First Rights

Pertaining to sustaining cannabis legality…

How should the trade be regulated? Who will benefit financially? How will the federal government act? These questions and others will roil the states for years to come.

But they should not be the questions dominating today’s situation.

There should be an extremely powerful public spotlight continuously shone upon prohibition with questions such as:

Is there any concrete (emphasis on any and concrete) evidence that proves prohibition works literally at all?

The answer to that question is a resounding no, but apparently not even a peep exists within the surface discussion of the court of public opinion regarding that logically prohibition-ending fact.

Again, that answer should mean lights out for prohibition, but wait… there’s more.

Is there any concrete evidence that proves prohibition is ironically destructive?

The answer is a demonstrable yes. Many millions of people spanning several decades have had their lives ruined to varying degrees (including horrific and even deadly ones) due to such prohibition, but that fact clearly necessary with respect to the people’s right to know never makes the mainstream news in any significant way.

Still not convinced?

Is there any concrete evidence proving that cannabis is harmful at all?

The fact (yes, fact) is no experimental science proves any harm in cannabis use.

There is junk science (that leaves out critical factors such as intake method differential, precise intake amount, and strain differential) that still merely suggests that “heavy use” and abuse may/can cause harm (with disclaimers stating more research is needed). That “science” has been unethically turned into tough-talking affirmations to demonize our cannabis community.

Still sticking to your guns obviously pointing the wrong way?

Saving arguably the best for last, there is one more critical question.

Is Certain Drug Prohibition (at the federal, state, and local levels) actually constitutional?

The answer is undeniably (in an uncorrupt society) no.

Despite flagrantly corrupt and repeated rulings by our Supreme Court to the contrary, under no rational (so legal) circumstances can the Commerce Clause (i.e. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) be applied in this case.

Traditional leftists and their relentless judicial butchery to secure progressing their selfishly unfair definition of equality (via the New Deal in this case) brought us a judicially (so illegally) redefined Commerce Clause from “regulate Commerce” to ‘regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’ (clearly different, according to the English language itself).

What literally nobody other than yours truly 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, so by this corrupt redefining, Congress can outrageously regulate your thoughts in the “land of the free”.

Remotely controlling thoughts is a reasonably soon approaching ability, based upon current technological progress on that front, so this is a terribly serious issue that remains completely ignored in public circles.

Moreover, the ninth amendment (i.e. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) has been factually judicially (so illegally) disarmed with no public outrage over that obvious judicial recognition of our fundamental rights (the only other rights formally defined outside of our Constitution).

Combining the ninth amendment (the liberty to harmlessly do anything — including activities surrounding cannabis use that have been banned) with the Supremacy Clause (federal Constitution trumps state and local judicial “lab experiments”) means Certain Drug Prohibition must be completely and ironically illegal, factually speaking.

The rule-of-law is horribly broken (to send the right message to children, in this case), and rampant law abuse is the result causing mass rights infringement (i.e. mass devastation) all throughout our nation’s history. Where is the mainstream media on all of this? Silently hanging out with the crickets chirping, apparently because their demonstrably dominant traditional leftist position is one in which most of the “progressive/liberal” agenda is tied to that New Deal legal precedence. Restore our constitutional integrity, and almost all of their “advancements” towards “equality” (especially “regulating” the private sector) will be judicially terminated.

Where is the political right on this? Rotting in the land of selfish hypocrisy at terrible societal expense.

Liberty is supposed to be (and sensibly must be) a self-evident and unalienable right to prevent law abuse — logically the worst form of abuse due at least to its mainly broad scope of destruction (and the form of abuse that our nation was established against in a bloody revolution).

Pre-American conservatism spanning the political spectrum formed the ignorance against that key right in favor of discrimination at least on racial, gender, sexual, and drug-choosing grounds — and that ignorance of the critical national obligation to uphold our fundamental rights remains excessively in place today, for maturely crying out loud.

That is not greatness. That is obscenely extremely pathetic and demands immediate public attention.

Understanding that an unalienable right to liberty needs a maximally objective definition of harm (not one based upon religious and other subjective dominance effectively negating our “unalienable” rights) is literally critical — and forms (and historically would have formed) the end of pitiful discrimination without destroying our rule-of-law (e.g. such destruction from the metaphorical likes of taking baseball bats to bash an SUV into a Prius for “equality”).

“We the people” opted for the terrible destruction of our rule-of-law — a terrible choice now truly threatening the stability of our nation in which leveraging subjectively defined harm merely to advance selfish agendas disguised as righteous progress is the powerful norm (while yours truly making powerfully sensible points rots in dominant obscurity).

Cannabis (like anything in life) can be and sometimes is abused.

No rights-infringing law is going to change that outcome, but too often instead forms law abuse for a tumultuous oligarchical empowerment.

Non-rights-infringing abuse is solely a health (not criminal) issue.

Murder, assault, theft, slander (and anything else that I may be missing offhand) is harmful, objectively speaking.

Holding a plant in your hand is not.

Let us get that right first and immediately.

Prompting article: Marijuana legalization won big at the ballot box. Now the real challenges start