Marianne Williamson

Rank 7 of 47
|
Score 212
11/30/2024, 7:16:53 AM
X
In reply to:
Floyd the barber
@Willsar72
·
41d
@marwilliamson @DHellandback The War on Drugs failed because the pharmaceutical companies flooded our country with Oxycontin in the late '90s. That doesn't mean we should legalize heroin and Fentanyl now
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
42d
@DHellandback How do you suggest we "kill all the bad guys?" The best way we can defeat them is to deprive them of their market - the black market for drugs in the United States. That's why we should end the failed Drug War. Plus we should legally forbid U.S. gun manufacturers from selling…
Dave Helland
@DHellandback
·
42d
@marwilliamson Yes, so we start by killing the bad guys (cartels), securing our border, and clear up the bandwidth to mind our own house.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
42d
Yes, yes, yes. Our own foreign policy helps destabilize the economies in another countries, which then increases the chance that their citizens try to flee here. We need to remove the sanctions on both Venezuela and Cuba.
Samuel 🇲🇽
@resisres
·
42d
🚨🇲🇽🇺🇸 During their phone call, Sheinbaum expressed to Trump that ENDING the blockade on Cuba and Venezuela would help address migration.

The statement critiques the War on Drugs, arguing it has been ineffective and costly, and suggests reallocating funds to recovery options. It engages in public discourse by addressing drug policy and its societal impacts.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to highlight the harm caused by current drug policies, suggesting a shift to more effective solutions, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By advocating for recovery options, the statement promotes understanding and compassion for those affected by drug addiction. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism of existing policies without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]