Prompted by “New 2016 Pesticide Regulations Could Drastically Increase Oregon Pot Prices”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/new-2016-pesticide-regulations-could-drastically-increase-oregon-pot-prices
…the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) released a list of 59 pesticides mandated to be tested for in legal weed in the Beaver State. According to staff at pot-testing facility CannAlytics in Bend, Oregon, the investment that labs have to make in new equipment to test for the additional pesticides—as well as the intensive labor hours required for testing—will drive up prices for the cannabis consumer. […]
“Yes, of course,” Margo Lucas of the West Salem Dispensary said. “We’ll have to pass that price on. It’s something that will have to get paid for—one way or another. Growers, dispensary owners, patients, we’re all going to have to cover the cost, I guess.” […]
“Regulations will get stiffer as more corporations become involved, and they try to shut out the little guys. Big companies can afford the tests and already make more profit than the small grower.”
But this change is for the better…
Is it?
Why is this new judicial regulation in place?
This is critical in the wake of a penetrating investigation by The Oregonian/Oregon Live last June, revealing that out of 14 pesticides discovered in a set of randomly tested legal strains, six of those had probable links to cancer.
Probable links?
We have a serious (and factually unconstitutional) change in judicial regulations that affects everyone buying and selling cannabis (including patients and caring small businesses on a strict budget), because some kinds of pesticide use probably is linked to cancer.
This is the calling card of the traditional leftist (so not really liberal or progressive).
First, we’re forced to assume the judicial regulation will be effective. There will be no bribing regulators to loosen restrictions surreptitiously, and an overall competence is guaranteed. Exposure of corruption is also guaranteed, as well as consequent prosecution. Does that sound like our government, based upon the whole truth (and nothing but) historically speaking? No.
Second, we’re forced to ignore unintended consequences. The obvious one is the impact upon small businesses incapable of affording to adhere to the regulations (big win for “big marijuana” and its lobbying power crushing our relatively pitiful leverage at the voting booth).
We’re forced to believe (without any concrete grounding, so only easily manipulated statistics at best) that we can trust the public sector, but we can never trust the private sector, despite the fact that the latter has a natural incentive to sell harmless products.
Granted businesses also have the unethical incentive to put money before customer health (assuming they can get away with it — i.e. it’s a terrible risk within fair competition). History also shows the occurrence of such abuse, but it’s by no means a principle in business. Most businesses (including mine) apparently avoid hurting people, based upon the seriously high number of business transactions compared to the relatively low resulting health problems.
Also granted is tragedy is demonstrably inherent within reality, so anyone claiming that judicial regulations reduce net-resulting tragedy is undeniably lying.
Our Constitution (and sanity) logically insists upon preventing and removing judicial regulations to let you decide if you want to save money and risk your health on pesticides. The definite risk from financial problems (as I frankly know all too well) logically outweighs the questionable risk from pesticides.
Allowing the government to legislate risk is unavoidably allowing them to legislate liberty — i.e. blatant examples of mass rights infringement. That’s mass illegality (widespread treason, factually speaking) by our “public servants” (and their powerful friends in the private sector of the oligarchy — both sectors ultimately governing us).
Also let businesses decide to voluntarily avoid using pesticides, because their target market (e.g. people like us preferring to avoid questionable health risks) likely firmly demands it.
I will never buy “big marijuana” products (just like I never buy “big beer” products), because of serious quality issues beyond those supposedly covered by judicial regulations.
Instead of a pure flow of questionable actions to supposedly prevent pesticides (likely encouraging businesses to drum up new pesticides aside from those judicially regulated, and the questionable health impact there), consumer protection groups can randomly test products claimed to be pesticide-free and publicly validate that claim.
But traditional leftism isn’t really about (y)our health.
It’s all about power.
While apparently most of America is worried about a terrorist attack striking as occasionally as lightning (i.e. rarely), the real enemy (traditional leftism) has smashed through the national “gates” several decades ago and poured strongly into all of our lives to increasingly dictate how we live. If that hurts you (and it probably — actually certainly — does), then screw you and yours is the inevitable mantra of the traditional leftist (their elitism always crushes your rights).
Fascism: “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.” — dictionary.com [emphasis mine]
That dictator is the tumultuous oligarchy itself.
The mainstream media has an obvious conflict of interest to unethically manipulate the masses. They need to secure information about tragic events, which only consistently comes from our government. They also need to avoid righteously going after companies funding them via advertising (e.g. ‘big pharma’ and all of the harm from their products against the safe the effective plant called cannabis — at least based upon the best application of conclusive, not suggestive, science). The mainstream media unquestionably supports the oligarchy (even against public safety), so effectively forms state-run media — and all of the consequent suppression of significant opposition and criticism against the oligarchy.
Constitutionalists (e.g. people upholding the second amendment to bear any form of arms, which necessarily protects the masses from a rogue government) are often branded as the lunatic fringe, for prime example.
Racism involves rewarding anyone upholding the “fruits” of the Big Lie technique clearly empowering our oligarchy, while demonizing anyone else.
That regimenting strengthens by increasing judicial regulations against small business threats against the oligarchy.
Add to that all of the information gathered about you from your credit/debit transactions and “free” software usage (assuming you’re into that kind of thing, of course), and if you become an oligarchical problem, then they can probably quickly find a way to terminate you “to protect the children”.
I wish I were actually involved in lunacy here, but I’m not. The whole set of facts are clear, and you all know that I’m sadly right.
You know what else is powerfully linked (if not outright causes) cancer and other serious health problems? Unhealthy stress.
The invading army of judicial regulations continues its illegal and coercive press into our lives, and forms all of the dangerous unhealthy stress that the traditional leftists merely ignore to their serious delusion (such stress instead becomes the basis for activism towards even more judicial regulations — insert army-expanding feedback loop here).
The traditional rightists (not actually American conservatives) fail to counter due to their abhorrently gross hypocrisy towards securing power via their definition of morality (also unconstitutional by any rational — so fair, so just — measure). Americans are often sick of the leftist advancement against our rights, but the rightist alternative is equally sickening. Voting ‘blue’ or ‘red’ empowers the oligarchy recklessly subjectively operating above the law (chaotic fascism strengthens regardless of your vote).
Our country (and the truly progressive unalienable right to liberty naturally compelling society to best conclusively scientifically — so fairly, so justly — define harm) is dying horribly.
Insanity is winning hardcore, and the evidence of that is glaring all around us.
You want a righteous way out?
Then scientific constitutionalism is the only logical (i.e. fair, so just) solution.
The beauty of logic (i.e. the scientific method) is my claim cannot simply be another passionate ‘fund and follow me’ plea that upon success simply means a new oligarchy eventually consumed by the same power disease corrupting the source of my righteous passion.
It means strongest possible constitutional law and a serious advancement in education and science on behalf of legally reducing risk (for anyone but the reason abusers and thugs that should become the victims of aforementioned inherent tragedy).
It means your liberty is limited only by the right itself without slippery slope starting exception — regardless of your race, gender, sexual preference, recreational drug choice, whether or not you’re an android, etc.
That’s change that honest and responsibly tough people (including righteous leaders within the oligarchy) can truly believe in, but that change starts with you.
I continue to refine our Liberty Shield informational roots (usually monthly), but they offer enough of a fully factual grounding and growth to get the genuine civilized liberty ball rolling.
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.
Spirit Wave Journal 
Leave a Reply