Prompted by: 3 Ways Prohibitionists Are Fighting Legalization in Mass.—And Why They’re Wrong (High Times)
Acting locally, but authoring points here with global relevance…
After three top Massachusetts officials —the governor, attorney general and mayor of Boston— penned an op-ed arguing against marijuana legalization in March, industry associations were quick to follow suit, releasing statements expressing their opposition to the ballot initiative voters will decide in November.
The prohibition industry calls for their full court press to stop the recreational legality of a drug consistently statistically (government-wise) forming about 75% of “illicit” drug intake (i.e. the drug essentially forming the overwhelming majority of the serious prohibitionist cash cow).
I put illicit in unrealism quotes, because logic (so justice) dictates the ninth amendment and the Supremacy Clause inevitably combine to negate all national anti-drug laws (federal, state, and local) — which consequently necessarily terminates our national obligation to uphold any relevant international treaty — but I somewhat digress in a world where concern over rational (just) law are scarily minimal due to apathy (if not defeatism). Full details of this sadly unique legal argument are in our Liberty Shield informational roots, if you’re interested (albeit I’ve had no chance yet to update those roots with my recent ‘rights versus powers’ argument involving the tenth amendment).
“Massachusetts hospitals have always been at the forefront of promoting public health,” she said. “Based on the clear evidence and concern for our patients and our communities, the hospital answer to whether recreational marijuana use should be legalized in Massachusetts is a resounding ‘no.’” […]
“The Medical Society believes that the overall negative health consequences of marijuana use outweigh arguments supporting legalization, and has concern regarding the strain that legalization could place on the health care system,” the MMS said in testimony to the Mass. legislature.
The author of the prompting piece implicitly mentions the hypocrisy in allowing fast food, alcohol, and tobacco to remain legal, but that’s not where the rebuttal should go imho, because then the counterargument has been (and logically will be) that we don’t need more vices as societal stressors.
Clear evidence? Overall negative health consequences? I would love (and justly demand) to see that evidence, but it doesn’t exist.
I’ve scrutinized tough-talking affirmations demonizing cannabis (by following the occasionally available scientific citations at prohibitionist websites such as the DEA, etc.), and the so-called science doesn’t even begin to support that affirmative.
The fact is there’s no conclusive science proving any harm from cannabis use.
There’s “science” suggesting that “heavy use” (and obviously abuse) may (or can) cause harm with disclaimers stating more research is needed for certainty.
I put science in unrealism quotes, because three scientifically necessary factors are left out of that research.
Putting aside intake method differential (e.g. smoking versus vaporization) and precise intake amount (as opposed to relying upon the unscientific measurement of joints, or such), we’re left with strain differential — which has a dramatically serious impact on psychological effect, but remains way too often eerily ignored (apparently due to the somewhat subjective nature of that effect).
There’s a large set (hundreds, if not thousands) of cannabis strains, and sometimes two strains can be so different in sensation, the user could easily believe they’re both different drugs.
Unlike alcohol with its one generally stupefying effect, cannabis offers literally an oceanic palette of possible effects (dissonant through harmonious) basically from varying intake intensity with a single strain to “salading” more strains to form a more interesting psychologically symphonic texture and depth.
When that intake fits, the result is an improvement to the user’s stress signature basically similar to how the Earth protects us from solar radiation by its magnetic field.
Otherwise, the effect is abusively like solar radiation (unhealthy psychological dissonance forming headaches, paranoia, anxiety, etc.), so proper care towards that fit is needed — but way too often missing due to a lacking reach of proper education on the subject (largely thanks to prohibition-based liability and broadly strong public deception) combined with terribly crude strain availability for too many people these days (again with thanks to prohibition). For too many folks, there’s one strain (perhaps of questionable quality) available — and tough shit, if it doesn’t fit.
Cannabis is the metaphorical and coincidental leaf covering the crotch of mental nakedness.
We wear clothes to best offset the physical stressors of the elements.
Cannabis (and psychedelics in general) are like clothing for the mind upon proper use — an accomplishment which will logically become computerized (and dramatically improved upon, at least in terms of control) when computers disappear into the brain for some future generation (perhaps-but-unlikely including ours, or more likely our [great][grand]children’s one — the generational delay due to logistical, moral, and judicial considerations).
When cannabis legality arrives, I’ll go into sufficient detail on this ‘mental stress improvement’ front, so you can clearly experience this effect for yourself — and clearly understand the sensible nature of my prediction towards the serious inspiration of psychedelics (which, memory serving and sources reputable, are already responsible for greatly advancing neurochemical understanding — e.g. see LSD) towards the revolution of technological mental protection.
To avoid strain differential is scientifically reckless, and demonstrates severe ignorance “to protect the children” (actually only possibly to abusively secure grant money — effectively stealing from taxpayers — and publicly destructively enable widespread prohibition addiction).
That’s not to say there’s no risk, but cannabis is an easily learned skill that brings that risk to a level easily on par with any recreational activity (e.g. sports). Mild cannabis intake can pleasurably be (even much) less intense than even the effects of just one glass of wine.
Cannabis is still wrongfully excessively perceived as “dope” by the medical community.
Meanwhile, outside of their stubborn and unhealthily rigid (and perhaps financially and judicially rigged) format for drug prescription, cannabis is helping many (apparently millions of) people deal with a wide array of medical issues without nasty side effects — a result naturally pressing medical cannabis legality throughout the United States and beyond.
That powerfully includes someone very close to me dealing with mild Alzheimer’s disease. Cannabis shows positive signs of fighting the disease itself (that experience corresponding with suggestive science on the matter), so not just the symptoms treated by harsh pharmaceuticals (at least one commonly prescribed drug offering confusion as a common side effect) in the relatively ‘bloodletting by leeches’ area of medical “advancement”.
The Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents (M.A.S.S.) said this week said they oppose marijuana legalization in the interest of what is best “for the kids.” Opining that marijuana legalization would impede opportunities for youths, M.A.S.S. said in a statement that decriminalization and the legalization of medical marijuana had already shifted students’ perceptions about the dangers of marijuana.
“[S]tudents have embraced the notion that the use of marijuana is safe and legal, and therefore, they now demonstrate little regard for school policies,” the report says, before delving into fear-mongering that marijuana is “highly addictive, impairs brain development, negatively affects long-term developmental growth, reduces IQ, memory, and diminishes learning functions.”
In other words, those students are wiser than anyone involved in prohibitionist school policies. That’s the real news here in terms of public concern.
Massachusetts does not want their workers getting stoned on that legal weed. Nope. The Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) surveyed state businesses and found that 62 percent of respondents oppose legalization.
Job performance should be logically based upon productivity results (and consequently established credibility) with no relevance in drug consumption.
While alcohol is logically the real dope for the most part, mild cannabis effects can nicely stabilize mentality (clothing for the mind), so can improve work performance in certain cases (e.g. involving tedious and mindless tasks — of which there are many in the business world).
In other words, cannabis can lead (not force) the brain towards composure, but importantly note that temporary memory and other cognitive dampening (at least hypothetically healthy during relaxation) can negatively affect critical thinking (but not necessarily creative thinking) — albeit mild cannabis effects allow for any form of productive thought, and can mitigate dissonant emotional stress adversely affecting that thought.
It’s simply a matter of finding the right mental tool for the job at hand.
Many people prefer (or, via addiction, need) caffeine, for prime example, but (decaffeinated aside) wisely don’t drink it before sleeping.
Cannabis can be an equally important drug, but one that can gently work against unhealthy mentality instead of energizing it.
Hypothetically speaking, the calming of mental waters by cannabis use (with more positive impact by including softly steady audio tonality for more mental stability) can even improve driving performance for commuters impaired by mental driving distractions.
Cannabis is a highly flexible and powerful stress management tool, so not necessarily a vice.
That fact must publicly resonate. I abhor the “less harmful” argument found tragically popular even among cannabis proponents.
Cannabis is safe upon proper use to the extent that anything can be safe — all (in)actions produce wear and tear in our entropic reality.
The only known toxin in vaporized cannabis is benzene. Any consumption at a temperature above 445F degrees (vaporizers don’t heat that high) includes carbon monoxide and smoke tars. While the concentration of benzene is apparently unknown, it can be avoided by a ceiling temperature of 391F degrees, and that concentration is likely low enough anyway to qualify as casual wear and tear.
Overall, based upon the whole truth and nothing but, society is severely drunk on reason abuse (lies, spin, hypocrisy, etc.) “to protect the children”.
Most of the public clearly accepts that hypocrisy (that drunkenness begets more of that drunkenness like a vicious viral attack disguised as a reasonable deception for a worthy cause), while burying their heads in denial of the heavy destructiveness that drunkenness causes against public health.
Reason abuse is demonstrably rampant with no concern over the psychological problems identifiable by common sense — grounding society in deception is obviously no real grounding, so that fundamental detachment from reality is actually a terribly serious concern (i.e. a global epidemic of mental illness being effectively ignored due to that self-perpetuating psychological virus).
The enormous elephant in the room also being essentially publicly ignored is the pure ineffectiveness and severe mass destructiveness of prohibition.
If you ask any prohibitionist to provide just one shred of concrete (credible) evidence proving we live in even a slightly more drug-free America as a result of prohibition, you’ll be disappointed upon the expectation that billions of taxpayer dollars annually spent (wasted, so effectively stolen) are based upon that reasonably necessary form of evidence.
We factually don’t even have a drug-free prison system, for maturely crying out loud.
Certain Drug Prohibition — the bigger and badder sequel (obviously in a horrible way) to Alcohol Prohibition, which required a federal constitutional amendment for judicial effect (hint: the Controlled Substances Act cannot rationally be constitutional, regardless of the ridiculously abusively vague application of the Commerce Clause) — is an outright (inter)national scam against the public (e.g. you and any applicable yours) to reward reason abusers and thugs disguised as protagonists.
That scam remains largely hidden from the public eye, because the mainstream media compliantly refuses to educate the public properly about this (sometimes deadly) serious issue that at least reasonably significantly affects crime, the economy, education, the environment, health, terrorism, and war.
The mainstream media barely (i.e. usually never) challenges prohibition legitimacy, so the public at large continues to largely wrongfully believe the war on drugs has at least some societal benefit worthy of automatic sustainment. That’s the primary reason why that war rages endlessly onwards.
I could explain in detail why the mainstream media prefers that evil refusal (hint: our government consistently supplies newsworthy information about tragic events, and the war on drugs is obviously governmentally popular), but brevity demands the contrary — although those details are conveniently available for you in the “Mainstream Media” section of our Liberty Shield informational roots.
There’s no way that ignorance rationally complies with ethical journalism.
Prohibition doesn’t protect the children (or anyone else for societal benefit) — quite the contrary — based upon the full set of concrete evidence available.
Prohibition unethically puts a lot of (inclusively taxpayer — e.g. your) money into our judicial community, “treatment” facilities ridiculously separating alcohol (scientifically a drug) from drugs, drug-testing companies, and more — and they strongly defend that money by abusively leveraging credibility (automatically publicly granted to community leaders) in their lobbying efforts.
Who can successfully argue against the mature presentation of defending law and public health (regardless of the hideously selfish childishness it contrarily disguises)?
Still, the writing is thankfully on the (metaphorical Berlin) wall, and when the mainstream media can no longer ignore the prohibition legitimacy challenge to protect their public credibility (because entertainers — i.e. anyone caring about public presentation — such as yours truly are undermining their evil online), the irrefutably evil prohibition fueling sanctioned thuggery in the “land of the free” ends strongly promptly by public demand.
What really scares prohibitionists is the cannabis industry will be very powerful (with increasingly entrenched legality, there are a lot of opportunities due to the many possible products and services directly and indirectly involving cannabis), so that industry’s lobbying efforts will become powerful enough to finally righteously press maturely back against the purely immoral prohibitionist lobbies abusively powerfully leveraging law enforcement credibility to reward thuggery “for public safety”.
That righteousness is probably idealistic, because common sense concludes there will be too many jerks in the cannabis industry purely in it for the money (the wrong kind of green), but I digress.
An example of that power could be expanding the class of legal psychedelic drugs to offset the hypocrisy in allowing only one of them to be legal. Even the tragically notorious LSD is non-toxic and can be consumed at a dosage minimally one step from sobriety — its longevity (and risks) roughly equal to taking a boat out to sea.
Our nation, despite the obvious (including judicial and ultimately sensible) obligation, has never realized the unalienable right to liberty (too many people prefer to ‘talk the talk’ on that front) — so instead firmly embraces horribly complex structuring of so-called constitutional law as a supposed responsible risk management solution.
Putting aside the unmitigated disaster (caused by unethical favoritism) of that risk-based “solution”, factually speaking, it’s impossible to reconcile an unalienable right to liberty with the burden of proof falling upon the shoulders of people necessarily proving something is safe prior to legality.
Quite the contrary, in understandable honor of that critical right serving as the only logical possibility to prevent abusive law upfront, that proof must instead rest upon people to conclusively prove harm in use.
Had that right been fully (so justly) implemented, slavery (and racism overall) would have instantly ended by fundamental law, and the millions of suffering lives due to prohibition (e.g. people harmlessly drinking wine with their meals) would have been saved, while society finds a truly legal and effective method to address the overwhelming minority (much less than 1%) of instances of drug abuse — a health (not criminal) issue by any sane exercise.
If you believe the mass destruction by law abuse is meaningless or acceptable (and way too many people clearly unethically do), then I recommend getting that mental illness checked out — but your doctor probably is suffering from that illness too (reason abuse is apparently everywhere, and in addition to the common refusal to embrace medical cannabis, our medical industry is flooded with judicially created and unopposed monopolistic behavior exemplifying the serious problems of regulatory coercion to “help the poor”) — so reason abuse zombies unite perhaps to human extinction when technology allows inexpensive and globally powerful weapons capable of quickly wiping us all out at the idiotic press of a technologically advanced button — all because the fantasy of an end justifies the destructive means.
We can (and must) do better, but that always starts with you (this “you” is already obviously in it to win it).
Even a simple like/share is a decent starting point to build positive momentum towards a strong force.
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