In case that moderators reject my comment for some unacceptable reason in their article about drug usage statistics, here it is fwiw…
What is clearly revealed (yet unacceptably unmentioned) is the fact that “toughness” of drug laws (even regulations) does not correlate with usage statistics (i.e. prohibition is utterly unproven to be effective literally at all in preventing ‘certain drug’ abuse).
Yet taxpayers are shelling out billions of dollars annually on behalf of thuggish “drug warriors” (and now sometimes government empowerment via newly regulations), while the mainstream media essentially refuses to challenge prohibition legitimacy on behalf of the critical people’s right to know.
Whether we are talking about outright prohibition, or textured prohibition (e.g. regulations that include age limits) — both undeniably illegal in an uncorrupted nation with an actually unalienable right to liberty judicially backed by the (illegally judicially disarmed) ninth amendment that nobody is even talking about — we are talking about unproven “law” in the “land of the free” with such “law” spanning several decades and strongly destructively counting against millions of non-rights-infringing (so innocent) lives.
Try to find any logical judicial leverage via the ninth amendment (i.e. any reason for that amendment to even exist) these days. It is clearly the most powerful catchall amendment that states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. The only place outside of our Constitution that further defines our rights is our national declaration, so the ninth amendment serves a clear purpose to leverage the unalienable property of liberty to righteously prevent law abuse upfront (e.g. prevent “interpreting” the Commerce Clause — i.e. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” — to allow Congress to ban, so not even just regulate as the clause clearly states, holding a certain plant).
What is demonstrably proven, however, is terrible oligarchical empowerment (including monopolizing forces, which are always publicly dangerous) — and all of the demonstrable destruction that (again) is purely ignored in mainstream reporting as part of the aforementioned legitimate challenge against the legitimacy of prohibitory “laws” supposedly existing to prevent abuse.
The real news is the mainstream media is horribly (and journalistically unethically) complicit in one of the (if not the) grossest scams perpetrated in at least national history.
The reason for their unethical support is clear. They obviously find superficially impressive tragedy and certain government affairs to be overwhelmingly dominant for our news feeds, and the continuous suppliers of such “news” are the people on the front lines of those “newsworthy” outcomes — mainly our government, especially law enforcement — an unethically undisclosed conflict of interest that ultimately is the reason for the aforementioned mass destruction of liberty and lives “to protect the children” and effectively forms state-run media in the land of the “free press”.
There needs to be two groups of people working to end Certain Drug Prohibition — one that focuses upon leveraging the court of public opinion (e.g. online) to expose how utterly ineffective, destructive, expensive, unconstitutional, and (at least in the case of cannabis — a plant for which factually no experimental science concludes any harm from use) scientifically unwarranted prohibition truly is against public safety, and another group who focuses upon the same leverage to greatly publicly expose the undeniable evils of the mainstream media in this mass rights-infringing case spanning several decades and strongly counting, so putting (perhaps many) millions of more non-rights-infringing (again, so innocent) lives in danger.
I'm an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an entertainer working and resting as my careful contribution to help improve society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest.