Anti-legalization group Intelligent Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) lately lost a battle with the New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics. The commission desires SAM to reveal their donors because they use these funds for political lobbying and they lately denied SAM’s request to preserve these donor names a secret.
In their request for an exemption, SAM stated they do not get large contributions from corporate interests in the “alcohol, tobacco, opioid, or…prison industries.” You will notice rehab owners are absent from that list, but in the finish, I do not care if SAM gets 100% of their funding from mega-billionaire Opioid G. Percocet. SAM is extremely clear in their opposition to cannabis legalization of any sort their motivations imply practically nothing to me.
I fully grasp that a lot of reading this do want to know who the donors are, and that is fine. But irrespective of whether SAM does what they do out of a deep-seated sense of morality or mainly because they get bags of money from some shady dude in an alley at 3am, it tends to make no distinction to me. They want to criminalize persons who are not infringing on the rights of anybody else – a lot of of these persons becoming extremely ill – and for that purpose alone I oppose them wholeheartedly.
I also fully grasp a list of donors may well be beneficial for issues like boycotts I know I wouldn’t want to give income to a enterprise that supports SAM and if these companies really feel the pinch of a boycott, the income to SAM may well dry up. But if, as a lot of suspect, most of SAM’s income comes from the rehab market, a boycott is not going to do considerably.
The bottom line is that SAM is not evil mainly because of who funds them, they are evil mainly because they want to continue prohibition and continue to punish millions of strangers who have never ever performed something to the members of SAM or anybody else.
For their element, SAM contends that their “primary supply of funding is from folks and households, a lot of of whom have noticed the unfavorable consequences of marijuana initially-hand, as properly as other supporters who have provided to market accountable public policy with the expectation of privacy below the federal tax code linked with our (social welfare organization) status.”
Of course, “individuals and families” could simply imply the rehab market, as could “supporters who have provided to market accountable public policy.” Either way, I obtain it challenging to think that adequate modest person donors who care adequate about marijuana legalization to give income to these who oppose it exist to assistance a multi-million dollar organization like SAM.
And even though I do not care about SAM’s donors, I will admit that element of me is glad some of these sources have to be devoted to bureaucratic red tape and regulation adherence.