Prompted by “Former DEA Agent Speaks Out in Favor of Legal Marijuana”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/former-dea-agent-speaks-out-favor-legal-marijuana
“A former Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent, who spent six years as the DEA’s Marijuana Coordinator in Miami and New Mexico, is now speaking out in favor of legislation that would create a full-fledged recreational marijuana program in Arizona. After years of fighting the War on Drugs, Finn Selander has done an about-face…”
“‘As an agent, I was doing my job,’ Selander said. ‘I was enforcing the law. It was definitely hard at times… I would see injustice in a number of cases.'”
“Now a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or LEAP, Selander said that he’s seen too many lives ruined by strict marijuana laws and those laws need to change.”
“…the initiative he’s supporting…’proposes legalizing marijuana for recreational use for those over the age of 21, creating a network of shops licensed to sell and distribute it and taxing it 15 percent on top of the regular sales tax.'”
Good for you, Mr Selander. May the rest of your DEA kind come to a similar realization for the sake of bringing “justice” to justice.
However, as a scientific constitutionalist, I refuse to embrace the overly complex regulatory process that is arbitrarily applied in the case of cannabis and contributes to a “slippery slope” expansion of law mirroring the natural oligarchy’s preferences for risk management (i.e. defining risk to “protect the children”, but actually too often defined to gain and sustain power for themselves, based at least upon the absence of any conclusive evidence confirming that protection).
I sometimes watch America’s Funniest Videos with my “caregivee” (someone else making a seriously positive turnaround with thanks to medical cannabis, by the way). For about an hour per episode, we watch as numerous people apparently come close to paralysis, other serious injury, or death (e.g. based upon those videos, the lawful availability of trampolines and recreational transportation devices — even toy sleds — logically remains highly suspect among the ‘anxious for regulations/bans’ crowd, if not the seed for the same outrage leveraged against cannabis). Why are these demonstrations of high-risk activities (due to abusing products that are basically mainly safe) lawfully acceptable without a similar regulatory structuring (even prompting mainstream America to merely laugh each week the show airs)?
There are two tragically laughable notions when it comes to the ‘judicial regulations for civility’ belief system inevitably purely grounded in subjectivity (so naturally unfair — never equal, despite the dominating cry for equality by such believers).
First is the notion that regulations are pure (i.e. they purely meet their stated intention). Due to the same questionable nature of humanity that prompts regulatory demands (the minority of people being abusive), regulators may be bribed, ineffective at enforcement due to regulation details or other limitations, simply incompetent, etc. For one of many examples, there are many regulations to ensure that food and water are safe for consumption, but without a seriously competent and continuous analysis of the results of such regulations (noting such results may be fabricated, as far as we know), there is no absolute guarantee confirming those safety regulations are effective. Can you fully guarantee that your water is safe right now? Are you sure restaurants are not tainting your food with unhealthy amounts of taste enhancers? Why are poor people still poor, despite regulating wages, taxes against the rich, and other financial equalizers coerced by law? Can you guarantee that nobody is being harmed by any given regulation (including judicial extension by legal precedence)? If you stress out over the inability to pay your bills, what we can fully guarantee is that stress logically comes (at least in part) from losing money in the form of paying taxes necessary to implement questionable regulations.
Second is the notion that regulations (or laws in general) reduce tragedy as an overall net result (not merely based upon statistical spin). There is no evidence that can possibly conclusively confirm that reduction, so the need for liberty-infringing law remains permanently suspect. Unhealthy stress from lawful pressures being wrongfully applied (basically inevitable with one-size-fits-all law) is an unintended consequence that can become realized “under the radar” in an overwhelming number of possible ways. That negative stress effectively ripples uncontrollably to form abusive results (and their ripple effects) throughout society. Meanwhile, we can say with undeniable certainty that tragedy is inherent in reality, because we can say with undeniable certainty that each one of us dies at some point, regardless of the rule-of-law. For each nationally funniest video showing someone barely escaping death or serious injury, for example, we can probably find one or more people in the healthcare system whom tragically did not similarly escape (i.e. outright death or sooner death from serious injury).
Reality is a self-regulating system by scientific certainty. No other species has a rule-of-law, but their tragedy rate basically remains similar, and karma as nature’s justice system is scientifically confirmed (at least according to Reality Waveform Theory). Judicial regulations are undeniably not a tool for civility, but a tool for mass control to supposedly ensure the people controlling those regulations can believe they are living better lives. The overwhelming number of people supporting such regulations are being played, and scientific constitutionalists need to educate the masses to correct that deadly serious threat that ironically presses against civility.
Trading in a demonstrably ineffective ban for a likely similarly ineffective complex set of regulations is tragic against liberty (a supposedly unalienable right), law, and ultimately humanity. The only enemy of corruption is sufficient public exposure (not law). That requires positive public communications (education), not law that undeniably puts society at serious risk of being grossly abused by favoritism.
As always, I note that for a complete grounding in scientific constitutionalism, read my Liberty Shield introduction.