It seems to me that this article raises two fundamental questions. The most obvious being whether marijuana should be legalized. What do you think? The other being the role of money in politics. Soros has often been criticized for throwing his financial weight around in politics (although this is usually by the right wing, who seem to have and use more money in politics than the left does). Do rich people have an unfair advantage? How can democracies avoid just living by the "golden rule" –who has the gold makes the rules? On the other hand, if individuals feel strongly about a particular issue, shouldn't they have the right to give financial support? What about corporations?
Knowing a little hungarian, reading the headline of this article was a bit bizarre to me. I already knew about California’s legalization measure, but the Hungarian word Soros, was completely out of the context. Sor, in Hungarian, stands for a beer, and after a small research I found out that Mr. Soros is a Hungarian Jew, born in Budapest. He is one of many ,that fulfilled their „American Dream“ , by emigrating to the U.S and investing into the stocks.
ReplyDeleteToday, he belongs to the billionaires, that have a significant impact on the social happening in the Us. He shows a straightaway support for the liberals, and thus he couldn’t neglect the marijuana legalization measure. His one million donation to the campaign supporting the legalization of marijuana, has angered many people.
These people still don’t want to accept the fact, that political parties need the support of rich and influential people, like Soros. Consequently. it is completely natural, that the parties with the greatest connections and lobbying, will have a lot of money for their advertisements, what will lead to their popularity increase and eventually them winning the elections. This may become a problem when the parties become too depended on those individuals/ corporations. Political parties must fall into the line with their voters, not with their sponsors. Nowadays it is being discussed, why are the oil corporations, that financially supported George W.Bush in his presidency campaign, the first ones in the queue for the unexploited Iraqis oil resources.
Actions of politicians affecting the whole world, that are in favor of their sponsors are inadmissible. On the other hand, I don’t find any problem with Soros’s financing activities, unless he is to profit from the legalization of marijuana. He sponsored a certain campaign (not a political party), from the money he personally earned, according to his political belief, what is a fundamental way to make politics work.
@Dominik
ReplyDeleteDominik I agree with you on many points. For instance, all the things you said about political parties and their need for support from wealthy sponsors are true, if we take into consideration that demagogy is an unthinkable part of nowadays political elections. Consequently also your opinion about the actions of politicians who affect the world is on place. Finally, I share with you the opinion that there was nothing wrong with Soros’s actions. However apart from you, I would like to actually express myself about the main issue i.e. whether marijuana should or shouldn’t be legalized. I always had ambivalent feelings about this issue, but nowadays I’m totally for the legalization. One of the biggest reasons why, is the fact that marijuana is scientifically proven to be less harmful than alcohol. So if alcohol is perfectly all right when in comes to the question of legacy, I don’t see a problem putting a stamp saying “legal, but from eighteen” on marijuana.
Branislav Skocek IB3