Prompted by “A New Look at Why Pot Prohibition Fails”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/new-look-why-pot-prohibition-fails
I’m not sure why it’s a new look, but I want to expand points there to encompass the overall war on some drugs and the abusive (actually ironically illegal) law behind it all.
Prohibition is a strategy that provides an advantage for law enforcement and for politicians. It is successful in terms of providing a pretext for funding, political support and power. However, that’s not what the public—the ultimate source of funding, political support and power—was offered. The public was sold on a program that would promote public interests in reducing teenage access to marijuana, reduce drug abuse and promote public safety. With respect to these three objectives, marijuana prohibition has not only failed, it does not even provide a viable plan of action for success.
That’s Cannabis Prohibition in a nutshell. The law doesn’t serve and protect the public in that case, but does serve and protect oligarchical interests against the public.
The primary problem is the public at large really couldn’t care less about the subject of law, so they too often remain unaware of the hideous application of judicial remedy to nefariously serve corrupt interests.
If I say Commerce Clause, then I can feel (and frankly understand) a deflated sense of care from my audience. In a world including psychedelic consumption (and its potential, if not usual, cosmic reach), who cares about a Commerce Clause that fully states, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”?
Understand that clause is the sole “constitutional” basis for Certain Drug Prohibition. Millions of non-violent lives have been ruined over those boring and lame 16 words being “interpreted” as such. International treaties pertaining to that prohibition have only provisions requiring national constitutionality, so that “interpretation” reaches around the world via American might makes right.
Justice requires fairness, which requires objectivity. That fact forms a monstrously huge elephant in the room being ignored throughout history with no momentum to the contrary. The undeniable result is claiming there’s a justice system is fraudulent. What we clearly have instead is an agenda system, where human forces battle it out (with the righteous underdogs — e.g. victims of racial, gender, sexual, and certain drug discrimination — too often losing throughout history) to mold law for their benefit.
When you embrace judicial regulations and bans, you’re not necessarily embracing justice, but your preferred set of pros and cons in a reality that demonstrates pros and cons from every outcome (hint: each one of us will die and reality will still certainly exist regardless of the rule-of-law). You seek judicial leverage for your preferred outcome, and if you’re unfortunately like most people, strictest application of the scientific method to form objective conclusions (not merely suggestions) isn’t the basis for your activism.
Millions of people are unethically suffering, because of the boring and lame nature of the Commerce Clause and law in general. How powerfully sad is that? That serious public problem must be promptly resolved, and responsible entertainers (inclusively educators understanding the need for entertainment for learning interest) must meet the challenge of expressing law interestingly enough to raise sufficient public support against hideous application of outright judicial corruption against righteous liberty.
I’m not ready to crudely slap a smiley face (or such) on the Commerce Clause to sell it to the masses (although I think a smartly delivered Commerce Clause music festival would be humorous and hopefully effective in its own odd way), but this responsible entertainer cannot ignore that serious challenge.
Without rationality (even if only subjectively defined), there’s no point in even having a rule-of-law. Even our judicial branch of government (at least usually) agrees with that conclusion. There’s no rational connection between those 16 words and Certain Drug Prohibition. There’s nothing in the intent of that clause even hinting at banning certain drugs, but our Supreme Court misbehaved several decades ago (another monstrous elephant in the room being excessively ignored) without necessary public correction.
Congress no longer has authority to just “regulate commerce” (historically to avoid state economic favoritism against our national economy), but magically the power to regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce. Merely holding a certain popular plant in your hand has that effect (as repeatedly concluded by our Supreme Court in the public record), so voila… Cannabis Prohibition (and Certain Drug Prohibition in general) without a federal constitutional amendment obviously needed for Alcohol Prohibition. Ta-da!
Our judicial branch cannot make law, but only interpret it. Yet they clearly redefined the Commerce Clause, according to the public record combined with the English language — an undeniable act of treason that the mainstream media refuses to broadcast due to serious conflicts of interest violating their journalism code of ethics (details in our Liberty Shield informational roots).
Obviously it’s futile to leverage the accusation of judicial corruption directly within our corrupt judicial system, so we must turn to the true highest court of the land — the court of public opinion.
Apparently due to the lameness of the subject of law, and the popularity of judicially arbitrary regulation without constitutional care as a supposed responsibility measure (nonetheless any teen getting access to alcohol with minimal effort, despite similar regulations — i.e. textured prohibition — in taxpayer-funded place), instead of publicly pressing that accusation of serious treason to instantly undermine the validity of Certain Drug Prohibition, we see this unbearably torturous process of activism in courts to judicially “thuggishly” press for traditional political leftist “legality” in the face of the publicly ignored fact — cannabis and any other “illicit” drug is already legal without regulation by constitutional certainty.
Change we can truly believe in starts with you, not politicians leveraging obscene levels of reason abuse to secure their careers against public safety.
You can ignore my fully factually valid and brief “death blow” to Certain Drug Prohibition and allow millions of non-violent (i.e. innocent) people to suffer horribly from an outrageously selfish and destructive prohibition that fails to create a “drug free” prison system, while ignoring constitutional fundamentals initially innovatively set to prevent the abuse of law itself (as clearly stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence concisely defining liberty as an unalienable right without exception to prevent that broadest abuse — e.g. imprisoning lots of non-violent people for dealing with what science fails to conclude is a harmful drug by default, despite tough-talking affirmations unethically to the contrary).
Or you can start briefly expressing (in the court of public opinion) the fact that the Commerce Clause has been illegally redefined, and cannot possibly uphold Certain Drug Prohibition by any rational measure. If you want to ground yourself stronger in this regard, then feel free to read the Commerce Clause section of our Liberty Shield roots.
Certain Drug Prohibition is typically favored by law enforcement, whom powerfully leverage the publicly automatically assumed credibility accompanying a police badge to sustain that prohibition (with sarcastic thanks to the mainstream media usually refusing to righteously challenge that credibility). When the public understands that law cannot possibly be on law enforcement’s side in this major case, the majority of ‘certain drug’ prohibitionists are finally revealed for what they undeniably are — selfish traitors (i.e. ironically actual criminals defying the “land of the free” and the judicial truths put in place to stop their pre-American conservative “sadomoralism” upfront).
Then imagine (and apply activism to form) a sane world that clearly understands that drug abuse (including the arbitrarily legal drug called alcohol) is fundamentally a health issue — never a criminal one — so people dangerously compensating for unhealthy stress (the true source of any abuse) can safely seek the help they need without fear of confronting sanctioned thugs.
Don’t get me wrong. I support valid law enforcement and my harsh words serve their righteous cause (and formal oath) to constitutionally serve and protect the public. I don’t need to start a revolution, because our national Founding Fathers already engaged in that seriously bloody affair. The British military lost that fight, but British common law which conflicts with justice due to opinionated (not objective) conclusions forming powerful legal precedence is still illegally relied upon nationally. In other words, the revolution against pre-American conservative insurgency spanning the political spectrum has only barely begun, even though it spans our relatively brief national history for over two centuries.
What bothers me the most is the obscenely popular notion that American judicial fundamentals are antiquated (sarcastic thanks to traditional — not actually liberal or progressive — political leftists), when the truth is the exact opposite — those fundamentals are actual progressivism by revolutionary progressivists taking an innovative stand against oligarchical abuses. To prove that point, I leave you with a small cut-n-paste from our Liberty Shield informational roots:
Had the unalienable right to liberty been consistently logically (so lawfully) realized upon establishment against pre-American conservatism…
- slavery (and judicially approved racism overall) would have necessarily ended instantly by law (and as a fitting aside, anyone believing skin color determines competency, social value, and/or such, would be righteously diagnosed as mentally ill).
- women would have been necessarily instantly granted equal rights by law (feel free to fittingly add a similar mental illness diagnosis with regards to gender superiority and remaining items in this list).
- there could never be any just law discriminating against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community (or discrimination on the basis of marriage against single people regardless of sexual preference — e.g. any tax law unfairly benefiting married couples).
- selectively opposing certain drug users would never have been lawfully allowed (including Alcohol Prohibition).
- there could be no just law against any form of fully adult-consensual sex (including that requiring a financial component).
- no reverse discrimination could be lawfully possible.