NEWT GINGRICH, MARIJUANA AND THE DODO - POLITICS 2012 - PART 2

Imagine... there are no predators. You have wings, but it becomes unnecessary to fly. Your wings slowly disappear, to make you flightless. That is the Dodo bird.

Source: Wikipedia

A "chicken" that stood there to let you kill it... that was the Dodo.

First discovered by Dutch sailors in 1598, by 1681 the Dodo was hunted to extinction.

That is the inconceivable wish that the Federal government has with regards to users/affectionatoes of cannabis/aka marijuana. Eradicate marijuana users, as the theory goes, and you erraticate all "illegal drug users".

If you ask newt Gingrich, illegal drug users are users of cocaine and heroin. If you ask him if cannabis users should be arrested and jailed, he'd say "no". He has absolutely no cognizance of the average cannabis user. He firmly believes that not only are cannabis users unable to provide to a society, but they ultimately go onto harder drugs. Not true. It's all a boogeyman to him.

Hate to tell you Newt, a little late with the sermon... people have been using, what you call "drugs", for millennia. And, cannabis is not a "gateway-drug", so you can forget that line of drivel. Cannabis users, like the Dodo, feel safe in the USA.

You make clear they're not. And they're not. But do you expect to get elected having threatened a good 50% of the population with your "death-threats"???

Cannabis users aren't Dodos... they've been under attack since 1937... and are now victims of a undeclared war. The difference is... cannabis users statistically are well educated. Not stupid by any stretch!

Question for Newt (January 4, 2012 at Concord, NH Town Hall Meeting):

“I’m a recreational drug user, should I arrested?"

Gingrich: "No you shouldn’t be arrested, but you also shouldn’t do it.”

Newt's another one of these "born again politicians" that used to use cannabis and other "drugs", and has reformed their ways.

“Gingrich’s response to questions about his youthful drug experimentation (“That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era”) was uncharacteristically graceful and in perspective and mature… ”

1 May 1995, New York Magazine, page 42: SOURCE:

Initially, in Newt's early years, during the 1980's he was pro-legalization, at least for medicinal purposes. In the 1990's he did a reversal... sponsoring a bill that would make marijuana smuggling a felony with a sentence of death.

H.R. 4170 (Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996) to the House of Representatives, which sought to “provide a sentence of death for certain importations of significant quantities of controlled substances”.

Section 2: Increased Penalties For International Drug Trafficking

Section 1010 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall sentence a person convicted of a violation of subsection (a), consisting of bringing into the United States a mixture or substance--

(A) which is described in subsection (b)(1); and

(B) in an amount the Attorney General by rule has determined is equal to 100 usual dosage amounts of such mixture or substance;

to imprisonment for life without possibility of release. If the defendant has violated this subsection on more than one occasion and the requirements of chapter 228 of title 18, United States Code, are satisfied, the court shall sentence the defendant to death.

(2) The maximum fine that otherwise may be imposed, but for this subsection, shall not be reduced by operation of this subsection.'

September 25, 1996, 104th Congress (1995 - 1996), H.R.4170

So How did Newt go from supporting legalization of cannabis to outright hostility?

"See, when I smoked pot it was illegal," he reportedly told the Wall Street Journal's Hilary Stout in 1996, "but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality... That's why you get to go to jail and I don't." reportedly Newt said.

So, okay, change of morality. But is Newt God? I guess in a way the way I read him he thinks he is. He implies, marijuana use is now a violation of morals? Holy Batman on that one... how does he validate that statement???

Several quotes summarize his position, courtesy of NORML:

“If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs… it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children. I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”

August 27, 1995, New York Times, Gingrich Suggests Tough Drug Measure

“I don’t have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans. In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011

“I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011

So, if you like to use marijuana, newt mandates detox...

He would like to see an increase in enforcing the War on Drugs.

Much like Mitt Romney, he's another "prehistoric thinker..." but what really gets to me is this quote:

“I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana and their techniques with dealing with it would have been rather more violent than our current government.”

(New Hampshire Voter Event, January 2012

I don't think so Newt! Especially Thomas Jefferson. Both probably even used it... it was a common herb and medicine even back then - far from being illegal, immoral, or discouraged.

Neither President believed infringing on the rights of adult individuals was good governing. But somehow Newt, you believe otherwise. Maybe that's why the Dodo bird appears in Lewis Carroll's - "Alice In Wonderland". Newt's in his own wonderland.

Think the casual cannabis user, generally with a college degree, is going to listen to Newt? Not likely.

Sorry Newt... but you're also a prehistoric thinker, like Mitt Romney.

Prohibition doesn't protect children. It endangers them.

MITT ROMNEY, MINISKIRTS AND MARIJUANA - POLITICS 2012

Here begins my 2-Cents towards the upcoming Presidential Election. I'm the guy on the fence, a member of neither party. Even the Libertarian Party, though I like the Jeffersonian (ref towards: Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the US, 1801-1809) approach to politics, I feel we've grown far beyond what a Libertarian gov't could provide and accomplish.

What I'd like is a Party that's Not a Party. I'd like a government that is rational, realistic, fair and humane, believes in the US Constitution, Human Rights, Personal Rights and Liberties. One that serves and protects.

The question is who qualifies... Obama? Or one of the ever dwindling stock of Republican contenders? The only modern, really intelligent man I see is, Ron Paul, and his own party won't endorse him. The most conservative of the bunch, and he's seen as too libertarian.

Mr. Obama is a good man. He's smart. He's made some good decisions and at least things haven't gotten worse, yet. He's had the worst Congress perhaps in history to deal with, and overall, he's taken action in stride, not fumbling. But he's done some things in office that give me serious mis-givings. He's not done enough for the average guy/gal. He's not pushed for common sense, science based laws; protection of civil liberties, an end to the War on Drugs.

Now a part of me feels he's got the potential to do a lot of good if elected to another four years as President. Another part of me also realizes, he's not exactly the man who campaigned for President in 2008. It's like he was given a script, told to follow it when he was elected, and he's done what he can to both follow the rules and achieve his goals.

Would I vote for him again? Well that depends upon who's running against him. I wouldn't if Ron Paul was the nominee. More on that in my next post perhaps. What if, Mitt Romney was the nominee, as is now being predicted?

Mitt Romney:

Ex-Governor of Massachusetts. A state with a mandated health care-law that he created. The same law he now denounces as bad... this in response to President Obama's health care law. A state where marijuana was decriminalized for several years ago. Mitts state...

What's Mitt's views on marijuana? If you ask me my opinion, marijuana to Mr. Romney is a lot like a woman in a mini-skirt. Remember the 1960's? If not, here's a peek:

This gorgeous gal, circa 1960, is rocking the planet, from gov't perspective, same as marijuana and hippies.

Others felt a woman dressed like this was "begging to be raped". And that's no joke. Some people still believe it today. Just like some people today still believe marijuana is the gateway drug, to hard drugs.

Mitt Romney:

October 4, 2007, Romney speaking to students at St. Anselm Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire

“I believe marijuana should be illegal in our country. It is the pathway to drug usage by our society, which is a great scourge -- which is one of the great causes of crime in our cities, and I believe we are at a state where, of course, we are very concerned about people who are suffering, and there are various means of providing pain management.”

or:

“People talk about medicinal marijuana, and, you know, you hear that story: People who are sick need medicinal marijuana. But marijuana is the entry drug for people

trying to get kids hooked on drugs. I don’t want medicinal marijuana. There are synthetic forms of marijuana that are available for people who need it for prescription.

Don’t open the doorway to medicinal marijuana.”

Sorry Mitt... it's already open.

In this country maybe we've pretty much gotten over the min-skirt madness era... but in other parts of the world they have not. It's very much like politicians in this country do not want to understand, marijuana is much like a min-skirt. Using marijuana doesn't cause crime. In the majority of the cases it doesn't lead to hard drugs. It's safer than prescription forms of the plant, and in fact much safer than what most humans ingest. The Marijuana Myth is Broken!!!

In Malaysia, in the news recently, was the alleged attacks by street vendors on women wearing trousers and mini-skirts. The men in question assaulted the woman and stripped them naked. They claim they were enforcing the law.

Man In Military Fatigues Undresses a woman in public. 2012

SOURCE: BULAWAYO NEWS 24

The law they are speaking of, "The Decency in Dress Act", 1973, was repealed in 1993. It did in fact make it a crime for women to wear trousers or mini-skirts in public.

This is what a cannabis user feels like when accosted by inane laws. Laws with no more basis in reality than women should not wear mini-skirts or trousers.

I don't believe Mitt Romney seriously knows what is a danger to society today. I think he pretends to know. There may be hope for him, just as there may be hope yet for President Obama.

By now most everyone is aware the of the fact that use of marijuana does not lead to hard drugs or increased crime. It's been legal for years in CA, NY, CO, ME, CT, AZ... and a number of other states. The nations rate of homicides I read recently is down, to # 16, the first time since the 1960's. And in MA, people are not jumping out of windows, nor has there been an increase in crime. CA is still more likely to fall into the ocean than it is to get overrun by hoards of rabid cannies/cannabinoids. Time for this country to get real... deal with real problems, and let people alone that aren't harming others.

A woman wearing a mini-skirt is not an invitation to rape, anymore than a marijuana user is a future user of hard drugs or or a threat to society.

50,000 dead in Mexico, and 100'000's Americans with criminal records, or incarcerated because

of the noble cannabis plant. Thousands more either dead in the US because cannabis is a thriving underground business, with many shady and dangerous players. The War on Drugs is like a war on the mini-skirt. There's no Just Cause to make war on people because of what they wear, read, express or ingest.

This link to The Women's Center for Change (WCC) Panang offers an excellent "Myth Vs. Reality" when it comes to the myth about the mini-skirt, as well as other worthwhile reminders; the point being - a woman wearing clothes is not inviting rape, just as a person using marijuana is not asking for trouble, nor likely to harm society just because... it's a mindset people have, and when the laws cause more harm to society than the perceived goal and/or validity of a law, it's time to stop. As they did in Malaysia.

Not that Malaysia has a great Human Right's record, but then neither does the US.

When voting for President I want someone with for the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a respect of an individual's pursuit of "Life, Liberty and Happiness".

Mitt Romney is a prehistoric thinker. It's time he and others realize the year is 2012. It's not 1912... Mitt Romney is not a man who thinks like a 21st Century thinker. He's stuck in the past, and we really need a future of real change. The kind President Obama promised.

Think FREEDOM, Legalize cannabis! Vote to Stop The Hurt!

And Save the Mini:

Source: Photobucket: http://s192.photobucket.com/albums/z229/Swinging_Sixties/1960s%20-%20Mini%20Skirts/?start=all

Jane Birken, c 1960's

Twiggy, c 1960's

Amsterdam Cannabis Cup Winner: White Widow

THE WAR ON SEMEN - SPECIAL REPORT

SPERM:

It's come to that.

The FDA has determined your gonads are factories, "manufacturing cells"... and as such, the FDA believes that what your gonads produce/manufacture is a controlled substance. Under their control. Imagine that while it's pending. The goal of the FDA is your well-being, naturally; I suspect that may not be true. Decide for yourself...

*

Originally this topic was going to be an interlude, a break for a bit before I tackled a more difficult topic... it was to be light-hearted satire to warn against the encroachment of government on human freedom. A humorous topic, I thought!

*

Seriously. The FDA has declared a "war on semen"...

Case in point:

Trent Arsenault:

Tim has his own blog where he advertises free "donor sperm". He runs it as a business, a not-for profit business. He provides full medical disclosure to potential clients. He's fathered 14 children, and the FDA recently raided his home, and attempted to ... they, the FDA is conducting some kind of investigation... determining what crimes Trent committed. Odd thing is, semen is in high demand. Who would have guessed? Click the image for the story or here:

CBS San Francisco News - "FDA Cracks Down On Fremont Man’s Sperm Donations".

Trent is not alone.

Here's a link to a forum Post-It Board where anyone can ask for, or advertise, they're seeking, or willing to donate sperm:

VOY_FORUMS.COM

*

I simply never thought of myself as a "factory".

*

I'll bet the ex-AL politician who was running a private sperm donation clinic didn't think of himself as a factory. The irony with the case of Bill Johnson, 52 of Alabama is that #1, his age. #2, he's married and his wife didn't know. #3, He donated mostly to lesbian women, yet was opposed as a politician to gay rights. In New Zealand, Bill felt generous, and fathered at least 4 children.

*

What really convinced me to take this topic seriously was when reading that Jennifer Aniston's former agent encouraged her to ask Brad Pitt for some of his semen, before he left for good. The story is here: Agent Urged Jen Aniston To Ask for Brad Pitt's Sperm Post-Split; Published December 23, 2011; FoxNews.com

*

There's the story of the Texas man who found out he was the father of twins. He always used a condom with his previous girlfriend who gave birth to his children. She stole his sperm in the condoms he used and deposited the sperm in a sperm bank. He's suing.

Story Here: "A New York man was stunned to find out that his four-year-old twins were not an accidental pregnancy after all — but that his desperate girlfriend secretly stashed away his sperm..."

*

Here's an account of what it's like to donate sperm at a "government approved facility"... THE GENIUS FACTORY, by David Plotz.

*

And to conclude an in-depth news report entitled: "You Got Your Sperm Where?" Newsweek.com. This last article goes way into the reality of donated sperm. College student can make $1200/donation, I've heard. Gosh, wish I'd known!!!

But as the article begins, one can see that all is not well being a sperm donor:

The Daily Beast: ""

*

That's enough...

It's bad enough when the government tells me what plants I may have and use. It's another when it tells me my "sperm is manufactured in a factory"! My own personal factory. So, the FDA is thinking of regulating my sperm.

*

What is it about government that as an elected entity it believes it can decide plants and semen are manufactured, and therefore, subject to government regulation? That it believes it can regulate and even prohibit certain naturally occurring substances? Taking this mindset to semen is taking it way too far. If a guy wants to donate his sperm, when has it been the government's business to interfere? We're talking about SEX. Since when has the government had the right to tell a man where he can plant his seeds? Especially since we're talking about consenting adults.

*

I'm thinking 2012 should be especially interesting...

CRITICAL THINKING 101 - GRADUATION

As I've said, "critical thinking" is not the same thing as "being critical" or even "thinking critically"... The latter two actions the result of a "reaction" or "fore-thought".

"Critical Thinking 101" is/has been about thinking before you act. To think before acting, and often to think more often than we do act. To be a successful, "critical thinker" tools are required. Tools we gain growing up; or at least hope we do, that give us an advantage as adults, as well as while growing into adults.

That is generally the job of our parents and our educational system. Both are pretty much required by law - "parents that provide..." and a system of education we accept in writing that we will subject our children to; unless the parents chose to home-school their children. Religious studies are also often provided, as with most, graduation of some kind follows.

From around age 5 to age 18 we are called kids or teenagers. We are not adults. We are not told many truths, but rather are told what we're expected to be told. We are taught the 3 R's, civility, right and wrong within our society. We are told we are kids and tempted with being adults. Mostly, narrow guidelines separate us from disaster, but that is not always followed, and the result of deviation are often severe. Often result in death.

