USVI NORMAL SNUBBED BY AVIS

I find it interesting that an Atheist uses some of his argument for the legalization of cannabis (" Quote" to recognize that cannabis is used in support of religious beliefs) What's up with that?

Bombi,
As the quote in my post said " I find it interesting" That an Atheist would align with a religious entity for a cause. Atheist/Religious is kind of an oxymoron. A little machiavellian my opinion.

If I understand Machiavellian correctly it is used to describe some one or an idea which is two faced and deceitful, saying one thing and meaning another. Is this the context of your opinion ?

How about the end justifies the means.

Exactly.

Thank You!

Another way to look at it is that religious organizations don't pay taxes. This increases the overall tax burden for everybody else, including Bombi-the-atheist. If Bombi-the-atheist is subsidizing religious organizations, then the least those organizations can do is provide dogmatic support for Bombi-the-atheist's cause. 😀

dntw8up,
If Pigs could fly!

lizard, i am w/bombi,

i do not have to practice your way of life or religion in order to respect your right to be who you are.

i will also hope that you will leave me to be free to be myself as well...

A Davis,
If I find something interesting "to me "and you take the same position as Bombi, so be it. I have and opinion and express it. Get over yourself.

Debate establishes and reinforces positions. Positions change, optimistically speaking, of course.

Discussion often leads to growth and change, but the young and the old tend to believe they know it all.

In order to change a position, one must have a position, a statement found to interesting is an opinion of the statement not a position. No need to be optimistic when there is no position to change.

dntw8up
Your not that old are ya? LOL

A Davis,
If I find something interesting "to me "and you take the same position as Bombi, so be it. I have and opinion and express it. Get over yourself.

sure, no problem.

http://www.blogthings.com/howaverageamericanareyouquiz/

How average American are you.

I'm 70%

Statesiders have taken notice of the happenings here.

http://www.vinow.com/wwwtalk/read.php?4,103525

and

http://stash.norml.org/us-virgin-islands-newspaper-refuses-norml-recruitment-ad/

I am on the board for USVINORML, so, as you may assume, I fully support the reform of laws that were written before the majority of information now available was available..take cocaine, for example...it used to be legal...but, once the concrete information came to light, the laws changed...that is what we are seeking to attain here...a REFORM of the MJ laws, with ALL of the information at hand, so it can be used for the benefit of those that may benefit from it.

Regardless of your own personal opinions, the FACTS remain: MJ is much safer than many RX medications now available for many diseases/conditions. The $$ spent on enforcing the current laws could then be re-routed to better purpose. The criminal 'offenders' would not be incarcerated (nor arrested, charged, tried and convicted), thereby saving more $$ and making room in our institutions for those that really belong there and the law enforcement personnel could then use their resources for the bettering of our community.

An INFORMED opinion is one in which the individual has NO opinion until the information is gathered...from what I have read above, those that are against reforming any of the current laws formed their opinions without prior investigation (this is merely my own personal opinion here) and no amount of typing by the INFORMED individuals will change their minds...they are against it, that is their right, and they are entitled to it. But, when information is disseminated by responsible individuals and organizations that have spent millions in study and research, and the public's general knowledge is then elevated to an informed position, then, and only then, will laws change...MY opinions don't matter...YOUR opinions don't matter...the FACTS are what matters.

I suffered a traumatic brain injury and am on 5 different RX medications to try to make my damaged brain perform like an undamaged one...these meds cost me over $400 per month, as I no longer have insurance....my doctor suggested MJ to me, even though it is not legal here...yet 13 other States have already made significant changes to their laws based on FACTS...the FACT remains that, in over 6 years, the medical community has not been able to come up with a combination of RX drugs that do for me what THC does for me, which is to clear my head, make it easier to concentrate, gives me an appetite, reduces anxiety, reduces frustration and relaxes me. I don't mis-use cannabis, I don't use it to get 'high'....I ingest it for medicinal purposes and it works...until the medical community can equal that, at a cost of about $10/month (I grow mine), then I will continue to fight to reform the medical MJ laws. You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to share my opinion, you don't have to like me....you are free to do as you choose...all I am asking is to have the same rights you enjoy: To Do As I Choose.

Now, back to the topic, the Avis is a business that makes it's profits by exercising their rights...one of which is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." As I see it, by refusing to run an advertisement that has been run by other publications, they are "prohibiting the free exercise" of this group to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" by not allowing the advertisement to run. It's that simple. They don't have to agree with the advertisement, as I am sure that they don't agree with all ads they run, but they should not have the right to refuse to run an ad that is only designed to inform the community of the organization of a local chapter of a National organization...I will never buy an Avis, as won't many that I have spoken with, personally.

Now, back to the topic, the Avis is a business that makes it's profits by exercising their rights...one of which is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." As I see it, by refusing to run an advertisement that has been run by other publications, they are "prohibiting the free exercise" of this group to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" by not allowing the advertisement to run. It's that simple. They don't have to agree with the advertisement, as I am sure that they don't agree with all ads they run, but they should not have the right to refuse to run an ad that is only designed to inform the community of the organization of a local chapter of a National organization...I will never buy an Avis, as won't many that I have spoken with, personally.

Marty, agreed 100% on the MJ stuff...not so much on the 1st amendment stuff.

Implicit in the right to free speech is also the right not to speak at all. This is what the Avis has done in their PRIVATELY owned newspaper. To force them to print speech that is not in line with their editorial objectives would violate their right to speak as they see fit (aka freely). If you don't like it you are equally free to start you're own newspaper that advocate's you're position...and have no one interfere with what you choose to print in it.

I do feel like a letter to the editor would be in order as someone should let the Avis know that thinking people find it rather insulting that they felt the need to censor a perfectly reasonable ad such as the one provided by NORML. Absent a shift in policy the best recourse is to simply not buy the paper.

Sean

I agree with you, Sean, however, I do believe that a newspaper has a public responsibility to publish news...they didn't ignore the new president, did they? We can't even VOTE for the Prez here, so what bearing does it have on the community? It's in the community's best interest to be informed, correct? That being the case, they are also responsible to publish advertisements that people in the community might want to know about...it's their ethical responsibility to publish ads that offer to inform the community of the goings on here...to me, that equals suppression...I mean, what if they didn't publish an ad for the Boy Scouts? This organization does wonders for the youth in our community and the Avis has never refused one of their ads...USVINORML will have an even greater impact on the community at large than the Boy Scouts do, so, by all rights, shouldn't their ad be allowed to run, as well? Selective reporting does not an honest paper make....

Marty,

I think we are in complete agreement about what a newspaper SHOULD do, I guess all I'm saying is that in my mind under the US constitution our only recourse is to simply not buy the paper. Oh and to complain about it on internet message boards of course 🙂

Sean

I just read the post from Linda:

Statesiders have taken notice of the happenings here.

[stash.norml.org]

I read the articles mentioned and think that it is great that statesiders can read these articles and feel that the USVI has morals. They can read first hand that the people of the USVI find it immoral to promote an illegal substance and I for one will start buying the Avis everyday to help off set those that feel that they are making a statement or impact by not buying it.

Uttica,
What does this have to do with morality? Was it immoral to drink during prohibition? It might have been illegal, but immoral?

***************************
As I see it, by refusing to run an advertisement that has been run by other publications, they are "prohibiting the free exercise" of this group to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" by not allowing the advertisement to run. It's that simple.
**************************

I thought we disposed of this issue some days ago in this forum. A newspaper is not a government agent and is not bound by First Amendment strictures.

I support the normalization of trade in marijuana. Prohibition in the face of market demand simply creates black markets. It didn't work for alcohol, and it isn't working for marijuana. But trying to use the Bill of Rights to force a newspaper to take advertising is a waste of time.

Advice? Choose your battles.

USVI =morals,hahahahaha,how many whorebars on island,hiv among the straight population almost the highest in the region,adult parade at carnival,great morals!!!

i suggest you research to see if the avis came out in support of sen.positive nelson,he's a self-proclaimed rasta which means he's probably a pot smoker,then you can point out their hypocrisy