Letters to the Editor
Silenced
Published Letters: 1141 Editor's Choice: 67
-
Actually this sentence is scary as hell
[Read the article: John Edwards live]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We're past the time for small, cautious, incremental steps.
Now since his 2004 drug policy was that federal drug laws were not harsh enough, does this mean his planning some massive escalation of the War on Drugs if he gets elected?
I sure wish Edwards would settle this confusion by stating his policy clearly on his website.
-
And one more thing try again
[Read the article: Bloomberg's ambitions]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If we go back to government by spin, then we're screwed, no matter what political convictions inhabit the White House.
-
We know what the issue really is with Kucinich
[Read the article: Caught on tape]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The issue for Clinton and Edwards is -- they are the law enforcement candidates, and you can't be a law enforcement candidate unless you promise to come down hard on the potheads after you get elected.
So they have to keep the marijuana faction of the party muzzled to the best of their ability, while keeping them from turning around and voting third party out of anger.
It's always hard when liberals are forced to prey upon other liberals in order to get elected.
That's what the War on Pot has done. I think the War on Pot could count as one of Nixon's most brilliant and successful schemes.
Not successful in the sense of actually getting rid of pot, but successful in the sense of dividing liberals and stigmatizing liberalism.
-
My vision is clouded by my weak, cowardly tears
[Read the article: Who are you, Anonymous?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's pretty clear my issues won't be defended or represented here.
I post anonymously because I don't want the DEA knocking down my door at 3am because I'm pointing out the fact that they have the system completely rigged in their favor when it comes to medical marijuana.
But forget it, you obviously don't care. So I 'll learn to deal with it.
I suppose I should spend more time writing to my friends in federal prison, instead of wasting my time trying to educate people about all that science that the DEA just does not want people to know about.
I mean, people can't even learn how own their brains really work, because we can't talk about a certain receptor system!
That's a low point in human society as far as I'm concerned. One people ought to be more worried about.
Yes I am a coward. I'm a coward for everyone in my family they might shoot when they break down the door at 3am.
I have to stop typing now because of my weak, cowardly tears.
-
By the way, you might as well unregister me yourself right now Joan
[Read the article: Who are you, Anonymous?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is no way I am going to be able stop trying to inform people of the cannabinoid science that the DEA doesn't want them to know.
I am too fascinated by this science to stop trying to bring it up whenever and wherever I feel it is relevant and being ignored.
This science is revealing a unity between the mind and body that hitherto has only been theorized by psychobabbling nobodies.
But now it's gradually forming into a hard science and it's hard not to be fascinated by all that is being revealed about sleep, appetite, emotion, memory, cancer suppression, and the immune and inflammatory processes.
It's doubly facinating given the fact I experience a lot of this newly-discovered science in my own body.
I guess I feel like giving out this information can protect me and mine from those bastards in the DEA.
Maybe it can and maybe it can't.
But I can't possibly stop myself from doing it, so you might as well stop me yourself.
-
You know, you COULD start covering cannabinoid science
[Read the article: A little bit more about "anonymous"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Salon criticizes the Bush administration for ignoring global warming science.
That kind of gave me impression that you folks are AGAINST ignoring science for the sake of politics.
Maybe I was just being naive and hopeful.
Government-funded researchers discovered back in 1974 that the active ingredients in cannabis kills breast and lung cancer cells. This research was retracted and covered up because it was decided that this news would send the wrong message to children about pot.
But you know what -- when science is true, you can't cover it up forever, and now researchers in Europe are following up and discovering lots of other absolutely amazing anti-cancer properties of these politically charged molecules.
Ignoring it isn't going to make it not true.
In fact, given that we're talking about killing cancer cells here, it seems to me kind of screamingly immoral to keep on ignoring this science and acting like it never happened and has no connection to the rest of the world at all.