer it dishonestly. This doesn't mean that most users are not in the 18-34 demographic (as most studies claim) - but it does illustrate how numbers may not be accurate.

http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/debunking-mythical-numbers168-175.pdf

The ONDCP had to back off of an early estimate that 60% of all marijuana consumed in America came from Mexico.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP315.pdf

This pdf tried to model various scenarios related to legal cannabis in California. It contains lots of interesting projections and povs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:58 PM

24. The only way to know for sure will be complete legalization. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:45 PM

8. I'd like to know who is financing SAM

Their web site doesn't provide that information.

Who is financing this latest reefer madness propaganda group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:52 PM

11. Anheuser Busch?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:27 PM

21. It sounds like basically he's pissed off they didn't take the measure seriously

 

and therefore did not throw about a hundred million dollars at throwing lies about pot on the television every commercial break for a month straight to insure it failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:23 PM

25. As I said - I want to know who is funding this organization

that will tell you a lot about why Patrick is saying what he's saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:27 PM

26. We'll have to watch this one closely

 

What's your over/under on them trying to go the ballot initiative route to repeal the legalization come the next election cycle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:55 AM

30. Who knows?

Whatever they do, they are not going to stop this. People have freakin' had it with this bullshit.

This issue is one that really demonstrates the hypocrisy of federal-level politics. If someone thinks he or she can get political traction out of looking "bas ass" about cannabis (what a joke, right there - kick the arthritic retiree to the curb?) - who knows.

Cannabis arrests are one way Democrats try to prove their law and order cred.

I have no idea how the Obama admin. will deal with this either. The WRONG WAY was what Clinton did when medical mj was legalized in CA. His terms in office were the highest for marijuana possession arrests until the last few years.

Of course, possession arrests also give law enforcement agencies a way to look good on paper. Since the vast majorities of all arrests for drugs are for simple marijuana possession, their numbers won't look as good.

But that's what happens when you stop trying to create a criminal class out of 12% of the adult population of the nation for engaging in an activity that is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

And that's why people are sick of this bullshit and want the federal govt to accept the scientific evidence instead of continuing to lie and expect people to respect them.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:32 AM

33. Bingo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:52 PM

10. In fact, I'd like to know so much that I asked them who is providing their funding

at their website. their comments are moderated, however, so I'll have to wait to see if the comment is posted, or if it is addressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:58 PM

12. What's his angle, his stake in the game?

"Patrick Kennedy and his new organization"

Somebody needs a 'name' spokesperson for a 'reasonable' fee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to didact (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:59 AM

35. That's the question that will be answered n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:01 PM

14. This is the sleeper issue that Republicans could use for a comeback

 

It would appeal to the more Libertarian members of their base and infuse a boatload of young voters into the party if the GOP took it up as a freedom issue.

With Democrats like Kennedy, they'd end up being the party on the right side of history, too. A tipping point has been reached as always happens with such issues. There is no going back now. Pot will be completely legal in this country, it's just a matter of how much longer will it take after it starts to spread from Colorado and Washington.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:11 PM

17. Nate Silver already noted that repubs should back off on the culture war

and that they should begin with marijuana.

This group, however, is bipartisan.

David Frum is a Republican strategist and spokesperson who has also lent his name to this group. Frum is also a self-identified conservative religious person. I assume his stance on this issue stems from the long association of rural and religious voters with prohibition movements throughout American history.

In fact, FDR won the White House by moving away from the rural, Southern and Midwestern Democratic voter to an alignment with urban Irish and Italian Democrats. That's how prohibition was overturned - by the constant "in your face" from LaGuardia about the ridiculousness of alcohol prohibition, along with others, who provided the counter to the propaganda from the religious who wanted all of America to be alcohol free because of their personal religious beliefs - which were not shared by a lot of other religious folks.

Anyway, it's interesting that two sides of the old prohibition are united in the new prohibition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:49 PM

27. I signed the petition. SAM is a scam.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:57 AM

31. good for you!

last I checked they had 5000 sigs. hope it's increased significantly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:56 PM

28. The elite have it wrong again ....

way too little, way too late ...

Sorry Mr. Elitism, the people can think again for themselves ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:47 AM

29. The Colorado Democratic Party endorsed legalization

I can't imagine too many people took him seriously.

He's preaching to the uninformed crowd and giving a veneer of "liberalism" to a position that is most decidedly not liberal, progressive, or grounded in scientific evidence.

That's antithetical to my idea of good legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:21 AM

32. The Kennedy's are not gods

Pat has a right to his opinion but it's no more important than mine, yours or anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tabasco_Dave (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:57 AM

34. LOL. But he doesn't have a right to his own "facts"

That's the difference between Patrick's opinion and science - facts. And we all know science has a liberal bias.

Since he's getting PAID TO SPREAD PROPAGANDA - I'd like to know who is paying him to do this.

See, it's not just that he has an opinion. He's trying to use his national media presence to undermine votes of people in two states and to stop other states from considering overturning bad law.

That's a fact, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:04 AM

36. Patrick Kennedy is an idiot or shilling for Big Pharma. Or both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:40 PM

37. so far I don't see my that my question was addressed

maybe I missed it and should look a little further.

however, this blog entry is full of smoke being blown up someone's ass...

http://learnaboutsam.com/no-marijuana-legalization/#more-208

I don't have time right now go through the thing, point-by-point to show how wrong this post is - but just for starters - the claim about people in treatment for marijuana - as tho this indicates marijuana is a dangerous substance.

the reality is that people plea bargain and go into treatment rather than go to trial, etc. This doesn't mean marijuana requires treatment. It means the justice system has instituted forced treatment in lieu of harsher punishment.

however, those who go into treatment, for the most part, are substance free for one month before treatment begins.

This is not the action of someone with a drug dependency, unless the someone is the mental health care system.

This is the action of someone operating in a state with laws that are unjust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:46 PM

38. I do not get his "rush to judgement" or anything else he tried to make a point with...

The points that are being hammered are based on something but it isn't fact based data.

Makes me wonder what and who stands to loose from the legalization of pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:03 PM

39. Who stands to lose? For-profit prisons

Congresspeople with for-profit prisons creating jobs in those communities.

The alcoholic beverage industry.

The oil industry.

The forestry industry.

GW Pharma and Bayer

All of these industries would lose market share if people weren't railroaded by current law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:51 PM

41. Right on, RainDog

very good grouping, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread