People fighting for truth in the battle with lazy policing and that believe in the rights of innocent and peaceful cannabis consumers believe in the quality Kush friendly clothing offers. You know that arresting, verbalizing, put in custody, trying, releasing and the fines imposed on more than thirty thousand cannabis users annually involves a substantial number of police work. You know that this is effort that can easily be used in other places as they are needed elsewhere.
It will not take a lot to convince you that the only thing relevant to cannabis prohibition, is the prohibition itself and its survival, rather than the stories that are told about cannabis and its dangers. During a certain time, why the ban originated, and which authorities stood to benefit from it in any way, is of course important, and also nice to give you some background on the issue. You can instantly realize that the New York Police Department benefits from it, for example.
It is not their ambition to answer the question of what dangers are wrongfully attributed. Cannabis supporters realize that these dangers are not recognized in Greece, Sweden, Holland and Belgium. Having the same hazards described in different ways depending on the country or political culture has led to a lot of change between 1936 and 2007.
If you have had the opportunity to meet people who think that good research in the field of cannabis, you will be surprised by their views. They have proven that consumption and production will affect the way in which cannabis prohibition is retained, modified, or perhaps dissolved! This recommendation aims to show that the idea claiming that cannabis prohibition has been a shield from discourse is far from scientific.
Describing the dangers and making objections to this is not the first ambition here. The defenders' aim is to give a general description of the main function of cannabis prohibition anywhere, that legitimizes to the naked eye a version of the dangers that at a certain moment came into fashion, however mistakenly that may have been. What is mean by the culture of cannabis prohibition is the system for which stories about the wickedness of cannabis keep getting manufactured.
There are similarities and differences between the responses various authorities will give you. The story about cannabis as a source of violence is only to be found in England and the USA. Of all the stories provided by the authorities, scientifically speaking, every one is either incorrect or highly questionable.
The more mundane aspects of the ban also need some contemplation. The example of organizations that benefit from the culture of cannabis prohibition comes from ongoing research into cannabis arrests in New York by Harry Levine. His thesis is that the driving force behind the arrest of large and growing number of people for the possession of cannabis in the city of New York is not the use of cannabis, or any possible increase in risks for local police.
There is no need to go into the debate about cannabis as a stepping stone drug. Just leave that statement as one that would lead to a series of epidemiological publications to tear it apart with proof about the unsustainability of cannabis as a stepping stone drug. The solution? Put your kit and show your colors for what's right!
It will not take a lot to convince you that the only thing relevant to cannabis prohibition, is the prohibition itself and its survival, rather than the stories that are told about cannabis and its dangers. During a certain time, why the ban originated, and which authorities stood to benefit from it in any way, is of course important, and also nice to give you some background on the issue. You can instantly realize that the New York Police Department benefits from it, for example.
It is not their ambition to answer the question of what dangers are wrongfully attributed. Cannabis supporters realize that these dangers are not recognized in Greece, Sweden, Holland and Belgium. Having the same hazards described in different ways depending on the country or political culture has led to a lot of change between 1936 and 2007.
If you have had the opportunity to meet people who think that good research in the field of cannabis, you will be surprised by their views. They have proven that consumption and production will affect the way in which cannabis prohibition is retained, modified, or perhaps dissolved! This recommendation aims to show that the idea claiming that cannabis prohibition has been a shield from discourse is far from scientific.
Describing the dangers and making objections to this is not the first ambition here. The defenders' aim is to give a general description of the main function of cannabis prohibition anywhere, that legitimizes to the naked eye a version of the dangers that at a certain moment came into fashion, however mistakenly that may have been. What is mean by the culture of cannabis prohibition is the system for which stories about the wickedness of cannabis keep getting manufactured.
There are similarities and differences between the responses various authorities will give you. The story about cannabis as a source of violence is only to be found in England and the USA. Of all the stories provided by the authorities, scientifically speaking, every one is either incorrect or highly questionable.
The more mundane aspects of the ban also need some contemplation. The example of organizations that benefit from the culture of cannabis prohibition comes from ongoing research into cannabis arrests in New York by Harry Levine. His thesis is that the driving force behind the arrest of large and growing number of people for the possession of cannabis in the city of New York is not the use of cannabis, or any possible increase in risks for local police.
There is no need to go into the debate about cannabis as a stepping stone drug. Just leave that statement as one that would lead to a series of epidemiological publications to tear it apart with proof about the unsustainability of cannabis as a stepping stone drug. The solution? Put your kit and show your colors for what's right!
No comments:
Post a Comment