Prompted by “Study: Early Marijuana Use Not Associated with Adverse Outcomes in Adulthood”: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2015/47069/study-early-marijuana-use-not-associated-with-adverse-outcomes-in-adulthood/
The use of marijuana by adolescents and young adults, including self-reported chronic use, is not positively associated with poorer quality of life outcomes later in life…
Investigators from the Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Rutgers University prospectively examined whether male subjects who consumed cannabis between the ages of 15 and 26 differed in terms of socioeconomic, social, and life satisfaction outcomes by their mid-30s as compared to those who either abstained or used marijuana sparingly.
Authors reported that initially observed differences between the groups were largely eliminated once investigators controlled for co-occurring use of other substances and several pre-existing confounding factors in early adolescence.
Unhealthy stress is the cause of poorer quality outcomes.
Drug intake does not automatically cause unhealthy stress. That intake can cause unhealthy stress, but it can also cause healthy stress. In other words, drugs can be used or abused.
Drug intake is not a suitable focal point for improving societal health. It’s a suitable focal point for a group of demonstrable traitors violating constitutional law to form their own “law” sanctioning thuggery in the land of the free — that “law” being the war on some drugs (a.k.a. Certain Drug Prohibition).
That blatantly corrupt law grounded in an obviously illegal judicial redefining of the Commerce Clause has formed enormous unhealthy stress for millions of non-violent citizens (the kind of people that law enforcement is supposed to serve and protect, not persecute for their wallets’ sake).
Ultimately, we live in a balanced pros/cons existence (regardless of progress), based upon the whole truth and nothing but.
The national con game spanning our nation’s history is liberty should never truly be an unalienable right by law (despite amendment nine, which only makes sense when acknowledging the “truths to be held self-evident” — i.e. our fundamental rights, obviously including liberty — as constitutionally protected law). To allow that unalienable property would be to fully insist that the people in power lose ample control (which was the intention of that right for public safety against law abuse). Instead of upholding the wisdom of that property, the people in power have brainwashed society to ignore that absolutely defined right, so the unfortunately popular belief is risk (so inevitably liberty) must be defined by law to protect the children.
Any American is quickly taught those rights at a young-enough age when it’s basically impossible to care less about the significance of those rights (most Americans cannot even initially smoothly say the word unalienable, despite it being the sole distinction of defining liberty differently from everywhere else on Earth throughout history). “We the children” are quickly tested to ensure we learned those rights exist, but then are seriously discouraged from ever talking about it again (especially at the college/university level where serious debate regarding the implementation of that right makes sense).
The reason our Founding Fathers defined liberty as unalienable is because they understood the severe pain that comes from the abuse of law (our entire nation, according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, was established in a violent revolution prompted by such abuse). To define risk by law doesn’t make us safer, but society largely remains convinced of the contrary, so sanctioned persecution rages onwards in the land of the free.
However, for the healthy social flexibility that’s the macrocosm of an athlete staying loose for optimal performance and minimal injury risk (i.e. for an optimal stress signature), liberty must be limited only by the right itself.
Objectively (so fairly, so justly) speaking, that means liberty is the condition of being free from restriction or control. By uncorrupted constitutional law, any American (regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, recreational drug choice, etc.) can do whatever they want, as long as they don’t violate that right (which is where the unalienable property kicks in as the sole limit against liberty).
Ignoring that right effectively kept pre-American insurgency alive and well even as I write this over two centuries after that right was established. In other words, the revolutionary war has not actually ended. The military phase has, but the war against abusive law presses (actually oppresses) powerfully hard against the masses (including the aforementioned “protected” children).
Ignoring that right has caused monstrous suffering (unhealthy stress), and the result unmistakably is a poorer quality outcome for us all.
Allowing people to subjectively define liberty (including by weak, suggestive — if not questionable — science) is pathetic and reckless. There’s only one difference between that allowance and allowing a kid to play with a loaded gun with the safety turned off — the people subjectively defining liberty are far more destructive due to the national breadth of their disastrous firing of the judicial bullet.
Traditional political leftists act to negate our constitutional foundation on the basis that government regulation (which is all about defining risk by law) is the best solution. Those leftists believe that the private sector is the source of unhealthy stress, so the only power to turn to is the public sector. The tried-and-failed result has always been oligarchical shifting in formation (the government takes that enormous power and instead blesses their oligarchy spanning the public and private sectors). In other words, greed (etc.) rages onwards, despite the complexity and reach of judicial regulations inevitably applying unhealthy stress against way too many people (usually in a way that protects, if not also strengthens, oligarchical self-preservation — perhaps powerfully against public safety).
Scientific constitutionalists (real progressives, but also real American conservatives) realize the work of our Founding Fathers has not been completed yet. Those Fathers even understood that fact by forming a challenging amendment process for maintaining our Constitution.
By combining the objective (so fair, so just) power of the scientific method (i.e. the pursuit of certainties in language against misunderstanding) with the need for constitutional limits of power against oligarchical overreaching (i.e. build law fundamentally via certainties — e.g. the self-evident and unalienable right to liberty), we have a fully logical structure preventing liberty-infringing law from becoming “law” (basically saving millions of innocent people).
Scientific constitutionalism necessarily focuses upon education (not law) for improving risk management in society.
Scientific constitutionalism necessarily focuses upon strengthening science by understanding that mathematics isn’t the only language capable of being fully logical. Informational certainty exists in verbal language too, and that certainty is so paramount for scientific advancement, that I leverage it to fill in the scientific blanks and published the fully logical theory of everything (nothing, and something), while scientists remain unaware of that supremely logical breakthrough (due to my unfortunate obscurity).
If you want change you really can believe in, then you want scientific constitutionalism to take hold and reinforce our Constitution against vague clauses (e.g. Commerce Clause) that serve as the opening of floodgates towards massive oligarchical infringement of our fundamental rights.
The following piece from my Liberty Shield informational roots (that defines scientific constitutionalism) shows you how American history would have been awesomely different (actual American exceptionalism) with an actualized unalienable right to liberty against pre-American nonsense.
“Had the unalienable right to liberty been consistently logically (so lawfully) realized upon establishment against pre-American conservatism…
- slavery (and judicially approved racism overall) would have necessarily ended instantly by law (and as a fitting aside, anyone believing skin color determines competency, social value, and/or such, would be righteously diagnosed as mentally ill).
- women would have been necessarily instantly granted equal rights by law (feel free to fittingly add a similar mental illness diagnosis with regards to gender superiority and remaining items in this list).
- there could never be any just law discriminating against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community (or discrimination on the basis of marriage against single people regardless of sexual preference — e.g. any tax law unfairly benefiting married couples).
- selectively opposing certain drug users would never have been lawfully allowed (including Alcohol Prohibition).
- there could be no just law against any form of fully adult-consensual sex (including that requiring a financial component).
- no reverse discrimination could be lawfully possible.”
I would love to freely do what I do for a better society, but economic reality is pressing hard, and despite my resourceful nature, insufficient resources threatens my fully honest contribution to advance logical righteousness (the kind of righteousness that all honest people can only agree upon).
Being resourceful, my resource needs are modest, so I set up a simple PayPal subscription button for Liberty Shield — which only costs $1 yearly.
If you care about liberty (who doesn’t?), then $1 a year helps us stir momentum towards the kind of strength that no oligarchy can ignore.
In a world of about seven billion people — all with incentive to care about optimized liberty for optimal health (and basically all of them capable of easily affording that modest price) — only $1 a year is a seriously powerful resource generator granting us the liberty to improve the implementation of liberty for optimal equality and morality.