Prompted by “Denver’s new pot radio station blazes a trail, but will it run into legal issues?”: http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/06/09/pot-radio-station-denver-kbud-smokin-941/35943/
The right to free speech exists for a very powerful reason — to help the public oppose law abuse.
As long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law, broadcasters operating pursuant to a federally issued license (which is all of them!) cannot run ads for marijuana businesses.
This isn’t about advertising in this case, but about the delicate dance around similar judicial assault that hinders the honorable effort to expose the demonstrably publicly devastating corruption that is Certain Drug Prohibition.
I cannot (and do not) encourage anyone to break the law (including using illicit drugs), but I certainly promote the free expression against law abuse — the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction, logically speaking, and the form of abuse our nation was established against in a violent revolution.
Hindrance publicly presses by way of the inability to express experience reports. To oppose the reckless (and ironically “dopish”) demonizing of certain drugs as “dope”, when it comes to something as often indescribable as the positive effects of such drugs (e.g. psychedelic experiences), such hindrance is ironically problematic against public safety.
To describe the benefit of recreational psychedelic use is like describing your favorite song to someone whom has never heard the song before — without simply being able to play that song, and described in a way conveying equal appreciation of that song.
That description is highly improbable (if not impossible), so psychedelic culture understandably focuses upon medical benefit by necessity, but that limits the lawful reach of such experiences (at least initially), which is unhelpful to the many non-violent (so, in accordance with a naturally given and unalienable right to liberty, actually innocent) people persecuted via law abuse.
Since logic (not just opinion) negates the possibility of judicially interpreting the Commerce Clause to uphold Certain Drug Prohibition (it’s perfectly obvious that the Supreme Court illegally redefined the Commerce Clause from “To regulate Commerce” to instead ‘regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’ in the public record solely within the judicial branch of our government — and that’s where judicial assault is ironically powerfully needed now against such blatantly obvious treason), there really can be no law against certain activities (e.g. possession) involving certain drug use, so the expression of such experience reports (which can help amplify righteous public opposition and safety) cannot truly be justly punishable.
Logic dictates that, in accordance with the possibility of law abuse, there should be a constitutional exception (in tune with the first amendment) with respect to the public expression of what amounts to a confession of illicit drug use (or such), when that expression is broadly expressed for public information and safety (and does not directly obviously harm anyone in the process — ‘public confessions’ of murder, assault, theft, slander, etc. would remain prosecutable). That not only includes expressing the positive aspects of such use, but also expressing the risks and negative factors with the serious credibility that only comes from experience, so people righteously stepping over the line of law (as millions of people have done) can do so more safely for the public good (the reason why law supposedly exists).
If people embrace scientific constitutionalism, our species could (and logically would) do a much better job against law abuse (i.e. righteously follow through on the sentiment igniting the American Revolution).
If people would respect cannabis (including the principle extending to cover perception alteration itself), our species could (and also logically would) do a much better job against unhealthy stress — the actual source of drug, and other forms of, abuse.
In other logically spoken words, civility cannot possibly demand any less — something worthy of broad public expression.
Leave a Reply