Practicing my writing — and maturely venting — the following comment was made in response to the mess in Maryland involving poor implementation of their medical cannabis (a.k.a. marijuana) program…
Lots of suffering upon innocent people in order to “protect the children”.
When are people (i.e. the public at large) going to finally learn that risk-based laws (not conclusively proven harm-based ones) are ironically severely destructive in general (and factually illegal in our nation)?
Based upon history, the abhorrently truthful answer is never.
Long live more laws to infringe upon our rights in a “slippery slope” manner.
Long live the conflicts of interest arising from such risk-based laws (disguised to increase public safety) in order to serve oligarchical interests within both the private and public sectors, while such laws are actually excessively leveraged by the people in power to degrade the quality of life for everyone else (as demonstrated often enough).
Regulators can be bribed and otherwise corrupt, loopholes abound, incompetence exists too often, taxpayers are heavily impacted against their wallets by such laws, and more points that I may be missing offhand soundly against risk-based (i.e. inevitably liberty-infringing) governance.
Law abuse is the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction.
Law abuse is the primary form of abuse worthy of addressing, clearly according to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution (not to mention common sense based upon the clear historical pattern of such abuse).
Law abuse is demonstrably ignored as a powerfully serious problem, while everyone clamors for more regulations “to make us safer”.
Liberty is supposed to be an unalienable and self-evident right granted to every citizen without exception.
Instead, our nation is terribly laughably on another path (throughout our entire national history) — one ruining us by way of a hypocritical war to dominantly subjectively (not conclusively logically, so fairly, so justly) define harm.
Why on Earth was our fundamental right to liberty not cited as the genuine judicial base to righteously end racism, gender bias, sexual preference bias, and certain drug use bias?
Because the brutal truth (one that in effect has ruined millions, if not billions, of non-rights-infringing — i.e. innocent — people) is the public at large has been persuaded by the people in power to pathetically ‘talk the talk’ at currently a rare best when it comes to that critical right to prevent the cycle of oppression, so that cycle can continue as it has all throughout history and around the world today.
The obnoxiously ignored fact (i.e. massive elephant in the room being ignored) is risk-based laws can never be reconciled with an unalienable right to liberty.
That right is genuine progressivism and liberalism (nonetheless American, not pre-American, conservatism, and libertarianism), yet that right is ignored in terms of judicial application (via the ninth amendment and supremacy clause), considered antiquated for no good reason, while states continue their judicial “experiments” to infringe upon as many rights as the people seizing power from it all can achieve for themselves.
Love it or leave it?
How about maturely publicly pressing for rule via conclusively proven harm-based law and an unalienable right to liberty, while risk remains purely a matter of education in the Information Age logically leading to the Education/Entertainment Age?
No solution will end tragedy, because nothing can (e.g. each one of us will die at some point, regardless of the rule-of-law). Laws only determine who the victims are.
Civility in effect demands that tragedy first strikes down the thugs and reason abusers selfishly thriving at the risk of our species’ survival and “thrival”.
That undeniably requires objectively sound law and its responsibly tough enforcement — not a regulatory mess made by the thugs and reason abusers irrationally leveraging dominance to at least ruin our nation “to send the right message to our children”.
I'm 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.