Prompted by “Medical marijuana must be cost effective”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/09/medical-marijuana-must-be-cost-effective/
Starting with this key point from our Respect Cannabis informational roots:
Upon scrutiny of aforementioned prohibitionist claims against cannabis use (including following their citations to the actually unsupportive and supposed science behind their tough-talking affirmations), I can safely state the fact that no experimental science proves any harm from moderate cannabis use. Moderate in this case means any use without objectively proven harm – as opposed to the suggestively possible harm from what appears to be science, but demonstrably fails to meet all of the key factors obviously required by the scientific method – that includes intake method differential, precise intake amount, and strain differential.
Prohibiting or regulating (i.e. textured prohibiting) a safe plant by default is asinine, especially considering the demonstrably harmful hindrance by those regulations (e.g. price fixing against the poor, limited availability, etc.)
This is not just a surface issue, but goes to the root of our national (and ultimately international) problem.
Either the right to liberty is self-evidently unalienable or not. Any exception forms the judicial slippery slope corrupting national integrity, because that right is judicially obligatory (upon removing blatant judicial corruption that effectively removed amendment nine, which clearly renders our fundamental rights as constitutional law). “We the people” are so far removed from that obligation, people such as yours truly are popularly considered fringe whackos just for upholding clearly federally constitutional law (including the Supremacy Clause negating rights-infringement at the state and local levels of governance), and our nation is a serious mess as a result of that egregious and monstrously selfish application of the Big Lie technique spanning our entire nation’s duration.
Disrespect for the need of constitutional limits against government power by the traditional (not really progressive) political left has been severely destructive. The notion that government should regulate our lives is always flawed, because the enormous power needed for that regulation always merely forms an oligarchical shift, so never creates the promised equality (based upon history and common sense).
Disrespect for the unalienable right to liberty by pre-American conservatives believing their definition of morality (usually based upon one religion) trumps that fundamental right (even for non-believers of that religion) is the other destructive scourge.
Based upon both of those forms of disrespect, cycling dominance between the two major political parties (as a result of the masses being sick of the destruction, and basically only having the consequent option to vote for the other major political party) is fundamentally tearing our nation apart from the fundamental need to protect society from the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction — the abuse of law itself.
The insanely popular idea that law is the right remedy to prevent harm upfront literally defies our national foundation (our nation was established from a revolutionary war that resulted from an unacceptable form of abusive law — so limited oligarchical power by constitutional limits, and a fundamentally unalienable right to liberty).
Law is generally the problem, because the relatively small group of people forming and upholding law create judicial sanctuaries for themselves, while the unhealthy stress against everyone else leads to compensatory abuse (including horrific violence) — and the consequent ‘pouring gasoline on the fire to put it out’ solution, which is the public cry (resonating with mainstream media support) for even more laws.
Laws are usually formed for the sake of agenda, not humanity — and agendas (aside from the pure positivity agenda) are never fair, so never just. If humanity cannot dominantly understand that simple truth, our species is logically doomed, because the destructive impact from such a serious conflict of interest is terrible (and cyclical without that understanding).
Our nation is so utterly out of tune with sound reasoning (due to ample and unconstitutional examples of the Big Lie technique), we have no true national identity (basically just colors and borders connected to people way too often idiotically and selfishly opposing the unalienable right to liberty, so they can define everyone else’s liberty to their so-called moral or equal liking — i.e. their agenda). That’s not exceptional. That’s pathetic, and the only exceptional move is to publicly promote the end of reason abuse on behalf of all of the fine folks (including military veterans) sacrificing their lives for liberty.
If we don’t have an unalienable right to liberty, we inevitably have liberty defined by the people in power (not really liberty and not really legal nationally). Therefore, our nation is not distinct when it comes to liberty. Every other nation has liberty defined by the people in power (with the exact same problem causing enormous unhealthy stress). Instead of righteously pointing the finger of blame at themselves, the oligarchy instead points that finger at certain drug availability, etc. The mainstream media — relying upon the public sector of the oligarchy to consistently supply newsworthy information about tragic events — refuses to “grab the bull by the horns” for the sake of public safety (an unbearable abandonment of their journalism code of ethics), so my line of strictly honest and complete reasoning here (ready at any point for any challenge to the contrary) is likely unique in your reading experience.
Stop believing regulations are the answer to abuse, because abuse is sadly inherent within reality (each one of us is imperfect) and one-size-fits-all law (usually cheaply and disorderly) forms monstrous unhealthy stress (way more abuse).
There’s only one logical way out of this terrible (inter)national cycle, and that’s scientific constitutionalism, which reinforces the power of the Constitution (which has no agenda but protecting society) by way of pure certainty in law for fairness and therefore justice (partially by forming more certainties in language) and by way of a scientifically affirmed and fundamental governing force that I call the Rule of Reality (that Rule providing perfectly real incentive for abusive — e.g. greedy — people to change their tune for the better, or undeniably face powerfully serious consequences by way of reality’s undeniable need for balance for stability).
The certainty of the Rule of Reality (i.e. reality’s 100% dominance towards its own balance for stability) starts with the well-proven fact that time is a dimension of space, so the future exists now beyond our perception. At no point during that future does reality die, and that’s experimentally validated by experience itself.
Moreover, no scientist has ever even slightly proven that a single objective distinction exists in this ocean of energy from humanity’s perspective (according to mainstream physics). The obscenely popular idea that death is not only the end of a human being’s perception, but also personal experience (including personal accountability), is idiotic. This powerfully transforms our view of death and unavoidably human behavior for the maximally better (the fact is nobody ever gets away with abusive behavior).
Without that certainty and fundamental governing force, the citizenry never has sufficient leverage to properly react to abusive law (and other forms of abuse) — by naturally preventing such abuse before it can become entrenched to the detriment of us all.
Certain Drug Prohibition (basically the Controlled Substances Act) epitomizes the abuse of law, and exemplifies the need for scientific constitutionalism to define harm with maximum objective reach, so not the traditional and pitiful “science” recklessly turned into tough-talking affirmations selfishly for abusive law (e.g. a ban — insanely ruled constitutional by way of the Commerce Clause — against holding a certain plant in an American hand).