I hope so. I'd like a world gov like United States of the Earth.

Yes, a one world digital currency. But, it's neither here, nor there, imo. Just them coming into the light. They've always ruled from the shadows. They caste no shadows, for where they are, there is no light.

That being said, the world is, and has always been under a "one world government" via International Law, since ancient times (Rome). International Law (enforced by Rome) is the law of both the land and seas. International Law stems from Papal/Canon Law (think Cain - Abel ;) ).

This is what people truly do not know (or understand), because they have not gone deep enough down the rabbit hole, imo. Rome rules, and it never fell (Tri-Sovereign States). It's not Catholicism, but, ancient Babylon, Sumeria, and Mesopotamia. A diabolical hodgepodge of all the mystery religions, sculpted by a surviving priest class (and their bloodlines), of the Great Deluge.

Cannabis, is illegal in 99% of countries, because of the UN. Guns easily could be, as well, but, with that... people would wake up to the illusion. Hence, boiling frog.

Food for thought.

Cannabis, is illegal in 99.9% of countries

No it isn't.

Yes, yes it is...

Exactly, it's legal or partially legal in ~10 countries and decriminalized in many many more.

Far cry from being "illegal in 99.9% of countries".

Thanks for the link, makes it very clear!

Decriminalized !== legal. Thanks for showing us all your ignorance ;)

Yeah, still in ~10 countries according to that graphic it is essentially legal.

This clears it up more:

https://www.marijuana.com/news/2017/11/where-in-the-world-is-marijuana-legal/

So nowhere near "illegal in 99.9% of countries".

Decriminalized !== legal (as the link sources). Thanks for showing us all your ignorance ;)

...

Yeah, there is a difference, hence the categories in your link which clearly state:

"Legal or essentially legal" - blue countries

"Illegal but decriminalized" - orange countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-cannabis-laws.png

If you take the time to count the blue countries, which as stated are "Legal or essentially legal", then you will see they are more than 0.01% of the countries on the planet.

Hence, marijuana is nowhere near "illegal in 99.9% of countries".

This really isn't that difficult.

Yeah, there is a difference, hence the categories in your link which clearly state:

Do tell me the difference between illegal and decriminalized...

Do tell me the difference between illegal and decriminalized...

Depends on the specific decriminalization laws, which ones do you mean specifically?

Regardless, according to your graphic, it's "Legal or essentially legal" in far more than 0.01% of countries on the planet.

Decriminalized !== legal (as the link sources). Thanks for showing us all your ignorance ;)

...

Pretty fuckin' simple, genius. Now, tell me.

Decriminalization laws vary, which ones are you specifically referring to?

Do tell me the difference between illegal and decriminalized...

....

How fuckin' obtuse can you actually be...?

It really doesn't matter, your own link shows that it's legal in ~10 countries, which is more than 0.01% of the countries on the planet.

The decriminalization debate is another point entirely, but thanks for the link, it demonstrates what I said earlier in color-coded clarity!

It is not "legal". Re-read the fuckin' link. You are such a waste of fuckin' time. Good fuckin' riddance, and have a lovely night or morning...

Yup, it shows that it's essentially legal in around 10 countries, glad we settled that.

There's 195 countries in the world, so definitely not illegal in 99.9% of countries on the planet by any metric.

Solved!

Yup, it shows that it's essentially legal in around 10 countries, glad we settled that.

No it doesn't.

Solved!

No...

It literally does:

https://imgur.com/a/M5WRW

You see how the blue box says "essentially legal"? You see how more than 0.01% of the countries are blue? That means that it is "essentially legal" in more than 0.01% of countries.

Did you miss the rest of the link? Yes, you did. You like picture books, over text books? Yes? Simple mind, is a top a mind ;)

Nah, I just know the difference between 99.9% and an actual legitimate number. But as long as you keep supporting corporate greed keeping marijuana out of people's hands due to your ignorance there's no changing your mind obviously.

195 countries (if you count the Vatican and Palestine). About 10 have legalized marijuana to some varying degree. So that's 95% that maintain prohibition of marijuana. Why on earth that user sought to railroad you is beyond me. Monuments could be built to the semantics used in his argument.

~10/195= .05

.05x100= 5(%)

100-5= 95%

95% of countries, not 99.9. Whoop dee doo!

The person said "illegal". Weed isn't "illegal in 99.9% of countries" or even 95% of countries period.

But hey, keep thinking it's the UN that keeps weed down instead of corporations who have been proven to be doing so.

Not at all what I was arguing, nor is that a belief I hold.

Well then address your concerns to the user that claimed that.

To do so would be to continue on a path that deviated from the purpose of the original comment. My comment was meant to conclude that line of discussion and allow a return to the crux of his comment; that of which regards papal law and the role of Rome.

The purpose of the post was to discuss the potential role of bitcoin in ushering in a one-world government. PLC commented on the inconsequential nature of bitcoin in ushering in this one world government, positing that one world government has existed for some time.

To build up an inconsequential aspect an argument as a means of invalidating an opinion is otherwise known as a straw man fallacy, and is not a discussion in which I wish to participate, as the discourse is disingenuous from its inception.

I'm absolutely willing to discuss the role of Rome throughout history with you, and how they have worked towards establishing a one world government, and would encourage u/Putin_loves_cats to drop a few links to read into this further.

That's fine, you can discuss whatever you want. If you want to discuss the absolute absurdity of manipulator behind the international legality of marijuana being the UN rather than corporate oligarchs, then that's where I'll be happy to chime in.

Didn't discuss that because it has no merit; the purpose of my redirecting back to the topic at hand. Of course it's corporate entities.

So we both agree that what the person was saying was nonsense, great!

I agree that the smallest point he made holds little merit in comparison to other explanations, and have taken notice of the fact that you ignored the more substantive points. Please don't insinuate my views.

I dunno, the fallacious argument that the UN is why weed is "illegal in 99.9% of the countries on the planet" seems pretty relevant when discussing global governments to me.

Ok, present the premises to support your argument that the debate as to the percentage of states participating in the prohibition of marijuana is germane to the formation of a one world government.

It's germane to the argument which claims that it is in any way related to the idea of a world government (in this case, the example of the UN), which it isn't, which is what I've demonstrated.

This seriously isn't that complex.

Your claim was regarding the discrepancy in the percentage though, which this argument doesn't in any way address. And still, we drift away from the purpose of the post.

The percentage was used as a false exaggeration in order to make it seem as though the UN (aka - world government) was in control of the legality of weed internationally, which it isn't, period.

Yes, I understand that, and so does anyone else who read it.

hy·per·bo·le hīˈpərbəlē noun exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

And all of this relates to PLC's argument that Rome has for quite some time been establishing a one world government how?

Because they used the UN controlling marijuana as an example, which is absurd.

They know de way.

Sorry, had to say that.

The post you have replied to has alluded to many important topics. No need to argue over the semantics of one phrase. Either way the message remains the same.

Not really. Weed is effectively legal in numerous places on the planet, trying to state that it's illegal basically everywhere detracts from the point being made.

Also, the UN has called for widespread decriminalization of drugs, so not sure how they're the ones making it "illegal in 99.9% of countries".

You are the one detracting from the point being made.

Nah, the point was that marijuana being "illegal in 99.9% of countries" demonstrates there is some form of 'one world government' exercising control.

Which is, as shown, completely incorrect.

A version of Bitcoin could be taken over and pushed as Banker's Bitcoin, but due to it's ability to fork it should always survive as a free and untainted version, accessible and affordable for use by the masses.

u/AskyReddit, you've received 0.00040547 BCH ($1 USD)!

^{How to use | What is Bitcoin Cash? | Who accepts it? | Powered by Rocketr | r/tippr
Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin should be. Ask about it on r/btc}

love this reply, I came here to say the same

Nothing is free and untamed about it when nearly the only entry point is fiat money.

I want to believe in crypto so bad, but I have a bad feeling. There is really no anonymity at all if you have a computer made in the last 10 years. Even if you went to Best Buy and bought one straight cash, there are ways to track you. This is just he beginning of a one world currency in my opinion. The dollars we use will be considered poor mans cash.

The bitcoin code limits the amount of coin. The big thing that makes governments want to have they own money is to print more out of nowhere, all debt based. Creating bitcoin to be the world government currency would be just idiot they would be giving up to much power

Decriminalized !== legal (as the link sources). Thanks for showing us all your ignorance ;)

...

Pretty fuckin' simple, genius. Now, tell me.

Tiny https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionfees-btc-eth-bch-ltc.html#3m

Well then address your concerns to the user that claimed that.

I agree that the smallest point he made holds little merit in comparison to other explanations, and have taken notice of the fact that you ignored the more substantive points. Please don't insinuate my views.