3x Notable Political Families Rumored to be Involved in the Drug Trade: Cultural Icon or Drug Dealer

The drug culture, known for its glossed up, sometimes immoral portrayal of the typical and often stigmatized drug user, over represents one segment of the American population, while ignoring another population which may traffic and use the same controlled substances. The legalization movement has slowly progressed from an ad-hoc, grass roots movement to one that has become commercialized with various multi-million dollar corporations funding various government initiatives. Cannabis advocates like Marc Emery who fought for the decriminalization of cannabis in his London, Ontario headshop in the early 1990’s and later thru his Cannabis café and hydroponics shop in Vancouver, British Columbia. Marc Emery once indicated "I went to jail for selling marijuana seeds from my Hastings Seed Depot, but where would Northern Lights, Mighty Mights or Purple Haze strains be without me?"

"I went to jail for selling marijuana seeds from my Hastings Seed Depot, but they contained very little THC" Marc Emery

The historical cultural icon, which paraded amongst the few in high school often smoking joints in parties or after school treating recreational marijuana as a means to enlighten ones spiritual 3rd eye or simply to pass time has been characterized by some in society as the hippy “burn-out” who smoked too many joints now faced peril in the judicial system.

The freedom fighter, who fought years and decades against a system of tyranny while attempting to advocate the medicinal properties of cannabis for various health ailments including, epilepsy, eating disorders, bulimia, was characterized by some in society as the drug dealer who preyed on the physically sick and perhaps mentally inept individuals from marginalized classes.

The civil rights activist who advocated the legalization of various types of stimulants while advocating for much more then legalization, but the right and freedom of choice via: pro-choice, essentially bringing the administration of justice into disrespute by ensuring that in a democratic institution, every citizen has the right to choose what they can and cannot do unto themselves, was denounced as a traitor to the constitution, when in fact he or she exemplified the exact opposite.

The police officer who always evaded arrest, however sold a significant proportion of various controlled substances and only arrested his own relatives (selling drugs) “competition” was given a green card to undertake the most heinous of criminal conduct throughout the late 1990’s and 2000’s. When asked, the police officer indicated that “we arrest some but allow others to sell drugs as they are informants…. And that’s what it means to be an informant”. Selectively and discriminately choosing who to arrest, while allowing others to undertake drug trafficking activities doesn’t illustrate what it means to be an informant, it’s a form of racial discrimination, especially if a specific segment of the population or racial class being overpoliced and overtly monitored, results in a stratification of a specific minority groups, thereby creating socioeconomic disparity between classes, respectively.

The drug dealer, who wasn’t perceived as a cultural icon, or advocate for various causes, along with grass roots campaigns on various constitutional issues, and tried to make a little extra money on the side, while working at a variety store and delivering newspapers after school faced the system that has entrapped and exploited the weak, while sucking the bloods from the poor in the process was thrown into a penitentiary with hardened criminals and regrettably,.....hardened into a criminal.

Same conduct, same modus operandi, the only difference between the five examples is the conceptualization of one’s nefarious activities and how someone in the general public perceives their often-criminal conduct and/or behaviors. The difference in being characterized as a freedom fighter, civil rights activist, police officer or possibly and regrettably a drug dealer or drug kingpin is the founded on a premise of perception, whose premise do you ask?... the public’s perception. The only difference between the five examples is how someone is portrayed or perhaps branded to the general public. Marginalized classes and often sub-groups of various underprivileged classes (socioeconomic classes) often face difficulties in employment and social mobility, thereby characterized as the typical drug dealer, while some individuals who are staunch advocates for one’s civil rights are viewed as freedom fighters before their times while trafficking a boat load of narcotics. Those marginalized sub groups who faced discriminatory practices in society often face significant challenges in how the general publics perceived this sub grouping, etc. As a result, this group often is portrayed with negative stereotypes although undertaking the EXACT same criminal conduct which contravenes the various criminal codes, respectively.

Are you a drug dealer, or perhaps a cannabis activist who has either helped many epileptic patients or have you plagued society with various contraband resulting in the drug epidemic we have seen in the mid 1990’s throughout North America? The answer can be construed in how you are portrayed or even branded to the general public. Are you the drug dealer who hustled on the block or corner while driving various foreign vehicles or are you the doctors who provided a service which was not available prior to the legalization of cannabis which alleviated epileptic patients symptoms and helped bulimic patients eat foods while not being able to hold down food without smoking a joint? Both of these individuals undertake the exact same criminal conduct, however face significant different penal sanction when and if they are caught, arrested, adjudicated and later sentenced.

Both of these individuals undertake the exact same criminal conduct, however face significant different penal sanction when and if they are caught, arrested, adjudicated and later sentenced.

I myself, used to sell marijuana to epileptic and bulimic patients, and cocaine to those who were allergic to Novocain and Benzocaine for dental operations, and methamphetamine to those ADHD university students who essentially solved the world hunger crisis by working overtime, etc. These 6500 university students who advocated the rights of the underprivileged faced the system of tyrannical rule and fought for the rights of an accused who faced significant discrimination both in employment and society as a whole.

Last year, the CBS rejected an advertisement advocating the benefits of medical cannabis during the Super Bowl. The advertisement was created by the firm Acreage Holdings, a company valued in the billions and which employs former Speaker of the House John Boehner. According to Acreage President George Allen, the ad, which featured a veteran with combat injuries and a child with seizures, was part of an “advocacy campaign for constituents who are being lost in the dialogue.” It highlights the growing trend to stigmatize and often legitimize the once criminal conduct in the mainstream media.

Regrettably, the CBS refused to air the advertisement, as cannabis prohibition has become something of a bargaining tool with the NFLPA. In any case, CBS’s decision cannot be said to be a reflection of public sentiment, which overwhelmingly supports not only medical use, but also recreational cannabis. The federal government still prohibits even simple possession of cannabis in some states. Yet for several practical reasons, this federal prohibition is mostly symbolic in states that have legal markets.

Prohibition is symbolic in such instances because Congress has for years now prohibited the Department of Justice from using federal money to prosecute medical cannabis businesses that are legal under state law. Additionally, it would be extraordinarily difficult to separate medical cannabis enterprises from recreational use under this legislative framework, given that every recreational shop can claim they are serving the medical needs of customers. As one reporter once indicated and as the decision by CBS demonstrates, even symbolic prohibition carries significant power.

For example, when former Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, a renowned cannabis prohibitionist zealot, rescinded a largely symbolic Obama-era policy that gave cover to cannabis businesses operating in legal state markets, cannabis stocks plummeted. The stock market is highly contingent on the legislation and lobbyist supporting the legalization movement. The truth of the matter is, despite overwhelming public support, the stigma surrounding cannabis remains powerfully influential. Most importantly, the stigma exists predominately by those who hold power over the lives of others.

These powerful men and women typically masquerade in the wolfs clothing while parading thru congress and advocating on behalf of the lobbyist that typically line their pockets, etc. The House of Representatives and the Senate have claimed to represent the ‘consensus’ of Americans, however the consensus is based on the extraordinary 'influence' and negative 'inference' that the legalization movement once held, in that, legalization of cannabis, whether recreational or medicinal is a controversial issue which has stratified various like minded organization and garnished vocal opponents on both sides of the spectrum.

The House of Representatives and the Senate have claimed to represent the ‘consensus’ of Americans, however the consensus is based on the extraordinary "influence" and negative "inference" that the legalization movement once held

The balance is typically swayed when pro-cannabis states including Arizona, California, etc. have shown that recreational and medicinal marijuana can be sold, regulated including taxed and available without adversely affecting those opponents on the right, etc.

Canada has seen the legalization of cannabis for over 1 year, whereby the decriminalization of cannabis, and its derivatives, has resulted in several online and corner storefront cannabis shops. These shops are regulated by the Provincial and Federal governments. Canada has exemplified the liberalization of the once banned contraband which resulted in a significant proportion of the population being arrested and incarcerated, regrettably. As several Canadians who are now working in the Seattle, Washington areas indicate, ‘essentially nothing has changed and everything seems of the norm”. This infers that society which has once viewed cannabis as the ‘black plague’, now views cannabis as medicinal and recreational stimulant much like alcohol. The GDP has rose from the previous year, there hasn’t been an increase in drug users or a spike in the number of drug deaths, etc. A year after cannabis legalization and everything remains the same… nothing changed…. Everyone still goes to school, everyone still works, the hospitals are not full of drug-induced cannabis users and finally, the world keeps turning day by day.