International Constitution

Prompted by “Canada and Mexico Must Prove Case With United Nations Before Legalizing Marijuana”:

Before Canada, Mexico or any other country can legalize marijuana across their respective nation, governments must first show the United Nations General Assembly later this year how they plan to make it happen while remaining in compliance with several international drug treaties. […]

Of course, it would certainly help if the U.S. government, which has stepped back and allowed a growing number of states to legalize marijuana for recreational use, would come forward and tender their support on the issue. So far, Uncle Sam seems very nonchalant about the efforts to legalize the leaf both north and south of its borders.

I scanned through those international drug treaties years ago, and the one thing immediately jumping out (frankly memory serving, though I remain healthily confident on this front) was the requirement that each provision therein be nationally constitutional.

While I can’t speak on behalf of Canada and Mexico, I can speak boldly and patriotically on behalf of U.S.

Play on words (and acronyms) aside, there’s no way the Controlled Substances Act is nationally constitutional herein by any rationale, when a blatantly corrupt judicial system (upholding a blatantly ineffective but highly destructive “drug war”) is reigned in by the citizenry.

The supposed constitutional basis for the war on some drugs is the Commerce Clause, as confirmed multiple times by our Supreme Court in the public record. That clause reads (in full) “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.

Illegally redefined strictly within the judicial branch of our government (they have no authority to redefine law, but solely interpret it), the Commerce Clause “mysteriously” changed to allow Congress to regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce, which is clearly different, according to “smoking gun” evidence called the English language.

Holding cannabis in your hand has that substantial effect (as does your thought activity, which literally determines all of your buying and selling decisions, and is on the fast-enough track towards being externally controllable due to reasonably prominent science and technology — no joke), according to our Supreme Court on multiple occasions. That leaves us with the ‘certain drug’ ban in the aftermath of the clearly failed Alcohol Prohibition (which “mysteriously” required a constitutional amendment) that emerged to ‘protect the children’.

Our government is not nonchalant (no intuitive “chalant” to avoid double negative, dictionary?) when it come to Cannabis Prohibition or any other facet of Certain Drug Prohibition.

They’re instead aggressively ironically addicted to drug prohibition (lying to, and effectively stealing from, “We the taxpayers” to get their fix), and the damage is nationally severe in darkness of the journalistically unethical avoidance of reporting that fact on behalf of the “people’s right to know”, because those mainstream reporters are effectively beholden to those addicts (i.e. they’re addicted to newsworthy information on tragic events, and there’s only one consistent and effective dealer in that transaction).

As long as factual corruption stands, millions of non-violent (so actually innocent by any sane judicial authority) lives are being ruined to varying degrees, and many more millions of similar lives are at risk for the foreseeable future, because traditional leftists dominate the drug policy reform movement.

Traditional leftism (supposed progressivism and liberalism) relies upon the illegally redefined Commerce Clause for all of its government interference into the private sector, so don’t expect those leftists to proclaim support for this sharply pressing move to cut off the metaphorical balls of the hideously evil prohibitionists failing to create a “drug free” prison system (nor providing even one shred of concrete evidence proving we live in even a slightly more “drug free” America as a result of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars annually spent/wasted).

In other words, don’t expect traditional leftists to save literally millions of innocent lives by sane and brief reasoning, because of the baseless and irrational belief that private sector abuse can be thwarted by serious public sector empowerment (instead of the demonstrable oligarchical shifting at best, as proven throughout history and resonating strongly during this authorship).

Sure we can try taking the Commerce Clause argument to our judicial system, but relying upon a corrupt judicial system to correct itself is (or at least seems) risky — to put it mildly.

We can (and logically should) take that case instead to the true highest court of the land — the court of public opinion (especially those proclaiming to care about constitutional law — e.g. the Republican party turned hypocrisy in this case).

That’s not easy, but it’s a challenge that an honorable society must face, logically speaking.

In terms of success, the Internet enabling society to undermine mainstream media corruption coincides with serious momentum against cannabis illegality, so that latter court is already working.

What isn’t working well for public safety is public apathy against constitutional law, so the traditional leftists’ dominant press for complex regulations (textured prohibition) ironically wreaking havoc on the cannabis market (and consumers therein) via unethical (and illegal) government favoritism by the almighty dollar (oligarchical shifting) reigns supreme.

The Commerce Clause illegality isn’t likely going to excite anyone (like an impressive explosion of a house due to a gas problem making national mainstream news does), and that’s the real crime that potentially embarrassingly defies this entertainer.

What doesn’t join that crime is defeatism.

Our Respect Cannabis campaign isn’t limited to ‘armchair activism’, but relevant posts here form the beginning phase to secure enough traction as leverage to take this case boldly into the court of public opinion.

It simply starts with a couple of likes per post to begin the momentum of credibility (i.e. it simply starts with you).

If you want to learn more about the extremely serious Commerce Clause crisis, then check out our Liberty Shield informational roots on the matter.

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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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
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: