Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 23rd, 2022 #1
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default Jews Are Behind the Campaign to Legalize Marijuana

GREEN GUIDE SPRING 2019 APR 15, 2019

The Little-Known Story of Marijuana Legalization

How billionaire George Soros and a few of his friends gave us bongs full of legal weed.

by Lester Black

It's an interesting story that few people know, and it begins with George Soros.

The year was 1992. George H.W. Bush was still in the White House—a presidency that was in many ways an extension of Ronald Reagan's two terms.

At the time, Soros, a Hungarian-born financier who had spent the 1980s donating hundreds of millions of dollars to fighting the Soviet totalitarian state in Central Europe, didn't know what his next big cause would be. Once the Soviet empire fell (and fell quickly), Soros faced a dilemma: Which oppressive government regime should he fight next?

Soros had immigrated to the United States in the 1950s. He was increasingly rich and also increasingly alarmed about the escalating and punitive nature of the war on drugs. But was it worth fighting a battle within his newly adopted country?

He didn't know much about drug policy, so he asked one of his aides who did. His aide suggested he meet with Ethan Nadelmann, a young Princeton professor who advocated for legal reforms. In 1992, there were few researchers working on drug policy, but Nadelmann was one of them.

In a recent interview with The Stranger, Nadelmann recalled that it was a 95 degree summer day in New York City when the two of them met. Soros summoned Nadelmann to his office and the two had lunch. Nadelmann remembers the meeting being a "lively and feisty conversation," and that it ended with Soros feeling comfortable enough with the young professor to offer him a deal.

"I see we agree on the basic issues," Soros told Nadelmann, according to Nadelmann's recollection. "Now, I am a very busy man, but I have substantial resources. So let's assume that I want to empower you to accomplish our shared objectives."

And with that deal, Nadelmann and Soros changed the United States forever.

Two Months Later

Shortly after that fateful meeting, Soros made the biggest wager of his entire career: He shorted the Bank of England, betting $10 billion that the institution would devalue its currency. When the bank unexpectedly did just that on September 16, 1992, on a day remembered as "Black Wednesday" in the United Kingdom, Soros made $1 billion in profit in a single day.

The billionaire was now a mega-billionaire. He has since gone on to donate an estimated $32 billion to various causes, but his war on the war on drugs may turn out to be his most effective endeavor ever.

Over the ensuing three decades, Nadelmann used Soros's cash to coordinate nationwide drug-reform initiatives and build a network of wealthy pro-pot donors. Those donors included two other billionaires: Peter Lewis, the CEO of Progressive Insurance, and John Sperling, the founder of the University of Phoenix. Nadelmann also got some cash from a Rockefeller heir, as well as from George Zimmer, the founder of Men's Wearhouse.

The three billionaires who formed the core of Nadelmann's funding network—Soros, Sperling, and Lewis—spent more than $70 million on pot reform over the next 20 years, according to a 2017 report from National Families in Action, and Nadelmann delivered a 20-year string of pot-reform victories that have pushed the United States to the precipice of full legalization.

How much credit do we owe these three billionaires? For Jonathan Caulkins, a drug policy researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, the answer is straightforward. "The simplest explanation of why marijuana reform happened is that three billionaires decided it should happen and they bankrolled the process for many, many years," Caulkins said.

Caulkins's confidence behind his claim makes a lot more sense when you realize how drastically the world has changed since Nadelmann first sat down with Soros. In 1992, nearly 80 percent of Americans said pot should be fully illegal. The war on drugs, invented by Richard Nixon and perfected by Ronald Reagan, would soon be picked up and further exacerbated by Bill Clinton. Every aspect of popular American culture, from mainstream movies to televangelist preachers to Democratic presidents, was dead set on keeping pot illegal.

Now the tables have turned. Those baby boomers who once cheered on the war on drugs are standing in line at dispensaries so they can refill their vape cartridges. More than two-thirds of the US population lives in states that have weed-friendly laws. Ten states have legalized recreational pot and 33 states provide medical access to cannabis.

It's becoming an almost disqualifying factor in the 2020 presidential race for the Democratic nominee to not support national pot legalization. And even Republican politicians, seeing the polls showing that a majority of Republicans support legalization, are starting to support relaxing pot prohibition.

Which is all to say: We are in a drastically different place 27 years after a billionaire told a young drug policy professor that he wanted to put his "substantial" resources behind pot reform. And none it may have happened without that help.

The money that Soros and the other wealthy men put in helped change the way the United States looks at weed. Their work on pot reform is both a story of how billionaires can force policy changes in this country and a how-to guide for political activism. Why was pot reform successful when, meanwhile, activists have made comparatively little progress on other progressive issues—from fighting climate change to reducing income inequality to rebuilding our nation's infrastructure?

It's a complicated answer with one very simple source of money. Billionaires put us on the path toward legal weed in the US. So you should probably thank Progressive Insurance, Men's Wearhouse, and America's progressive billionaires the next time you load a bowl of legal weed in your bong.

Four Years Later

Every stoner in America knows the number 420. But if stoners were true students of history, the number 215 would be the most famous three digits in the world of weed.

That's because, four years after Soros and Nadelmann met, a successful California voter initiative called Proposition 215 was the first major chip in the wall against pot prohibition.

When California's voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, the state became the first in the country to legalize medical marijuana. Voters there gave pot patients and caregivers the right under state law to cultivate and possess pot if they could prove a doctor recommended pot as a treatment.

The law was the most important early win for the legalization movement. It showed that there was a winning path for pot legalization moving forward: Put the faces of the seriously ill medical users on the pot-reform movement and show that doctors supported medical marijuana. For the first time in decades, the wall of prohibition, backed in a big way by federal bureaucracy, showed signs of weakness.

Again, without George Soros's money, it probably would have never happened. Proposition 215 needed about 700,000 signatures to get on the ballot. But by December of 1995, with the deadline approaching, the initiative's creator, Dennis Peron, had collected only about 25,000 signatures. That's when Ed Rosenthal, a longtime marijuana grower and activist, called Nadelmann and asked if he could persuade Soros to help out.

Eventually, Nadelmann convinced Soros to contribute $500,000. And not only that, he also recruited Zimmer and Lewis to contribute or raise half a million dollars each. Nadelmann had started to embrace his role of bringing together ultra-wealthy men to fight for pot reform.
all jews, yes, even Lewis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_B._Lewis

"They didn't know one another," Nadelmann told me. "My role by and large was to get George Soros, Peter Lewis, and George Zimmer into the three-way partnership. It wasn't going to work unless we raised the money. So then the question is this: Would Peter Lewis have been willing to come in if George [Soros] wasn't involved? Would George Zimmer get involved without George [Soros]? He was very personally committed, but I don't think he was going to put up that much funding. He was not inclined to go it alone and really wanted to be in partnership with George [Soros]. Once George [Soros] said yes, I could call Peter and call George Zimmer and say George [Soros] would fund this."

Nadelmann said he intentionally tried to stay out of the media spotlight because it "wouldn't look good for someone in a New York office to be orchestrating that." But he also kept working away. At one point, it started to look like the campaign still needed more money, and that's when Nadelmann convinced another wealthy New Yorker, Laurance Rockefeller, the grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, to donate $50,000.

Nadelmann's fundraising worked. Proposition 215's supporters were able to hire a professional campaign manager and signature gatherers and get the measure on the ballot. Supporters recruited AIDS and MS patients and their doctors to be the face of the campaign. California's voters were convinced: Proposition 215 passed with more than 55 percent of the vote. For the first time in modern history, an American state gave people a clear legal right to grow and possess pot.

Keep in mind just how deeply unpopular drugs and pot were in the 1990s. This was the peak of the war on drugs, when both Democrats and Republicans were trying to outdo each other on how punitive they could make crime laws. Ronald Reagan had increased federal expenditures on drug control from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $6.6 billion in 1989, according to a 2003 study published by Peter Reuter in the peer-reviewed journal Crime and Justice.

The average time served in federal prison for drug crimes went from two years in 1980 to more than six years in 1992, according to Reuter. While drug sentences continued to increase, so did the number of inmates serving time for drug offenses in federal jails. The number of "cell years" being served for drug offenses in federal jails went from 4,500 (in 1980) to 85,000 (in 1992) to 135,000 (in 2001).

And the leadership of President Bill Clinton only made things worse. During his time in office, from 1993 to 2001, the number of federal prisoners serving time for drug offenses went from 35,398 in 1992 to 63,898 in 2000, according to Reuter's study.

The general public was overwhelmingly in favor of these punitive drug policies. The country had recently gone through a profound shift in public opinion against pot. In 1978, 30 percent of Americans thought pot should be legalized. But by 1990, support for legalization had dropped to just 17 percent, according to the Pew Research Center.

Why was pot so unpopular in the 1980s and 1990s? According to Caulkins, the Carnegie Melon professor, we can largely blame the baby boomers.

"The baby boomers had teenagers at home, and one of the strongest predictions of opposition to legalization is whether or not you have kids at home," Caulkins said.

This was the era of peak family time for baby boomers, defined as people who were between the ages of 26 and 44 in 1990. Reagan's message that pot was a gateway drug to crack, that it was physically damaging, and that it was deeply immoral resonated with many of these young parents.

The trend would eventually reverse. By 2013, when baby boomers were between the ages of 49 and 67, 50 percent of them supported legalization. That's a surprising turn—generally speaking, people become more conservative as they age, not more progressive. So what changed to convince baby boomers to chill out about weed?

Medical marijuana initiatives, starting with California's Proposition 215, convinced people that Reagan and Clinton were lying about pot.

"The medical marijuana movement reduced the stigma," Reuter told The Stranger in an interview. "If it was plausible as a medicine, it was less likely to be kept illegal. I think it just confers a respectability to the drug—if this drug is medicine, it can't be that dangerous."

In Proposition 215, Nadelmann had delivered his first major victory for pot reform, four years after making a deal with Soros.

And he kept pushing ahead.

Two years after California legalized medical marijuana, voters in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington followed suit.

By 2008, 13 states had legalized some form of medical marijuana and Nadelmann's three billionaires—Soros, Lewis, and Sperling—had spent $15.7 million pushing for medical initiatives. That figure comes from an analysis by the nonprofit National Families in Action, which opposes marijuana reform. National Families in Action paints the billionaires' involvement as a subversion of democracy.

"I don't think these billionaires were doing this because they thought they were going to profit from it," said Caulkins, who himself is often critical of the legalization movement. "I think they were genuinely believing they were going to make the world a better place."

Jolene Forman, a staff attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance, the organization that Nadelmann founded and that Soros uses to fund marijuana initiatives, agreed that billionaires were integral to the movement. But so was the larger social-justice argument for legalization.

"You have people really doing this work for human-rights reasons, so I think it's a gross oversimplification to say that just because three donors donated that's why the laws are this way," Forman said. "You're not [working on pot reform initiatives] because you're paid big bucks. You're doing it because you think the war is a failure, that black and brown people have been unequally harmed by our federal drug policies and their enforcement."

That's one of the powerful aspects of the pot-reform movement: It had big donors to help pay for things, but also a growing group of social-justice advocates who formed a grassroots constituency. This combination of billionaire funds and passionate activists turned into a winning formula for medical marijuana.

And as access to medical marijuana spread, it only increased acceptance of the drug. Nadelmann told me that internal polling conducted during these ballot measures showed that the strongest predictor for supporting legalization was if a voter knew someone who had personally used medical marijuana to treat a condition. That was a stronger predictor than if someone had either personally smoked pot or knew someone who smoked pot.

And that, of course, goes back to that first time voters were exposed to the idea of medical marijuana: Proposition 215.

"Prop 215 really helped transform the popular media image of cannabis reform, from the 17-year-old high-school dropout with hemp leaves in his blond dreadlocks to some older people struggling with chemotherapy or MS or AIDS wasting syndrome or some other medical condition," Nadelmann told me.

But while the media and the public got increasingly on board with pot reform, mainstream politicians stayed stubbornly resistant to change.

The Clinton administration called Proposition 215 a "falsely labeled, cynical initiative." After the law passed, the administration started aggressively going after physicians who recommended pot, arguing that they were violating federal law by recommending an illegal, Schedule 1 substance.

A few billionaires had been able to help convince California's voters to recognize medical marijuana, but the pot-reform movement was still far away from the ultimate goal: total legalization.

Twenty Years Later

For Alison Holcomb, the ACLU attorney who wrote Initiative 502 and ran the campaign for Washington State's groundbreaking pot legalization, there was no single moment that led to Washington legalizing pot in 2012. Instead, there had been incremental progress in the 20 years since Soros and Nadelmann hatched their master plan.

"If I were going to try to break it down at this point, I would have to paint a picture of some sort of domino arrangement where it's not just one single line of dominoes but one of those beautiful fancily arranged domino setups where multiple lines converge and the power builds," Holcomb recently told me.

Holcomb pointed out a long list of people and movements that led up to Washington voters deciding to legalize recreational cannabis with more than 55 percent of the vote.

There was the medical marijuana movements that showed how pot reform could reduce "the pain and suffering of other human beings." There was the decriminalization movements that showed the sky wouldn't fall if cops stopped arresting people for pot. Holcomb also pointed to the work of Vivian McPeak and the pot rally he organizes in Seattle every summer called Hempfest, as well as the writings of Dominic Holden, a former news editor at The Stranger who frequently wrote about the social-justice argument for legalization.

Holcomb also acknowledged Peter Lewis and George Soros, who together funded more than 60 percent of the Initiative 502 campaign.

"Peter Lewis was critical. Drug Policy Alliance and Ethan Nadelmann accessing the resources that he had available was critical. It's a political campaign, and being able to get your message out to folks is really important," Holcomb said. "I think that back then it was necessary to have those resources to talk to voters, because I don't know if we would have gotten over the hump [without that money]."

The two billionaires contributed a combined $3.69 million to the Washington State campaign, with Soros's money coming through a $1.6 million donation from the Drug Policy Alliance, which receives most of its funding from Soros. Initiative 502 also received $450,000 from Rick Steves, the travel writer and television host, and Steves's company, Rick Steves' Europe.

The billionaires' involvement in Washington State's I-502 came in the midst of a 10-year spending spree on pot legalization initiatives.

Soros, Lewis, and Sperling spent $2.8 million on Colorado's successful legalization initiative in 2012. After their success in Washington and Colorado, the three billionaires went on to spend $5.9 million in Oregon's 2014 successful legalization initiative.

In 2016, the trio dropped tens of millions of dollars: $2.3 million in Arizona, $6.1 million in Massachusetts, $3 million in Maine, and a whopping $22.8 million in California to bring that state to full recreational cannabis legalization. Combined with earlier spending on medical marijuana initiatives, the three spent $71.3 million from 1996 to 2016 on pot reform alone.

Each one of these legalization successes made it easier for a new state to legalize pot.

"We are one country; we share one media culture. So when one state does something, that absolutely influences thinking around the country and around the world," Caulkins told me. "I also agree that the absence of the sky falling, most specifically with adolescent use, was huge in assuring people."

Legalization also brought another argument for pot reform to the forefront: tax revenue.

When Colorado and Washington started collecting tax revenue on legal weed, it established concretely that taxing and regulating the former black-market product was a guaranteed revenue source. Cash-strapped governments were taking notice.

Tax revenue became another argument in the increasingly long list of reasons to legalize. And this long list—which includes social-justice issues like the unfair impact of criminalization on people of color as well as libertarian issues like not wanting the government to block adults from using a mostly safe substance—appeals to people with a wide variety of political orientations.

Everyone from moderates to libertarians to socialists can find a way to get behind the issue, which is one of the reasons legalization has been so successful, according to Ekow Yankah, a law school professor and political theorist. Yankah wrote a 2011 article predicting the continued spread of pot reform—not because of opinion polls or the amount of money billionaires were putting behind it, but because of the philosophy of pot reform.

"The core of my argument is that philosophy matters. If you find something where there are a bunch of views that all coalesce around one philosophical position... it makes it much harder to keep it at bay," Yankah told me. "I think it was people stepping back and saying no matter what your underpinning, you can't find a good way to support this [prohibition]."

As the number of states with legal and medical pot increase every year, there remains just one glaring barricade against true pot reform: the federal government. Pot is still a Schedule 1 controlled substance under federal law, meaning it is considered one of the most illegal drugs in the country, more dangerous than meth. So it must be said: Even after more than $70 million, those billionaires have yet to truly accomplish complete pot reform.

Twenty-Seven Years Later

Nearly 27 years have passed since that young professor from Princeton sat down with that billionaire in New York City and asked him to support pot reform. Neither of them could have predicted they were setting off a chain of events that would forever change the way the world looks at pot.

As of this writing, 10 states and Washington, DC, have legalized recreational weed. Medical marijuana is legal in 33 states, including deeply conservative places like Utah and Oklahoma. Two countries, Uruguay and Canada, have fully legalized pot, and it looks like the march of pot legalization has become an inevitability.

Would that march toward full legalization have happened without the support of those three billionaires?

Caulkins said he thought pot reform would have still happened, but it would have taken a different route. "I think that absent that sort of driving force, you would have instead had a liberalization that took the form of reduced penalties and decriminalization, possibly extending to home grows but not to a legal for-profit industry," Courier said.

Legalization has spawned a multibillion-dollar industry. It appears to be growing at an almost limitless clip. Two pot research companies, Arcview Market Research and BDS Analytics, estimate that the global pot industry will grow from $6.9 billion in revenue in 2017 to $16.9 billion in revenue in 2019 to more than $31 billion in 2022. Other analysts, like Cowen Inc., have predicted even bigger figures, estimating that the global industry could be worth more than $50 billion in sales by 2026.

Nadelmann told me that he thought it was unavoidable that pot reform would lead to for-profit involvement.

"Legalization was inevitably going to mean this industry was going to be taken over by bigger corporations. We live in the most dynamic capitalistic society in history. There was no reason that wasn't going to happen," he said.

Nadelmann was adamant that even though the work of pot- reform advocates has led to a massive industry, those capitalist interests played a minimal role in most of the reform movement's history. Also, none of the three billionaires own a cannabis business. They really weren't in it to profit from it.

"I know from very deep personal experience that for-profit interests played essentially no role in marijuana legalization until 2016," Nadelmann said.

And even if some rich people are getting richer off of legal pot, legalization is still having a positive impact on society as a whole. For Nadelmann, who has been interviewed on The Colbert Report and described in Rolling Stone as "the real drug czar," but who is now in semi-retirement, the feelings are nearly entirely positive.

"Marijuana legalization is more or less unstoppable now, so that gives me a sense of tremendous pride," Nadelmann told me. "I remember when I started off on this thing 30 years ago as a professor at Princeton. People thought I was just on some quixotic mission or trying to accomplish the ultimate hippie objective... It's nice to be stepping back at this time in my life and feel like we had a monumental success."

https://www.thestranger.com/green-gu...a-legalization

Last edited by Robbie Key; February 23rd, 2022 at 02:44 PM.
 
Old February 23rd, 2022 #2
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

Billionaire George Soros turns cash into legalized marijuana

By Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times - Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Billionaire philanthropist George Soros hopes the U.S. goes to pot, and he is using his money to drive it there.

With a cadre of like-minded, wealthy donors, Mr. Soros is dominating the pro-legalization side of the marijuana debate by funding grass-roots initiatives that begin in New York City and end up affecting local politics elsewhere.

Through a network of nonprofit groups, Mr. Soros has spent at least $80 million on the legalization effort since 1994, when he diverted a portion of his foundation’s funds to organizations exploring alternative drug policies, according to tax filings.

His spending has been supplemented by Peter B. Lewis, the late chairman of Progressive Insurance Co. and an unabashed pot smoker who channeled more than $40 million to influence local debates, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The two billionaires’ funding has been unmatched by anyone on the other side of the debate.

Mr. Soros makes his donations through the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit he funds with roughly $4 million in annual contributions from his Foundation to Promote an Open Society.

Mr. Soros also donates annually to the American Civil Liberties Union, which in turn funds marijuana legalization efforts, and he has given periodically to the Marijuana Policy Project, which funds state ballot measures.

Lewis, who died in November, donated to legalization efforts in his name and through the ACLU and the Marijuana Policy Project, on which he served as the chairman of the board. Lewis’ estate declined to comment for this article.

“The pro-legalization movement hasn’t come from a groundswell of the people. A great deal of its funding and fraud has been perpetrated by George Soros and then promoted by celebrities,” said John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under George W. Bush. “The truth is under attack, and it’s an absolutely dangerous direction for this country to be going in.”

Mr. Soros’ Open Society Foundations have annual assets of more than $3.5 billion, a pool from which he can dole out grants to pet projects, according to 2011 tax returns, the most recent on file for his charitable organizations.

David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who often are cited for their conservative influence, had $308 million tied up in their foundation and institute in 2011.

Mr. Soros did not respond to a request to be interviewed.

‘A question of when’

In his book “Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve,” he said the U.S. policy of criminalizing drug use rather than treating it as a medical problem is so ill-conceived that “the remedy is often worse than the disease.”

Although Mr. Soros didn’t outline an alternative in his book, he wrote that he could imagine legalizing some of the less-harmful drugs and directing the money saved from the criminal justice system to treatment.

“Like many parents and grandparents, I am worried about young people getting into trouble with marijuana and other drugs. The best solution, however, is honest and effective drug education,” Mr. Soros said in a 2010 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. “Legalizing marijuana may make it easier for adults to buy marijuana, but it can hardly make it any more accessible to young people. I’d much rather invest in effective education than ineffective arrest and incarceration.”

The Drug Policy Alliance stands firmly behind Mr. Soros’ position.

“Drug use, the use of any substance, is a health issue and we shouldn’t be throwing people in jail for health issues,” said Bill Piper, the alliance’s director of national affairs in Washington. “The No. 1 reason why people with substance abuse disorders don’t seek help is because they’re afraid of getting arrested.

“From a constitutional and legal perspective, states can legalize marijuana if they want, and there’s nothing the federal government can do,” he said. “State after state decided to end the prohibition of alcohol and forced the federal government to change federal law.

“What we’re going to see over next decade is states repel marijuana prohibition and then the federal government following suit. It’s not a question of whether it’s going to happen; it’s a question of when.”

Drug Policy Alliance Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann said in an email that funding levels from Mr. Soros “have bounced around a bit over the years but it’s roughly $4 million per year (i.e., 1/3) of DPA’s general operating budget.”

“Other funding comes from other wealthy individuals (including quite a number who agree with Soros on little apart from drug policy), foundations and about 25,000 people making smaller contributions through the mail and Internet,” Mr. Nadelmann said in the email.

Mr. Soros and Lewis, with help from the Drug Policy Alliance and Marijuana Policy Project, helped 2012 ballot initiatives that legalized the recreational use of marijuana in Washington state and Colorado. Federal law still outlaws possession, use, sale and distribution of the drug.

Mr. Soros, Lewis and their various nonprofits provided 68 percent of the funding that went to New Approach to Washington, the group that mobilized signatures to get the initiative on the state ballot and then promoted it.

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, a grass-roots group that supported pot legalization in Colorado, was established by the Marijuana Policy Project and was 67 percent funded by nonprofits associated with the two billionaires. The campaign then bankrolled Moms and Dads for Marijuana Regulation, a seemingly unassociated group of pro-legalization parents that in reality consisted of only a billboard and a press release, according to state election records.

“The other side has so much money, it’s incredible, and the bulk of it is coming from a handful of people who want to change public policy,” said Calvina Fay, executive director of Save Our Society From Drugs, whose organization was the largest donor to Smart Colorado, the initiative opposed to legalization.

“When we look at what we’ve been able to raise in other states, they raise millions. We’re lucky if we can raise $100,000. It’s been a process of basically brainwashing the public. They run ads, put up billboards, get high-profile celebrity support and glowing media coverage. If you can repeat a lie often enough, the people believe,” Ms. Fay said.

Other states line up

Mason Tvert, co-director and spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project’s Colorado campaign, disagrees.

“There simply is no grass-roots support for maintaining marijuana prohibition,” he said. “Anyone who suggests otherwise is just not paying attention. They’re railing against a public policy that most Americans support.”

Mr. Tvert said the Marijuana Policy Project collected no money from Mr. Soros or Lewis for the 2012 initiative.

“Not that we would turn away Mr. Soros’ money in the future,” he said. “There are countless people that want to make marijuana legal, but only so many people who can afford to make it possible.”

Those people are turning out to make the 2014 election cycle look much like the 2012 cycle in Colorado and Washington, state election records show.

• In Alaska, the grass-roots Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol has emerged with the help of funding from the Marijuana Policy Project, which gave the campaign its first big contribution of $210,000.

If history repeats itself, then a few months before the election in Alaska, the Drug Policy Action group, the political arm of Mr. Soros’ Drug Policy Alliance, will start contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to help fund a media blitz and drive voters to polls to help support the measure.

• In Oregon, New Approach Oregon has collected enough signatures to get a legalization initiative on the ballot and has cashed its first checks: $96,000 from Lewis before he died last year and $50,000 from Mr. Soros’ Drug Policy Alliance, according to state election records.

• In Florida, Mr. Soros has teamed up with multimillionaire and Democratic fundraiser John Morgan to donate more than 80 percent of the money to get medical marijuana legalization on the ballot through its initiative “United for Care, People United for Medical Marijuana.”

Calls to Tim Morgan, John Morgan’s brother who is handling press inquiries, were not returned.

The Marijuana Policy Project and Mr. Soros’ Drug Policy Alliance aim to support full legalization measures in 2016 in Arizona and California — where they have funded and won ballot initiatives for medical marijuana use — and in Massachusetts, Maine, Montana and Nevada, Mr. Tvert said.

The Marijuana Policy Project also is “focusing a lot of time and resources passing bills” in Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, where it considers legalized marijuana to be a realistic prospect in the next few years, he said.

‘Phony propaganda’

Mr. Soros also is putting money into studies that show economic benefits from marijuana legalization.

In Colorado, the Drug Policy Alliance helped bankroll the Colorado Center on Law and Policy’s study that found marijuana legalization could generate as much as $100 million in state revenue after five years. That research was widely considered to have influenced the election.

The ACLU also has penned studies supporting legalization, and the Marijuana Policy Project commonly cites these and Drug Policy Alliance research to argue its case for legal marijuana.

Calls and emails to ACLU headquarters in New York were not returned, but its website says that “removing criminal penalties for marijuana offenses will reduce the U.S. prison population and more effectively protect the public and promote public health.”

Last year, Mr. Soros, via donations from his Open Society Foundation and the Drug Policy Alliance, helped fund Uruguay’s effort to become the first country to legalize the commercialization of pot. He also offered to pay for a study to evaluate the ramifications of the experimental legislation, which he has said will reduce overall drug use and help fight illegal drug trade, according to news reports.

“There are addictive, harmful effects of smoking marijuana,” said Mr. Walters, citing studies by the federal government and organizations such as the American Medical Association. “The silliness of pop culture is pretending this isn’t a serious problem. Their entire message is built on phony propaganda that has been far too successful in the mainstream media.”

The Drug Enforcement Administration agrees, despite President Obama’s proclamations that marijuana is no worse than alcohol.

In the official “DEA Position on Marijuana” paper last April, the agency said marijuana has a “high potential for abuse, [and] has no accepted medicinal value in treatment in the U.S.” It also cited that “a few wealthy businessmen — not broad grassroots support — started and sustain the ‘medical’ marijuana and drug legalization movements in the U.S. Without their money and influence, the drug legalization movement would shrivel.”

Even Mr. Obama’s drug czar said the legalization of marijuana is dangerous.

“Young people are getting the wrong message from the medical marijuana legalization campaign,” drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said in December. “If it’s continued to be talked about as a benign substance that has no ill effects, we’re doing a great disservice to young people by giving them that message.”

But the message is being propagated by Mr. Soros and groups of his supporters who have created their own nonprofits and political action committees. Although these organizations appear on the surface to have no affiliation, closer examination shows all are linked through their personnel and cross-promotion.

Drug Policy Alliance President Ira Glasser is a former executive director of the ACLU. Marijuana Policy Project co-founders Rob Kampia, Chuck Thomas and Mike Kirshner originally worked at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which hosts industry conferences attended and promoted by Drug Policy Alliance staff, and has a political action committee that donates to marijuana advocacy candidates.

The Marijuana Policy Project’s co-founders also frequently speak at events sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance. The National Cannabis Industry Association — known as the chamber of commerce for marijuana — was co-founded by Aaron Smith, who previously worked at Safe Access Now, another Soros-backed nonprofit that promotes the legalization of pot.

After 20 years trying to influence policy, Mr. Soros’ army is winning the marijuana debate. Last year, for the first time in four decades of polling, the Pew Research Center found that more than half of Americans support legalizing marijuana, compared with 30 percent in 2000. Lawmakers are following suit, with an unprecedented number of legalization bills brought to the floors of state legislatures.

“It’s only a matter of time before marijuana is legalized under federal law,” said Tom Angell, founder and chairman of the Marijuana Majority, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. “We now have 20 states plus the District of Columbia with medical marijuana laws, two states have already legalized it for all adults over the age of 21 — politicians will have to follow the will of the people on this.”

Or follow Mr. Soros’ money. Mr. Angell’s group is funded, in part, by a grant from the Drug Policy Alliance.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...nto-legalized/
 
Old February 23rd, 2022 #3
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

The Jewish Role in Promoting Cannabis—And Why It’s Bad for You

January 14, 2021/49 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Douglas Watson



That Jews should be involved in the promotion of cannabis should come as a surprise to no educated person. After all, in centuries past the Sassoon family (“the Rothschilds of the East”) grew wealthy plying opium on the Chinese, resulting in the Opium Wars. In more recent years, the Sackler family turned enormous profits pushing the opiate Oxycontin (which the Sacklers knew to be addictive) upon American Whites. While many articles have been written in the dissident right on these topics, the normalisation of cannabis has happened with seemingly less attention. Mentions of cannabis are typically made in passing, perhaps due to the association of anti-cannabis sentiments with mainstream conservatism.

The Jewish role in the modern promotion of cannabis

Quote:
“Every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them?” President Richard Nixon, 26 May 1971
This remark (a tape-recorded conversation was released after Nixon’s presidency) reveals the high level of Jewish influence in the 1970s push for legalisation, and while there were some gentiles involved, it’s understandable that Nixon might miss the occasional gentile within the Semitic sea of activists. One notable Jewish influence from the 1970s was Harvard professor Lester Grinspoon[1], who released the highly influential book Marihuana Reconsidered (1971), and who, in 1978, said “I think ultimately cocaine is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco” while advocating for the liberalisation of laws regarding cocaine.

The 1970s push for reform ultimately failed as cannabis advocacy increasingly became associated with cocaine use — a bridge too far for the public. The connection deepened when the prominent cannabis organisation NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws)[2] became embroiled in a PR nightmare after Peter Bourne (Carter’s drug policy adviser) allegedly used cocaine at a NORML party om 1977[3].

After the failure of the 1970s push for legalisation, a new incrementalist approach was taken. “Medical marijuana” was pushed as a concept. It provided a convenient slippery slope: its advocates were not promoting cannabis for recreational use—they were promoting it only for medical use for people with chronic pain — “You want to help people with chronic pain, right?” But then, as cannabis became viewed as a medicinal product, people began to view it less as a harmful drug (“Can it really be so harmful if it’s medicine?”), thus paving the way for later legalisation.

Two new cannabis advocacy institutions were created. The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) was created in 1995 by Rob Kampia and Mike Kirshner[4], and has financial backing from the insurance billionaire Peter Benjamin Lewis[5]. The Drug Policy Alliance (formerly the Drug Policy Foundation) was created in the year 1992 by Ethan Nadelmann and has financial backing from the financial billionaire George Soros.

California Proposition 215 was put forward to legalise “medical marijuana” in 1996, and Jewish sources provided 77% of the funds supporting the proposition[6]. Of the $1.5 million total, the following came from Jewish sources: $550,000 from Soros, $500,000 from Peter Lewis, and $100,000 from George Zimmer[7]. The proposition passed, and subsequently, copying California, other states began to legalise “medical marijuana.”

Within 16 years of California’s Prop 215, Washington State would be the first state to legalise the recreational use of cannabis through Initiative 502 in December 2012, followed by Colorado with Amendment 64 a few days later.

In Washington at least 68% of the funds for Initiative 502 came from Jewish sources, and only 35% of the money came from sources within Washington [8]. Of the $6.17 million total, the following came from Jewish sources: $2.04 million from Peter Lewis himself; $1.69 million from Soros’ Drug Policy Action; $435,000 from various ACLU organisations; $75,000 from Emanuel Bronner[9]. Rick Steves, a Christian, donated $450,000. There were several individuals who donated over $100,000 who were of an unknown religious background (Thomas Swift, James Swift, Harvey Philip, and Harriet Bullitt).

In Colorado at least 75% of the funds for Amendment 64 came from Jewish sources, and only 8% of the money came from sources within Colorado[10]. Of the $2 million total, the following came from Jewish sources: $1.23 million from Peter Lewis’s MPP; $185,000 from the Soros’ Drug Policy Alliance (and its subsidiary, Drug Policy Action); $50,000 from Dr. Bronner; and, $33,700 from Peter Lewis himself. Scott Banister — who donated $250,000 — is of an unknown religious background.

However, some legalisation attempts backed by Jews have failed. The 2010 California Proposition 19 to legalise recreational cannabis, to which Soros donated $1 million, was rejected by voters[11]. However, if enough money is thrown at propositions, one will get through in the end. In 2014, Nadelmann estimated that Soros was giving roughly $5 million a year to the Drug Policy Alliance and its affiliates [12], and the total amount donated by Soros to drug-related initiatives is reported to be as high as $100 million[13].

There are also numerous Jews involved as businessmen in the cannabis industry itself and the industries adjacent to the cannabis industry (such as paraphernalia and cannabis media). However, while their presence in the industry is noteworthy (as a point of comparison, the presence of Jews in the porn industry is well known to be significant), their role is secondary to the Jews who are spending millions out of pocket to promote cannabis. It is also harder to check the religion of businessmen than it is to do so for “philanthropists.”

Other facts about cannabis and why it’s bad for you

Israeli scientist Raphael Mechoulam was the first to isolate and achieve the total synthesis of THC, the chemical which causes the “high” when one consumes cannabis. On the subject of THC: prior to the 1990s, cannabis had less than 2% THC content, but by 2017 popular strains of cannabis ranged from 17% to 28% — i.e., least ~10 times more potent nowadays [14]. This is why people from the Baby Boomer generation often reported not feeling an effect “that one time” they tried cannabis. The shift in potency in cannabis is roughly equivalent to shifting from beer (~4% alcohol) to brandy (~40% alcohol, or 10 times more potent) — a single blunt of current cannabis is to a blunt of older cannabis as a pint of brandy is to a pint of beer. For this reason, much of the older research is out of date, or at least will underestimate the effects of cannabis use.

CBD is another chemical found in cannabis. It is thought to have some potential health benefits (for seizures, such as those caused by epilepsy, and possibly some other conditions[15]. However, as cannabis has been selected for greater proportions of THC, CBD content has decreased. The strains of cannabis with high THC tend to have low CBD[14].

Cannabis advocates will often make arguments that “cannabis has only been proven to correlate with schizophrenia and psychosis, not cause them.” It is worthwhile to point out that in the 1950s and 60s, tobacco had not been proven to cause lung cancer — they were merely shown to be correlated. The lack of causation was an argument used by big tobacco companies. Luckily, people back then were less sophisticated about statistics, and thus restrictions came into place on tobacco and so many people avoided lung cancer and death.

Another argument of cannabis advocates boils down to “most people who smoke cannabis don’t develop schizophrenia or psychosis, and so you shouldn’t say that cannabis causes psychosis.” This can be countered by observing that everyone knows and agrees with the statement “smoking tobacco causes lung cancer.” but a surprisingly low number of smokers ever develop lung cancer (15% for current smokers vs 7% for former smokers and 2% for those who never smoked)[16].

The effects of cannabis are not limited to psychosis. Other effects may include worsened: memory, anxiety, depression, intelligence (especially for children or adolescents), apathy, suicidal ideation, lung health, and more [14]. People with psychosis are also significantly more likely than average to commit violent crime[17], and thus cannabis might indirectly cause violence.

Closing thoughts

It has been shown that Jews and their organisations have provided the majority of funding for all recent landmark propositions, initiatives, and amendments supporting cannabis use in the US. Jews are unlikely to spend millions of their own money to improve the state of a gentile population — certainly the Jewish promotion of liberalism, pornography, feminism, anti-racism, etc. has not benefited gentile society.

Understanding the promotion of cannabis as an attack on gentile society (the laws in Israel are much stricter) will likely lead to less cannabis use in our circles — similar to how the understanding of porn as a weapon has led people to giving up porn. However, it’s unlikely that the popularisation of cannabis in general society will be turned around in any short amount of time.

For the foreseeable future, cannabis use will decrease the quality of society generally. As people become apathetic and stupefied by cannabis, they will be less likely to join the dissident right and more likely to join, for example, antifa. On the other hand, as the general population degenerates through cannabis consumption, our (relatively) energetic and morally upright people will start to gain a comparative advantage over the apathetic, depressed drug users.

__________________________

[1] “For the last five decades, Dr. Grinspoon was the intellectual leader of the marijuana legalization movement.” https://norml.org/blog/2020/06/25/no...ter-grinspoon/ also see https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1...ralization-of/

[2] NORML was founded in the 1970s by a gentile named Keith Stroup, but had early backing from the NY Senator Jacob Javits, who sat on its board of directors in the 70s. It had a high degree of Jewish involvement and exists to this day.

[3] Carlson, P. (2005) Exhale, Stage Left. The Washington Post. 4 January https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-24d58107d630/

[4] The MPP was founded after a disagreement between the founders and the then executive director of NORML, Richard Cowan (who, interestingly, was a founding member of Young Americans for Freedom, a Conservative student group launched in 1960 by William F. Buckley https://norml.org/richard-cowan/). Rob Kampia is likely Jewish https://twitter.com/RobKampia/status/976119252653694977 https://www.medicaljane.com/director...al/rob-kampia/, but there is little information about Chuck Thomas available on the internet.

[5] Interestingly, no mention of Peter Lewis is made on the MPP’s Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Policy_Project . Although the MPP is mentioned on Lewis’ page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_B._Lewis .

[6] Baily, E. (1996) 6 Wealthy Donors Aid Measure on Marijuana. Los Angeles Times. 2 November. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...512-story.html

[7] A Jewish businessman who predominantly worked in the clothing industry. Net worth around $200 million. https://www.celebritynetworth.com/ri...mer-net-worth/

[8] https://www.pdc.wa.gov/browse/campai...tion_year=2012

[9] BornEmanuel Theodor Heilbronner, Emanuel Theodore Bronner is a Jewish businessman who owns Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Bronner#History

[10] https://web.archive.org/web/20130618...ent-64/funding

[11] Taylor, Mark (2010) George Soros’ Weed Donation Goes Up in Smoke. Observer. 3 November https://observer.com/2010/11/george-...s-up-in-smoke/

[12] Sorvino, C. (2014) An Inside Look At The Biggest Drug Reformer In The Country: George Soros. Forbes. 2 October https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloeso...-george-soros/

[13] Berenson, A. (2019) Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness and Violence. Free Press. Chapter 5

[14] Stuyt E. (2018). The Problem with the Current High Potency THC Marijuana from the Perspective of an Addiction Psychiatrist. Missouri medicine, 115(6), 482–486. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312155/

[15] https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/in...annabidiol-cbd

[16] https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-...cancer-2248868

[17] Nielssen, O., & Large, M. (2010). Rates of homicide during the first episode of psychosis and after treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophrenia bulletin, 36(4), 702–712. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbn144 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894594/

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.ne...s-bad-for-you/
 
Old February 24th, 2022 #4
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 1,625
Blog Entries: 59
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Key View Post
The Jewish Role in Promoting Cannabis—And Why It’s Bad for You

January 14, 2021/49 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Douglas Watson



https://www.theoccidentalobserver.ne...s-bad-for-you/
I agree the jews were significant contributors to prop 215 and I would not contest the same for 502 or 64.
I would advise being wary of anything they support.

My issue is with the graphs and the article that features them. The inaccuracy of the graphs does not contradict the main thesis of this thread, they aren't that inaccurate. But they're not accurate.

First of all it is ludicrous to reference yourself as a source. Linking to the article in which the graph appears, the same page I am already on when looking at the graph, serves no purpose.
The "source" referenced should be the primary source of the information depicted in the graph not who drew the circle and picked the colours.
The article that contains the graphs and is listed as the source has a number of references itself but only a couple are useful (e.g., the Washington state Public Disclosure Commission is useful) and they do not bear out the graphs.
Wikipedia should never be referenced since it is not a reliable source of accurate information, particularly information of a political nature.
So called "news" networks (e.g., LA Times, Washington Post, etc.) are rarely, at least in theory, the source of what they are reporting. Except when they make it up or do investigative journalism, the latter is rare. They are no more the source of the campaign funding information than the article that's referencing them. In the present case it makes even less sense considering the subject.
Lastly, contributions from non-profit organisations that are supported by thousands of individual private donations, many or most of which are not from jews, cannot be entirely credited to jews and certainly not a single jew (e.g., ACLU, Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Action).

For my own part, I don't smoke weed (or use it any other way) but it has been legal here in Cali for 5 years now and I haven't noticed a single difference either positive or negative. Like most drugs, even before it was legal, it could not possibly have been easier to obtain. Legalising weed does not even seem to have effected the number of people selling it on the street. Possibly the people selling it on the street have lowered their prices, I don't know, but they certainly haven't been put out of business.
The number of states that have legalised weed (18 or more) grows every year, I don't know if it's had as little effect in other states as it has here.
__________________
卐 White ⊕ Power 卐
 
Old February 24th, 2022 #5
bedford
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Atlanta,GA
Posts: 3,315
Default

Whether pot is legal or not I choose not to smoke it. I don't like having any kind of smoke in my lungs. That's just me. Even back in the 70s when I was in high school and pot was more popular it was generally known that it F ed up one's memory and causes users to be apathetic.
__________________
"To Undo a Jew is charity and not a sin."
-Christopher Marlowe
 
Old February 26th, 2022 #6
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

https://jewishcontributions.com/asse...able-weed.webp

Last edited by Robbie Key; April 27th, 2022 at 01:36 PM.
 
Old January 13th, 2023 #7
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

White Fertility and the Very Jewy Promotion of Cannabis

by B.E. Clover

THEODORE KACZYNSKI ONCE SAID, “Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.”

At the time he wrote this, antidepressant drugs were confined to being prescribed to adults only. Flash forward to 2023, and 40% of Generation Z is on, or has been on, heavy-duty stimulants, psychotropics, and/or anti-depressants since childhood.

For the rest who escaped childhood without being heavily medicated by their Gen X and older Millennial parents, legalized Big Cannabis has spun a web of falsehoods and propaganda that rivals Big Tobacco — with White youth squarely in the crosshairs.

There is nothing White about cannabis; Mestizo Mexicans first brought marijuana to the US in 1910. Jews would go on to glorify its usage as “biblical.” It should come as no surprise that early efforts to bring cannabis into the mainstream through research into possible use by the medical establishment started in the 1960s and was spearheaded by the Jews Raphael Mechoulam and Yechiel Gaoni in Israel. This “medical marijuana”/cannabis effort was funded by the Israeli government. Legalizing cannabis use was long considered a libertarian mantra; and it was first legalized, medically, in California in 1996. It was further promoted in the US in 2012 in a piece on CNN by Jewish IDF lieutenant Yosef Glassman, “Medical Marijuana without the High,” which featured an 80-year-old Israeli self-proclaimed “Holocaust survivor” and author Moshe Roth smoking “medical marijuana” on camera. Medical marijuana opened the door to legalized recreational cannabis.

Cannabis has severe consequences for White fertility, already at all-time lows. In males the reproductive consequences of cannabis, medical and recreational, include: changes to the genetic profile of sperm while passing these changes on to offspring; testicular atrophy (reduces size and can lead to the loss of function); lower sperm counts; lower sperm concentration; lower sperm quality; and lower motility (movement) and morphology (size and shape of individual sperm). Cannabis can also cause erectile disfunction.

There have been several studies that have looked at the effects of cannabis use on male fertility. Here are a few examples:
  1. “The Impact of Marijuana Use on Male Reproductive Hormones and Semen Quality” published in the Journal of Andrology in 2015, found that men who smoked marijuana had lower levels of testosterone and luteinizing hormone, and that the concentration of sperm in their semen was significantly lower compared to men who did not smoke marijuana.
  2. A 2018 study in Human Reproduction found that smoking marijuana was associated with a 29% decrease in sperm concentration and a 52% decrease in total sperm count.
  3. A study published in the Journal of Fertility and Sterility in 2020, that included over 6500 men, found that cannabis use was associated with decreased semen volume, sperm concentration, motility and normal morphological traits.

Both sexes have been shown to suffer a reduction in sex drive and performance due to cannabis usage, and female fertility is not immune to the effects of medical and recreational marijuana.

A number of studies have found that cannabis use may be associated with changes in menstrual cycles and ovulation, which can affect fertility. For example, a study published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2016 (cited below) found that women who used cannabis had a much higher risk of ovulatory infertility (i.e. difficulty getting pregnant due to problems with ovulation) compared to women who did not use cannabis.

Additionally, some studies have found that cannabis use may be associated with changes in levels of certain hormones involved in ovulation and pregnancy, such as luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone.

Here are a few examples of studies that have looked at the effects of cannabis use on female fertility:
  1. “Cannabis use and ovulatory infertility” published in Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2016 found that cannabis use was associated with a 30% higher risk of ovulatory infertility.
  2. “The effects of marijuana use on fertility and a review of recent literature” published in the Journal of Ovarian Research in 2018, stated that cannabis use can affect the menstrual cycle and ovulation, leading to infertility.
  3. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism in 2020, that included over 900 women, found that the regular cannabis use was associated with alterations in menstrual cycles, decreased ovulatory function and ovarian reserve, as well as alterations in anti-Mullerian hormone.

Cannabis usage in females leads to damaged eggs that struggle to produce viable embryos and pregnancy, resulting in an increase in miscarriages. Add to this the delayed age of White women attempting motherhood — fertility starts decreasing at age 25 for women with depleted eggs and quality of eggs, such as those damaged by regular cannabis usage — and Whites have a very real fertility crisis.

All the while, cannabis usage in White nationalist and even National Socialist circles exists; some are open about it, and some are secretive. There is nothing about cannabis that is National Socialist: It goes against the ideals and goals of sound minds, sound bodies, reverence for and immersion in Nature, and active lifestyles. To struggle is to be Aryan — and we do not see struggle as the Jews perceive it, but in an Aryan way: We embrace it, for it strengthens our minds, bodies, and hearts. As Adolf Hitler once said, “Obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but only to be broken.” Medicating ourselves to the point we no longer care is not compatible with that attitude toward life.

https://nationalvanguard.org/2023/01...n-of-cannabis/
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 PM.
Page generated in 0.69613 seconds.