Supreme Injustice

My comment at the article “U.S. Supreme Court won’t weigh in on Montana medical marijuana fracas” (the Cannabist):

Our Supreme Court probably wants to stave off anymore public scrutiny against the obviously (based upon the public record combined with the English language) and ironically illegal judicial “interpretation” of the Commerce Clause (“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) to outrageously irrationally uphold a federal ban (not regulation) of a certain plant in your American hand.

Politics run amok and deeply corrupting “law and order” is the real problem adversely affecting millions of lives, while (based upon the reach of experimental, so concrete, science) the fact is no science proves any harm from moderate cannabis use.

Science against cannabis (the kind cited by the likes of the DEA, and so on) merely suggests that “heavy use” (and abuse) may/can cause harm, while results clearly state much more research is needed to solidify even those suggestive claims unethically turned into tough-talking affirmations for decades to demonize that plant to effectively steal billions of dollars yearly from taxpayers.

Our Supreme Court illegally redefined the Commerce Clause to ‘regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’ decades ago, and the result has been a dramatic and complex entrenchment of “public servant” interference into our lives (clearly against the unalienable right to liberty).

What nobody is talking about is the fact that your thought activity (which literally determines all of your buying and selling decisions) always rationally has a substantial effect on commerce.

The illegal redefining of the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate your thought activity in the “land of the free” — a technological capability factually coming to light in the not-too-distant future, so a serious national concern.

The ninth amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” — e.g. retaining the unalienable right to liberty) combined with the Supremacy Clause (federal Constitution trumps state and local law) should have prevented (and should instantly end) Cannabis Prohibition (actually the brutally failed Certain Drug Prohibition, as I prefer to call it, that has not even created a drug-free prison system, nor provided a shred of concrete evidence literally proving any effectiveness, while being highly destructive) at all governmental levels.

Instead, the thugs and reason abusers excessively run the judicial show, and continue trying to disguise it all as justice.

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 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: