State of Favoritism

From: “The down-low on Massachusetts’ controversial ‘pay-to-play’ MMJ market
” (the Cannabist):

Massachusetts’ medical marijuana law leaves it up to local governments to determine how many registered dispensaries to allow in their town or city, according to state regulations. However, a dispensary can’t progress to the state inspection phase if it has not received a letter of support or non-opposition.

Industry advocates contend that the regulations have stymied growth — 174 applications have been submitted and six dispensaries have opened since voters legalized medical marijuana in 2012…

My comment there echoed here for your reading convenience (and preferably to secure your support for genuine public safety):

Regulation (i.e. the euphemism for prohibition, because a regulation can only sound popularly reasonable — so hard to publicly oppose — and always includes some ban) fails for the same reasons that outright prohibition fails.

Prohibition is concretely ineffective and terribly destructive at significant taxpayer expense (basically never publicly acknowledged, largely with sarcastic thanks to the mainstream media), and so too are regulations (with similarly dominant public ignoring).

Regulations are facially mass rights infringement that should be shut down via the (illegally judicially disarmed, factually speaking) ninth amendment combined with the Supremacy Clause to prevent federal/state/local regulations.

They must be replaced with non-politicized consumer advocacy organizations (with no other problematic conflict of interest) who publicly ensure product quality safety.

Our nation was clearly established against abusive law, but the then-British monarch is justifiable for laughing in his grave. Law abuse is rampant and worsening due to the irrational belief that any government can be trusted with the enormous power that comes from complexly regulating society (that belief crushed by historical and current applications of that hideous belief worldwide).

A nation with an unalienable right to liberty (e.g. this one) can never be reconciled with risk-based law, but can only be reconciled with objectively (so fairly, and so justly) conclusively proven harm-based law. That fact is a humongous “elephant” in the national “room” being ignored with nothing but publicly disastrous results overall (e.g. severe national degradation).

Regulations requiring government authorization to manage risk (which is ironically seriously risky) has historically led (and currently leads) to favoritism that protects oligarchical interests spanning the public and private sectors. That’s clearly not the kind of leadership conducive to public safety.

Small businesses (unable to afford dealing with regulations) cannot compete to prevent monstrous corporate corruption from judicial favoritism (e.g. grossly severe, but unfairly judicially allowed, price fixing in our “free” healthcare system), and that’s what exacerbates the wealth divide eroding the middle class to non-existence.

Greedy people tend to focus hard on securing funds, so usually have dominant economic leverage to drive regulations (including enforcement).

Regulation is not progressive or liberal (despite the hideously popular notion to the contrary driven by political opportunists unethically securing power for themselves), but the same tired old solution to supposedly address private sector abuses that only exacerbates the problem.

Any oligarchy loves the public versus private sector war, because regardless of which side wins, the oligarchy secures more power.

Note that by regulation, I mean judicial regulation.

A natural regulation that naturally comes from an unalienable right to liberty (i.e. responsible flexibility) — supposedly and facially a national obligation by law (ninth amendment) — is perfectly reasonable, and should have progressively and liberally prevented judicially reinforced discrimination throughout American history (instant end to slavery, instant equal treatment for women, and so on).

If the public wants safety, then they must secure that honorable duty to ensure public safety, and not leave it to excessively selfish oligarchs leaving the public with the pathetic democratic option to choose which flavor of screwing the public is preferred (red or blue).

In other (albeit more conventional) words, if you want something done right, then you must roll up your sleeves and do it yourself.

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
One comment on “State of Favoritism
  1. 1abserenity says:

    Massachusetts is one of 4 Commonwealth states. There within is the conundrum….

    Liked by 1 person

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: