Rights Not Right?

Prompted by “Pot Policy: Marijuana Users as Consumers”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/pot-policy-marijuana-users-consumers

I’ve been getting no reaction when it comes to law here (definitely feeling the “First they ignore you…” Gandhism effect), but pity is not the goal — justice is.

Wanting to bypass practicing writing today to focus elsewhere hopefully having a positive public impact, I ran into my High Times feed again and the passion overwhelmingly boiled over into writing this post. I want to keep it short (although my posts are usually the length of a reasonably long news article), but the deviation of society from truth is so obscene, I can’t keep it short until readers understand and react here to form traction — and then inform me what the ever-improving ‘duh’ factor is (so I can remove it for brevity).

If the law is not first remedied, the risk (so liberty and health) cannot be remedied, so I cannot simply skip the law part here. Law enforcement groups making money from this failed prohibition will continue to successfully lobby for its sustainment (with relatively minimal opposition due to demonstrably compromising constitutional ethics) — and if you’re a drug user, you continue to play a different and complex kind of Russian Roulette (while roughly millions of non-violent victims are now feeling that “smoking gun”).

Many days after igniting their pressing ‘law enforcement is still involved with a health issue’ campaign to passionately address the opioid “epidemic” (affecting an overwhelming minority of our population) — including constant ads with the same tried-and-failed messages (‘I didn’t know about opioids and my daughter died’, ‘I told my brother I would be burying him someday’, etc.), yesterday I watched a local news outlet report even more heroin overdoses (as if their campaign made no righteous impact).

Real people are suffering and even dying (from drug abuse and surrounding crimes that ultimately affect you), because society’s leaders merely pretend (even if unintentionally) to care — by blaming certain drug availability to end that Russian Roulette, so still not logically righteously pointing the finger of blame at themselves for upholding (partially by seriously journalistically unethical mainstream media bias) a brutally horrific law stressing too many people out in a society still proudly pressing to sustain the what-should-be-obviously unhealthy imbalance (so instability) from an excessive work ethic applied against a balancing healthy relaxation ethic — unhealthy stress being the cause of abuse, factually speaking.

Last night’s story included one town’s police reaching out (without the threat of law upon getting help) to heroin users via an arrested heroin dealer’s customer list. That town’s police volunteered to remove the threat of law, which is an effective confession that prohibitive law is in the way of progress.

Prohibitive law does not stop murderers, assailants, and thieves — it just puts the caught ones in a separate place to prevent repetition. To apply that prohibitive law mentality to ‘certain drug’ intake is factually sickeningly obscene against public safety and literally even sanity.

We must continue advocating ending judicial involvement in drug use/abuse inclusively for the following perfectly logical reasons…

1. Drug supply is then removed from the black market, so drug quality can be made pure by people caring about public safety, drug prices come sharply down (ending [violent] crimes for drug funding), and a huge profit margin for gangs of all sizes is removed (likely along with military grade weaponry).

2. Drug education can then be based upon use (not just abuse), so no legal liability (i.e. encouraging crime) exists upon openly honestly teaching the overwhelming majority (at least based upon consistent government statistics) of people using (instead of abusing) recreational drugs how to continue proper usage (including avoiding the cyclical unhealthy stress trap forming drug abuse).

3. The fear of the conflict of interest involving law (arrest quotas and other financial incentives for corrupt policing) is removed, as is the public stigma against ‘certain drug’ users from criminality, so abusers are more likely to turn to their loved ones (or community leaders) for help. This also removes the fear of the “treatment” euphemism for incarceration (i.e. the hideous effort, in response to threatening public exposure due to Internet availability effectively undermining mainstream media bias, to bury the demonstrably failed ‘certain drug’ prohibition in a way keeping police funding against public safety).

Ending prohibitive drug laws (in this case, ending law abuse) is not the same as publicly promoting reckless drug abuse, as too often believed.

Such law may seem like “grabbing the bull by the horns”, but is actually trying to “sweep the problem under the rug”, while merely talking tough to publicly present such honorable grabbing in this case.

Credible public education (actual ‘bull horns grabbing’ that only comes from experienced drug users, not just past abusers) is missing and that includes the area of alcohol — that arbitrarily legal drug during the Great Hypocrisy applying severe degrees of unhealthy stress (so even more drug abuse) against community integrity.

I bring a unique and fully logically grounded and grown perspective (i.e. logically extremely powerful leverage) to this critical issue, so if you care, ignoring the Respect Cannabis campaign makes no sense.

My perspective likely ends the war on [some] drugs promptly (saving roughly millions, if not billions, of non-violent people throughout posterity) instead of the torturously slow “progress” happening by way of the traditional brutally recklessly compromising of constitutional integrity (the destruction of law itself for oligarchical favoritism and benefit — in this case, largely from traditional political left elitists successfully demonizing and removing constitutional limits against their power to demonstrably get rich running our lives, while pretending to form equality on behalf of the poor — i.e. while exploiting the poor — that still remain equally poor these days, despite that exploitive “success” idiotically against karma recognition).

“For decades most marijuana users have looked forward with hope to the day when cannabis would be legalized.”

I understand cannabis use has been legal the entire time, while the law has been corrupted (clearly according to the public record) to support its illegality. That one fact — unethically ignored by the rest of the ‘legalization movement’ relying upon that fact to illegally sustain pursuing their unconstitutional political leftist agenda — spread properly throughout the court of public opinion puts a hard stop to this judicial outrage against public safety.

“…legalization proposals these days include important provisions that affect the rights, yes rights, of marijuana consumers.”

Rights have no meaning without judicial reinforcement. Our fundamental (including unalienable) rights (including liberty) have been unethically removed from judicial recognition. If that did not happen by public apathy, there would be no demonstrably highly destructive war on [some] drugs from the get-go.

“In Colorado increased competition is resulting on lower prices for marijuana.”

That’s called a free market, and when it operates without harm (e.g. poisonous effects), the results are positive for economic (so healthy stress) reasons — importantly noting greed (like drug abuse) is also a health issue incapable of being properly remedied by prohibitive law. That includes textured prohibitions in the form of judicial regulations for wealth redistribution ironically against equality in the form of unequal work input.

“Product quality, including standards about contamination with heavy metals, pesticides, dangerous microbes and fungus, is becoming an important consumer issue…”

Objective harm should be the sole basis for judicial application (while risk is purely left to education to avoid the serious risk of law abuse).

Volunteer consumer groups with proper passion and expertise (not questionable government regulators negatively affecting free market health) should be responsible for ensuring product quality.

In other words, product risk is an education issue, not a law one (unless the product objectively harms someone). For prime example, tobacco products, upon increasing public understanding of harm (mainly starting with the broadly reported legal assault against tobacco companies over a decade ago) are being consumed less. No prohibition denied by the governing oligarchy to sustain that more-addictive-than-heroin product class needed (the Institute of Medicine reported the tobacco dependency rate is 32%, while heroin dependency is rated at 23%).

“Regulation can be used to protect consumer interests…”

They can be (and have been) abused against consumer interests, because there’s no actual power divider between public and private sectors (they both obviously work together to effectively form our governing oligarchy). There can only be the questionable “feel good only” assumption that regulations are being adhered to (including regulators not being bribed or otherwise hindered). Just because a label exists does not mean the product actually honors that labeled claim. The only enemy of corruption is sufficient public exposure — not regulations.

“However Big Tobacco is Big Tobacco because it is an oligopoly, a cartel dominated by a small number of companies – exactly what promoters of artificial scarcity recommend as the ideal framework for legalized marijuana.”

The many flavors of “opolies” (monopolies, duopolies, etc.) come from judicially acceptable favoritism (the people in power do make the laws, after all). Only a judicially recognized unalienable right to liberty (i.e. no objective harm, no judicial foul — no “slippery slope” starting exception), backed by the undeniably dominating human power of the sufficiently organized masses, can logically prevent such abusive and persecuting law upfront. Otherwise, society seriously dangerously plays its own variant of the aforementioned Russian Roulette (the bullet chamber of favoritism may strike you — and/or your community — down).

“Consumer protection (such as provided by labeling and quality standards) and low prices are two of the most important rights of marijuana consumers.”

I love it when traditional political leftists manufacture rights out of thin air. Yesterday, someone promoted the right to free education (which isn’t actually free, according to hard-working taxpayers too often funding the lives of naturally destructive deadbeats — charity and promoting the now mainstream scientifically valid karma is the only right answer here — not any form of gun to workers’ heads for coerced wealth redistribution).

“But there is another right marijuana users need to be aware of, and it is the most important right of all. This is the right to have a voice in making the regulations that are applied to legal marijuana markets. This is a basic principle of American Democracy – people affected by government decisions have a right to participate in reaching those decisions.”

We don’t live in an American Democracy, because pure democracy can be abusively leveraged to societal ruin (as history shows). We live in a constitutional republic, so we democratically elect representatives to legislate on our behalf (supposedly limited by constitutional law). The power of the vote is severely limited, because representatives on behalf of the oligarchy they actually serve (due to financial and other power incentives combined with successful public demonization of constitutional limits by way of apathy, etc.) simply build governmental constructs away from public scrutiny and democracy.

The public indeed needs to be involved (why I publish these posts), but recognize the optimal area of effect (e.g. upholding our Constitution and objective — so fair, so just — definition of harm for judicial and educational impact) is the court of public opinion to ensure the masses sufficiently organize to apply a genuine threat against any abusive aspect of oligarchical rule.

As a responsible entertainer meticulously forming my conclusions for several years from a fully logical base against the Great Hypocrisy (“clever” spin), I embrace the permanent invitation to responsible entertainers worldwide to wield the “pen” that is mightier than the “sword” by way of the relatively new and serious power of the Internet — a seriously grand power to sufficiently organize the masses against oligarchical corruption.

“Legalization is more than just not getting arrested. It’s also about not getting ripped off.”

“We the people” are getting heavily ripped off by an oligarchy excessively serving themselves with no actual respect for public safety.

That’s because constitutional limits against oligarchy power have been publicly degraded — for over two centuries and counting — by publicly equating our national founding principles and supreme law with the outrageous discrimination that ironically should have been halted by consistent respect for the rule-of-law, but were not due to pre-American conservative insurgents against unalienable rights across the political spectrum.

Such pre-American conservative distinction (too often conflicting with American conservatism to degrade political rightists’ stance and strengthen political leftists’ degradation of constitutional legitimacy) has shockingly never been even publicly acknowledged throughout our nation’s entire history, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Hypocrisy never serves my needs, and will never materialize itself here with any degree of sustainment. That’s why my reasoning here deviates (perhaps significantly) from your likely conception of righteous policy.

The Great Hypocrisy — actually, reason abuse in general — is my (and our) grossest enemy, factually speaking. Righteously destroying reason abuse based law by insisting upon hardcore objectivity (full, but never merely suggestive, application of the scientific method) to form liberty-impacting law is my ultimate agenda against discrimination in general (i.e. I’m a proud scientific constitutionalist).

If you don’t care about that, then no law will suffice — and there are no actual rights.

Spread the word and drop a comment here, so traction and momentum can finally start for actual public safety.

I am an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an artist working and resting to best carefully contribute towards helping society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest -- all within a sometimes offbeat style of psychedelic artistry.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Liberty Shield, Respect Cannabis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

my pEarthly and earthly self blended together via the energy of the reality "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on WordPress.com
Thank You
Thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer

Spirit Wave (“entertainer” herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content (“entertainment” herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use.

%d bloggers like this: