That post title will likely prompt cognitive dissonance within your brain when comparing that extreme result with the prompting piece’s relatively benign (if not sigh-inducing) example involving medical marijuana, but I assure you this post will respectably bring those seemingly conflicting points to full justice.
Note that It benefits us all for me to turn away from these lengthy posts (including mixing in some surprising fun in future posting). If there’s one post containing 1,500+ words that you should read here — this is it — so please read on at your earliest convenience…
Prompted by “Where is New Hampshire’s Medical Marijuana Program?”: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2015/43699/where-is-new-hampshires-medical-marijuana-program/
But, like many other veterans, parents, and patients living in a state whose motto is ‘Live Free or Die,’ Joe can not legally access medical marijuana in a state where he is a lifelong resident.
As someone naturally compelled via the “hand that I was dealt” to live a unique lifestyle, I take the “Live Free or Die” motto seriously, even though I remain slightly south of those state borders in another state heavily righteously criticized for its inability to properly honor a 2012 voter initiative towards medical cannabis legality (with a likely 2016 voter approval of recreational cannabis coming soon).
The unfortunately popular assumption is law (at least first) serves to protect the public. That assumption is formed by public apathy, if not acceptance cyclically tuned in with that assumption — as possibly, if not likely, encouraged by the mainstream media. Evidence (in full) contrasts that assumption by clearly showing the law serves to protect the people in power (in both the private and public sectors — albeit sometimes due to powerful public pressure).
I will not again emphasize the details forming my logical position on the need for an unalienable right to liberty to prevent law abuse (by restoring the obvious intent of amendment nine that federally constitutionally recognizes that right, so trumps any federal/state/local law to the contrary), but simply state a fully grounded reasoning (scientific constitutionalism) can be read in the form of my Liberty Shield basics.
Joe has a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, two master’s degrees, is an active member of his local Congregational Church the Republican party, and is married with two children.
Joe is a veteran of the United States Army, having served in the 25th Infantry Division from 1989 to 1992. While serving his country, Joe suffered an injury that resulted in permanent nerve damage to his back and right leg, resulting in severe chronic pain that persists to this day — one of several service-related conditions he incurred while serving.
Joe is not some dumb pothead just wanting the “right to get high” to national detriment. His unalienable right to liberty to access a well-proven medicine (at least based upon thousands of international studies, ample anecdotal evidence, and this caregiver’s experience) is obviously illegally infringed upon, but the mass silence remains deafening.
Even if Joe were to somehow obtain marijuana, Joe would be subject to arrest, high fines, and possible jail time, and would not even be allowed to defend himself in court using a medical necessity defense without a valid medical marijuana card.
Joe cannot get a New Hampshire medical marijuana registration card. No one can.
That resonates wrongness against their state motto and unalienable rights.
And Joe wants answers.
In June 2013, New Hampshire became the 19th medical marijuana state when the New Hampshire Legislature passed House Bill 573. Governor Maggie Hassan the bill into law on July 23, 2013, enabling the state Department of Health and Human Services to begin its rulemaking process for the medical marijuana program.
New Hampshire’s medical marijuana law mandated that the Department must approve at least two medical marijuana dispensaries within the first 18 months — by the end of January 2015.
They haven’t. As of June 1, 2015, no medical marijuana is being grown in New Hampshire. No dispensaries have been authorized.
As originally written, House Bill 573 would have allowed patients to grow a small amount of marijuana until dispensaries — referred to as “alternative treatment centers” in the medical marijuana law — opened. But that language was removed from the bill at Gov. Hassan’s request based on concerns from law enforcement.
Concerns from law enforcement?
Meanwhile, the department’s selection process continues to face delays while shrouded in secrecy…
“While New Hampshire patients suffer, the Department of Health and Human Services is dragging its feet and making excuses,” Joe says. “No one knows the true motivations. Is someone holding it up? Or is this just a shining example of bureaucracy? To suffering patients, the difference doesn’t matter.”
“It seems like someone does not want medical marijuana to be implemented,” Joe adds. “We expect the Department will fight against obeying the law tooth and nail, including excuses and legal technicalities.”
“With the other hand behind its back, the Department is quietly declining to approve any of the 14 dispensaries that have applied.”
“The Department has simply failed to do what New Hampshire law requires”
Can you handle the literally hideous truth? If so, then here it is…
The answer is actually clear, but negated by serious public denial. What starts out as a surface medical cannabis problem turns into a proclamation of root-deep anarchy in disguise as our nation. That may suggest my insanity (due to my contrast with at least virtually every other credible source out there), but the publicly ignored and abundant evidence cannot lie.
There’s no actual law in this country. That’s not an insane joke, exaggeration, or slight deviation from sanity. There’s an obscenely complex judicial construct being excessively hideously wielded in strict accordance with the oligarchy’s dominating need — noting that need tumultuously shifts due to the complex set of continuous power struggles for dominance within the oligarchical area (with ample “collateral damage” against public safety).
