Jan 22, 2019
As global business leaders gather this week in the rarefied, snowy mountaintop resort of Davos they’re said to be fretting about how to reinvigorate the international economy.
What these elites should be doing, if they had any genuine interest in solving economic problems, is to spend less time in an exclusive Swiss resort and more time down on the streets and fields where most of humanity struggle to get by.
It’s almost hilarious the poverty of intelligence among the global elites. They wonder why economies are gridlocked, why growth is sluggish, why the outlook looks grim. Yet the answer is staring everyone in the face.
It’s the economy, stupid. Specifically, the capitalist economy. New figures reported this week show the inequality between superrich and the mass of ordinary people has reached an even greater scale of obscenity.
The richest 26 individuals in the world are now reckoned to own as much wealth as the poorest half — 3.8 billion people — of humanity combined.
© Sputnik / Aleksey Babushkin
This global inequality is replicated across individual nations, especially those Western nations dedicated to corporate capitalism. The United States and Britain are two of the most unequal countries on earth, with record number of multibillionaires living beside — figuratively speaking — record numbers of individuals and families suffering from poverty.
Check out this recent lecture by American economist Richard Wolff. He explains how capitalism is inevitably fated to result in massive polarization of wealth between a minority rich elite and the vast majority of “have nots”. That’s how capitalism operates, says Wolff.
Periodically, the mass of people get organized and force governments to restrain the excesses of capitalism, and redistribute the wealth more equitably. That was the case during the 1930s in the US when President Roosevelt launched the New Deal policies under growing pressure from the masses hit by the Great Depression.
But by and large, the system always tends towards polarization of wealth, accumulation of capital among a tiny elite, while the vast majority suffer from poverty, underemployment and deprivation.
Michael Parenti, another brilliant source on socio-economics, explains that what we refer to as “Western democracy” is something of a myth. Those societies are in practice plutocracies, run by and for the superrich. The function of governments is not to serve the people, but to serve their oligarchic masters.
From the Second World War to the present, the political project has been the steady undermining of whatever vestiges of democracy that may have existed. Government after government in Western states has ensured that more and more of the nations’ wealth is siphoned off from the general public into the hands and bank accounts of the superrich and corporations, usually located in some obscure zero-tax haven.
As Parenti expounds in his book, Democracy for the Few, what passes for corporate capitalism in the West is really a system of “corporate welfare”. Through a system of tax breaks, subsidies, public sell-offs, and so on, the wealth of nations is expropriated by the elite, aided and abetted by supposedly “democratic” governments.
“Costs are socialized; profits are privatized in an enormous upward redistribution of income from the taxpaying populace to the corporate rich,” writes Parenti. “Under corporate-state capitalism ordinary citizens pay twice for most things: first, as taxpayers who provide the subsidies, then as consumers who buy the high-priced commodities and services — if they can afford to.”
For the United States, figures show that in the 1950s, corporations provided about 50 per cent of the federal government tax revenue. Today, that proportion is down to about only 7 per cent. The tax burden has been shifted on to ordinary workers through their income deductions or through consumer sales taxes.
Even American multibillionaire Warren Buffett noted with a hint of shame that his cleaning lady pays a higher rate of tax on her paltry salary than he does on his dividends and investments. “It’s been a marvelous, marvelous time for the superrich,” Buffett remarked.
Tragically, as government revenues decrease over time due to policies of enriching the elites, then the state is compelled to rack up debts in order to avert collapse. But the debts are then used to siphon off even more money to the wealthy by governments borrowing from private banks and investors, while the spiraling indebtedness is used as an excuse for imposing savage austerity cuts on the majority.
What’s going on here is “system failure”. When inequality and poverty reach such a phenomenal scale as they have in today’s capitalist countries, then economics become defunct. The system drowns in overproduction and surplus because so few can afford to buy things, even basic goods, like food and clothes, housing, education, healthcare.
The bitter laugh is that the plutocrats and their flunkies are sitting on top of a Swiss mountain this week wondering why the world’s economies are in such awful, unworkable shape. It’s glaringly obvious that their capitalist system is a failed system.
The most feasible way out of the impasse is for nations to take democratic control of their resources and finances to serve the needs of the vast majority of society for the greater good, as opposed to the private profit interests of a superrich elite.
Socialism is the only way that we can create societies that are fit for purpose to serve human beings and to avert the descent into barbarism that is currently happening.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
What an idiot. He actually directed a few shows on child pornography. He knows about police procedures and yet he thought he was above the law. Despicable scum.
With permission from
By Andy Campbell, Huffingtonpost.com
Jan 23, 2019
Jason “Jace” Alexander, director of the TV series “Law & Order,” was arrested on child pornography charges Wednesday, accused of possessing and disseminating videos of young girls engaging in sex acts.
Authorities say he sent video of a young girl engaging in sex acts.
Alexander, 50, of Dobbs Ferry, New York, was accused of using an Internet torrent service to send a video in June that showed a 12- or 13-year-old girl stripping and masturbating, according to court documents obtained by the New York Post.
He also had a video file of a 6- to 8-year-old girl performing a sexual act on herself, investigators said.
Alexander was charged with promoting a sexual performance by a child and possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child, according to Variety. He faces a maximum of seven years in state prison if convicted. He posted $10,000 bail, and is due in Dobbs Ferry Court on Nov. 19.
Investigators were led to Alexander after downloading child pornography files from an IP address located in Westchester County. Further investigation revealed that the IP address came from Alexander’s home, Variety reports.
Alexander worked on 32 episodes of the original “Law & Order.” He also directed episodes of “Rescue Me” and is listed as a co-executive producer on NBC’s “Blacklist,” according to Entertainment Weekly.
Preparing for death by making peace with it
First, you withdraw.
Life shrinks down to the size of your home, then to your bedroom, then to your bed—sometimes over months, but more often over weeks.
Old joys stop having the same pull.
You eat less, drink less. Have less interest in speaking.
As your body’s systems start shutting down, you have less and less energy.
You sleep more and more throughout the day.
You start to slip in and out of consciousness and unconsciousness for longer periods of time.
Staying alive starts to feel like staying awake when you are very immensely tired.
At some point, you can’t hold on any longer.
And then you die.
A calm fall into a cosmic sleep.
But that’s not even the half of it.
“There are four ways people tend to die,” the older woman opposite me says as she reaches for a napkin and a ballpoint pen.
This woman is Dr. Yvonne McMaster, a retired palliative care physician turned campaigner for the cause. You see, soon after she retired, Yvonne discovered that government funding to her old workplace had been stripped. So she started a petition and, over the past five years, has collected over 85,000 signatures to reinstate funding to palliative care across the state (a task she achieved last year). Throughout, I’ve had the pleasure of shadowing Yvonne off and on, helping her with speeches, social media, etc. Today we’re at a cafe in her neighborhood to plan an upcoming newsletter.
She wears a bright yellow blazer, as she always does, and sips tea with a slice of lemon, as her mother always did.
Being privy to Yvonne’s campaign over the past five years and having seen the level of misunderstanding around palliative care and euthanasia and end of life care in general, I’ve picked up some bits and pieces that not many people know about but a great deal of people could benefit from. As my conversation with Yvonne turns toward this topic, I remember one of the first things she told me—the four ways of dying—and ask if she can refresh me on them.
“Well, there are four ways people tend to die,” she repeats. She draws an L graph on a napkin, labelling the tall axis “health” and the bottom axis “time.”
“The first is very sudden. This might happen, say, in the case of a heart attack or a car crash,” she draws a line that runs along at full health, before falling suddenly down to zero.
“But not many people die this way,” Yvonne explains. “We’re so healthy, you see, that our deaths tend to be more drawn out. The vast majority die in one of these three other ways.”
She draws the next three graphs.
The second looks like a plateau followed by a steep slope down. This is what it looks like if you have a disease like advanced or untreated cancer: You’re quite healthy for quite a while, experiencing only a gentle decline, before the disease rapidly wears you down. According to the geriatrician Joanne Lynn, who developed these graphs, about 20 percent of people die this way—and in Yvonne’s words, “all in all, it’s not a bad way to go, especially if you have good palliative care.”
The third is a more gradual slope down, marked by several deep potholes. This symbolizes a chronic condition that causes nasty episodes over time, which often require hospitalization, that you only partially recover from. This is typical of diseases like organ failure, chronic heart failure, emphysema, and many others. Death may come during one of the dips, if treatment fails. About 25 percent of people go this way.
And then there’s the last one. A wonky winding down toward death, as the body wears down from niggling conditions built up over time. As your health becomes more and more frail, dying often follows a physiological challenge that would’ve been quite minor in earlier life, such as influenza, infection, or a broken bone. An illness like dementia can also follow this path.
“The last graph is by far the most common,” Yvonne explains. “But, of course, you’re prone to experience some combination of them all. Knowing which trajectory someone is on can help you care for them better. It helps you make better decisions.”
I think about how much of human life is wrapped up in these simple markings on a napkin and of all the people Yvonne has helped navigate these graph lines.
There’s a story she often tells about a man in his sixties, who she treated for a tumor the size of a cauliflower sprouting from his neck. It caused him terrible pain. It oozed. It stank. He’d almost given up hope. Yvonne placed him on steroids to shrink the tumor, then checked in on him each week, to be with him on his journey.
Each time she came by, he’d reveal a little more of his life. In a strange piece of post-war irony, the man was German (Yvonne is Jewish) and had fought in WWII. He told Yvonne about serving on the front when things were quite bleak: frozen fields, barbed wire, that sort of thing. At the end of a day’s fighting, a trumpet voluntary would play. He explained it had come from ancient times, when the wounded would raise their hands to be scooped off the battlefield by medics in horse-drawn carts.
One time, as Yvonne visited him, he played a trumpet voluntary on an old record. It was his way of saying goodbye and thanking her for scooping him up when he had felt so helpless. Six weeks into Yvonne’s visitations, he died peacefully with his wife beside him, his life neatly rounded to a close—and Yvonne was happy to have played her part.
Palliative care runs so contra to our ideas about medicine and what doctors do.
Palliative care is a tricky thing to explain to people. I think it’s because it runs so contra to our ideas about medicine and what doctors do. Throughout our lives, we see the counterpart—curative care—played out in the form of surgeries, procedures, therapies (like chemotherapy or immunotherapy), and various other medical interventions that fight or fix the direct cause of an illness. We see it on TV shows like ER and Grey’s Anatomy and just about any daytime soap opera.
Meanwhile, palliative care is somewhere in the background. It’s supportive medicine and therapy in the form of symptom-controlling medication, rehabilitation, and counsel, which doesn’t necessarily cure illness, but does make it easier to cope or recover. Curative and palliative efforts complement each other. Curative care makes you get better, but palliative care makes you feel better, kind of like how a sore throat lozenge soothes your throat even if it doesn’t “cure” the cause of the soreness.
As we get older, however, many of us develop conditions that are life-limiting, chronic, or terminal. (Life itself is a terminal condition, as Yvonne likes to remind me.) And this is when palliative care comes more into the foreground, focusing on a patient’s quality of life, symptoms, and emotional wellbeing, as well as the welfare of their loved ones. It doesn’t focus on curing but it isn’t “giving up,” and it doesn’t necessarily mean that death is imminent; many people receive palliative care for years.
It also isn’t the same as euthanasia.
“I’m terribly conflicted on euthanasia,” Yvonne says casually as she sips her lemon tea. “In my experience, it is very rare to treat patients for which nothing can be done to palliate them, and they must endure terrible pain toward the end. In my entire career, I’ve only had two patients like this. At the same time, if I personally developed motor neuron disease or dementia, I would be profoundly relieved to know that, if the going got too tough, I could end it all simply and easily with a medicine or injection. The problem is how you regulate it and under what circumstances it becomes an option. Oregon offers some ideas, but must be done within six months of death and doesn’t currently apply to dementia or other neurological conditions.”
Yvonne expresses her concern for the extent to which euthanasia would morph the practice of doctors and nurses—but nonetheless offers a story in which it greatly helped.
Death isn’t always something to fear.
“There was a man once,” she starts, “in a cancer support group that I sit on. His name was Jack.” (Name changed for privacy.)
“Jack had a brain tumor. Having a father who had died badly from cancer, he saw the road ahead and didn’t like what he saw. He feared he would become totally incapacitated. He was determined to end his life on his own terms. Naturally his wife and him asked their doctor about euthanasia but were told it wasn’t legal—and so they sought other options,” Yvonne explains.
“They found a group in Switzerland, where euthanasia is legal, who help make the arrangements for people wishing to be euthanized. Coincidentally, their daughter was getting married in London later that year—and so, Jack and his wife booked a European tour, to visit the ancient cities, watch their daughter be wedded, and say goodbye in a little blue house in Switzerland. It was such a perfect end for him”
Yvonne loves his final words the most. After taking a swig of the lethal medicine, Jack said to his family, who were gathered all around, “I want you to know that I am extremely happy. I love you all—and that is good stuff because I can feel it working. I’d better lie down.”
Hearing stories like Jack’s helps us see that death isn’t always something to fear, and the more we’re exposed to these stories, the more clearly we can think about our own death and maybe even plan for it. Because if you’re uninitiated, the flurry of human institutions you’ll likely encounter at the end of your (or a loved one’s) life is, quite frankly, a mess.
The first port of call for many is the hospital, when something bad lands us in the emergency room. From here you might be shuffled into a general ward or, if it’s really bad, the intensive care unit. Here, doctors will talk to you about your options. In the general ward, you’ll typically be nursed back to a stable state and then sent home.
If your outlook is grim, however, you may be moved to one of another set of institutions: either a palliative care unit (also called hospice in certain countries) or a residential aged care facility (once called a nursing home). The care you receive in each of these institutions can vary greatly, depending on your level of health coverage, how much money you can part with, your condition, and your location. Bad care can leave scars. Good care can make all the difference in the world.
This may be where your journey ends, but if not, you’ll likely be sent home.
Home offers a familiar respite amidst the storm, but may be reshaped by your embattled condition. You may need a walker or other mobility device. You could need help of a more human kind; this can be a part-time carer, a social worker, an occupational therapist, or a full-time carer to help with life’s most basic tasks: showering, walking, cooking, and going to the toilet. Loved ones may help shoulder the load, but the responsibility is immense and, Yvonne tells me, many feel guilty that they haven’t done enough. Often, too, in the case of emergency or distress, the only recourse is to call for an ambulance and go back through the process all over again—though a good death at home is possible with the right support team in place.
An advanced care directive (ACD) can help determine your fate. This is a document that lays out your wishes so your medical team can decide what to do if you’re incapacitated or incapable of making a decision yourself (for example, if you were in a coma or in the later stages of dementia). It can include instructions to avoid certain procedures, your preference for where you’d like to go under certain scenarios, and even appoint a substitute decision-maker (typically a loved one) to make decisions about which treatments you’d be happy to accept. It’s a good idea to have an ACD on your medical record at any point of your life. (This great initiative by Advance Life Care helps you write your own.)
Ultimately though, every fate is the same. At some point, you die.
The doctor must be called to rule out any suspicious circumstances, confirm that death has occurred, then grant permission for an undertaker from the funeral home to move your body in preparations for your final farewell. Your death certificate is lodged with the government, your will is actioned via a lawyer or attorney, and your estate is divvied up according to your wishes. Done and dusted, assuming there are no issues with bank accounts, partnerships, passwords, taxes, etc.
Being passed through so many hands, it’s little wonder so many people find the end of a loved one’s life so stressful. Not only are you losing someone you care about—you, too, get lost in all the bureaucracy.
It all gets in the way of what truly matters.
Yvonne sips the last of her tea. She looks at the tea-soaked lemon slice, squelched in the bottom of the cup.
“Did I ever tell you about how my mother died?” she asks.
“No,” I say.
“My mother fled Hitler and spent the latter half of her life giving back to the country that had taken her in,” Yvonne explains. “She was very active with the Red Cross and Amnesty International, as well as the Women’s League for Peace and her local senior citizens club. She was remarkable.”
Yvonne pauses. “Well, anyway, she was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 72, which had worsened considerably by the time she was 76. I took it unto myself to treat her. I cared for her at home as she received radiotherapy and underwent hormone treatment. I’d adjust her medications and morphine to match her level of pain. All this while an occupational therapist taught her techniques to help her breathe with broken ribs.”
“Mum had two good years after that,” Yvonne says. “And because we all knew what was coming, she did a rather delightful thing. She gave away little gifts and treasures to old friends and colleagues. And she phoned up her lifelong contacts to tell them she was dying, to thank them for their years of friendship, and to say a heartfelt goodbye. I’d quite like to do that too, I think.”
For many a “good death” is a foreign concept.
Yvonne pauses. “In the spring, she watched her garden and waited for it to bloom. And when the end came, I was with her and it was so peaceful. It was truly a good death.”
For many a “good death” is a foreign concept. Within Yvonne’s circles, it’s the gold standard.
A good death is one as painless as possible.
A good death is one with friends and loved ones by your side and medical assistance within arm’s reach.
A good death is one where you are looked after in accordance to your values and wishes, seamlessly, as you’re moved from institution to institution.
But there’s another element to a good death, which I see as a common theme across all of Yvonne’s stories: a sense of closure.
Be it in a trumpet voluntary between a Jew and a German, a European trip, or a beautiful garden giving back all the goodness put into the world, a good death is one that resolves our overarching plot lines. For this is perhaps our greatest story—the story of our lives. And the more prepared we are, the more gracefully we may bring it to a satisfying close. A calm fall into a cosmic sleep.
To the world: Stop electing eejits from the aristocratic classes, as we have plenty of our own functional eejits in the working classes!
France, Turkey, and England have seeking to rekindle their former glory through a return to colonization, argues analyst Thierry Meyssan.
It is difficult to anticipate what form this future colonization will take. Long ago, it was made possible by the huge differences in the level of education. But today?
For a decade we have been revealing the incongruity of the French desire to re-establish its authority over its old colonies. This was the logic behind the nomination by President Nicolas Sarkozy of Bernard Kouchner as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Kouchner replaced the French Revolutionary idea of “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” with the Anglo-Saxon notion of human rights. Later, his friend President François Hollande declared, during a press conference on the fringes of the UN General Assembly, that it was time to re-establish a mandate over Syria. The great grand-nephew of ambassador François George-Picot (of the Sykes-Picot agreement), ex-President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, spoke of this even more clearly. This should help us better to understand the desire of President Emmanuel Macron to continue the war against Syria, without the United States.
There has always been a “colonial party” in France which crosses all political parties and acts as a lobby in the service of the wealthy class. Just as in every period when it becomes difficult for unscrupulous capitalists to crush the national work-force, the myth of colonial conquest resurfaces. If the Yellow Vests revolt, let us continue with the exploitation of men by other men » on the backs of the Syrians.
Long ago, this form of domination hid, according to the words of Jules Ferry – under whose auspices François Hollande consecrated his son mandate – behind the duty of bestowing civilization. Today, it aims at protecting the people whose elected leaders are qualified as dictators. France is not the only ancient colonial power to act in this way. Turkey quickly followed on.
Three months after the attempted assassination and aborted coup d’état of July 2016, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gave his inaugural speech from the university which bears his name (RTEÜ). He delivered a list of the ambitions of the Turkish Republic since its creation and those of his new regime. Making an explicit reference to the National Oath (Misak-ı Millî) , which was adopted by the Ottoman Parliament on 12 February 1920, he justified his irredentism.
This Oath, which was the foundation of the passage of the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic, lays claim to the territory in the North-East of Greece (Western Thrace and the Dodecanese), all of Cyprus, the North of Syria (including Idlib, Aleppo and Al-Hasakah), and the North of Iraq (including Mosul).
Currently, the Empire in re-formation already occupies the North of Cyprus (the pseudo-Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus), the North-West of Syria, and a small part of Iraq. For all these areas, where the Turkish language and currency apply, prefects ( wali ») have been nominated, and their offices are situated in the White Palace of Ankara.
As for the United Kingdom, it has been hesitating for two years about its future after the Brexit.
A little after the arrival of Donald Trump at the White House, Prime Minister Theresa May went to the United States. Speaking to the representatives of the Republican Party, she proposed re-establishing the Anglo-Saxon leadership of the rest of the world. But President Trump has been elected to liquidate these imperial dreams, not to share them.
Disappointed, Theresa May then traveled to China in order to propose that President Xi Jinping share control of international exchanges. The City, she said, was ready to ensure the convertibility of Western currencies into Yuan. But President Xi had not been elected to do business with an heiress of the power which had dismantled his country and imposed on the Chinese their opium war.
Theresa May tried a third version with the Commonwealth. Some of the ex-colonies of the Crown, like India, are today enjoying powerful growth and could become precious commercial partners. Symbolically, the heir to the throne, Crown Prince Charles, was raised to the Presidency of this association. Mrs. May announced that we are on our way to a global Britain.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph on 30 December 2018, the British Minister for Defence, Gavin Williamson, published his analysis of the situation. Since the fiasco of the Suez Canal in 1956, the United Kingdom has implemented a policy of decolonization and has withdrawn its troops from the rest of the world. Today, it conserves permanent military bases only in Gibraltar, Cyprus, Diego Garcia and the Falklands, to give these islands their imperial title. For the last 63 years, London has been oriented towards the European Union, invented by Winston Churchill, but to which, initially, he never imagined that England would belong. The Brexit tears this policy to shreds. From now on, the United Kingdom is back as a global power.
London is planning to open two permanent military bases. The first will probably be in Asia (Singapore or Brunei), and the second in Latin America – most likely in Guyana, in order to participate in the new stage of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy of the destruction of those regions of the world which are not connected to globalization. After the African Great Lakes, the Greater Middle East, it’s time for the Caribbean Basin. The war will probably start with an invasion of Venezuela by Colombia (pro-US), Brazil (pro-Israel) and Guyana (pro-British).
Taking no notice of the smooth speechifying of the French, the English built an empire with the collaboration of multinational companies in the service of which it placed its army. They divided the world into two parts, which may be summed up as follows – the sovereign was the King of England (and therefore submitted to political tradition over here ) and the Emperor of India (in other words subjected to the private East India Company and unlimited autocrat over there).
Decolonization was a corollary of the Cold War. It was forced on the states of Western Europe by the duopoly of the USA and the USSR. This held during the time of the unipolar world but now meets no obstacles since the US withdrawal from the Greater Middle East.
It is difficult to anticipate what form this future colonization will take. Long ago, it was made possible by the huge differences in the level of education. But today?
Thierry Meyssan is a political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). His latest work in French is Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).
Source | Voltaire
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.
“The fact that Big Pharma has been a driving force behind marijuana prohibition is hard to ignore — especially when it comes to the number of opioid manufacturers that have spent thousands of dollars fighting against medical marijuana.”
By Vicki Batts
The fact that Big Pharma has been a driving force behind marijuana prohibition is hard to ignore — especially when it comes to the number of opioid manufacturers that have spent thousands of dollars fighting against medical marijuana. The plague of opioid addiction has struck the United States hard, leaving countless numbers of overdoses, deaths and destroyed families in its wake. And yet, the people who pushed these highly addictive drugs onto the unsuspecting public are suddenly playing martyr, spending nearly a billion dollars to keep opioids on the market and fight cannabis legalization, under the alleged pretense of public safety. It just doesn’t add up, does it?
Studies have shown that medical cannabis can help reduce opioid abuse and save lives, but to Big Pharma, profits are always more important than people. Indeed, if the pharmaceutical industry was actually concerned about human health, as they proclaim to be, lobbying and bribing politicians wouldn’t be at the top of their agenda. As Allen Frances, Professor Emeritus at Duke University, contends, “Recent history makes clear that Pharma owns Washington and also many state capitals. It invests twice as much on marketing and lobbying as it does on research and is much better at buying politicians than producing better products.”
In addition to helping people overcome their addiction to opioids, research has shown that medical cannabis can help prevent more addiction by providing pain patients with a safer alternative to begin with.
It’s obvious that Big Pharma has more than just keeping marijuana illegal in mind, however. Awareness about the addictive and dangerous nature of opioids is growing — and as more people wake up to the fact that Big Pharma’s opioid painkillers are deadly, the industry is undoubtedly looking to find a new cash cow.
There are many indications that Big Pharma is looking to take over the cannabis market. For example, Insys Therapeutics — an opioid manufacturer that’s come under fire for their unscrupulous marketing and sales tactics — secured DEA approval for synthetic marijuana in March.
Further, Insys Therapeutics spent $500,000 last summer to fight cannabis legalization in Arizona. Over a nine-year period, the pharma industry as a whole spent $880 million to fight cannabis reform and keep opioids flowing freely. If they actually opposed legalizing marijuana, why are they trying to patent a synthetic? The company doesn’t care about cannabis; it cares about protecting their profits.
And it’s not just Insys Therapeutics; countless companies are looking to secure their place in the marijuana market. Corporate behemoths like Monsanto and Bayer are also reportedly looking to patent cannabis.
It’s no secret that legal weed is immensely profitable; as Waking Times reports, the state of Colorado reported that their yearly sales had already topped $1 billion in October — and those sales are expected to rise dramatically as the holiday season draws near.
The race to take over the cannabis market is on and Big Pharma is doing their best to lead the charge — especially when it comes to synthetics. But, there is no synthetic that can even come close to the real plant; in fact, Big Pharma’s bogus synthetic versions of the plant may even be dangerous.
Big Pharma has had their hand in preventing cannabis legalization for years — and now, they’re trying to take over the marketplace. [Related: Read more stories about medical marijuana at CBDs.news.]
Sources for this article include: