Prompted by “Calls for ‘Social Justice’ Won’t Work Without Free Markets”: http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/03/social-justice-or-socialist-justice
I sense readers want more on fixing the illicit drug front, which is forthcoming (and herein), but I cannot emphasize enough that the illicit drug issue cannot be abstracted from the actual fundamental problem, which is law abuse from reason abuse (which also pertains to economy abuse, which leads to poverty, which leads to drug abuse — see the connection of it all?)
Sufferers from drug abuse cannot find true salvation when society remains focused upon demonizing them as criminals, so obviously that requires a serious change in public attitude to press for a serious positive change in law — what Stress Health’s Respect Cannabis campaign is all about (handing off deeper legality issues to our Liberty Shield entertainment project).
Reflecting the prompting piece’s title, one can sanely reverse cause and effect to state that calls for free markets won’t work without social justice (irresponsibility is the enemy of freedom). That justice cannot come from the equivalent of bashing constitutional law out of blatant disrespect for the positive aspects of our national founding (especially the unalienable right to liberty that, upon actualization, must form social justice — there cannot possibly be any righteous discrimination built into that right, despite horribly excessive pre-American ignorance to the contrary still remaining strongly in the way after two centuries and counting).
That bashing is the format for cannabis legality these days, and the highly regulating results fail to match sanity (e.g. they prevent way too many patients from having convenient access to an awesome medicine, ignore the disastrous problems of prohibition, while proving no societal benefit from such heavy regulation).
We sometimes lose sight of the fact that major societal changes span many generations (two hundred years is not that long, relatively and historically speaking). People such as Rush Limbaugh embrace that loss to reinforce tradition fwiw (leveraging popular conservative entrenchment regardless of logically determined ethics — his selective hypocrisy is bold, especially on the illicit drug issue), while people such as yours truly leverage the highly progressive/liberal/American-conservative/libertarian/etc. and apparently unprecedented (and logically necessary) scientific constitutionalism to improve the civilized and liberty-embracing society that we logically need to continue building for true social justice (which naturally reduces drug abuse).
There can be no social justice without logic, because negating logic is the seed of inequality.
Too many people disrespect the need for logic, because they constrain the notion of logic to humanity’s current logical expression (i.e. scientists are often proven wrong by consequent scientific discoveries, and reality clearly overwhelmingly transcends that expression).
My greatest challenge here is promoting the need for pure logic in law to negate vague clauses forming legal loopholes negating constitutional purpose (preventing the abuse of law by implicitly limiting oligarchical power) — a primary loophole being the terribly recklessly vague Commerce Clause “justifying” the war on some drugs. I know of no other person focusing upon a purely logical (absolute) “bottom up” approach to updating law, instead of the popular ‘scratching the judicial surface’ approach preferred these days for facilitation (such scratching prompting widespread hypocrisy against truth, so inevitably justice).
Applying the scientific method to law makes perfect sense, but convincing a public flowing strongly in the opposite direction against that sense likely renders my challenge a humble “passing of the torch” (hopefully to you and yours).
Part of that challenge is including the scientific certainty that reality includes naturally governing forces (karma is scientifically confirmed, but sadly nobody but yours truly is boldly expressing that ‘responsibility so freedom enhancing’ point), but that claim is so far away from conventional embrace, that instant dismissal is highly psychologically likely.
I will continue to leverage the very popular illicit drug issue to validate my perfectly honest albeit fringe points (for better science, liberty, law, and health), and I hope you will weigh in constructively for our global community — including providing valuable feedback needed for me to optimally tune my expression for us all here.