cannabisnews.com: Lib Dem Leader Backs Off Cannabis Pledge 





Lib Dem Leader Backs Off Cannabis Pledge 
Posted by CN Staff on September 21, 2002 at 16:11:05 PT
By Anne Perkins, Political Correspondent
Source: Guardian Unlimited
The Liberal Democrats' drugs policy was in confusion yesterday after Charles Kennedy appeared to renege on party policy to legalise cannabis. As delegates arrived for the party conference, starting in Brighton tomorrow, their leader, Mr Kennedy, insisted his party's policy was not legalisation but decriminalisation. "The Liberal Democrats support the decriminalisation of cannabis. Full stop," he said after several minutes' questioning on the BBC Question Time programme on Thursday night. 
In March, after a long debate on a working party report, the Liberal Democrats' spring conference voted "to end prison sentences for possession for personal use of all illegal drugs ... and legalise cannabis by seeking in the longer term to put its supply on a legal, regulated basis subject to renegotiating UN conventions". The Question Time exchanges began after one of the young audience asked Mr Kennedy: "How much are you going to charge for an eighth?" Mr Kennedy said he knew what was "being got at". But when the programme's presenter, David Dimbleby, reminded him that his party had voted for legalisation Mr Kennedy denied it. "We're not saying legalisation. There is a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. What we are saying is that if you really want to tackle in a sensible and hopefully solvable way the drugs issue in this country you put resources into rehabilitation. The people you come down on with the full force of the law are the pushers," Mr Kennedy said. When the party debated legalisation, it was pointed out that international conventions, specifically the 1988 UN convention on illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, demand that supply or purchase with intent to supply must be a criminal offence. The party leadership declared that as an internationalist party, it could only be committed to legalisation "in the long term". Although the party is anxious not to be seen to be tailoring policies to Tory votes, the Liberal Democrats' top 40 target seats are all Conservative held. Insisting that there had been no change in policy, one aide insisted: "It's a nuanced position." However, many in the party want legalisation. One MP, Jenny Tonge, said last night that anything else was hypocritical. "We have to think the unthinkable. It is the dealers and the crime associated with dealing which threaten to destabilise our society. We must move the debate on and we have. Liberal Democrat policy is legalisation subject to international agreement." Rank and file Liberal Democrats have always been radical on drugs policy. Special Report: Drugs in Britain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/0,2759,178206,00.htmlSource: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Author: Anne Perkins, Political CorrespondentPublished: Saturday, September 21, 2002Copyright: 2002 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles:Britain To Let Pot Smokers Off Lightly http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13384.shtmlHash On The High Street http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13382.shtmlCannabis and The Killer Class http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13365.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #24 posted by p4me on September 22, 2002 at 08:18:40 PT
Yellowtimes is singing our song
This is the entire article that appeared at yellowtimes.org yesterday: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=703&mode=thread&order=0''My meeting with Jack Kingston''
Printed on Saturday, September 21, 2002   00:05:40 EDT  ( )By Keiler HookYellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States) (YellowTimes.org) – My colleague and I were sent, by the Marijuana Policy Project of Washington D.C., to Georgia Republican Representative Jack Kingston's office to try to get a feel for his thinking about the decriminalization of medicinal marijuana, specifically in the District of Columbia.Mr. Kingston was very charming and accommodating. He answered questions and stated his feelings about marijuana, which are similar to everyone else's in the U.S. government. One of his points was: the people in the decriminalization movement should find another name for marijuana. Marijuana is a pretty name, a very old name. Mr. Kingston, like most all of the politicians in D.C., is reactionary to this word, this plant, and this drug that has been in use for the last 3,000 years. I pointed out to Mr. Kingston that people had been misinformed and uneducated about marijuana for a very long time. This is not the time to continue misinforming; it is time for the truth. Why can't he and the other drug warriors just admit that they have made a gross mistake about the dangers of marijuana? Canada has just finished reporting to its government on the decriminalization of marijuana. Here is a summary of their Senate report: ”Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," said Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, who oversaw the committee's two- year inquiry. "Whether or not an individual uses marijuana should be a personal choice that is not subject to criminal penalties. We have come to the conclusion that, as a drug, it should be regulated by the state much as we do for wine and beer, hence our preference for legalization over decriminalization.” Some of the major findings in the Senate report are: Marijuana is not a gateway to the use of hard drugs.
Marijuana use does not lead to the commission of crime.
Marijuana users are unlikely to become dependent.
Marijuana use has little impact on driving.
Liberalizing marijuana laws is unlikely to lead to increased marijuana use.
Marijuana prohibition poses a greater risk to health than marijuana use. For the complete report, see http://www.parl.gc.ca/illegal- drugs.asp. Our drug warriors reacted immediately after the Canadian Senate released its findings. They are so attached to their position on marijuana that they are becoming lost in their own deception. People are laughing aloud at these foolish people. The world is laughing at the attention and money being spent by our government to inhibit the use of a weed that millions of people in this country smoke. Laws do not stop people from breaking them when the laws show no common sense. "Objective reviews keep debunking the thinking behind prohibition, but our government throws them on the trash heap every time," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project (http://www.mpp.org). "We should be grateful that the Canadians, like the British, are trying to do the sort of honest, fact-based analysis that our government refuses to do. Americans should give this a serious look - and reject the prohibitionist policies that have failed for two-thirds of a century."The government tells us that fewer people are jailed for the use of marijuana. That may be so, but if you are a student and caught with marijuana, you risk losing government funding for college. This does not happen if you are a student and get caught with alcohol, which is much more harmful than marijuana. If you get arrested for possession of marijuana, it goes on your record forever. This keeps people from gaining employment. Try explaining to an employer that you were charged with possession of a Schedule 1 drug. Try telling the truth about how you feel about the drug war to an employer, and they will use this information as an excuse not to hire you. The United States is increasing penalties for marijuana use while other governments are looking at this drug for health and medical issues. "Americans of all ages overwhelmingly understand that marijuana is less harmful to health and society than either alcohol or tobacco," said Allen St. Pierre, Executive Director of the NORML Foundation. "Marijuana fails to inflict the type of serious health consequences these two legal drugs cause. An estimated 50,000 die each year from alcohol poisoning and more than 400,000 annual deaths are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is non-toxic and cannot cause death by overdose." St. Pierre added, "Neither the marijuana user nor the drug itself presents a legitimate danger to public safety. It's current classification as a Schedule I criminally prohibited drug is disproportionate to its relative harmlessness. Science and the American public acknowledge this reality. It's now time for our marijuana policies to reflect this fact." Is it harmful for the government to lie to us about marijuana? Of course it is. These lies justify laws which are used to lock up people, get politicians elected, tear away at our fundamental liberties and keep medicine away from sick people. The government benefits from this drug war: think of all the government employees who would lose their jobs if the war on drugs ended. The pharmaceutical companies, the alcohol distributors, the cigarette companies would suffer financial harm if marijuana were decriminalized. Think about how much money lobbyists from these companies give to political parties to keep pot illegal? Years ago, a study done at Harvard claimed that marijuana is an excellent anti-depressant. Think about what the legalization of marijuana would do to the pharmaceutical anti- depressant industry in this country. Wake up people, this drug war is against you. Here is a list of some of the notable people who are for decriminalization of marijuana and to whom Mr. Walters directed his anger: New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, Superior Court Judge James P. Gray, and former Secretary of State George Schultz, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, former Senator Alan Cranston, commentator Arianna Huffington, newsman Walter Cronkite, U.S. Representative Ron Paul, former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, former Police Chief Joseph McNamara, National Review editor William F. Buckley, former U.S. drug czar Peter Bourne, and Federal Appellate Judge Richard Posner. This is only the short list!Outside of the U.S. Congress, the Supreme Court and the Administration, most citizens are for legalization of medicinal marijuana. If the government would stop misinforming the public about the dangers of marijuana, I think most citizens would agree to the decriminalization of all marijuana usage. Mr. Kingston, are you paying attention? [Keiler Hook, a journalist from the Deep South in the United States, writes pieces mostly concerning either the "War on Terror" or the "War on Drugs"; both subjects capturing her passion and her talent. Keiler is a woman, a mother, an activist, and a journalist.] Keiler Hook encourages your comments: KeilerHook comcast.netYellowTimes.org is an international publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction must identify the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http:// www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by p4me on September 22, 2002 at 07:52:28 PT
Al Martin- numbers for perspective
The following paragraphs are copied from http://www.almartinraw.com/column71.html Statistically, the top 1% of the people control two-thirds of the wealth of the nation, and 78% of them are Republicans.  74% of all people in the United States, whose net worth is above $3 million, are Republicans.  68% of all those who earn more than $250,000 a year are Republicans.  To put "Republican" in front of "Scamscateers" is just natural. Of all the insurance swindles, banking swindles, oil and gas swindles, real estate swindles, or all the frauds committed in the nation - 92% of scams above $2 million are committed by Republicans.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by goneposthole on September 22, 2002 at 05:55:03 PT
how come?
Workers at a Ford plant in South Africa can smoke cannabis on the job?Those words from President Bush are neatly packaged, fancy schmancy 
one's. I'll tell ya, "they're somethin'.""It is the duty of the old to lie to the young."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by p4me on September 21, 2002 at 23:50:11 PT
DANA and counterpunch
Counterpunch had several good articles. The one that shows the government is not concerned about your healthe is titled "Cancerous Air: Born Under a Bad Sky" by Jeffrey St. Clair: http://counterpunch.org/stclair0918.html. The first two paragraphs read:This is what it has come to: the air in LA is so toxic that a child born in the city of angels will inhale a more cancer-causing pollutants in the first two weeks of life than the EPA (not known for understating risks) considers safe for a lifetime.This risk never goes away. They come with the first breaths a child takes. Being born in urban California now means that life expectancy is reduced, chances of getting cancer are elevated. All this before you've inflicted any damage on yourself through smoking, drinking booze, eating fast food or watching CNN.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by DANA on September 21, 2002 at 23:43:35 PT
Sorry
about this sudden bunch of cut and paste postings.After this.I'm outa here.....This is a few paragraphs from the article linked in my previous post.I think the article is outstanding,and so is Alexander Cockburn!Step one: lie about your performance, in a manner calculated to deceive investors. This was engineered by the
  production of a "pro forma" balance sheet freighted with accounting chicanery of every stripe and hue, willingly
  supplied by Arthur Andersen and others. Losses were labeled "capital expenditures"; losing assets were "sold"
  to co-conspirators in the large banks for the relevant accounting period. Later, using Generally Accepted
  Accounting Principles, slightly more realistic balance sheets would be presented to the SEC and the IRS.  Flaunting the "pro forma" numbers, corporations would issue more stock, borrow more money from some
  co-conspiratorial bank, buy back the stock for the chief executives, who would further inflate its value by dint of
  bogus accountancy, sell the stock to the chumps and bail out with their millions before the roof fell in, leaving
  pension funds like CalPERS holding the bag. The fortunes amassed by President Bush and Vice President
  Cheney are vivid illustrations of the technique.  The scale of looting? Prodigious. This orgy of thievery, without parallel in the history of capitalism, was condoned
  and abetted year after year by the archbishop of our economy, Alan Greenspan, a man with a finely honed sense
  of distinction between the scale of reproof merited by the very rich and those less powerful. When Ron Carey led
  the Teamsters to victory in 1997, Greenspan rushed to denounce the "inflationary" potential of modestly
  improved wage packets. Even though declared innocent by a jury of his peers, Carey was forbidden ever to run in
  a union election again.  Where are the sermons from Greenspan about the inflationary potential of stock-option fortunes lofted on the hot
  air of crooked accountancy and kindred conspiracies?  Let someone die in gangbanger crossfire on a slum corner, and William Bennett indicts an entire generation, an
  entire race. Where are the sermons from Bennett, Murray and the Sunday Show moralists about the CEOs
  scuttling off with their swag, leaving their employees to founder amid wrecked pensions and destroyed
  prospects? A street kid in South Central is in the computer by the time he's 10. No "criminal propensity" profiles
  for grads of the Wharton or Harvard business schools.  You have to go back to Marx and Balzac to get a truly vivid sense of the rich as a criminal elite. But these giants did
  bequeath a tradition of joyful dissection of the morals and ethics of the rich, carried on by Veblen, Moody, Wright
  Mills, Domhoff, Lundberg and others. But by the mid-1960s disruptive political science was not a paying
  proposition if you were aiming for tenure. A student studying Mills would be working nights at the soda fountain
  while the kid flourishing Robert Dahl and writing rubbish about pluralism would get the grad fellowship. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by DANA on September 21, 2002 at 23:25:52 PT
AND;__If you want to read an excellent article;
http://counterpunch.org/cockburn0921.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by DANA on September 21, 2002 at 23:14:35 PT
And yet more!
"In the Western Hemisphere we have formed flexible coalitions with countries
 that share our priorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Chile, and
 Colombia. Together we will promote a truly democratic hemisphere where our
 integration advances security, prosperity, opportunity, and hope. We will
 work with regional institutions, such as the Summit of the Americas
 process, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Defense
 Ministerial of the Americas for the benefit of the entire hemisphere. Parts of Latin America confront regional conflict, especially arising from
 the violence of drug cartels and their accomplices. This conflict and
 unrestrained narcotics trafficking could imperil the health and security of
 the United States. Therefore we have developed an active strategy to help
 the Andean nations adjust their economies, enforce their laws, defeat
 terrorist organizations, and cut off the supply of drugs, while -- as
 important -- we work to reduce the demand for drugs in our own country. In Colombia, we recognize the link between terrorist and extremist groups
 that challenge the security of the state and drug trafficking activities
 that help finance the operations of such groups. We are working to help
 Colombia defend its democratic institutions and defeat illegal armed groups
 of both the left and right by extending effective sovereignty over the
 entire national territory and provide basic security to the Colombian
 people.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by DANA on September 21, 2002 at 23:12:00 PT
Right On Karkulus!...Here's More
" This Administration has proposed the largest government reorganization
 since the Truman Administration created the National Security Council and
 the Department of Defense. Centered on a new Department of Homeland
 Security and including a new unified military command and a fundamental
 reordering of the FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland
 encompasses every level of government and the cooperation of the public and
 the private sector. This strategy will turn adversity into opportunity. For example, emergency
 management systems will be better able to cope not just with terrorism but
 with all hazards. Our medical system will be strengthened to manage not
 just bioterror, but all infectious diseases and mass-casualty dangers. Our
 border controls will not just stop terrorists, but improve the efficient
 movement of legitimate traffic. While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in
 today's globalized world we need support from our allies and friends.
 Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations
 and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where
 governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we
 will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and
 our allies can provide. As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work with
 international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as
 non-governmental organizations, and other countries to provide the
 humanitarian, political, economic, and security assistance necessary to
 rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, threaten
 its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists In the war against global terrorism, we will never forget that we are
 ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life. Freedom and
 fear are at war, and there will be no quick or easy end to this conflict.
 In leading the campaign against terrorism, we are forging new, productive
 international relationships and redefining existing ones in ways that meet
 the challenges of the twenty-first century. IV. Work with Others To Defuse Regional Conflicts   "We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion.
    The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements
                 look so small."           President Bush
           Berlin, Germany
           May 23, 2002 Concerned nations must remain actively engaged in critical regional
 disputes to avoid explosive escalation and minimize human suffering. In an
 increasingly interconnected world, regional crisis can strain our
 alliances, rekindle rivalries among the major powers, and create horrifying
 affronts to human dignity. When violence erupts and states falter, the
 United States will work with friends and partners to alleviate suffering
 and restore stability.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by karkulus on September 21, 2002 at 22:16:47 PT
Dana..
 Peggy noonan was shooting crank w/PCP to come up with that psychobabble ..you're right ,that's scary stuff!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by DANA on September 21, 2002 at 21:55:17 PT
line break anomole
quotation mark 
 
is where
 
 the thing begins 
 
in previous post.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by DANA on September 21, 2002 at 21:52:23 PT
Excerpts For Your Perusal.
This is not a joke.The following is an excerpt from the Bush administrations statement..September 20,2002.
.I copied the whole statement off the NY Times.A link to this can be found at antiwar.com.
 
 I plan to post other excerpts from this bizzarre,and disturbing document.It is surreal,and quite frightening .
 
 
 "Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend
 the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring
 the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every
 corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak
 states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national
 interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into
 terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption
 can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels
 within their borders. The United States possesses unprecedented -- and unequaled -- strength and
 influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty,
 and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled
 responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this
 nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom. For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great
 struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and
 equality. That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and
 race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and
 discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we
 are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by
 catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must
 defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends. This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate
 this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty.
 The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American
 internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national
 interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just
 safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political
 and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for
 human dignity.    "Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the
     language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances
      require different methods, but not different moralities."           President Bush
           West Point, New York
           June 1, 2002
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Nasarius on September 21, 2002 at 19:41:49 PT
...
JR Bob Dobbs - The article implies that the only real reason that they're backing off a bit is because of the UN agreement. That's perfectly valid; it's not wise to be ignoring the UN, even when the UN is wrong. It's so wonderful that legalization is being seriously discussed and strongly supported by mainstream politicians in the UK. The Democrats in the US certainly won't be adding even decrim to their party platform anytime soon.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on September 21, 2002 at 19:25:23 PT
BGreen
I already informed Matt about the spacing problem. He'll get it but he could be busy with important Mapinc. things. When I have an emergency Matt drops what he is doing and fixes it. This isn't really an emergency just a temporary inconvience. He'll get it fixed and Ron from - http://www.cannabis.com - would be the one to make the preview screen. I talked to him this week and we talked about it and how it would help us all here.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by BGreen on September 21, 2002 at 19:11:42 PT
In all the mess the other day
I didn't even write down the email address to ask for the "edit" feature so we can go back and make changes to our comment after we've posted it.(paragraph break) If you're in contact with this person about the preview screen could you mention the edit feature?(paragraph break) Thanks, FoM.(paragraph break) Bud
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on September 21, 2002 at 19:07:07 PT
Thaks Back at Ya Mayan
Understood. LoL! Hopefully soon we will have a preview screen. I'm working on getting one. I don't know how hard it will be but keep your fingers crossed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by mayan on September 21, 2002 at 18:54:16 PT
Errr...Uhh...
I mean Thanks, not Thaks!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by BGreen on September 21, 2002 at 18:52:42 PT
nope
It's broke. HTML tags don't even work.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by mayan on September 21, 2002 at 18:52:08 PT
Thaks FoM!
I thought I was losing it for a second. BGreen, that's exactly what my point was!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by BGreen on September 21, 2002 at 18:51:43 PT
break
To separate paragraphs use the html tag  removing the spaces. 
 
That should work, or at least we'll see.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on September 21, 2002 at 18:49:06 PT
mayan
Matt fixed the security problem but now we can't space an article. I emailed him about it. I'm sure he'll get it fixed as soon as he can. Sorry about the problem. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by BGreen on September 21, 2002 at 18:47:43 PT
mayan
If I catch the jist of your post then that's what I was thinking. The US has been disregarding treaties right and left, so, since the US basically forced all of these countries to sign these drug treaties, then why can't they just ignore them like King George?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by mayan on September 21, 2002 at 18:44:24 PT
Whoa!
I don't know what happened there...The first part from the article was supposed to be in italics. Oh,well...It's time to twist & shout if ya' know what I mean!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by mayan on September 21, 2002 at 18:39:50 PT
Two Can Play...
 When the party debated legalisation, it was pointed out that international conventions, specifically the 1988 UN convention on illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, demand that supply or purchase with intent to supply must be a criminal offence. The party leadership declared that as an internationalist party, it could only be committed to legalisation "in the long term". Since the U.S. has backed out of the ABM teaty & now wants to bypass the UN to attack Iraq, why should any country abide by the senseless 1988 UN convention on illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances? unrelated - Mossad warned CIA of attacks - report:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/17/News/News.34954.html Evidence Contrdicts Bush 9-11 Denials:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.22A.evidence.911.htm Stymied FBI agent warned, 'Someday, someone will die':
http://startribune.com/stories/1576/3317012.html 9/11 Panel Asks What Briefers Told Bush: 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46446-2002Sep20.html Info on Ruppert event in Manhattan:
http://unansweredquestions.org/walker2.php The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11(revised Sept.19)
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html   
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 21, 2002 at 16:49:40 PT
LTE over the sea
Sirs,  In your article, Charles Kennedy backpedals on the question of marijuana legalization by opting for decriminalizing personal use, saying, "The people you come down on with the full force of the law are the pushers."  If he really believes the problem with intoxicants is not with the person using them but the person supplying them, then he should move to close every on and off premesis liquor shop in Britain. Alcohol is the biggest drug of abuse among Britain's youth, yet law-abiding adults who consume and traffic in it are not subject to criminal sanction. Why is cannabis treated so differently?  Unlike Mr. Kennedy, Jenny Tonge has proven that she is the type of politician who doesn't make promises she does not plan to keep.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment