Prompted by the very short (the two following lines) “Weekend open thread”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/06/weekend-open-thread/
Thought for the day:
Prohibition is not a victimless crime.
That smashed right into my brain this morning, and the coffee hasn’t kicked in yet, so I’m reeling from the shock.
Okay, that’s overly dramatic (except the coffee part), but that’s only because Pete Guither’s rant on drug prohibition (at least in my several-year reading experience there) never touches the fundamental legality of the war on some drugs (as opposed to fourth amendment issues, etc.) — an argument I make with you largely among the crickets chirping (which is fine, because I feel like we’re wonderfully hanging out at a beautiful location in the summer woods).
Always amply careful with words (with dictionary.com at the ready), I looked up the word crime, and verified the non-judicial definition, so just “a foolish, senseless, or shameful act”.
What separates this journal from apparently all others (a lot, actually, but focus is needed here) is yours truly is the only one making the literally “slam dunk” case against the legality of Certain Drug Prohibition. Raising this in Pete’s comment section years ago, another reader there replied that ‘we’ (the legalization movement) tried that already and it failed.
What they tried was to raise legality issues within the judicial process. Not to go “valley girl” on y’all, but hello? The judicial system forming corrupt law is obviously going to reinforce that corruption (that’s how corrupt operations work — until sufficient public exposure, if I may be so selectively bold).
I’m not talking about taking this case to a judicial system responsible for blatantly redefining the Commerce Clause strictly within the judicial branch (which is blatantly illegal), but to the true highest court of the land — the court of public opinion (including you and anyone meeting your expressive rippling).
Now I know just repeatedly saying the Commerce Clause could reasonably function as a sleep aid (a boring clause), but that’s how law abuse works. Law abuse is not in your face about it (as I always riskily am for serious societal benefit), because that prompts the righteous public uproar when the unhealthy stress reaches critical mass. Basically millions of people are suffering from the war on some drugs right now, because of the boring nature of the Commerce Clause (that’s my thought of the day — actually, I “predict” another one coming below).
My challenge — as an entertainer — is to find the right way to publicly entertain the accusation of judicial fraud to raise enough public awareness to put a maximally blunt stop to that mass suffering for the sake of righteousness (including actual justice). Though my Respect Cannabis campaign was designed to be responsibly flexible (not strict adherence to orderly phase tasks), phase one is stirring up an audience, phase two is publicly pressing for enough exposure of judicial corruption to cause the “Berlin Wall to fall” (shock and awe) — phase three is entertainingly reach out to entertainers to have them entertainingly teach their audiences the basics of use and abuse (regardless of the substance or even any activity in general), if not also more specifics about any drug (including alcohol) — especially the likely flood of new ones from nanotechnology, biocomputing, and even a drug-less virtual reality experience similarly altering brain functioning (so can produce a similar ‘drug abuse’ effect).
While people popularly rant about the destructive quality of prohibition, and the consequent press for regulation and taxation (for some traditional leftist reason that renders the legality process unnecessarily far more tortured at serious mass suffering expense), I raise a point so utterly logically powerful, it gets to the very essence of the “drug war” problem (and much more), which is simply the following:
The Commerce Clause is only 16 words…
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Those 16 words have been “interpreted” by our Supreme Court (whose sole job is to interpret our Constitution) to negate the need for a constitutional amendment similar to one needed for Alcohol Prohibition. I often post Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ opening paragraph from his dissent in the last medical cannabis case at the Supreme Court level, because he almost nails the aforementioned accusation with strongest judicial credibility:
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.” [emphasis obviously mine]
The (obscenely hypocritical, when it’s the Republican) “elephant in the room” is our judicial branch took those 16 words and in legal precedence (in “smoking gun” form in the public record) extremely expansively redefined that clause to mean ‘To regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’ (not just “To regulate Commerce”).
What nobody (at least for all intents and purposes) is talking about (obviously except yours truly and hopefully you too) is the fact that your thought activity — which literally determines all of your buying and selling decisions — always has a substantial effect on commerce. While the clause directly focuses upon commerce, the expanded “interpretation” (for consistency and therefore justice) must mean that Congress can regulate your thought activity (coincidentally a far more engaging thought of the day) — importantly noting technological thought reading and manipulation is basically on the horizon (so this is logically an extremely serious concern in the “land of the free” resonating abhorrently while the crickets chirp).
The result is essentially lawlessness (as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas essentially puts it) disguised as civility. The mainstream media (entertainers in disguise) outrageously refuses to report the aforementioned mass suffering combined with the outright illegality of Certain Drug Prohibition, because then it would be a mainstream journalism wide (and deeply historical) confession hugely against their credibility (i.e. very serious media bias in favor of ‘certain drug’ prohibitionists for several decades devastatingly against the “public’s right to know” and consequently the millions of non-violent victims of what can only be sanely defined as sanctioned thuggery and adult-level bullying that truly sends the wrong message to children and too many other fine folks) — again while the crickets chirp.
Activism involving this “drug war” issue is overwhelmingly dominantly a traditional political leftist front, and that aforementioned “elephant” largely comes from the fact that the illegal redefining of the Commerce Clause (from President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal) is essentially the full “legality” of traditional political leftism itself necessary to “lawfully” condone serious regulatory interference (so much so, that our Supreme Court had to stay away from relying upon the Commerce Clause to uphold the Affordable Care Act — a massively complex system of political leftist government involvement in healthcare for worst through best — and insanely rule that system as constitutional due solely to the taxation power — terribly unleashing the opening of another judicial Pandora’s Box in the form of legal precedence in our national area — I would laugh, if it weren’t so broadly and deeply tragic to what-should-be-obvious and literal national deterioration).
While on the one hand, I would be saddened to leave our positive scene with crickets chirping, the other hand (with maximum respect) slaps us in the face on behalf of literally millions of suffering people due to ironic crime by judicial definition (and no, I’m not being overly dramatic this time, or wrong — at least based upon the whole truth and nothing but) — effectively a challenge to anyone out there daring to refute me on this extremely serious accusation of extremely serious judicial fraud.
Continuing to ignore that “elephant” is ultimately a crime by any definition.
Though a serious challenge to raise public awareness (and sufficiently passionate care) on this most-pressing legal matter enormously transcending the “right to get high”, it’s one that can be (and must be) maturely met (truth is its own power, so immature presentation — including rights infringement — is ironically unhelpful), so let’s give it a positive set of respectable, informative, and entertaining waves among the masses, okay?
Logically speaking, the right move is becoming a proud scientific constitutionalist — a stance logically supporting the honorable intentions of the political left, right, and center — which starts with understanding Liberty Shield basics for societal benefit, and provides ample (if not profound) leverage against corruption.
“Weakening” drug laws almost completely coincides with the rise of the Internet, which allowed (and thankfully still allows) publicly broad and repeated waves of very strong logical informational pressure against sanctioned thugs and critically undermines mainstream media corruption (a ‘war’ between honest and dishonest entertainers — well-known for best wielding the “pen” that is “mightier than the sword”). We must continue those waves from all legitimate angles, including the ones sufficiently publicly exposing the corruption from the near-silent beast called law abuse (the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction, and the form of abuse launching our nation in a bloody revolution that hopefully will not need to be repeated).
Relevant listening suggestion…