Prompted by “Red Tape in Legal Pot States Pushing Industry and Market into a Corner”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/red-tape-legal-pot-states-pushing-industry-and-market-corner
Deep breath in… and exhale.
In our sadly deteriorating society, where our oligarchy continuously increases oppressive leverage by the hideously popular addiction to judicial remedy overwhelmingly complexly forming blanket rights infringement (i.e. innumerable severe societal stressors against many — if not all — innocent people) to address relatively rare instances of abuse, there’s the supposedly responsible push towards cannabis legality.
Bans, restrictions and government red tape in states that have legalized medical and recreational marijuana are, in many cases, undermining the industry, resulting in the continuation of an active and profitable black market. This was not meant to be.
By burying the incipient pot industry under piles of regulations, high taxes and harassment of growers and dispensaries, governments seem to be attempting to appease the pot opponents by essentially sitting on the fence while creating obstacles.
The result is that these unreasonable restrictions on the burgeoning legal marijuana market are enabling illegal dealers to continue doing what they do best—operate on the black market.
Watch your step, innocent citizen, because judicial remedy “for public safety” is like a massive minefield underneath our lives.
There’s ironically a terrible risk upon building complex judicial structures to supposedly minimize risk.
Even our Founding Fathers understood that irony to a degree igniting a violent revolution, so they consequently tried to create a nation with an unalienable right to liberty and implicit constitutional restrictions against oligarchical overreach.
Pre-American conservatism (oddly never brought up as a key distinction from American conservatism) spanning the political spectrum (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) never allowed our obligatory fundamental right to liberty to reach mass leverage — i.e. corruption reigned sufficiently supreme (as it does now) to thwart justice.
I was never taught the critical nature of an unalienable right to liberty (i.e. liberty limited only by the right itself — a certainty when fairness, a requirement for justice, reigns supreme), because our oligarchy (dominantly in charge of our education) never wanted that mass-power-enabling lesson/certainty to take fundamental hold against their (too often questionable) power.
At a young-enough age when I couldn’t care less about adult affairs (including any fundamental right), I merely needed to remember our nation’s most famous passage in our founding declaration enough to echo it back on a soon-following test — and then never bring our fundamental and unalienable right to liberty up again.
I’m clearly not alone in being victimized by that unethical educational mismatch, because I’ve seen nobody leverage that logically critical right (it has been disarmed and people such as yours truly are instantly popularly banished to the realm of unrealistic and antiquation). Victory has been achieved for our increasingly (too often arbitrarily) public-controlling oligarchy, until oppression again reaches critical mass to everyone’s danger.
Liberty (which obviously defines what you can do with your life) is a critical subject literally impacting all areas of society, so at least necessitates strong education and discussion at the college/university level.
Our nation has no true foundation, and that’s why our nation is deteriorating (e.g. by complex political forces from oceanic personal agendas) like a house without a foundation.
One prominent and scary result is many (if not most) voters are increasingly turning to more radicalized politicians in a desperate attempt to derail ever-increasing and oppressively sustaining oligarchical abuses, so bringing us even further away from our fundamentally critical and unalienable right to liberty.
Empowering the oligarchy to stop oligarchical abuse is the “sane” publicly dominant remedy with the only major political party distinction being the style of empowerment.
Being a grounded logician, my goal is to help remedy that horrific outcome — preferably before (inter)national collapse and consequently rampant civility-destroying violence perpetuating itself too deep into posterity.
I always start with an anchor certainty — one that cannot be rationally undermined.
The idea of relying upon an anchor certainty came from my experience with economic considerations.
The economy is falling apart (and/or causing mass casualties) because of greedy private sector operatives, according to ‘team blue’ (Democrats).
Those greedy operatives rely upon public sector laws (and/or unethically selective law enforcement) preventing legitimate competition necessary for economic balance, according to ‘team red’ (Republicans).
Those laws were implemented to address abusive private sector practices (‘team blue’).
That spin continues without ever reaching any true source of (so actual solution to) the fundamental economic problem (occasionally abusive resource management).
The spin machine (and reason abuse in general) must obviously be destroyed for actual (not merely deceptively presented) civility.
Only grounded and complete logical constructs can possibly achieve that righteous end.
Otherwise, selective reasoning disorients and divides to public weakness (as clearly is happening these dangerous days).
Upon the anchor certainty, I build a fully logical construct of certainties from that objective root and share them with you preferably to secure enough public traction to sustain positive momentum for this logically fundamentally necessary direction towards civility.
Like the scientific method in traditional use, any logical possibility against my (or any other grounded logician’s) conclusion is a “deal breaker” demanding correction or instant dismissal otherwise. There’s strictly no exception inclusively in the form of ‘the end justifies the means’, because within an energetically seamless reality with time as a dimension of space (i.e. this reality, at least according to mainstream physics), the means is the only actual end.
One result of my grounded logic is Liberty Shield, which leverages the self-evident (including naturally given) and unalienable right to liberty as the anchor certainty.
Liberty is the condition of being free from restriction or control (a certainty). Self-evidence means the right is automatically granted (a certainty). Unalienable means the right cannot be taken away (a certainty).
Liberty Shield is meticulously refined to expose the too-often illogical and consequently muddy mess forming the pretense of a legitimate foundation in law, so we can then truly fix our Constitution to become an objectively strong construct forming an actual foundation capable of being leveraged easily enough by anyone to prevent abusive (rights-infringing) law.
That ease requires a powerfully simple judicial base capable of being understood by anyone — e.g. the unalienable right to liberty reinforced by a maximally objective (and ever-improving) definition of harm.
In a purely energetic reality (importantly noting energy cannot be created nor destroyed, according to a fundamental law of physics), there’s no actual harm.
Harm is subjective.
However, there’s legitimately pseudo-objectively defined harm — i.e. harm defined in a way agreeable by literally the pure exercise of honesty (nobody can possibly honestly disagree with that definition).
Murder is pseudo-objectively harmful, because in 100% of murder cases, someone dies (the antithesis of liberty within humanity). If murder is harmless, then no point can legitimately exist in having a rule-of-law, so murder is an excellent starting point towards a proper (judicial) definition of harm.
Critically note that sensitivity (basically unfairness) and/or weak (or even junk) science never qualifies for judicial remedy, because of the unjust and muddy nature of those “bases” dangerously corrupting a righteously disciplined rule-of-law.
Scientific constitutionalism (obviously maintained by scientific constitutionalists) is the innovative political result of Liberty Shield.
Language is the essential problem, and one apparently totally ignored by anyone but yours truly. That must change (the sooner, the better), and I need your help in spreading the righteous word (no pun intended).
It’s terribly easy to manipulate language for questionable (if not outright corrupt) leverage to secure questionable (if not outright corrupt) agendas presented as publicly positive.
The power of euphemisms is legendary, for prime example, as is the power of other forms of spin. The ‘partial truth = whole truth’ spin is sickening, as obviously is outright lies, but sadly both are too often effective towards persuading the masses towards discrimination.
It’s also terribly easy to judicially interpret vague clauses to negate the legitimate constitutional purpose to serve and protect “We the people”, so reinforces the serving and protection of selfish oligarchical interests with powerful entrenchment in legal precedence.
The prime and relevant example is the repeatedly (even supremely) judicial ruling that the Commerce Clause — i.e. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” — is a valid constitutional basis for the war on [some] drugs (e.g. banning the mere possession of a certain relevant plant in an American hand).
Complete and grounded reasoning revealing the literally extremely problematic national situation with continuing Commerce Clause vagueness can be conveniently read in the Commerce Clause section of our Liberty Shield informational roots.
New ideas are typically instantly dismissed (standard psychology against unfamiliarity), and seriously challenging my survival, because my natural compulsion towards newness is purely due to my steadfast refusal to compromise my principals for “reasonable gain”.
New ideas can (and sometimes do) gain traction, but that starts with a small and growing community of supporters (obviously preferably including you).
Conflicts of interest are the enemy, because suffering inevitably results, so civility demands the maximal removal of those conflicts by logistical correction (i.e. social and other constructs flowing healthily in a manner maximally negating those conflicts — not ironically and probably hypocritically enabling them as too often occurring these dangerous days).
To communicate that correction, obviously one needs language.
If the language is muddy (capable of being confusing and/or misleading), then the correction is muddy (not really a correction).
You (as a part of a responsible us) have the power to press for change we truly can believe in. Upon full consideration, you’ll realize such change inevitably involves expanding the tried-and-true power of the scientific method beyond the language of mathematics to improve worded certainty.
More details regarding the realistic implementation of that improvement are in the Language Evolution section of the Liberty Shield informational roots.
Cannabis has been used by millions (if not billions) of people for thousands of years. The false (albeit immorally tough-talking) affirmation — grounded solely in suggestive science at best (obvious junk science otherwise due to missing or imprecisely measured factors such as intake amount, intake method, and the ever-critical strain differential) — that cannabis use is automatically abusive (harmful) is the insane base for high regulation funded by high taxation (and the ironically actual harm from those obvious judicially sanctioned stressors).
In short, corrupt law has led to more corrupt law “for public safety”.
In response (and basically repeating for emphasis), the citizenry at large — tired from alternating major political party dominance with no sufficient correction — presses for radicalized political “leaders” reinforcing discriminatory leverage against our fundamental right to liberty.
Logically speaking, the black market for “illegal” drugs can only be destroyed by ending Certain Drug Prohibition (i.e. the Controlled Substances Act and, thanks to the Supremacy Clause and the ninth amendment, its relevant and unconstitutional judicial reach inclusively within state and local law). That end instantly extends to invalidate any need to nationally uphold any relevant international ‘anti-some-drugs’ treaty, because any such treaty factually requires national constitutionality.
Certain Drug Prohibition is the bigger and badder sequel to the basically equally failed Alcohol Prohibition, which “mysteriously” required a federal constitutional amendment for judicial enforcement.
Sustaining that prohibition sustains that black market (and all of the horrific violence therein). That has been verified after repealing Alcohol Prohibition — i.e. people still demand alcohol, but there’s no longer any (at least significant) violence in lawful alcohol supply.
People benefiting from Certain Drug Prohibition (e.g. those folks receiving billions of taxpayer dollars annually) have no true incentive to end that black market, because that would obviously consequently end that benefit.
Those beneficiaries instead need to uphold the public illusion of legitimately addressing drug abuse via prohibition, and that’s the demonstrable and hideous result of that prohibition (an obvious and huge scam against taxpayers’ interest).
With thanks largely to the mainstream media journalistically unethically refusing to sufficiently challenge prohibition effectiveness (nonetheless destructiveness and even constitutionality), those beneficiaries have succeeded for themselves at serious public expense for several decades and largely counting.
Supplying drugs is cheap and easy, but black market forces command a huge profit margin unlike any other form of criminal enterprise. The resulting power of black market players is enormous and even influences governance — even ironically law enforcement (often backed by military grade weaponry — even in small gangs).
If society properly controls the supply of those drugs via legitimate retailers, then the obscene profit margin (causing addicts to steal to get their fix) is removed, so criminal organizations of all sizes are greatly reduced in power.
Too many people assume ending the war on some drugs increases drug abuse.
However, at least considering there’s no shred of concrete evidence proving we live in even a slightly more drug-free America as a result of prohibition, that assumption must include the baseless idea of prohibition effectiveness (importantly noting we don’t even have a drug-free prison system).
Ending the war on some drugs is not the same as encouraging drug abuse.
Effective education (entertaining and accurate information, not lame and fear-driven drivel) in all forms to reach all lifestyles is necessary to ensure people avoid drug (and other forms of) abuse.
Drug abuse is fundamentally and obviously a health (not criminal) issue by any sane measure.
“Researchers have long recognized the strong correlation between stress and substance abuse…” — United States National Institute on Drug Abuse (1995 stress bulletin) [emphasis mine]
Even the prohibitionist NIDA understands that unhealthy stress (as opposed to healthy stress from a positive workout) should be the focal point in addressing drug (and any other form of) abuse.
However, there’s no “war” on unhealthy stress, because that would be (at least inclusively) a “war” on overworking people for greed, and a “war” on spending billions of taxpayer dollars annually to strongly empower self-interest groups involving law enforcement (albeit at terrible risk/danger for too many law enforcement folks confronting militaristic black market strength — again, even in small gangs).
Overall, it would be a perpetual “war” against status quo abuse (e.g. the ability to select which abusable acts are legal or not — obviously and undeniably an ironically rights-infringing act against any sane definition of morality and public wisdom).
The abuse of law is logically the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction, so should be the form of abuse primarily publicly addressed (not ignored as too often the case these dangerous days).
Abusive aspects of our oligarchy obviously press hard against that unhealthy stress “war” (public safety be damned as the oligarchy effectively deems fit), in order to immorally preserve their hypocritical power stance (conflict of interests — apparently the truest enemy).
Do you feel safe “burying your head in the sand”, while growing oligarchical abuses (too often with popular support ‘to protect the children’ and grossly excessive criminal support) continuously degrades our nation as those abuses surround and even undermine your interests?
If so, do you believe that your then-exposed ass remains safe from abusive “leadership”?
Responsibly improving certainty in language logically improves science, education, liberty, law, and health, which logically improves the economy (including poverty reduction), criminal (and other abuse) reduction, foreign relations, and any other (at least main) issue that I may be missing offhand.
That improvement gives us fundamental and increasing leverage against reason abusers (a sadly powerful group selfishly and too often recklessly facilitating conflicts of interest).
Responsible toughness reinforcing that improvement logically defies any thuggery necessary to protectively sustain reason abusers’ villainous agendas (in the effectively sanctioned black market or otherwise — including corrupted areas within the judicial side of the thin blue line).
Building an objective (so fair, so just) foundation starts with a small and growing community, and that starts with your support (even if only minimally).
We can and must responsibly improve certainty to improve our understanding of reality.
Irrationality (too often promoted as legitimate due to the overwhelming complexity of reality) is not an actuality (reality is ultimately purely rational — the innovative and sadly typically unknown Reality Waveform Theory fully logically confirms that pureness as a legitimate theory of everything/nothing/something).
Irrationality is dangerous leverage when successfully publicly conveyed as a genuinely responsible belief.
That irrationality includes effectively sanctioning the black market for “illegal” drugs, and consequently the varying degrees of ruining millions (actually uncountable amount) of lives — a publicly unacceptable result by any sane appreciation.
Irrationality (and its thuggish support) must be stopped now in terms of powerful impact — that stoppage especially necessary for a sane and controllably formed and wielded rule-of-law for genuine public safety.
Our Liberty Shield informational roots is a perpetual work-in-progress (not really an oxymoron — W.I.P. status simply means those roots are always open to honest scrutiny and strengthening) strictly geared towards scientific constitutionalism.
Liberty Shield preferably establishes a new political movement fundamentally and completely built to defeat deception and thuggish support (at least in law) — a movement gaining and sustaining healthy traction and growth as more people are sickened by the muddy mess hypocritically endangering society.
You can always read (and constructively post comments in relevant posts here to improve) the latest version of those roots at your convenience.