Sleight of Monetary Hands?

Prompted by “Is the Federal War on Medical Marijuana Really Over?”:

Prompting this post was not really due to the cited article, but a couple of comments therein worth reverberating herein (with hopes you will reverberate “thereotherin”)…

“For the UMP-teenth time, the DEA is funded through the ONDCP, not the DOJ. The spending bill doesn’t say *boo* about funds made available to the ONDCP, so there’s nothing in the legislation to stop the DEA. They’re restricted by name in section 539, the industrial hemp research section, but that’s it.

If you’re pinning your hopes to the US Attorneys not being able to prosecute, the ONDCP’s budget also includes $70 million per year, specifically, for US Attorneys.

That’s the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. DC’s voters were sold out for nothing. Why doesn’t anyone acknowledge this?!?!?!

Failing to make this stark reality VERY public only gives members of the cannabis industry a false sense of security. They’ll be blind-sided when they’re raided by the DEA and prosecuted by Melinda Haag — all financed by the ONDCP, not the DOJ. Consider how demoralizing and disheartening it will be when the DEA concurrently raids twenty dispensaries *after* the spending bill goes into effect. We need to stop pulling a muscle thanking Congress (for nothing) and prepare for it.”

A little more fits here…

“The Office of National Drug Control Policy has a yearly budget of $25 billion, $7.7 billion of which goes directly to domestic law enforcement, including the DEA, US Attorneys, US Marshals, and the Prison System. They’re responsible for every federal anti-drug grant state and local law enforcement currently enjoy.

The ONDCP also funds the NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse), the federal agency responsible for blocking all domestic cannabis research that would prove the plant is harmless and beneficial. They do, however, fund research that might show cannabis is dangerous. Two years ago, they gave $1.7 million to a NY researcher trying to prove a link between cannabis use and domestic violence. Needless to say, that was $1.7 million wasted.

Everyone always gives the DOJ most of the attention in the Drug War, and because of the magic of accurate federal accounting, nobody realizes the Drug War is primarily financed through another department, entirely — namely, the ONDCP (unless they look).”

Well, let us have a look…

“The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a former cabinet-level[1] component of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, was established in 1989 by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Its stated goal is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives to eradicate illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences in the U.S.”

Well, there you have enough of it. Our government has wasted taxpayer money to form legislation that wastes taxpayer money, while effectively stating in such legislation that taxpayer money shall not be wasted, while pretending to cut off such waste against state laws supporting the scientifically righteous end of the outright sanctioned thuggery against users (i.e. proven beneficiaries) of medical cannabis.

“Just say no to drugs” (the popular slogan for wasting more taxpayer money back when the ONDCP was formed)? Powerfully publicly demonstrate no to law abuse (the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction), in part by powerfully publicly demonstrating no against reason abuse (arguably the grossest fuel for law abuse), because that is where the most serious damage is being done against civility.

As for the aforementioned “elephant in the room”, fair enough, but that one is toy-sized compared to the two major ones logically seriously threatening our nation. I save one for a later Liberty Shield post, but the other much larger elephant (that even “pro-legalization” sites never mention) is the undeniable fact that our Supreme Court (according to the public record — a.k.a. “smoking gun” evidence) redefined the Commerce Clause decades ago, consequently to “constitutionalize” that sanctioned thuggery.

Anyone believing these words (the entire clause) “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” allows for (by law and intent of law) that sanctioned thuggery against the brutally unscientific proclamation against holding a certain plant in your American hand is really not paying critical attention.

I will solidify this “elephant” further in my HUSH for Rush post series. Feel free to join us there.

I am an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an artist working and resting to best carefully contribute towards helping society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest -- all within a sometimes offbeat style of psychedelic artistry.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Liberty Shield, Respect Cannabis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

my pEarthly and earthly self blended together via the energy of the reality "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on
Thank You
Thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer

Spirit Wave (“entertainer” herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content (“entertainment” herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use.

%d bloggers like this: