Massachusetts has already decriminalized small amounts of cannabis, as a result of a landmark peoples vote. So far no problems, and I don't expect many. A few, yes, but not many. The question now is whether the NH Senate will vote rationally. Governor John Lynch doesn't want any of it - he's vowed to veto any bill legalizing cannabis. Why? His option, his principles... but I doubt he has cats, and if he does I doubt he gives them catnip now and then. Herb free cats and people, that's Gov. Lynch.
I'm very glad and content that I never voted for Gov. J. Lynch... I can't wait to vote against him if he runs again, which considering his general popularity now, he might want to simply resign. Maybe he'll look beyond his own shadows and see the light, one can only hope!
Ironically Gov. Lynch argues, decriminalizing marijuana undermines parents efforts to keep kids off drugs. While at the same time, the governor is pushing to expand availability of the drug - alcohol, and the lottery or "games of chance" and reap more financial gains from tobacco sales.
Well, my reply to Gov. Lynch is: this isn't about kids... this is about adults... and there are many brilliant people out here whose lives are derailed, not by their use of drugs like marijuana, but rather, because of the extraordinarily strict and crippling laws against it's use.
Progress on RDA - Rational Drug Awareness, is always welcome news. Too bad there are governors and other lawmakers who lack basic RDA skills.
214 to 137... Wow! My thank-you to the Representatives who voted Yes...
Get the story from the Concord (NH) Monitor Newspaper here at these links:
March 10, 2010 - "NH House Vote Decriminalizes Pot"
March 11, 2010 - "Marijuana Bill Secures Wide Margin"
March 10, 2010
March 08, 2010
Part Three: MARIJUANA AND PUBLIC SAFETY; OR IS IT - MARIJUANA AND THE PUBLIC GOOD? CONCLUSION.
Once again, I'm all for anarchy, in the movies! And I enjoy a good conspiracy theory now and then. It really only takes one person, to create a "conspiracy". Two is better, and the more is the merrier... but to believe the US Government is out to get us, well, fortunately, Wall Street is much closer, and more hostile at the moment... if for no other reason than I got a $50 bonus to the average $5000K bonus on Wall Street. They get bailed out with my tax dollars, and my credit card rates go up. Homeowners, faced with foreclosure are looking the devil in the eye, but me, I'm looking at several life terms to pay off my credit cards.
Anyways... I've lost track of the different "conspiracies" that have allegedly taken place during my life... at the moment, I can recall Watergate and Nixon.
What gets to me is that the government might be conspiring against us. In Iran, I'd believe it, and I know I'm not really free, but I'm freer than many countries to make my own choices. Fact is we elect our officials and they act independently - within reason, and in large part if you write to them, as frustrating as that may seem. They work for us.
Sure, if I was filming an episode of "24", by Fox Television, I could imagine all sorts of back-stabbing and espionage, but we're talking real-life. In real life what warrants a citizen like Mr. Bedell, to go to the Pentagon, armed and intending harm, to "shoot-out" over an idea of his that 9/11 was a government conspiracy?
He was "seriously addicted to marijuana"... according to the news... which may have fed his delusions. But to criminalize marijuana, because one person out of 990 estimated million worldwide users are delusional, is a bit far-fetched.
How many alcoholics have had a black-out while drinking? Add to that prescriptions for sleep, and you have quite the cocktail for trouble.
The question, is does marijuana use in private, constitute a public danger that warrants the current laws and regulations, and the impact on those who prefer it to other drugs? Legal ones - like alcohol? Or dangerous glues and aerosols? Or the newest craze - K2?
Are current laws prohibiting cannabis use and possession justified and a matter of "public safety", or are they a matter of "public good"? The latter being a moral issue, the former a genuine public concern?
Looking back at Prohibition of alcohol...
The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States passed due to almost a hundred years of concern with regards to public safety problems with alcohol use. Alcohol has a tendency for contributing to violent behavior, and women especially were concerned. Almost overnight, passage of the 18th Amendment lost it's original purpose and became a moral issue. According to recently publicized accounts, alcohol consumption itself was never prohibited by the 18th amendment, but possession and distribution was.
In order to ensure and promote the federal government's laws and stance on alcohol, it literally poisoned, yes poisoned, known sources of alcohol being delivered to the public. Among federal law enforcement officials, the attitude in general was, it's illegal and therefore should anyone drink it they ask to suffer or even die; it's their own doing.
The story and following quote is from SLATE.COM - "The Chemist War" By Deborah Blum
Posted Friday, Feb. 19, 2010, at 10:00 AM ET
"Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people."
Conclusion: Current laws prohibiting cannabis use by adults in this country are enforced, in my opinion, for the perceived public good, moral and special interests that have political and judiciary powers unwilling to understand a basic, essential condition that humans need - ESCAPE... whatever form it might take, as long as people aren't hurt.
To walk in a forest high on alcohol or cannabis, isn't a big deal. To drive is. Alcohol is regulated, cannabis is flat-out prohibited. Yet which is safer? You can refer to my list of my recommended reading for the book "Marijuana is Safer, So Why Are We Driving People to Drink" at the botom of my blog, for my media favorites.
I don't think this is at all a conspiracy, but I do believe the public has been largely misinformed, with regards to cannabis. The whole secret to legalized, regulated cannabis is the combination of two key chemicals in cannabis that create the high. The following links to the Wikipedia/ cannabis page. The key isn't THC... because, simply, pure THC isn't a fun ride! It's depressing... so IF THC levels are going up? What about the component of cannabis that makes it euphoric and pleasurable? It appears the following is the answer:
Anyways... I've lost track of the different "conspiracies" that have allegedly taken place during my life... at the moment, I can recall Watergate and Nixon.
What gets to me is that the government might be conspiring against us. In Iran, I'd believe it, and I know I'm not really free, but I'm freer than many countries to make my own choices. Fact is we elect our officials and they act independently - within reason, and in large part if you write to them, as frustrating as that may seem. They work for us.
Sure, if I was filming an episode of "24", by Fox Television, I could imagine all sorts of back-stabbing and espionage, but we're talking real-life. In real life what warrants a citizen like Mr. Bedell, to go to the Pentagon, armed and intending harm, to "shoot-out" over an idea of his that 9/11 was a government conspiracy?
He was "seriously addicted to marijuana"... according to the news... which may have fed his delusions. But to criminalize marijuana, because one person out of 990 estimated million worldwide users are delusional, is a bit far-fetched.
How many alcoholics have had a black-out while drinking? Add to that prescriptions for sleep, and you have quite the cocktail for trouble.
The question, is does marijuana use in private, constitute a public danger that warrants the current laws and regulations, and the impact on those who prefer it to other drugs? Legal ones - like alcohol? Or dangerous glues and aerosols? Or the newest craze - K2?
Are current laws prohibiting cannabis use and possession justified and a matter of "public safety", or are they a matter of "public good"? The latter being a moral issue, the former a genuine public concern?
Looking back at Prohibition of alcohol...
The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States passed due to almost a hundred years of concern with regards to public safety problems with alcohol use. Alcohol has a tendency for contributing to violent behavior, and women especially were concerned. Almost overnight, passage of the 18th Amendment lost it's original purpose and became a moral issue. According to recently publicized accounts, alcohol consumption itself was never prohibited by the 18th amendment, but possession and distribution was.
In order to ensure and promote the federal government's laws and stance on alcohol, it literally poisoned, yes poisoned, known sources of alcohol being delivered to the public. Among federal law enforcement officials, the attitude in general was, it's illegal and therefore should anyone drink it they ask to suffer or even die; it's their own doing.
The story and following quote is from SLATE.COM - "The Chemist War" By Deborah Blum
Posted Friday, Feb. 19, 2010, at 10:00 AM ET
"Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people."
Conclusion: Current laws prohibiting cannabis use by adults in this country are enforced, in my opinion, for the perceived public good, moral and special interests that have political and judiciary powers unwilling to understand a basic, essential condition that humans need - ESCAPE... whatever form it might take, as long as people aren't hurt.
To walk in a forest high on alcohol or cannabis, isn't a big deal. To drive is. Alcohol is regulated, cannabis is flat-out prohibited. Yet which is safer? You can refer to my list of my recommended reading for the book "Marijuana is Safer, So Why Are We Driving People to Drink" at the botom of my blog, for my media favorites.
I don't think this is at all a conspiracy, but I do believe the public has been largely misinformed, with regards to cannabis. The whole secret to legalized, regulated cannabis is the combination of two key chemicals in cannabis that create the high. The following links to the Wikipedia/ cannabis page. The key isn't THC... because, simply, pure THC isn't a fun ride! It's depressing... so IF THC levels are going up? What about the component of cannabis that makes it euphoric and pleasurable? It appears the following is the answer:
Cannabidiol (CBD), which has no psychotropic effects by itself [83] (although sometimes showing a small stimulant effect, similar to caffeine[citation needed]), attenuates, or reduces[84] the higher anxiety levels caused by THC alone.[85]
Fact of the matter is... cannabis/marijuana is much found by much research to be safer than alcohol use...
People suffered and many died as a result of alcohol prohibition, and more are dying and suffering as a result of what I feel are unjust regulations and excessive prohibitive actions against personal use of cannabis/safer alternative, to our only choice - alcohol. It's really a no-brainer which is less dangerous... unless you want to consider the moral implications :
Genesis by BobKat
My own interprtation of Genesis... Eve ate of the apple, the fruit she was forbidden to eat as it would bring "enlightenment", knowledge of "good and evil; temptation, and ultimately sin. But the apple Eve found was too good to pass up, so tempting...
After Eve ate of the apple, Adam stumbled by... by then Eve had become much aware of the world around her. It was so beautiful! So beautiful..
Adam, who had been drinking mosquito juice, asked her why she was acting so strangely? She handed him an apple from the tree... he accepted... now they were both seeing a world, a very beautiful world. Suddenly, they were cursed... just like that. Damn...
And here we are today... all of us descendants. How about we accept our differences? Respect personal choice as long as we're mature about it? The world we inherited is not "black and white"... it's multi-colored. Our survival as a species depends upon our ability to adapt. Not sure we're doing very well...
March 07, 2010
Part Two: MARIJUANA AND PUBLIC SAFETY; OR IS IT - MARIJUANA AND THE PUBLIC GOOD?
Why is it illegal to possess marijuana? Why was it for millennia cannabis use was never once an issue? It's use is documented, though there is little recorded history verifying it's use. It's more the fact that it's extremely likely based upon what is recorded, that it was used for religious, spiritual and personal use. In an earlier post I believe I told the story of the mummy in China blonde hair and blue eyes buried with a substantial amount of what would have been highly psychotropic cannabis. Thousands of years ago. Not only was it odd that this fellow was found in China where his heritage indicates he not from there, but it also indicates that whoever buried him had respect for him, and buried him with what he wanted for the afterlife. Whether the man was seen as a shaman, or simply a great guy, obviously cannabis wasn't taboo. In fact, no historic records that I know of ever suggested a problem with cannabis use over the historic record of human existence... until 1937.
For the most part the US government has distanced itself from any regulations passed in 1937. I can get more into the details later, but essentially I believe it was Dr. Timothy Leary who took the Supreme Court to task over the constitutionality of the Marijuana Tax Act... that it was illegal to possess marijuana, so one could not buy a tax stamp as that would make an individual guilty of of crime. The Supreme Court agreed, and in place of the Tax Act new legislation was passed in the form of the:
This rewrote the laws and regulations for possession of "controlled substances".
The question is, what is the rationale behind the rewritten and current laws, as it applies to cannabis?
Having come of age in the mid-1970's it's my opinion the CDAPCA of 1970 was in response to the use of "drugs" in the 1960's, the governments growing concern that control of recreational substances was not only a potential safety issue, but a threat to it's control over what was acceptable with regards to recreational drugs; by all practical reasoning, there was one recreational drug that was acceptable - alcohol products. By revamping the outdated and in the case of cannabis, the clearly unconstitutional issues, regulations were redesigned for the most part to ensure "Public Safety". By the mid-1970's the question of public safety was at the forefront of many American's minds... it was the Boomer Generation that was questioning "authority" in a big way.
Reefer Madness the "killer of youth" horror flickolography from the 1930's, was a joke... everyone - or nearly everyone knew it. Yet they had to wonder - time and again, seeing friends busted for a joint, spending time in jail, the big "why"? Why was the federal and state governments still pretending that cannabis was the "killer of youth", when it obviously wasn't. Then, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter legalized cannabis/marijuana, as current law was far more severe and detrimental that actual use of that drug in his and the opinion of many notable scholars and scientists. It looked for a moment that common-sense and rationality in government was a real thing. He also legalized home-brewed beer and wine... which by a mistake had never been legalized when alcohol prohibition ended. As a result micro-brewers sprung up everywhere and infused the beer industry with much needed competition.
It was a short blur of a few days before an out-cry and clamp-down on cannabis legalization was issued from other powerful government entities. And Cannabis, unfortunately, was still illegal, and the whole notion of it being a "stepping-stone" to hard drugs, and restrictions on research began to take on a new life. The "War on Drugs" was born.
Then came the early 80's and 1ST Lady Nancy Reagan's famous mantra - "Just Say No", and the birth of D.A.R.E (Drug Awareness Resistance Education).
Society as a whole had no choice then but to embrace the "fact" that marijuana was bad, as bad if not worst that harder drugs. A common phrase sprang up that "we already have enough problems with alcohol" was heard to justify continued anti-drug actions.
Front stage a different show was being performed... use of prescription drugs veered into abuse, alcohol use continued to be the primary cause of vehicular deaths, domestic abuse and violence, and use of "alternative drugs" like glues, aerosols, choking games, etc. became more common.
My argument is that cannabis prohibition became more a regulation towards "PUBLIC GOOD", and less a public safety issue. The Emperor Wear's No Clothes the title of a book by Jack Herer, LINK HERE: JACK HERER - clearly underlines to likelihood that "government knows current laws targeting marijuana are quite excessive, yet to back down and admit it, correct the mistake, it would mean denouncing 60+ years of propaganda by the government. That's why President Jimmy Carter failed - his intentions were genuine, but he didn't see the forest through the trees.
Advance to 2010...
California citizens are at the forefront of a move to legalize cannabis. Already it is pretty apparent that the "liberal state" has a majority of citizens who favor legalization. It is however somewhat disappointing that bad economic times has brought people out of the closet regarding cannabis. Encouraging as they are willing to speak up. But to be truthful, it was pretty much the same when alcohol prohibition ended... bad economic times seems to encourage rethinking societal norms. And the 18th Amendment only made the whole alcohol problem that much worse. From the beginning, public safety issues regarding the unpleasant consequences of alcohol abuse and violence, led to "Prohibition". It had been brewing since the 1830's, this idea to outlaw alcohol use, and for good reason. It seemed to bring out the worst in people, spouses, etc., Alcohol use became synonymous to violet, stupid behavior.
In the end, the adoption of the 18th amendment was a matter more of Public Good, than Public Safety. Politically what was a public safety concern became a political concern, but in order to make such a revolutionary change to human behavior ultimately morphed into a PUBLIC GOOD campaign.
Cannabis use is also about the "public good", as it's pretty obvious cannabis use is not extremely or even generally harmful.
We do have experiences like in my last post under this title: I wrote about the "Pentagon Shooter", John Patrick Bedell. And John allegedly used a lot of marijuana. SOURCE: MSNBC
It's the scary stuff we'd expect... especially the caption to Bedell's picture at the link I provided: "A psychiatrist says John Patrick Bedell tried to self-medicate his bipolar illness with marijuana, inadvertently making his symptoms more pronounced."
Bad apples grow on apple-trees... but that doesn't mean you chop down the tree because of one bad apple.
Next ... the lengths to which government will go to enforce the ideal of PUBLIC GOOD...
For the most part the US government has distanced itself from any regulations passed in 1937. I can get more into the details later, but essentially I believe it was Dr. Timothy Leary who took the Supreme Court to task over the constitutionality of the Marijuana Tax Act... that it was illegal to possess marijuana, so one could not buy a tax stamp as that would make an individual guilty of of crime. The Supreme Court agreed, and in place of the Tax Act new legislation was passed in the form of the:
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 CDAPCA of 1970 - WIKIPEDIA
This rewrote the laws and regulations for possession of "controlled substances".
The question is, what is the rationale behind the rewritten and current laws, as it applies to cannabis?
Having come of age in the mid-1970's it's my opinion the CDAPCA of 1970 was in response to the use of "drugs" in the 1960's, the governments growing concern that control of recreational substances was not only a potential safety issue, but a threat to it's control over what was acceptable with regards to recreational drugs; by all practical reasoning, there was one recreational drug that was acceptable - alcohol products. By revamping the outdated and in the case of cannabis, the clearly unconstitutional issues, regulations were redesigned for the most part to ensure "Public Safety". By the mid-1970's the question of public safety was at the forefront of many American's minds... it was the Boomer Generation that was questioning "authority" in a big way.
Reefer Madness the "killer of youth" horror flickolography from the 1930's, was a joke... everyone - or nearly everyone knew it. Yet they had to wonder - time and again, seeing friends busted for a joint, spending time in jail, the big "why"? Why was the federal and state governments still pretending that cannabis was the "killer of youth", when it obviously wasn't. Then, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter legalized cannabis/marijuana, as current law was far more severe and detrimental that actual use of that drug in his and the opinion of many notable scholars and scientists. It looked for a moment that common-sense and rationality in government was a real thing. He also legalized home-brewed beer and wine... which by a mistake had never been legalized when alcohol prohibition ended. As a result micro-brewers sprung up everywhere and infused the beer industry with much needed competition.
It was a short blur of a few days before an out-cry and clamp-down on cannabis legalization was issued from other powerful government entities. And Cannabis, unfortunately, was still illegal, and the whole notion of it being a "stepping-stone" to hard drugs, and restrictions on research began to take on a new life. The "War on Drugs" was born.
Then came the early 80's and 1ST Lady Nancy Reagan's famous mantra - "Just Say No", and the birth of D.A.R.E (Drug Awareness Resistance Education).
Society as a whole had no choice then but to embrace the "fact" that marijuana was bad, as bad if not worst that harder drugs. A common phrase sprang up that "we already have enough problems with alcohol" was heard to justify continued anti-drug actions.
Front stage a different show was being performed... use of prescription drugs veered into abuse, alcohol use continued to be the primary cause of vehicular deaths, domestic abuse and violence, and use of "alternative drugs" like glues, aerosols, choking games, etc. became more common.
My argument is that cannabis prohibition became more a regulation towards "PUBLIC GOOD", and less a public safety issue. The Emperor Wear's No Clothes the title of a book by Jack Herer, LINK HERE: JACK HERER - clearly underlines to likelihood that "government knows current laws targeting marijuana are quite excessive, yet to back down and admit it, correct the mistake, it would mean denouncing 60+ years of propaganda by the government. That's why President Jimmy Carter failed - his intentions were genuine, but he didn't see the forest through the trees.
Advance to 2010...
California citizens are at the forefront of a move to legalize cannabis. Already it is pretty apparent that the "liberal state" has a majority of citizens who favor legalization. It is however somewhat disappointing that bad economic times has brought people out of the closet regarding cannabis. Encouraging as they are willing to speak up. But to be truthful, it was pretty much the same when alcohol prohibition ended... bad economic times seems to encourage rethinking societal norms. And the 18th Amendment only made the whole alcohol problem that much worse. From the beginning, public safety issues regarding the unpleasant consequences of alcohol abuse and violence, led to "Prohibition". It had been brewing since the 1830's, this idea to outlaw alcohol use, and for good reason. It seemed to bring out the worst in people, spouses, etc., Alcohol use became synonymous to violet, stupid behavior.
In the end, the adoption of the 18th amendment was a matter more of Public Good, than Public Safety. Politically what was a public safety concern became a political concern, but in order to make such a revolutionary change to human behavior ultimately morphed into a PUBLIC GOOD campaign.
Cannabis use is also about the "public good", as it's pretty obvious cannabis use is not extremely or even generally harmful.
We do have experiences like in my last post under this title: I wrote about the "Pentagon Shooter", John Patrick Bedell. And John allegedly used a lot of marijuana. SOURCE: MSNBC
It's the scary stuff we'd expect... especially the caption to Bedell's picture at the link I provided: "A psychiatrist says John Patrick Bedell tried to self-medicate his bipolar illness with marijuana, inadvertently making his symptoms more pronounced."
Bad apples grow on apple-trees... but that doesn't mean you chop down the tree because of one bad apple.
Next ... the lengths to which government will go to enforce the ideal of PUBLIC GOOD...
March 06, 2010
Part One: MARIJUANA AND PUBLIC SAFETY; OR IS IT - MARIJUANA AND THE PUBLIC GOOD?
I've discovered information that laws enabling marijuana prohibition may be related more towards manipulating "Public Good", rather than "Public Safety". There is a difference, and the difference comes down to the government protecting us or controlling our behavior. In my next two or three posts I will do my best to show the difference between the two, and how laws are enacted to enforce and protect.
I want to begin with recent news of "the Pentagon Shooter", John Patrick Bedell, a 36 year old man with long-term mental challenges; family and doctors allegedly were concerned that John had serious marijuana addiction problems, in addition to all else going on in his life. The story, from MSNBC is here: PENTAGON SHOOTER - MSNBC
Before being killed by Pentagon security officers, the shooter shot and wounded two other officers, who are expected to recover. He apparently arrived at the Pentagon well dressed, and seemingly harmless. But according to the article noted previously, he have been acting strangely prior to the attack. What I find odd is a traffic stop noted in Amarillo TX, a few days prior, where the suspect was speeding and pulled over by a police officer. The suspect was described as "acting strangely", and the officer allegedly was compelled to call the mother of the 36 year old man on John's cell-phone. The mother allegedly told the officer her son was fine, and the officer is reported to have given John a warning, and let him go on his way.
Other events noted are a time when John P. Bedell was noticed "walking along a dirt road",,, by police, who stopped and questioned him.
Those two incidences are vastly different, and raise some concerns in my mind. In the first instance, why is a police officer using a citizen's cell-phone to call a 36 year old man's mother, to "check-up" on the man in any way? The man was speeding... seems to me the call to the parent was odd and unnecessary. The speeder wasn't even in his home area when this happened. To me it was the officers responsibility to establish if the suspect had warranted a speeding violation, and if he was a menace to public safety. A call to a mother hardly seems appropriate in established a 36 year old man's psychological state of being. If the officer had doubts, there are professional ways to accomplish this task. If the officer searched the vehicle or the man is not known... so there's no information available as to whether the man had a gun, drugs, or other questionable objects of concern.
With regards to Mr. Bedell being questioned by officers while walking alone along a dirt road... guess I'll think twice about walking alone along a dirt road, which is what I happen to live on. If I am walking along a dirt road, generally it's to get some exercise and enjoy nature. And to think. To be detained by police officers and questioned during such a walk I would be quite annoyed. It is not against the law to walk along the road in such a case, and although officers apparently have the "right" to do so, I find it offensive and inappropriate. So in John Bedell's case, I'd need more information, but given what I've learned, it appears to be information both irrelevant and twisted to serve as a contrived example about how loners are questionable people, and subject to questioning.
As I said before... if I'm walking along a dirt road alone, it would be most intrusive to be stopped by law enforcement and questioned. In such a case, I literally would tell them "arrest me for walking on this road or go away". I have a right to privacy, even walking along a road - common sense, isn't it?
But John Bedell did have problems. And the one problem he allegedly had was an "addiction to marijuana". We'll never know whether marijuana played a part in John's ultimate confrontation at the Pentagon, but no doubt, if it's true John had a "severe addiction to marijuana", it was in his system, and with recent research indicating log-term use of marijuana can cause psychosis", one must question what role marijuana played in the planning and lead up to the shootings.
Mr. Bedell also was convinced of a "conspiracy" by the US government for the 9/11 attack that killed 3000 persons in the twin towers, NYC. It's not an uncommon idea, this conspiracy theory, but as much as I can stretch my imagination to see it, I don't. Makes for great fiction, I suppose, but the problem is the government is not a fixed entity, nor is it omnipotent body with unlimited powers. Sure, it's not perfect, and it most definitely should be smaller in it's scope, and there are scandals and irrational regulations that come out of our governments, but all in all, they are people WE the People elect, and not only do they have current affairs to consider, but also past affairs. Conspiracy theories are to be expected, I think, and some are probably true, but many we have no idea whether they're true or not, like the Kennedy assasinations, both JFK and his brother Bobby.
It's a fact that the Roman Emperor Caesar was murdered as part of a conspiracy; that President Nixon was caught lying and Watergate happened... fact is a conspiracy can involve one person, or many. And our government is composed of many people, so the likelihood of there being "conspiracies" is quite believable.
The question is, should average citizens believe in gov't conspiracies to the point where they take matters into their own hands, and cause potential harm to the government?
No.
Should we voice our opinions online and to others - most definitely. In many recent cases of violence investigators found online activity and posts referring to distrust of the government, conspiracy theories, anger and hostility to other persons or groups. This should not come as a surprise... nor should it deter individuals from expressing themselves and their ideas. If it meant so, then I should remove my blog and move to the North Pole. We do have a right to free speech - to question authority. We have the right to seek out others like ourselves, and to take advantage of the power of numbers. We do not have the moral or legal right to hurt others, however. And that is the boundary between free speech and expression and actions.
Whether or not John Bedell's "addiction" to marijuana played a part in the shootings at the Pentagon, is relatively easy to estimate, given that John crossed the moral line to hurt others, for a cause he felt justified, is, does boil down to his use of force. His use of force in this and many other cases is unjustified. He meant to harm others to push his cause... that is morally wrong.
That marijuana was involved, is mostly one fact, considering a recent news article suggested that 198 million people use or have used marijuana in the past. If that number were correct, and marijuana psychosis related crimes were identified as a primary cause of crimes that directly cause harm to other human beings, that would be a serious issue. But the fact is, very few marijuana related violations relating to human suffering and death are documented. More violent crimes occur under the influence of alcohol. And many preventable deaths occur due to tobacco use.
Marijuana is not a perfect drug, it is not devoid of consequences. But compare to harder drugs, alcohol and tobacco included, or even person's who do not use drugs, the majority of crimes resulting in human suffering and death do not include use of cannabis. Plenty of statistics support this fact - and if you insist I'm provide them.
John Patrick Bedell did have reported psychological problems... and he most likely would have benefited from therapy, or more intensive care. To suggest the idea that his marijuana use played an important part in his acts, the attack on the Pentagon, is unsubstantiated and if not considered within as only part of the whole picture, inflammatory. That John could have benefited from enhanced psychology, is probably the most apparent factor. But there is a stigma attached to that kind of help... and many avoid it at all cost.
To a person like myself it's not an issue. My parents, naturally believed only "sick people" got counselling, went to a mental health professional. Both my parents would have benefited from the reality that therapy doesn't mean "you're a sick person".
After I was employed by a college, and counselling was a benefit, I walked right in. It was the 70's remember, and many self-help books and new age organizations were popping up all over. Seemed like everyone had a therapist, so it was a big deal using my benefit to talk with the college counselor... ... talking about my issues, and I had plenty - I believe I was around age 20. The experience then and over the years was always the same... it was confidential, it helped me understand myself, and it helped me decide on issues in my life that were causing considerable distress. The ironic part is how I would often go to my therapy sessions believing I was deeply flawed, only to discover once again that, I was okay, that outside events happen all the time; conspiracy theories come and go, that reality is subjective and therefor one needs to understander that one's reality is unique, and self-conceptualized.
John Bedell drove thousands of miles to the Pentagon, open fire on staff for reasons of his own. What influenced him were unlimited past events, use of marijuana being one of those influences. We will never know what exactly was going on in his mind, what we do know is his reality lacked one basic moral: "Do Not Hurt Others".
It may be that people today are less likely to seek out mental health help. The stigma of those seeking therapy still has it's hooks... and in a conservation era, no one wants hooks. To me, that would be a sad thing. Therapy with a psychologist or psychiatrist is not an admittance of sickness, nor of a crime. I personally saw a therapist for almost 30 years - different ones, and eventually I learned enough about myself that I was able to understand the reality and myself in a way that i felt I have control of who I am.
As a result I am able to help myself weather the storms, take advantage of the good days, and let the bad days go. I'm able to chose my battles, to understand feelings that may seem unfair, accept my own uniqueness, as well as the uniqueness of others... I have accomplished my goal set many years ago... to be my own agent.
The economy is discouraging, the jobs market more so. Feeling like a victim is easy... but being an agent I realize doing nothing and keeping my current full-time job is the prudent thing to do. It's not easy... but the future will change, and I will change with it.
To get back to the title of this post, "marijuana and public safety..." I read recently there are 198 million marijuana users in the world... that includes one time users and regular users. I have to laugh at that number. Over the years I was fortunate to have jobs in colleges and public schools where I was known as the guy you could trust, and you could. I came to know so many people... four out of 10 used pot every week or every day. Another two of ten used occasionally. Finally, four out of ten may have tried it once, but never again. Of the 6 out of ten that used it more than once, one out of ten would never, ever admit it. There are friends I know that won't follow my blog because I have a simulated marijuana leaf in my introduction. So if we add to the 198 million the people who would never admit it, we have 990,000,000 people who use it around the world.
In my next post, how current prohibition against cannabis is more an effort at enforcing Public Good, rather than Public Safety.
I want to begin with recent news of "the Pentagon Shooter", John Patrick Bedell, a 36 year old man with long-term mental challenges; family and doctors allegedly were concerned that John had serious marijuana addiction problems, in addition to all else going on in his life. The story, from MSNBC is here: PENTAGON SHOOTER - MSNBC
Before being killed by Pentagon security officers, the shooter shot and wounded two other officers, who are expected to recover. He apparently arrived at the Pentagon well dressed, and seemingly harmless. But according to the article noted previously, he have been acting strangely prior to the attack. What I find odd is a traffic stop noted in Amarillo TX, a few days prior, where the suspect was speeding and pulled over by a police officer. The suspect was described as "acting strangely", and the officer allegedly was compelled to call the mother of the 36 year old man on John's cell-phone. The mother allegedly told the officer her son was fine, and the officer is reported to have given John a warning, and let him go on his way.
Other events noted are a time when John P. Bedell was noticed "walking along a dirt road",,, by police, who stopped and questioned him.
Those two incidences are vastly different, and raise some concerns in my mind. In the first instance, why is a police officer using a citizen's cell-phone to call a 36 year old man's mother, to "check-up" on the man in any way? The man was speeding... seems to me the call to the parent was odd and unnecessary. The speeder wasn't even in his home area when this happened. To me it was the officers responsibility to establish if the suspect had warranted a speeding violation, and if he was a menace to public safety. A call to a mother hardly seems appropriate in established a 36 year old man's psychological state of being. If the officer had doubts, there are professional ways to accomplish this task. If the officer searched the vehicle or the man is not known... so there's no information available as to whether the man had a gun, drugs, or other questionable objects of concern.
With regards to Mr. Bedell being questioned by officers while walking alone along a dirt road... guess I'll think twice about walking alone along a dirt road, which is what I happen to live on. If I am walking along a dirt road, generally it's to get some exercise and enjoy nature. And to think. To be detained by police officers and questioned during such a walk I would be quite annoyed. It is not against the law to walk along the road in such a case, and although officers apparently have the "right" to do so, I find it offensive and inappropriate. So in John Bedell's case, I'd need more information, but given what I've learned, it appears to be information both irrelevant and twisted to serve as a contrived example about how loners are questionable people, and subject to questioning.
As I said before... if I'm walking along a dirt road alone, it would be most intrusive to be stopped by law enforcement and questioned. In such a case, I literally would tell them "arrest me for walking on this road or go away". I have a right to privacy, even walking along a road - common sense, isn't it?
But John Bedell did have problems. And the one problem he allegedly had was an "addiction to marijuana". We'll never know whether marijuana played a part in John's ultimate confrontation at the Pentagon, but no doubt, if it's true John had a "severe addiction to marijuana", it was in his system, and with recent research indicating log-term use of marijuana can cause psychosis", one must question what role marijuana played in the planning and lead up to the shootings.
Mr. Bedell also was convinced of a "conspiracy" by the US government for the 9/11 attack that killed 3000 persons in the twin towers, NYC. It's not an uncommon idea, this conspiracy theory, but as much as I can stretch my imagination to see it, I don't. Makes for great fiction, I suppose, but the problem is the government is not a fixed entity, nor is it omnipotent body with unlimited powers. Sure, it's not perfect, and it most definitely should be smaller in it's scope, and there are scandals and irrational regulations that come out of our governments, but all in all, they are people WE the People elect, and not only do they have current affairs to consider, but also past affairs. Conspiracy theories are to be expected, I think, and some are probably true, but many we have no idea whether they're true or not, like the Kennedy assasinations, both JFK and his brother Bobby.
It's a fact that the Roman Emperor Caesar was murdered as part of a conspiracy; that President Nixon was caught lying and Watergate happened... fact is a conspiracy can involve one person, or many. And our government is composed of many people, so the likelihood of there being "conspiracies" is quite believable.
The question is, should average citizens believe in gov't conspiracies to the point where they take matters into their own hands, and cause potential harm to the government?
No.
Should we voice our opinions online and to others - most definitely. In many recent cases of violence investigators found online activity and posts referring to distrust of the government, conspiracy theories, anger and hostility to other persons or groups. This should not come as a surprise... nor should it deter individuals from expressing themselves and their ideas. If it meant so, then I should remove my blog and move to the North Pole. We do have a right to free speech - to question authority. We have the right to seek out others like ourselves, and to take advantage of the power of numbers. We do not have the moral or legal right to hurt others, however. And that is the boundary between free speech and expression and actions.
Whether or not John Bedell's "addiction" to marijuana played a part in the shootings at the Pentagon, is relatively easy to estimate, given that John crossed the moral line to hurt others, for a cause he felt justified, is, does boil down to his use of force. His use of force in this and many other cases is unjustified. He meant to harm others to push his cause... that is morally wrong.
That marijuana was involved, is mostly one fact, considering a recent news article suggested that 198 million people use or have used marijuana in the past. If that number were correct, and marijuana psychosis related crimes were identified as a primary cause of crimes that directly cause harm to other human beings, that would be a serious issue. But the fact is, very few marijuana related violations relating to human suffering and death are documented. More violent crimes occur under the influence of alcohol. And many preventable deaths occur due to tobacco use.
Marijuana is not a perfect drug, it is not devoid of consequences. But compare to harder drugs, alcohol and tobacco included, or even person's who do not use drugs, the majority of crimes resulting in human suffering and death do not include use of cannabis. Plenty of statistics support this fact - and if you insist I'm provide them.
John Patrick Bedell did have reported psychological problems... and he most likely would have benefited from therapy, or more intensive care. To suggest the idea that his marijuana use played an important part in his acts, the attack on the Pentagon, is unsubstantiated and if not considered within as only part of the whole picture, inflammatory. That John could have benefited from enhanced psychology, is probably the most apparent factor. But there is a stigma attached to that kind of help... and many avoid it at all cost.
To a person like myself it's not an issue. My parents, naturally believed only "sick people" got counselling, went to a mental health professional. Both my parents would have benefited from the reality that therapy doesn't mean "you're a sick person".
After I was employed by a college, and counselling was a benefit, I walked right in. It was the 70's remember, and many self-help books and new age organizations were popping up all over. Seemed like everyone had a therapist, so it was a big deal using my benefit to talk with the college counselor... ... talking about my issues, and I had plenty - I believe I was around age 20. The experience then and over the years was always the same... it was confidential, it helped me understand myself, and it helped me decide on issues in my life that were causing considerable distress. The ironic part is how I would often go to my therapy sessions believing I was deeply flawed, only to discover once again that, I was okay, that outside events happen all the time; conspiracy theories come and go, that reality is subjective and therefor one needs to understander that one's reality is unique, and self-conceptualized.
John Bedell drove thousands of miles to the Pentagon, open fire on staff for reasons of his own. What influenced him were unlimited past events, use of marijuana being one of those influences. We will never know what exactly was going on in his mind, what we do know is his reality lacked one basic moral: "Do Not Hurt Others".
It may be that people today are less likely to seek out mental health help. The stigma of those seeking therapy still has it's hooks... and in a conservation era, no one wants hooks. To me, that would be a sad thing. Therapy with a psychologist or psychiatrist is not an admittance of sickness, nor of a crime. I personally saw a therapist for almost 30 years - different ones, and eventually I learned enough about myself that I was able to understand the reality and myself in a way that i felt I have control of who I am.
As a result I am able to help myself weather the storms, take advantage of the good days, and let the bad days go. I'm able to chose my battles, to understand feelings that may seem unfair, accept my own uniqueness, as well as the uniqueness of others... I have accomplished my goal set many years ago... to be my own agent.
The economy is discouraging, the jobs market more so. Feeling like a victim is easy... but being an agent I realize doing nothing and keeping my current full-time job is the prudent thing to do. It's not easy... but the future will change, and I will change with it.
To get back to the title of this post, "marijuana and public safety..." I read recently there are 198 million marijuana users in the world... that includes one time users and regular users. I have to laugh at that number. Over the years I was fortunate to have jobs in colleges and public schools where I was known as the guy you could trust, and you could. I came to know so many people... four out of 10 used pot every week or every day. Another two of ten used occasionally. Finally, four out of ten may have tried it once, but never again. Of the 6 out of ten that used it more than once, one out of ten would never, ever admit it. There are friends I know that won't follow my blog because I have a simulated marijuana leaf in my introduction. So if we add to the 198 million the people who would never admit it, we have 990,000,000 people who use it around the world.
In my next post, how current prohibition against cannabis is more an effort at enforcing Public Good, rather than Public Safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)