Posted on 10/13/2016 12:37:36 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
Sometimes you learn more about a periodical by what is not published in it than by what is published. And in the case of High Times magazine, what do we learn by the fact that all the marijuana oriented publications available on the Web, except High Times, have published stories about the revelation released by Wikileaks on Monday that Hillary Clinton during a private talk to bankers gave a most definite thumbs down to legalization of marijuana? Could it be that High Times is so in the tank for Hillary that they must avoid mentioning this story about what Hillary really says on their most important issue behind the scenes?
Contrast High Times silence on this topic with how other weed oriented magazines are covering it starting with the very appropriately named Marijuana:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Ya think?
“...marijuana oriented publication...”?
Is it pictures only, or does in contain text as well?
Go, Trump, GO!
One might say the hypocrisy is growing like a weed?
Why would she be against legalization? Could it be that she profits from marijuana prohibition? Perhaps the cartels pay her handsomely. Open borders and an in-demand contraband for sale could lead to a tidy sum for the foundation, I mean pockets of one who kept the status quo.
There have got to be sane answers somewhere between utter bans (which end up being welfare for government) and sending a message that it’s the peachiest thing in the world to do to get stoned.
I think it’s the big-gummit angle that Hillary does not want to abandon.
I don’t think she really cares, but her Big Pharma backers and their financial cronies on Wall Street stand to lose a lot when Prohibition falls. The good news is the States are making the Federal position moot.
Everything she says is a lie so she’s actually in favor of legalization. She was opposed to gay marriage, she favored the Iraq War, she says she wont take away our guns and she says her tax increases will only affect the rich.
There are some things that Big Pharma does well, such as research and standardization. Nutrition is one thing, medicine is another. There is nothing wrong with being Big Pharma in and of itself. There is everything wrong when it wants to corner markets.
It sounds like a hedged bet on her part. It’s a “mainstream” curlicue.
Big Pharma hates pot because anyone can grow it.
A person can make the choice to either spend $200 a day on pharmacueticals, or $7 on pot, and get very similar results.
High Times mag used to be the only game in town if you wanted to read about pot. Now, it is considered uncool, and for oldsters.
Dave’s not here, man.
Especially coming from the crowd that thinks marijuana is the penicillin of our generation.
Conservatives here had better be ready, I suspect Mr. Trump will have a very libertarian attitude about the hemp plant. I can tolerate that.
She would be more likely to play both sides, tell the public one thing and her money people another. Which to believe, which to believe? I’d bet on the money people.
Documented drops in pharma use in places where it becomes “legal.”
I don't like the stuff, and I don't believe it's harmless at all, my kids are real asssholes when they smoke it, but if someone wants to blaze up and can function as a member of society, just like with booze, then why not?
Could the editors have been so stoned that they forgot to include her opinion?
High Times Staffer 1: “Ahhh, yeah...hey dude....ahhhh, what was Hillarys opinion on legalization?”
High Times Staffer 2: “Oh dude, I forgot to ask her. Didn’t you?!”
High Times Staffer 1: Ahhh, nooo man, I thought you did...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.