Alcohol and painkiller manufacturers, terrified that they might lose market share, are major players in the fight against pot-legalizations ballot initiatives.
The fight against legalized pot is being heavily bankrolled by alcohol and pharmaceutical companies, terrified that they might lose market share.
On the heels of a filing last week that revealed that a synthetic cannabis company is financing the opposition to legal marijuana in Arizona comes a new disclosure this week that a beer industry group made one of the largest donations to an organization set up to defeat legalization in Massachusetts.
The Beer Distributors PAC, an affiliate that represents 16 beer-distribution companies in Massachusetts, gave $25,000 to the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts, tying it for third place among the largest contributors to the anti-pot organization.
William A. Kelley, the president of the Beer Distributors of Massachusetts, did not respond to a request for comment, but his organization's decision to oppose legalization is hardly unique in the alcohol industry.
In Arizona, one of the five states with marijuana legalization ballot measures this November, the Arizona Wine and Spirits Wholesale Association donated $10,000 to a group opposing legalization. In 2010, the last time California considered marijuana legalization, another alcoholic beverage distribution group provided financing to a law enforcement-backed campaign to defeat legalization.
[Update: The article in The Intercept had two 'links' that lacked any actual URL. An alternative was found for the link to William A. Kelley and replaced. Could not find a link to corroborate the $10,000 donation in Arizona — that link was removed. -Ed.]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @07:46PM
Sometimes something becomes legal because Congress makes a law. Sometimes it's because the President writes an executive order. Sometimes the public votes.
I don't know which of those is best, but I do know that I don't like legality being decided by whichever side having the most money to spend on propaganda.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @07:57PM
sort of like how Kratom will be illegal in a few days, and synthetic variants of the the effective opiate withdrawal alleviating compounds within it have been isolated just recently?
I've used Kratom on and off for 15 years, probably before most people heard of it (I generally try some of the fringe stuff those online headshops sell... but usually avoid stuff promoted to be legal weed or something dumb like that). I havent been addicted to anything and haven't needed painkillers greater than an aspirin or ibuprofen; I use/used kratom in a manner similar to scullcap (reduction of mental noise/helping to focus on getting physical chores done instead of goofing off...).
There is nothing high about it. The whole description of its capability to help deal with opiate withdrawal is new to me. And because big pharma got so many addicted in the modern opium wars, it seems not too far of a stretch that they wish to control the means to escape it.
It doesnt surprise me that big pharma and the big breweries want to kill legal pot or legal anything-they-can't-control. We see it time and again when a comfortable monopoly is threatened...
I just hope people vote for their individual liberties and say it loudly enough to get the results.
If the the republican party can end up having Trump as their standard-bearer, anything can happen. It's clear people wanted change they could count on; maybe they can try to shake up the monopolistic system the various capitialistic controls are trying so hard to keep into place, be it municpal internet delivery, solar power hookups, alternative fuels, or alternative medicines. Change can be good.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @08:14PM
The change that Trump represents is that
1) he doesn't have the attention span to study policy that can't be explained in two or three sentences.
2) he doesn't think he needs to hire anybody to make the decisions, because he obviously has better judgement than the so-called experts
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday September 19 2016, @06:34AM
1) he doesn't have the attention span to study policy that can't be explained in two or three words.
Hell, he didn't even know the basic R abortion policy (he said he wanted to punish the women having abortions, R policy is they are being "taken advantage of" by evil doctors and nurses).
He thinks that getting his kids to run his businesses is putting them in a blind trust.
It's kinda sad that he's got so far by just blurting out whatever he thinks the crowd in front of him wants to hear, regardless of what the truth is or whatever his personal beliefs are (beyond "I am great").
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Monday September 19 2016, @07:16AM
1) he doesn't have the attention span to study policy that can't be explained in two or three syllables.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday September 19 2016, @07:32AM
and if you use 3 syllables, it's 50/50 whether or not Trump immediately calls you a liar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @01:35PM
And this is why money should not be defined as political speech. Free speech's value comes from ideas having to survive on their merit, not the political power wielded by who it appeals to. But here, continued prohibition is kept going because of these industries' money.