The Drug War Part II The Bush Family

Most discussion about legalizing drugs/marijuana eventually come down to medical benefit.  Recreational use is often a stalemate between those who feel we should all be free to do what we choose with our own bodies and those who feel they have some level of authority over what they see as morally right and wrong and becomes more based on opinion then anything else.  Based on this let's jump into the medical marijuana debate which at least has its basis in fact instead of opinion, shall we?

At this point it can almost be taken for granitite that there are medical benefits to it.  Those going through chemo therapy for instance have found that use of marijuana helps cut down on the feelings of sickness after each treatment and have found it helps them get their appetites back much quicker.  There are countless web sites discussing the benefits so I'll save you the boring detailed lists. 

Even the opposition agrees there are benefits but are quick to point to synthetic substitutes.  This is where the debate gets interesting...

Why are costly synthetic substitutes for marijuana considered ok but the plant itself considered contraband and an evil substance that must be fought in a "war" to be stopped?  Because its addictive?  Because marijuana is considered a mind altering drug?  Because smoking it does harm to your body?

There are drugs far more addictive that are considered perfectly legal.  Some like Caffeine can be purchased by anyone including children in soft drinks or coffee.

There are drugs far more mind altering that are considered perfectly legal.  Some of these while limited to adults only such as alcohol are considered perfectly legal, others like ridlen are prescription only but given out even to children.

There are drugs that do far more damage to your body considered perfectly legal.  Smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer and has many of the same problems smoking pot could cause but cigarettes are legal and available to any adult.

So I ask again, why the costly war on this drug in particular?

Look at the synthetic substitute, produced by companies that can actually make a profit from it.  They are a marketable product that is taxes and controlled by the government.  In fact it's quite a good business for the Eli Lilly Company which produces the synthetic drug and because the government outlaws all other alternatives including the weed itself that can be grown in nearly any home garden (Jefferson and Washington both in fact grew it in their own gardens), they have themselves a fairly well protected government granted monopoly.

Eli Lilly Company is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies not only in this country but in the world.  When you look closer at this company, that is when you begin to see the real interesting details on the war on drugs.  In 1977 after leaving the CIA, George H.W. Bush joined their board of directors.  The Bush family also to this day owns a considerable amount of shares of the company.  When you look at Eli Lilly and the Bush family the connections run quite deep

So its clear why the Bush family would use their political influence over the years to keep this company in control of a vital market, after all they directly profit from it.  The political war on drugs isn't about what's best for our country or even us as individuals, it's about what's best for a controlling political family.

The question many of you ask is why then do the Democrats not step up and put an end to this costly waste of money?  Simple... they love government.  They support the unions and the huge costly government divisions.  We've gotten to a point where ending the war on drugs would entail shutting down a division of government that's no longer needed.  Which Democrat do you know willing to step up and say this whole division of government is unnessisary? And so it continues and you and I are forced to fund it.