Prompted by “Government theft still going strong”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/05/government-theft-still-going-strong/
“All the money – $16,000 in cash – that Joseph Rivers said he had saved and relatives had given him to launch his dream in Hollywood is gone, seized during his trip out West not by thieves but by Drug Enforcement Administration agents…”
That is one example of why I oppose the judicial (i.e. coerced) regulation (including taxation) approach to cannabis legality. Unhealthy pressures against too many innocent people (e.g. Mr. Rivers) — due ironically to judicial regulation — too often remain basically undetected by the public at large. The more complex the set of judicial regulations, the more unhealthy stress coercively applied against public safety (corruption loves complexity in power, because the only enemy of corruption is sufficient public exposure, and increasing complexity increases the challenge in achieving that exposure).
People earning roughly $50,000 annually with a reasonably assumed 30% loss to the government end up paying $15,000 annually (an amount comparable to the one “lawfully” stolen from the aforementioned victimized man).
Often with pathetic approval ratings throughout our government, obscenely oligarchy-serving law and enforcement, serious resources that could help terribly struggling citizens are instead poured into perpetual wars on [some] drugs and terrorism (the prior demonstrably causing even more problems in poor neighborhoods by prosecuting adults there for possessing cannabis — scientifically proven to be far safer than alcohol), basically a fictitious economy upheld by propaganda and military might (e.g. massive unbacked credit injection creating an excessively unmentioned bubble of international significance to publicly present a reasonably healthy economy), many deep complaints about education and healthcare rage onwards, and too much more, the question that should reverberate powerfully within the public mindset until proper resolution comes to pass is…
What are “We the people” (and humanity at large) truly getting for that sanctioned theft that we could not get without it?
Responsibility is logically a requirement for any good society, and the evidence clearly shows responsibility remains often missing (even regardless of the current rule-of-law). By allowing rigid and callous mechanisms for securing power and burying corruption therein, “We the people” are naturally compelled to refuse leveraging responsibility for our community by default (instead publicly relying upon the ‘just trust the excessively untrustable government crutch’).
As I often repeat for emphasis, logically speaking, the abuse of law is the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction. That means — without possibly sane doubt — the abuse of law must remain a priority addressed by public concern. Instead, law is treated as pure in terms of defining the protagonist of our national cause. Regulations are viewed as purely effective, bans serve only the public interest, and so on. There is simply no responsibility with respect to the effectiveness of laws, and the evidence comes from the constant pressure for more laws (e.g. thousands of anti-gun laws are not enough, so more are pressed for, and the war on some drugs has demonstrated nothing but societal destruction, so let us continue to empower the people reinforcing that war, etc.)
People exercising a healthy work ethic and balancing that ethic with a healthy relaxation ethic (balance is needed for stability) naturally understand responsibility. Not only should people failing to understand responsibility (e.g. people drunk on power, low information voters still weighing strongly on public policy, etc.) remain absent of power with respect to financial management (taxation) and other judicial issues, but the natural (not rigidly coerced without adequate consequences for abusing power) ability to actually lead communities and collect/manage resources should be healthily flexible similar to the microcosmic athlete remaining flexible for optimal performance. Then the exercise of responsibility becomes a community survival mechanism naturally reinforcing humanity’s understanding of responsibility itself by necessity.
A building made of steel and concrete may seem tough (and is so, under fixed circumstances matching the intended normal environment for that building), but reality is supremely dynamic (even to Earth-shattering degrees), and one earthquake of sufficient magnitude causes that “tough” building to crumble in seconds. Our leadership “building” (like modern buildings responsibly modulating to prevent critical stress during earthquakes) needs to stay responsibly flexible. An overwhelming rule-of-law (including sanctioned thievery) forever remains the building made of steel and concrete (with the risk of disaster always looming and often hiddenly pressing without journalistic triggering).
As always, to ensure proper grounding (obviously basically everything I write here unfortunately represents fringe thinking and all of the meager credibility that usually instantly accompanies such unpopular reasoning), I fully explain my beliefs with whole truth logic (including the essential Rule of Reality needed for maximal responsibility), which you can freely read in my Liberty Shield introduction.
The prompting article offers a twofer, so I echo in kind…
“During an obscure Senate hearing on Tuesday morning, lawmakers vented their frustrations with the Drug Enforcement Administration for failing to answer questions about an incident that saw a man almost die of dehydration while in its custody.
‘At what point do I have to conclude that the [Drug Enforcement Administration] is hiding something about what happened here?’ asked Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, unsuccessfully prodding a DEA witness to explain why Senate inquiries into what happened to Daniel Chong have been met with silence. […]
It’s been now eight months — I still don’t have a response from DEA to these questions,’ Sen. Grassley said on Tuesday.”
At what point do “We the people” have to conclude that the unconstitutional (horrible vagueness of the Commerce Clause cannot sanely lead to banning mere drug possession/etc. in a truly free nation), ineffective (no net reduction in drug abuse or even a “drug free” prison system), destructive (millions of non-violent lives ruined), expensive (billions of taxpayer dollars effectively stolen annually) and unwarranted (no science concludes harm from moderate use apparently with even the hardest drugs, but certainly regarding cannabis and other psychedelics) war on some drugs is one of the grossest national scams ever perpetrated against public safety (obviously including the children always needing judicial protection, according to people questionably desiring to secure power for themselves via that judicial protection)?
Since I cannot promptly remedy the serious societal problems addressed herein, I simply leave you with (a perhaps jarring, but artistically appropriate)…
Happy Mother’s Day!