Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Jillian Galloway
Atlanta, GA
Recent Activity
-
Jillian commented on the article |$113 billion is spent on marijuana every year in the U.S., and because of the federal prohibition *every* dollar of it goes straight into the hands of criminals. Far from preventing people from using marijuana, the prohibition instead creates zero legal supply amid massive and unrelenting demand.
According to the ONDCP, at least sixty percent of Mexican drug cartel money comes from selling marijuana in the U.S., they protect this revenue by brutally torturing, murdering and dismembering thousands of innocent people.
If we can STOP people using marijuana then we need to do so NOW, but if we can't then we need to legalize the production and sale of marijuana to adults with after-tax prices set too low for the cartels to match. One way or the other, we have to force the cartels out of the marijuana market and eliminate their highly lucrative marijuana incomes - no business can withstand the loss of sixty percent of its revenue!
To date, the cartels have amassed more than 100,000 "foot soldiers" and operate in 230 U.S. cities, and the longer they're allowed to exploit the prohibition the more powerful they'll get and the more our own personal security will be put in jeopardy.
Will you take action to end the federal marijuana prohibition and prevent the terrible suffering and brutal murder of so many of good people?
-
Jillian commented on the article |What Ron Brooks and friends forget is that marijuana's been widely used in this country for at least the entire time that it's been prohibited.
So it's irrelevant whether it's more dangerous than tobacco or less dangerous than tobacco or even whether it yields to us some colossal benefit when we smoke. The bottom line is people are smoking and we can't stop them so we need laws that'll prevent criminals from getting rich selling marijuana. Legalize it and treat it exactly like alcohol!
-
Jillian commented on the article |Poor baby, maybe she'll find a nice girl to marry one day?
-
Jillian commented on the article |
You're right Jim. And not only that but marijuana consumers smoke until they reach the feeling they were seeking, they *aren't* like alcohol drinkers who drink a set number of glasses or bottles.
So if their weed is stronger than they're used to they'll just smoke less, they *don't* force themselves to finish that bowl or joint, they just stop smoking.
So it really doesn't matter whether smokers know exactly how strong their weed is - they self-regulate their consumption based on the potency of the bud.
And even if a smoker does continue to smoke after they've reached the feeling they were seeking nothing much happens, they might feel a bit sleepy and feel like they wasted their weed but they will NEVER O.D. and die from it.
-
Jillian commented on the article |
And don't forget this little beauty either Matt. http://tr.im/BylA
Take a look at the claim at the bottom of the page - they actually dare to state that because "93% of Americans don't use drugs" that our draconian and ineffective drug laws are therefore "95% successful" and that we "shouldn't give up now"!!
What complete nonsense!
One hundred million Americans (a third of all the people living in this country today) acknowledge that they have obtained and consumed marijuana during the prohibition, and every single day 6,000 people use marijuana for the first time. The prohibition has NEVER stopped people from using marijuana and it never will.
So because marijuana is widely used but legitimate businesses are prevented from undercutting cartel prices the prohibition instead diverts $8 - 10 BILLION a year to the drug cartels. Last year the cartels murdered more than 6,000 people to protect this income - many of their victims were children, police officers and politicians. This year they're on track to kill at least 7,000 people.
This is the outcome of all the DEA's work and we definitely SHOULD give up now! The ONDCP has told us that two-thirds of the cartel's incomes come solely from selling marijuana in the U.S. We need to immediately end the prohibition and allow legitimate businesses to undercut cartel prices - that one change in policy will decimate the cartels and save countless innocent lives every year.
-
Jillian commented on the article |In "Animals and Psychedelics", Giorgio Samorini details numerous incidents where *wild animals* are observed going out of their way to experience alternative states of consciousness.
This is observed as a *natural drive* in animals as diverse as caribou, cats, insects, and birds, and is seen as being as natural and as essential to the survival of the species as its drives for food, shelter and sex.
Since wild animals go out of their way to experience intoxication you can be well assured that our prehistoric ancestors were doing the same thing long before they came down from the trees and became human.
We were seeking out altered states of consciousness before we became human and we've done the same thing for the entire time that we've been human. It's a natural part of us and pretending that it's something new or something deviant is naivety at its worst.
-
Jillian commented on the article |
Goodbye Amanda. I'm still confused as to who is exploited when men look at porn. If it's not their wives who are exploited and it's not the porn stars who willingly and for profit undress before cameras then who is it?
Let's say a porn star in Finland creates porn viewed by a gentleman in Liechtenstein, are you or I personally exploited by this? Are all the women of Finland and Liechtenstein somehow denigrated by his actions even though they have no knowledge whatsoever that the gentleman in question is actually viewing any porn at all? And if he stopped viewing porn would their lives improve even though they never had any knowledge that he did view porn and of course will never have any way of knowing that he has stopped?
Or here's another scenario. Let's say a gentleman here in the U.S. views porn which due to his sexual orientation doesn't contain any women at all. Has any woman been exploited by this, has any man? I've never actually heard any man say that men are being denigrated and exploited when other men view porn that contains only men, nor for that matter do they tend to complain when women view porn that contains only men. But surely by your logic shouldn't they be suffering from the same dehumanizing objectification as the (imaginary) women that you speak of?
-
Jillian commented on the article |
Honestly, without visual stimulus I don't think that men can masturbate frequently enough to provide adequate protection against prostrate cancer.
I really don't know why men are so visually orientated. Maybe in our pre-historic past the more visually-stimulated males had increased offspring so their genes were passed on, while the genes of less visually-stimulated males were not? I don't know.
But whatever the reason, men didn't ask to be made this way so holding this attribute against them must be considered to be a form of discrimination.
And in the end what does it matter what they require? Even if they required "romance-based" stimulus like women do, if they seek it out on the internet and in magazines then couldn't it also be regarded as "contributing to an industry that exploits women" by any person who wishes to see it that way?
If a man is loving to his wife and does everything he can to meet her needs and desires then how is she being exploited when he looks at porn? Maybe I misunderstood who's being exploited, is it the "porn star" who willingly and for profit undresses before a camera who's being exploited? If she's an adult then shouldn't we respect her decisions?
-
Jillian commented on the article |
Sorry I took so long getting back to you Amanda. I'm surprised that someone with such strong views about masturbation knows so little about its health benefits.
Surely the purpose of your original post was to improve the lives of the millions of women currently in marriages across America - how are their lives improved when their loved ones are lying on a slab? What will you say to them when you convince their husbands to give up porn only to have them succumb to prostrate cancer. Oops?
Here are few of the numerous articles available on the subject.
http://tr.im/DTC0
http://tr.im/DTAt
http://tr.im/DTAM
http://tr.im/DTBP
http://tr.im/DTCr
http://tr.im/DTCx
http://tr.im/DTDcAnd I have to mention that your first sentence is confusing for surely the sole purpose of porn is masturbation?
It's also questionable that your claim of "throughout my posts to this blog I have attempted to maintain a calm and civil tone" is accurate when you just finished your previous post with "sounds like it was written by a man looking for an excuse to fuck everything in sight". Maybe your idea of a "calm and civil tone" is different from everybody else's?
-
Jillian commented on the article |
I don't mean to disagree with you about everything Amanda but in order to avoid prostate cancer men should ejaculate at least once a day. What woman could keep up with that?
Should a man make impossible demands on his wife in order to avoid cancer or do you think maybe there might be some flexibility to the dehumanizing theory of pornography that might allow a man to stay safe while respecting the emotions and desires of his wife?
Impact
2 Actions
0 Recruits
Organizations
-
Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp0 Actions 0 Recruits -
STUDENTS FOR SENSIBLE DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION0 Actions 0 Recruits -
The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation0 Actions 0 Recruits
