Prompted by “Marijuana Activists Now Lobbying for a Better DEA “: http://www.hightimes.com/read/marijuana-activists-now-lobbying-better-dea
“its leading enforcer of the War on Drugs, Michele Leonhart, would be stepping down due to her willingness to turn a blind eye to DEA agents accepting bribes from drug cartels and engaging in wild orgies with prostitutes.”
“Now marijuana activists across the United States are taking the opportunity to pressure the Justice Department for a new, more sensible regime.”
“The goal is to finally put an end to the Nixon-esque attitudes…”
“the consensus is that the [head of the DEA] position will be given to an individual with progressive politics—one who, unlike Leonhart, will not constantly battle the White House in regards to its position on legal marijuana states or sentencing reform. It is for this reason that soldiers fighting to end the drug war are preparing to launch a full-scale campaign in hopes of pressuring the Obama Administration to hire a DEA administrator who at least supports the concept of states’ rights, while envisioning a complete overhaul of the agency’s duties to better serve the greater good of a collective America.”
Want to distinguish me (and preferably you too) from the “consensus”? This post exemplifies that distinction.
That article positions the war on some drugs as a Republican generated problem requiring a traditionally progressive (i.e. not actually progressive — read my Liberty Shield introduction for a fully logical explanation substantiating this key point) push by “soldiers” towards collectivism to coerce equality as defined by the inevitable elitists demanding power over society to enforce that definition (all for the sake of a more sensible regime).
There is a serious contrast (at least from my view) between the atmosphere of High Times culture (demonstrating the harms of prohibition by way of a naturally fun attitude by millions of people still enjoying their “illegal” herb without actual societal devastation) and the harsh (dare I say DEA-like) language leveraged for soldiers to fight for a more sensible regime to serve the good of a collective America.
Historical fact in accordance with the public record clearly judicially shows the political leftist (i.e. effectively Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal) version of the Commerce Clause (at least mainly the sole judicial base for all national entrenchment of political leftist law) is the actual source of the war on some drugs — e.g. Nixon, Reagan, and all Republican presidential candidates so far these days are terribly huge hypocrites in this “tough on crime” regard.
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.” — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
For the sake of sanity (which must include rationality for fairness and therefore justice, and is obviously a critical ingredient for public safety), restore that clause (“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) that obviously has nothing to do with banning mere plant possession. Importantly note that rationality, as explained in my Liberty Shield introduction, effectively demands ending vague terminology in law inevitably unfairly upholding abusive favoritism against justice, so actually removing the Commerce Clause to instead judicially recognize a fully rational definition of harm, regardless of commerce being involved or not. Moreover, restore amendment nine (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) that must judicially recognize our fundamental right to liberty, and then leverage the unalienable nature of that right with respect to preventing corruptly judicial liberty infringement and its ability to broadly ruin society for the sake of abusive favoritism against justice. Then the “regime” righteously falls seriously hard, because under no rational circumstance can the DEA (or any other form of the ‘traditional progressivism’ oxymoron) remain lawful in this nation when the abusive favoritism against fundamental rights is righteously opposed by justifiable law.
Stating the following in a confessedly horribly long sentence, if we examine the irrefutably unconstitutional (Commerce Clause cannot ultimately rationally apply), ineffective (at strengthening public safety by any solidly proven net result that includes harm from the prohibition itself, and the inability to even create a “drug free” prison system), destructive (harshly impacting the lives of millions of non-violent people), expensive (billions of taxpayer dollars annually spent), and (at least certainly in the case of cannabis) scientifically unwarranted (the fact is no experimental science proves any harm from moderate cannabis use, not “heavy use” or abuse), the DEA cannot rationally and righteously be described as anything but a group of sanctioned thugs in the form of traitors against the primary goal of our nation (the goal that has been factually ignored for over two centuries and counting, thanks to hypocritically sustaining pre-American conservatism — the biggest national “elephant in the room” by far) — primarily to prevent the abuse of law, which largely comes from the abuse of reason, which largely comes from the abuse of favoritism (e.g. the war on some drugs, and obviously the original tyrannical rule by the British government mentioned in the United States Declaration of Independence — including the accusation of tyrannically applying arbitrary law, so undeniably matching the unethically arbitrary legality of certain drugs).
Political leftists in their traditional application must abandon our nation’s primary goal, because their “progressive” approach mandates a seriously strong public sector sufficient to oppose abusive forces in the private sector (i.e. mandates a seriously powerful government and all of the inevitable abusive favoritism that history constantly teaches us occurs horribly as a result — including that protecting abusive private sector practices).
Liberty Shield, logically speaking, offers a righteous future that combines the positive intentions of political leftism (and even political rightism when negating hypocrisy against our Constitution) to form a legitimately powerful political movement grounded in logic (i.e. science) and strengthens education over law to manage societal risk for the sake of the critical unalienable right to liberty necessary for societal innovation and creatively solving deeply entrenched societal problems due to the misguiding insistence upon nationally embracing conservative (in both major political parties) spin for selfish agendas.
It should go without saying that righteous law enforcement needs a righteous rule-of-law — and, like the best athletes always needing to honor basics even despite professional complexity, that requires a basic principle (e.g. the unalienable right to liberty that remains concisely defined by pure certainty — you can do whatever you want limited only by that right itself — a brilliantly simple rule with complex results steering our nation in the right direction to define actual harm warranting the application of law) that the public can quickly understand and powerfully leverage to negate abusive favoritism by elitists against actual equality and morality.
The (peaceful, mature, and civilized — i.e. using non-violence to stop the increasing abuse of law likely igniting a violent backlash) portion of the American revolution is still ongoing against pre-American conservative hypocrisy against an unalienable right to liberty. That includes ending the deprecated British common law (so no more honoring legal precedence that excessively serves to judicially entrench abusive favoritism), greatly reducing the rule-of-law to something wieldy (by removing all laws grounded solely on the basis of risk — risk is always unfairly subjective, harm is not — the risk of unwieldy law can only be rationally negated by solely relying upon harm-based law, which likely means far less number of laws), and sourcing all law in the unalienable right to liberty — the only true and necessary legal precedence to ensure society does not ever again abusively wander away from justice by way of some other selfishly subjectively defined path in the form of legal precedence.
Ending the DEA and repealing Certain Drug Prohibition leads to an awesome shift of law enforcement resources (including honorable people unscrupulously manipulated into believing they enhance public safety as DEA agents) towards resolving actual crimes — e.g. the too many murders, rapes, etc. that remain unresolved these days to insanely allow actually violent people to continue defying public safety.
Meanwhile, under those righteous “no more war on some drugs” judicial circumstances, non-violent people can use whatever drug they want, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of other individuals in the process — such infringement then prosecutable by justifiable law.
There is a serious difference between merely recognizing the legality of drug use and popularly encouraging reckless drug intake. That legality is not the endgame (e.g. repealing Alcohol Prohibition was not enough), because properly addressing drug (and any other form of) abuse always presses for the sake of civility. As the unalienable right to liberty also presses for the sake of civility, effective education is the only option matching that sake in both cases (a major goal of my Stress Health entertainment project).
Liberty Shield is actual change that “We the people” can believe in, but the power of that change comes only from the public strength (preferably including you) effectively insisting upon that change. Liberty Shield is unbelievably indeed a uniquely fringe stance these days (I can admittedly almost hear the “crickets chirping”), but the irrefutable and complete logic forming the Liberty Shield introduction offers powerful leverage for many generations (especially the younger ones apparently not yet realizing how abusive reasoning has nationally covered up the constant “kicking of the can” of terribly serious national problems to their feet) of Americans sickened by abusive favoritism against public safety.