Third Party & Independents Archives

Green Party Gubernatorial Candidate in Connecticut: Cliff Thornton

The two major parties have certain issues which they are unwilling to speak out against. On the top of that list is the War on Drugs, which has cost our nation billions of dollars and produced mass arrests of United States citizens. One man, Cliff Thornton, the Green Party’s Gubernatorial candidate in Connecticut is working to change our nations disastrous drug policies.

From an early age Cliff Thornton was affected by the drug culture. At merely 18 his mother died from a heroin overdose, leaving him to ponder on drugs and our nations policies regarding use. For a short time thereafter Mr. Thornton became enraged and wanted harsher drug laws, however since than he has seen the harm in our nation's drug policies and now feels that "if heroin use had been legal, and supervised by doctors, his mother might have lived a relatively safe and healthy life." (1)

Since this time Mr. Thornton has been at the forefront of drug poicy reform. Founding Efficacy in 1996, http://www.efficacy-online.org/, a non profit concerned with drug law reform, domestic violence, education, and race issues. Now, ten years later, Efficacy is internationally known, and Cliff has since been invited to speak in locations across the United States, Canada, England, and New Zealand.

In his campaign for Governor of Connecticut, Cliff Thornton has pledged to make the ignored drug war an issue.

1. http://www.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=314&page=cand

Posted by Richard Rhodes at August 2, 2006 7:37 PM
Comments
Comment #172953

Richard:

I believe the country has ample evidence that “The War Against Drugs” is a failure, especially in low-income neighborhoods where unemployment is rampant and ‘upward mobility’ is a campaign slogan, not a reality. So much of the urban landscape is hopeless for minorities and the poor, and it seems the Drug War is a high-cost method of getting them off the street, instead of dealing with these people’s needs.

I think decriminalization of marijuana is long overdue. It should be marketed, taxed, and proceeds used for rehabilitation and recovery programs. It would solve the concomitent problemof cancer patients seeking grass to ease the
nausea from cancer-fighting drugs.

I strongly believe that first and even second drug offenses should have minimal repurcussions on young people. Dealing with a felony conviction for the rest of their lives quite often condemns them to a life of poverty, low-wage jobs, a closed door in seeking higher education.

The War on Drugs has been predicated on harshness and Old Testament vindictiveness—more cops, bigger prisons, three-strikes and you’re out. There is no real effort to decriminalize the scene and putting a real emphasis on making life worth living for addicts and people trying to recover from addiction.

This drug war isn’t working, and we have more people behing bars per capita than any other country in the world. It’s high time that we reconsider and rethink this program. At the risk of being trite, an ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of cure.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 3, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #172954

Tim Crow-
Exactly. The war on drugs is not being criticized for the failure that it has been. The fact is this is an issue that many, even ultra liberal or on the other side ultra libertarian, have been afraid to speak out against. Each year we arrest approximately 700,000 persons just for cannabis offenses, these court costs, prison costs, lawyer fees cost our nation millions. Not to mention the absolute lies of propoganda that are perpetrated by the ONDCP, the television time for these ads which we the taxpayer pay for, cost our nation.

People need to see what a failure this war on drugs has been, voting for politicians who will speak out, like Cliff Thornton is crucial. And to anyone who wants to argue that Cliff Thornton is a one issue candidate, as they always seem to claim of third party candidates, he is far from it. It just so happens to be that I chose to focus on this issue, while his campaign does indeed embrace many progressive issues.

For more information on the war on cannabis, read my ten part series, The History of Cannabis Prohibition: 1937 - 1962, available under my profile.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 3, 2006 1:50 AM
Comment #172959

Richard:

“Each year we arrest approximately 700,000 persons just for cannabis offenses…”

That is ludicrous. The only people that could be happy with that is the ABA.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 3, 2006 2:14 AM
Comment #173021
I strongly believe that first and even second drug offenses should have minimal repurcussions on young people. Dealing with a felony conviction for the rest of their lives quite often condemns them to a life of poverty, low-wage jobs, a closed door in seeking higher education.

Tim:

You should’ve seen the look on my face when I read your post. I shudder to think what would happen to this country if Green Party members like Thornton or liberals sharing your same viewpoint were elected into office.

This is the whole reason we have a criminal justic system, to punish people. Your argument is infeasible b/c then anyone could say we shouldn’t punish people severely b/c they will have a hard time adjusting to society once they are released…why not just get rid of prisons all together? This is absolute lunacy.

This ill-conceived position is just another example of irresponsible Green Party and Democratic ideology that jeopardizes not only the responsible criminal justice system in this country but also the accountability-based civilization and culture we’ve worked tirelessly to foster.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 3, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #173024
“if heroin use had been legal, and supervised by doctors, his mother might have lived a relatively safe and healthy life.”

Richard:

You wonder why the Green Party doesn’t get more members elected into high public office? It’s b/c of quotes like these. Your party just doesn’t seem to understand that handing drugs to people doesn’t rid the drug problem…it merely puts more deranged addicts and vagrants on the streets to dope up and hop into a car and crash it into oncoming traffic, or get so high they think their Superman and all the innocent civilians are insidious demons that need to be dealt with.

And the doctor supervision part is just laughable. We see how porous the drug regulation system is (sorry Rush, don’t mean to chastise you). We would end up with crooked doctors dealing under the table, fudging paperwork so “patients” can get away with a few extra packs of pot (not much different than we have today).

The bottom line is that there will always be ways around the system, and legalizing drugs like marijuana would only help the crimianls by creating a legal drug cartel to spread addiction and violence, all at the expense of the innocent citizen…

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 3, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #173028
There is no real effort to decriminalize the scene…

Tim:

So, if you ran the world, you would simply stop the War on Drugs by taking away the war, legalizing the nefarious objects the war was started over in the first place…you throw out the law, you throw out the war, you throw out the problem, except the drugs, the real problem, don’t go anywhere…

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 3, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #173032

Alex:

Unlike Republicans throwing away people they don’t like, at least I’m considering throwing away a policy that doesn’t work.

Actually, I really didn’t even say ‘throw away.’ I said it’s time to be rethought. Something neo-cons, libertarians and Republicans have in short supply.

I believe some new ideas and new suggestions are in order. Not the end of the world, just a reevaluation of a policy that’s been around for thirty years and has had very limited success.

If I were in charge though, I would eliminate the entire terminology of war. What you concentrate on, you get more of. The program shouldn’t be a war—it should be a campaign for a healthy, happy life. Concentrate on that, work towards those goals, and I believe we would start seeing some real success.

Addiction isn’t a crime, it’s an illness. When it is coupled with poverty, ignorance, dead-end jobs
and little schooling, it becomes a tragedy. And vindictiveness and punishment have very limited appeal.

If we treated alcoholism the way we treat drug addiction, we’d have a prison in every town and everybody could work in the penal system. As for me, no thanks. Instead of punishing the victims, we should be considering another way. This one isn’t working.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 3, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #173033

Tim,

In a parallel thread I suggested that gov’t did have an obligation to assist people in trouble with addiction; especially those with no other recourse. The (r)wingnuts insisted I wanted to take over everyone, throw them in a cage, and make them into my image. It’s amazing how here one (r)winger is arguing that drug laws need to be enforced as illegal drug users must be incarcerated as a danger.
Does anyone else see the hypocracy?

Posted by: Dave1 at August 3, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #173051

Tim Crow hit most of the main points I believe.

Alex-

Do you feel that the drugs themselves are actually evil? We’ll take marijuana as a case study. The only official government study ever conducted showed that it had zero adverse effects resulting from habitual use. The history of its becoming illegal is full of racismn border states and political bargaining by Pharmaceutical companies. The biggest issue is that people would not have to go to a doctor, but could grow medicine in their own yard. Pharmaceutical companies hate this idea for strictly bottom line reasons.

But here comes Alex with his ranting about moral corruption and rampant attrocities resulting from legalization, regulation, and elimination of the much more dangerous black market.

“The bottom line is that there will always be ways around the system, and legalizing drugs like marijuana would only help the crimianls by creating a legal drug cartel to spread addiction and violence, all at the expense of the innocent citizen…”

NONE of this makes any sense. No one will need a marijuana cartel…it is a damn weed! I’d love to hear any real justification for making the sweeping statements you have made in this thread. None of it is supported by evidence, and your reasoning defends a costly unwinnable war against something that is, in and of itself, natural and NOT evil.

First show me real causation, not just general crime stats that could be caused by a hundred factors (notably poverty and hopelessness), that shows marijuana causes any more crime than alcohol does. If you can, you’re blowing hot air, because it does not exist. Only the opposite conclusions exist.

Then explain to me how locking someone up for smoking this naturally growing weed does anything to solve any problems. I’m guessing you believe that the death penalty is a deterrent too, right? Your notion of a “responsible criminal justice” system is not very sound if you advocate creating and enforcing laws that are not based on good solid evidence and information. So please explain how revising the policy to make sense is going to cause the end of moral society? And how does this equate to tearing down prisons? Your analogies are so irresponsible I don’t even know where to begin.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 3, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #173054

And since when is it the place of government to involve themselves in decisions about MY body. I thought government involvement in our lives was supposed to be a bad thing to conservatives. Just not when it comes to certain things right? So they should stay out of education, health care, and the regulation of business (I agree they should stay out of it), but yet they SHOULD be involved in what goes in your body, child rearing decisions (abortion, etc.), and what natural plants I’m allowed to grow in my own yard?? How is this not a blatent contradiction in your “beliefs”?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 3, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #173089

I consider myself independent with a strong consertive lean.

Richard and Tim,
You have my support on this. (however, I do consider the death penalty to be a deterent to murder)

Posted by: tomd at August 3, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #173103

Substitute the word drugs with guns or taxes, and watch all the “personal responsibility” lefties do an about face.

Interesting post Richard. I’d favor legalizing drugs in a heartbeat but not if it meant I had to vote green. I love ALL of my freedoms too much to do that.

Posted by: kctim at August 3, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #173129

Kctim-

Exactly my point. Substitute the words “drugs” or “sex” for “guns” or “taxes” and watch the “conservative” righties do an about face.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 3, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #173217

Interesting comments on both sides. The real facts are; People are never going to stop using illegal drugs. It has not happened in my lifetime. it has not happened in the history of man/woman. What we must all see is that the drug war is only meant to be waged not won. Secondly, the drug war has absolutely nothing to do with drugs, it’s about power, control, coercion, it’s about money plain and simple. Please start thinking outside of the box.

I thought as some of you when my mother died from an apparent overdose. These drugs will never be controlled until they are inside of the law. Legalization, medicalization and decriminalization are highly conservative policies, in that they limit access. At present, anyone who wants them have unlimited access, especially our children. Our children are key. Anyone who wants to use is using now. What we have now is a liberal policy. Education is the key as it is to all issues. Most people give knee jerk responses as I did in my youth without the facts.

We see the double standard applied, with the latest being the Mayor of Bridgeport. This is a race/class war—a war on our own people. Blacks and browns are the ones that go to jail in great numbers in this state and this country. But wait a minute, eighty percent of the people that die from illegal drugs are white. What is wrong with this picture? You see there is a crisis in white America also but for the most part that is covered up. Remember this “injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere.”

It is not about dems, repubs or greens. It is about not continuing the insanity that has been going on for so long. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. All great truths begin as blasphemy.


Thornton for Governor
PO Box 1971
Manchester, CT 06045
votethornton@yahoogroups.com
www.votethornton.com
860 657 8438-H
860 268 1294-C
860 778 1304-Tim Mckee-Campaign Manager
860 293 0222-Ken Krayeske-field Manager
Paid for by Thornton For Governor
Donna L. Byrne-Mckee, Treasure

Posted by: Clifford Wallace Thornton, Jr. at August 4, 2006 7:54 AM
Comment #173234

Kevin
Totally agree with you.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #173332

Kevin:

The purpose of this thread is not to debate how harmful marijuana is, because there is no doubt that it is harmful. Rather, this is a debate between right and wrong. We allow alcohol, fine. We allow cigarettes, fine. But trying to justify the legalization of marijuana by saying we allow alcohol and cigarttes is foolish.

Marijuana and other illegal drugs incite violence, spread hatred, and destroy lives, and condoning an object that engages in the aforementioned is something I will never accept.

Your idea of “fixing” the situation is not trying to get drugs off the streets and out of kid’s hands. Rather, your idea is to condone drug use…how can you justify handing kids marijuana and telling them it’s ok to use it? It’s sick.

And Kevin, you say I don’t make any sense? You’re making this situation much more complicated than it has to be. There is a simple answer to the drug question: legalizing drugs such as marijuana will only lead to a more readily available product, resulting in more addicted vagrants, some of which will end up on more serious drugs (pot is the gateway drug). You don’t need stats to tell you that.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 4, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #173341

Alex-

SHOW me the causation. The ONLY government study ever done showed you to be completely wrong in regards to the negative effects. The ball is in your court since you dispute the only study ever done by simply saying “there is no doubt that it is harmful”. So lets stop right there. The ball is in your court, but I won’t let you make assumptions that are not supported by FACTS and pawn them off as “obvious” truth. Your premise is fatally flawed.

And I haven’t even gotten around to the negative consequences of enforcing a horribly based policy.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 4, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #173345

I can make a better case that caffeine is a gateway drug than marijuana based on current information that is available. I hope THAT sickens you Alex.

Posted by: kevin23 at August 4, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #173347

“legalizing drugs such as marijuana will only lead to a more readily available product”

The product IS readily available, and much more readily available than alcohol for the vast majority of children. I know it was when I was in school. So again, fatally flawed premise.

So I’ll say it again: you are not making ANY sense with your emotional morality lesson. Telling people the TRUTH is a much better and more enforceable policy, don’t you think? Or are you afraid of the truth like oh so many backward-ass Kansas school boards?

Posted by: kevin23 at August 4, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #173377
The product IS readily available, and much more readily available than alcohol for the vast majority of children.

Kevin:

So b/c the product is already readily available we should give up the fight and legalize it? You’re the one who’s not making sense.

And about this “horribly enforced policy,” maybe we should reform the policy by cracking down on the transgressors rather than giving up and legalizing the product…you seem to think that marijuana isn’t addictive, that notion is lunacy and you haven’t proven otherwise.

And I’d challenge you to find one reliable report definitively affirming marijuana’s non-addictivness b/c there is overwhelming evidence asserting the opposite.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 4, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #173451

What overwhelming evidence? How many times do I have to ask? The only official government study is here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm

Where is your “reliable” evidence?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 5, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #173455

That is it. Plus there was a study done in the 30’s under mayor lagaudia (spelling) and then one under Clinton. I say get the facts but with some people the only facts that matter are the ones they agree with.

Posted by: Clifford W. Thornton, Jr. at August 5, 2006 4:41 AM
Comment #173475
There was noted in all subjects some increase in pulse rate and in blood pressure, dilated and sluggish pupils, dryness of the mouth and throat, ataxia, and some clumsiness and incoordination of movement. Symptoms distinctly disagreeable were dizziness in 3 subjects, a sense of heaviness of the extremities in 2, nausea in 2 and faintness in 2. Three showed motor restlessness. A state classed as euphoria, characterized by laughter, witticisms, loquaciousness, and lowering of inhibitions occurred in 3 subjects. This was not sustained but alternated with periods during which disagreeable symptoms were dominant. In one of the subjects (V.C.) there was no euphoric state, but a feeling of discomfort and depression throughout. Finally in one of the 5 (A.V.) with 2 cc. There was a state of depression with anxiety and with 4 cc. a psychotic episode with fear of death…It is known that marihuana intoxication may bring about a comatose state.

Mr. Thornton and Kevin:

This is straight from the report…so, in conclusion, a drug that brings about dizziness, a sense of heaviness, nausea, faintness, motor restlessness, depression with anxiety, psychotic episodes and could render you comatose, just to name a few, with no affirmed medical benefits other than painkilling should be legalized for personal use?

I thought it was accepted fact that marijuana use can and has been lethal, but apparently some people never took a DARE lesson in school…

And I’ll reiterate for the last time: a failed system is no justification for throwing in the towel by legalizing the product. You’d be setting a dangerous precedent, Mr. Thornton, and I compel you to reconsider the ramifications of your actions.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 5, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #173477

There are three reports all commissoned by the authorities. 1st mayor of new york 1944, The Schaffer Commission under president Nixon.


http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

The third was under Clinton. They all came to the same conclusion. Cannibis is less benign than booze and is not addictive.

All three were swept under the rug. Please go to drug war facts.org

Posted by: Clifford W. Thornton, Jr. at August 5, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #173501

Alex-

Do you fail to see that there are MAY LAEGAL substances which are worst for you. Anything is bad if it is abused. But to advocate allowing something as mind-diminishing as alcohol to be legal, and then make something like marijuana illegal is to be a big fat hypocrite. Especially when you use the reasoning that it is “dangerous.”

And no, your DARE class did not do a very good job. And they have NEVER done a very good job (see the stats…google it). No one has ever dies with causation linked to marijuana. Alcohol on the other hand…

Posted by: kevin23 at August 5, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #173502

forgive my grammer…I have a 2 year old running around my feet at the moment.

Posted by: kevin23 at August 5, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #173531

Actually the Schaffer report was not the first government study. The first US government commissioned study of marijuana was conducted by the US Military in Panama from 1916 to 1929, and it found that marijuana is not habit forming.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/panama/panama1.htm

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 5, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #173553

As President Jimmy Carter told Congress in 1977:

“Penalties against a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use. The National Commission on Marijuana and Abuse concluded years ago that marijuana use should be decriminalized, and I believe it is time to implement those basic recommendations.

Therefore, I support legislation amending federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana.”

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 5, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #173577
Do you fail to see that there are MAY LAEGAL substances which are worst for you. Anything is bad if it is abused. But to advocate allowing something as mind-diminishing as alcohol to be legal, and then make something like marijuana illegal is to be a big fat hypocrite. Especially when you use the reasoning that it is “dangerous.”

Kevin:

I haven’t performed detailed studies of marijuana versus alcohol, but I will say this: are there more potentially harmful substances than marijuana, yes. But does that justify legalizing it? Not by a long shot.

Purely for the sake of argument, let’s just say marijuana was another form of liquor, although this particular brand of liquor is illegal and has an underground market reeking of violence. If you had the chance, would you legalize this product that has and will harm people, in addition to allowing the underground market to surface, dragging its violence along with it?

Legalizing marijuana will only endanger society by allowing yet another potentially harmful product to be dispersed freely and legally, without the risk of negative ramifications (ie, jail time) for the user.

As for alcohol, we’ve tried banning it, and it hasn’t worked. Now the industry is so entrenched it would be impossible to ban the product without suffering severe economic ramifications. But perhaps the most compelling reason why we shouldn’t ban alcohol is b/c the industry doesn’t carry a volatile underground market, unlike the seedy underground drug markets—markets that would be legitimized. And don’t think the underground drug markets would evaporate just b/c the product was legalized. In fact, just the opposite. The markets would expand as users begin to search for lower prices, prices only attained through sleazy, subversive operations.

Your only motive for the legalization of marijuana, unless I missed something, is purely economical…save money by stopping the “War on Drugs.” You’re willing to endanger the well-being of society just to bolster the government’s bottom line.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 5, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #173585

Alex-
You made my argument for me, and I think Kevin would agree.

“Purely for the sake of argument, let’s just say marijuana was another form of liquor, although this particular brand of liquor is illegal and has an underground market reeking of violence. If you had the chance, would you legalize this product that has and will harm people, in addition to allowing the underground market to surface, dragging its violence along with it?”

If it was legalized there would not be an underground market, that should be clear to anyone. How would an underground market exist when legal the price in the legal market would be much much cheaper than in a underground market?

“But perhaps the most compelling reason why we shouldn’t ban alcohol is b/c the industry doesn’t carry a volatile underground market, unlike the seedy underground drug markets”

Umm have you never heard of the underground market which flourished in prohibition? And what happened after prohibition? That market went away because it was cheaper, not to mention safer to get it through legal sources. You fail to differentiate why the underground market would not go away upon legalization of marijuana as it did with alcohol.

Moreover the underground market with marijuana would be doomed upon legalization. Marijuana is extremely easy to grow, and with it legal persons could easily grow their own. Even more compelling is that for those who do not want to grow their own could buy it through the free market legally, similar to cigarettes (and likely it would be the cigarette companies who corner the marijuana market upon legalization, think about it they have the farmland to grow it and they have all of the machinery already).

Remember Prohibition? It still doesn’t work.
www.norml.org

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 5, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #173586

Alex-
I know your going to say that the underground market will still exist even after legalization, so I will take a page out of Bush’s book and act preemptively.

I challenge you to name one instance involving a substance where a underground market still flourished after being legally introduced to the market.

On a side note I’d like to mention that for teenagers it is much easier to get underground illegal drugs than it is to get legal drugs. Thus if marijuana was legalized with an age of 21, like alcohol, it would be much harder to get than it is today. I remember when I was in high school I could get marijuana anywhere at my school, and I mean anywhere, it was tremendously easy to get, yet cigarettes and alcohol, both legal, were much harder to get, yet alcohol was harder to get than cigarettes because to get cigarettes you only had to know someone who is 18 and to get alcohol you have to know someone who is 21, and most high school kids have friends who are 18 but don’t have friends who are 21.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 6, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #173646

Richard:

I’ve played right into your hand by complicating a simple question. You can justify to your heart’s content, but there will always be one constant: I don’t want my kids growing up in a world where harmful drugs are not only legalized, but condoned for private use. So, rather than giving in, I will fight the war to eradicate illegal drugs, even if that war is ill-fated…

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 6, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #173664

“So, rather than giving in, I will fight the war to eradicate illegal drugs, even if that war is ill-fated… “

Well bully for you.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 6, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #173667

Alex-

The whole point is that your kids will listen to you. They do not listen to law books. They are what you make them. If most people are like you, which I believe they are, then it will be frowned upon and seen for exactly what it is. The truth will be out there for all to see. But what we have now, this lying to the kids to scare them away, it doesn’t do what you say it does…that being a deterrent effect. For every kid who doesn’t want to risk getting caught, there is one who does it solely because it is an adventurous thing to do. The world is real whether you try to “control” it with laws and police or not. It is your choice if you wish to combat it with tax money, but don’t think that what is going on in the legal arena is really for the kids…it isn’t. The kids respond best to truth,not lies, and from those around them daily, not lawyers.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 6, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #173713

Kevin23:

I understand your position, but condoning personal drug use by legalizing the product is not a great first step towards properly educating kids about drugs. It puts parents at a distinct disadvantage. Kids see the drug is legal, they assume it isn’t harmful, creating yet another barrier parents must dismantle in order to prevent their kids from using drugs.

I don’t see enough rewards in legalizing marijuana. I only see potential harm and unnecessary fret.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at August 6, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #173720

Alex-
I am interested in hearing your views on hemp, just a thought.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 6, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #173721

I’d also like to thank Cliff Thornton for taking the time to personally comment on this thread several times. I think its really nice that he cares enough to personally comment, and moreover it reflects on the growth of the success of watchblog.

P.S: I recently finished a personal exclusive interview with Cliff Thornton, so look forward to this being posted at watchblog in the coming weeks.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 6, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #173733

Fair enough Alex, I can see I’m not going to change your mind. But I would just leave it at this. I think that the nation would be better served to have the parents break past that “its legal therefore ok for me” barrier rather than have what we have today…that being an overburden on the prison system and police departments and the criminalization of kids being kids. Sometimes a violent criminal is taken off the streets, but more often it is some dumb kid looking for a better friday night…a warning would serve society better in those cases.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 7, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #173734

It was indeed nice that Mr. Thornton took the time to get in the trenches. I read the link and learned a few things…always a good thing.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 7, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #259565

Green Party candidates and leaders called the 24-hour curfew imposed on the city of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, a gross violation of the rights of local citizens and a symptom of the rapid growth of unrestrained police power over the past two decades. he Clark for Congress campaign issued the following statement today on the Russo-Georgian conflict by 8th District Green Party congressional candidate Gordon Clark. Green candidates and leaders called Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s positions on energy policy, gas prices, and global warming a capitulation to corporate lobbies, and urged adoption of the Green Party’s plan to reduce fossil fuel consumption, generate new jobs in conservation and new energy sources, and curb the advance of climate change.

——————————————————
Aniecruz
Connecticut Alcohol Addiction Treatment

Posted by: Aniecruz at August 26, 2008 8:10 AM
Post a comment