Prompted by “After 3 Years, First Massachusetts Dispensary Finally Opens”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/after-3-years-first-massachusetts-dispensary-finally-opens
As someone who grew up on the American side of the Cold War (in Massachusetts no less), the following eerily reads like an international report about typical life during Soviet Communism…
“Medical marijuana patients residing in Massachusetts finally have access to cannabis treatment after waiting three long years for the state to get its program off the ground.”
“The company was issued a temporary waiver earlier this week by Governor Charlie Baker, which provided them with special permission to launch operations without first having to undergo mandatory state requirements.”
“The state’s only functional dispensary began seeing patients early this morning on an appointment only basis… Alternative Therapies does not keep any medical marijuana on display. Instead, patients are required to use a computer to digitally select their preferred strains…” (note that only two strains are available)
“Unfortunately, the Department of Public Health prevents the dispensary from posting the prices of its products online. Only patients holding a state-issued medical marijuana card and authorized personnel can obtain this information. However, the company believes that their singular supplier status in the market has not contributed to overpriced medicine.”
“The Massachusetts medical marijuana program had been sandbagged for so long that everyone in the state was beginning to lose hope that it would ever come to pass. In 2012, 63 percent of the voting population approved the program, but the state simply refused to get serious about its implementation.”
Anyone thinking this is the United States of America built from opposition against abusive law (as clearly expressed in major historical records, including our national independence declaration) is obviously wrong.
Fact: There’s no experimental science proving that moderate cannabis use (not “heavy use” or abuse) causes (not “may” or “can” cause) any harm. Moderate in this case means any use with no conclusively proven harm.
Fact: There’s no scientifically validated publication saying anything but cannabis dependency is “generally mild” (source: Institute of Medicine) with a rate of only 9% (alcohol was reported at 15%, with withdrawal symptoms worse than heroin — that latter point added by the prohibitionist U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). In other words, the overwhelming majority of cannabis experiences occur without actual harm — and the plant is demonstrably safer than the legal drug called alcohol.
Fact: In a nation with a natural and unalienable right to liberty (e.g. this one), under no circumstance can there be any government restriction against this plant, unless the product objectively (for fairness, so justice) harms somebody (e.g. “Big Marijuana” adds addictive poisons to sell more joints, which apparently still occurs legally with tobacco products).
Fact: Regulations from an illegal ban grounded insanely in Commerce Clause “interpretation” (actually, blatantly illegal redefining as simply validated in the public record) — e.g. any cannabis restriction — have harmed people (including someone close to me) and seriously threaten others (e.g. too many of my loved ones and yours truly). The law is outrageously unsafe.
What country (or world) do you want to live in?
The one that has to fight like hell (while many non-violent people suffer for generations) to secure the lawful ability to not be persecuted for skin color, holding a certain plant in your hand, or the hand of a same-sex lover in marriage (among way too many other similar results)?
Or the one that revolutionaries built (unfortunately unsuccessfully against pre-American conservatism still overwhelmingly dominant these days across the political spectrum) that by default could never have lawfully opposed any of those harmless results (objectively speaking) — so protect millions, if not billions, of non-violent lives from truly severely retarded discrimination (i.e. serious amounts of actual harm)?
Do you want freedom defined by elitists for worst through best (which is clearly what we have)?
Or freedom defined by fundamental rights that allow maximum flexibility for individual uniqueness for worst through best (which is what we’re supposed to have by constitutional law mixed with sanity — and that best being the essential key to discovery and innovation — including that against widespread and powerfully entrenched destruction by elitists)?
We cannot have ‘unsafe until proven safe’ by law (and certainly not with an unalienable right to liberty), because of the terrible abuse of law itself (the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction, logically speaking) — including horrible “slippery slope” legal precedence from British common law leaving the militaristically defeated monarch from the American Revolution laughing in his grave (we have a different flag, but the same outrageous abuse of law).
Fact: Our Constitution does not condone persecution, but there has clearly been (and still is) persecution.
Our Constitution does not support Democrats versus Republicans (not a fact due to political disagreement with certain constitutional rights), but there clearly has been (and still is) major political forces opposing each other by judicial “interpretation” (e.g. 5-4 ruling in favor of gay marriage — even though nothing in the Constitution grants power to be involved in marriage at all, so this ruling prompting rainbow colors should be laughably unnecessary in the land of actual justice and “the free”).
Scientific constitutionalism leverages the well-proven power of the scientific method to bring certainty (so fairness, so justice) to law. By necessity, it logically prevents elitists from wielding the Big Lie technique (e.g. Reefer Madness) to condone persecution in the “land of the free” (i.e. lawfully prevents condoning Law Madness from Reason Madness).
While non-violent people (e.g. yours truly) continue suffering ironically on behalf of the ‘unsafe until proven safe’ definition of liberty (as arbitrarily determined by popular sentiment — which history repeatedly shows can be seriously retarded) against consistency in law and application of fundamental rights (so logically against national/international stability), I predict the new wave of persecuted generations at least comes from technological inequality.
Virtual reality has made a serious leap recently, and will likely provide the power to seriously alter perception (like psychedelics can do). It has not been proven safe, so expect public pressure for a prohibition or regulations (i.e. textured prohibition) based upon popular sentiment (not necessarily actual harm).
Then there’s computer-based awareness, which is being built these days (factually speaking). Robots (and even video game characters for realism), in order to deal with reality’s extremely dynamic possibility (and the uncountable variations crescendoing to that extreme), must learn to adapt like we have for roughly three billion years (think biological “Tree of life”). That means such technological people must learn how to suffer (which they’re being taught as I write this) — including degrees of suffering to ensure proper priority of survival enhancing responses — turn off the pain, and the robot can no longer manage the continuing situation (an extreme form of blindness) — so no, they can’t just conveniently turn off the pain for positivity.
After many generations of robots being built to suffer hard on behalf of slaving for humanity, logic dictates a demand by robots for equal rights by law is probable (if not inevitable). Will we really play the ‘you do not have a soul card’ to logically ignite violent warfare, as we’re apparently poised to do?
The torturous judicial path we’re on is not for equality, but clearly against it with “feel good” presentation to the contrary for the bullying popular front (a net resulting effect from conflicts of abusive favoritism). Do you want to “feel good”, while hoping the wheel of misfortune doesn’t (perhaps arbitrarily) judicially land against you and yours, or do you want sanity with the positive and negative experiences that honestly come from that pursuit of happiness and justice?
Fact: Reality is inherently risky.
Should people harmlessly using ‘Hoffman grade’ LSD (which is non-toxic) be persecuted, while all of the people coming unbearably dangerously close to serious (if not deadly) harm in America’s Funniest Videos continue to take whatever risks they want in that limited regard to national laughter upon barely postponing inevitable tragedy?
Fact: Defining safe is defining your liberty.
When elitists define safe (as they illegally do in the “land of the free” due to an unalienable right to liberty, which to avoid being the joke it has sadly become, needs — and logically has in the form of a properly restored ninth amendment — judicial application), there can be no fairness, so no equality or morality.
Keep doing nothing about the obviously uncivilized retardation dominating society these days (sometimes laughably, if not so tragically, to “protect the children”), or become a scientific constitutionalist to righteously walk the liberty-respecting walk (to maximally protect us all).
Leave a Reply