Re: New Orleans -- General Discussions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:20:37 10/18/05 Tue
Author: Heat
Subject: Re: New Orleans
In reply to: TopOfTotemPole 's message, "Re: New Orleans" on 07:37:22 10/18/05 Tue

>>>>How so? Isn't organised crime the same wherever?
>It's
>>>>people out to make money whatever it takes and God
>>>>help the poor asshole that gets in the way.
>>>
>>>That's big business in general. Organized crime is
>>>just another form of business, only thing is it's
>>>usually black market but harmless shit such as
>>>gambling and moonshine sales.
>>
>>That's a pathetic excuse to cover up the true nature
>>of organized crime. What they deal in ALSO includes
>>murder, extortion, drug trafficking, an maiming.
>>Organized crime is just that, a bunch of low lifes
>>come together and plan out how to leech money from
>>illegal activities, regardless of how many people they
>>have to rip off or permannetly silence. The only
>>difference between mob members (any mob) and street
>>criminals is the ...ta-da..organization and structure.
>>But the intent despicability still remain the same.
>>Crime is crime, and is ultimately inexcusable.
>
>I kind of disagree. Crime is an act committed in
>violation of the law. However, this does not
>necessarily mean it is a violation of moral law.
>Consider the Marijuana Tax act of 1937, how it was
>passed, and why it was passed. The American Medical
>Association wasn't even aware that marijuana was
>actually the traditional hemp found across America.
>The term marijuana was drilled into the public by
>William Randolph Hearst, who owned the major papers
>and tabloids during the day and knew that he could
>promote his own ajenda through the use of racial bias
>as Mexicans were not very popular at that time.
>Through false accounts in his newspapers about crimes
>committed by Mexicans, Blacks, and Latinos, he painted
>a picture that gave Americans the impression that 50%
>of all crimes committed by them could be directly
>traced to this killer weed called marijuana(not hemp)
>and that the two should not be confused. Testimony
>before congress in 1937 was based almost entirely on
>Hearst's racist articles and were presented by Harry
>Anslinger, Director of the Federal Bureau of
>Narcotics. He was appointed by his uncle, who was
>Secretary of the treasury under Herbert Hoover. He
>was also owner of the sixth largest banks in the U.S.
>who also was a banker for DuPont, who stood to lose a
>lot in the petrochemical industry because their
>products, such as nylon, could not compete with Hemp.
>When the AMA was asked about their views on the
>matter, two days before going before congress, the AMA
>wanted to know why this bill was being prepared in
>secret for two consecutive years without their
>knowlege, and that they would need more time to go
>over the facts and details before they could make a
>decision. The AMA was excused. When the tax act bill
>came up for oral report, discussion, and a vote in
>congress, the question was asked, "Did anyone consult
>with the AMA and get their opinion?" Representative
>Vinson answering for the Ways and Means Committee
>replied that the AMA was in complete agreement and the
>act was passed. These are just a few of the facts.
>There was more to it than that especially regarding
>special interests and I don't personally smoke it, but
>I don't think that people who do for medical reasons,
>although it is still a crime, is inexcusable nor do I
>have anything against those who smoke it for other
>reasons. Not all crime is inexcusable.

TopOfTotemPole, although i do agree that my closing statement was a bit too strict, I still stand by my conviction that organized crime and the areas they happen in aren't sweet places to live in, as Adriana falsely claimed. Whether it be the the different crime rings (la cosa nostra, russian mob, tongs, etc.) or just an upstart crew gaining power, any are with that type of criminal collective is fucked up, period.That was what I wanted to say.

As for people smoking marijuana for medical reasons, I'm not against it at all. If they truly have been diagnosed with medical conditions that facilitate the need to smoke cannabis, then it's their freedom to do so.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: New Orleans -- TopOfTotemPole, 05:12:08 10/19/05 Wed
- Re: New Orleans -- Heat, 07:35:41 10/19/05 Wed