In other words, there’s no public protection (i.e. liberty shield) from the abundance of abusive laws formed by that continuous struggle (and excessively sustained by legal precedence), because the public refuses to address this extremely serious national problem (the one our nation was set in a violent revolution to address, according to our national Declaration of Independence — opposing tyrannical law abuse).
We cannot truly and righteously address the cannabis issue without addressing the law abuse issue (actually fundamentally a reason abuse issue), at least according to simple logic. My Respect Cannabis campaign goes to the truest root of the issue (which is why my brutally and fully honest words here perhaps form unfamiliar reasoning from your perspective), so does not condone compromising principle to tweak the overly complex “rule-of-law” by tortured cannabis legality (with the obvious and serious societal harm from that compromise).
“In addition to the lawsuit, New Hampshire residents can contact their elected state representatives and state senator to ask why the Department of Health and Human Services isn’t following the law.”
If you feel right allocating precious resources and attention directly to the government that’s blatantly screwing the public (in tune with unfortunately too many pro-cannabis organizations these days), then I safely question that move against sanity.
When I state the Commerce Clause cannot possibly be judicially interpreted to ban the possession of a plant (or any other activity forming the provenly insane war on some drugs), I’m not advocating taking that argument to the judicial branch — the area where corruption obviously occurs, at least according to “smoking gun” form by effective confession in the public record (with mainstream media and consequently public silence to boot).
“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 [emphasis mine]
As a responsible entertainer experimentally working the serious power of the Internet (the global communications system uncoincidentally coinciding with serious momentum against Certain Drug Prohibition), I work to entertainingly take our righteous case to the true highest court of the land — the court of public opinion (i.e. you). For obvious reasons, that exercise cannot be limited to seriously dry and long posts crying extreme foul, so this posting style will become rare here — only part of the thickly informational roots for the socially expansive tree set to grow throughout the global community.
Without enough passionate public support (equal to publicly expressed outrage visible enough to compel the mainstream media to cover the story to protect what little credibility they have due to their sad refusal to necessarily decouple ‘entertaining tragedy’ dominantly negating the people’s right to know — in the form of negating reporting the devastatingly rampantly abusive laws against stated national fundamentals), there’s no leverage in lobbying (or suing) the government directly. At best, there are increasingly powerful self-interest groups with incentive to end Cannabis Prohibition trying to work against the very powerful self-interest groups largely involving law enforcement. The result is a torturously painfully sluggish (and blatantly illegal) exercise against an utter failure of law itself at such a fundamental level.
The only enemy of corruption is sufficient public exposure, because the sufficiently organized public can take down any government (in part or whole) and/or any corporation(s) in similar fashion. People in power fear one thing — losing their power — a fear so strong, they too often resort to highly irrational power leverage (without understanding the ironic truth — such leverage means they have no true control, but remain pathetically controlled by that fear).
Instead of the “right to get high”, we have an illegal “right to deny” spanning our nation’s history in the form of pre-American conservatism spanning the political spectrum. The military phase of the American Revolution ended over two centuries ago, but the next judicial phase has yet to even begin (at least based upon current momentum against unalienable rights), so threatens another violent revolution instead (one on path to destroy the precious unalienable right to liberty in basically the same tragic vein as the hideous destruction of the Library of Alexandria — which contained many irretrievable scientific results angrily burned away to societal loss).
If you ignore this message (and the Liberty Shield — or any similar — cause), then you demonstrate the ultimate source of the problem — which is not greedy capitalists and/or corrupt public servants — but you perhaps easily fearfully (or smugly apathetically) embracing the clearly insane notion of “burying your head in the sand” (or choosing immature ignorance) to pretend nothing is literally horribly wrong with consequences increasingly forming a deadly serious public pressure that history repeatedly warns in literally agonizing examples (e.g. enslavement, death camps, other forms of severe oppression, etc.) A dam may have a few cracks with some leaks (perhaps covered up by duct tape and distractions to preserve the status quo forming that metaphorical dam), but ignoring those leaks inevitably leads to disaster — either by longer way of steadily increasing damage, or by an unforeseen critical stressor leading to blunt dam explosion.
The warning signs are screaming hell. Will you heed the obvious call in the “home of the brave”? Courage is the only answer to fear, and composure is needed for any healthy exercise. This is not fear mongering, but righteous purpose establishment.
Responsible entertainers are needed to first secure passionate public support (i.e. find their audience), because we know how to communicate and have no conflict of interest. We’re not beholden to the corrupt areas of the oligarchy, but do serve the interests of all people (including people righteously wielding their power as responsible leaders within the oligarchical area).
I (actually we) need your support — not to ignite violence, but to help (in whatever responsible way you can) against that unhealthy stress prompting abusive behavior of all sorts (so more unhealthy stress to form a feedback loop — perhaps uncontrollably against civility).
At least echo the warning signs (share this post, author your own, challenge me here or elsewhere, etc.), or allow mass silence to continue its deafening roar inevitably against civility.
With that sufficiently powerful public support, then we can conduct ourselves properly in judicial contexts — backed by irrefutable leverage of the public eye watching reasonably intently to prevent judicial absurdity against justice.
In short, a blind public eye is all corruption.