Unequal Standards for Cannabis

In this country, it is estimated that tobacco kills over 100,000 people yearly and alcohol kills over 25,000.  There isn’t one single documented death attributed to cannabis abuse; not one.  So the real question is this:  ss marijuana illegal because it’s perceived as dangerous, or is it perceived as dangerous because it’s illegal?

A very large cross-section of our government officials have a severe addiction to money and the lobbyists who peddle it.  These lobbyists are the key holds and have total control of the supply end of the supply and demand system.  The pharmaceutical industry’s lobby alone buys more stroke in Congress than most drug dealers do with junkies; and the twist is that these lobbyists are literally nothing more than drug dealers in suits…nice suits.  It’s not an analogy.

This is just one possible answer to the question of who benefits from cannabis prohibition.  The fact that marijuana is illegal to possess for recreational use (save for Colorado and Washington) is flat-out criminal, and as any detective will tell you when solving a crime, motive is almost always the most telling clue.  Who benefits?

Stating the Obvious

Consider this scenario:  The industries of pharmaceutical, tobacco, entertainment, form a symbiotic relationship along with collateral beneficiaries.  As long as cigarettes are available, pharmaceutical companies can continue development of smoking cessation products with the FDA’s approval (or payoff).  As long these cessation products are available, tobacco companies can continue to develop new and goofy gimmicks (e-cigarettes, non-menthol that can transform to menthol) to keep smokers smoking and voluntarily oblivious to the ugly truth.

Both industries rely on media outlets for marketing purposes, which are owned by major corporation groups like GE.  These corporations must operate within federal standards (FCC), and when they don’t meet these standards, they are fined by the FCC.  The fee is small in comparative terms to the conglomerates’ bottom line.  So small in fact, that paying these fees is often more cost-effective than actually changing to meet these standards.  This fact is not lost on the federal government.  The IRS’s job is to make sure these companies are paying a percentage of their bottom line to the government.

Who benefits in this scenario?  Everyone, that’s who.  Everyone except the lab rats, otherwise known as the American public.  Are we mad about it?  As Edward R. Murrow once said, “We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information.  Our mass media reflect this.”  No, we’re not mad, we just want to be able to go home after work and be left alone.  Our standards aren’t very high, and our expectations are even lower.  We just want to watch high definition TV while we eat, then go to bed to start the process over the next day…and that is the ugly truth.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here