One would think growing up would contain more common sense experience and truthfulness; but such is not the case. This would be a crucial tool, growing up, knowing the difference at any age. My first experience:

In 1963, November 23 at around 10:30 AM I was home sick from school, age 9, and watching TV. I was alone in the house. The scheduled program was interrupted with a news flash... President John F. Kennedy had been shot!

To know then what I know now would be a significant advantage. To know anything while growing up would have been an advantage. But I think "facts" were rather ignored, replaced by tradition, textbooks and propaganda. Think I'm cynical? I am.

To know I was a nine year old kid would have made a big difference while watching a news flash as big as an atom bomb going off.

It was a nexus in time... and so many things changed.

I believe it was the summer of 1970 when the Woodstock movie was shown in movie theaters. I would have been around 16yo then. We were in LI, NY for a family gathering - us with my father's side of the family. They were a rare welcome event as I have many cousins on that side of my family. My aunt, Katherine, often sided with me during family arguments. This was a much larger family, and time spent with my father's family was worlds apart from my mothers side of the family. It was like leaving a compound where strict rules and regulation applied, to a week of rational freedom. My cousins and I did it all, or most all...

We smoked and drank beer, liquor... all hidden from the parents of course. There wasn't any sex I recall, nor "drugs". yet, I felt free, and have no doubt it led to a more open mind when my time came for the initiation to adulthood, which in our case was, the ability to go into a bar and order a beer or a drink. That was it.

But I get ahead of myself. I was at a park with my cousins, in Syosset LI, and they all decided to go to town to see the movie, WoodStock. I was third oldest among the 8 of us, the oldest on my mother's side. In an ensuing argument, my mother won out against my aunt and my oldest cousin that I wasn't allowed to see the movie. My cousins went, and for the first time I felt something new, like a spark of individuality.

My mother's argument was one of tradition, and protectionist child-rearing. My aunts argument was that I was old enough. I was 16.

Being old enough? Wow, what a question. And what a question it's not. I searched Google and didn't find one post-a-ble link. But a new tool was added to my toolbox.

It was soon after my sister and I and our family were vacationing in Sarasota FL. I think I was 17. She was 16. Beginning when darkness fell, the beaches would liven up with campfires. My sister and I wandered the beach and found what were now bon-fires. This was a week where several other tools were added to my toolbox.

I smoked pot for the first time, and nothing happened. There's more, but that's it until I'm about 19. See, for the most part what I remember from age 5 to age 18 is not much, once I box up years of loneliness, years being picked on and bullied, years being told what to do, and yes, I suppose it's fairly typical. Anyways, I boxed it up as such.

I graduated HS at age 18. I had a job at a Dept. Store. I got laid-off one X-Mas eve... and hired back in the Spring, largely due to my father, who had a way of doing things. I didn't attend my graduation. I did attend the rehearsal, and that was enough. The rehearsal was one final afternoon at the HS in the auditorium. The skits were rehearsed, and two of them were etched on my brain.

#1 was a NYC junkie, reformed, who on stage described the night he was arrested, after swallowing several needles he used to inject heroin.

#2 was Elmo. He was the school custodian and the administration thought he should appear onstage. I wanted to cheer, but my classmates booed him offstage. The school custodian, disgusting!

I found an excuse not to attend graduation, and also one to move out on my own as soon as I could. Around age 19 I did that. Moved to an old converted horse-barn, made into upper and lower apartments, at the edge of the community college campus. I moved upstairs into a one room apt. sharing kitchen and bathroom with 4 other rooms. I worked still at the dept store, took classes by day at the college, and sought to attain my independence.

My motivation? Like why did I move out on my own? Might seem obvious, in that in 1973 isn't that was 19 yo men did? Well, not in my case. It's quite ironic what happened in my case. Nothing one would expect anyways.

No mater how hard you try you couldn't guess my motivation. Books that I'd read growing up were a huge motivation. Making my own decisions was another.

In one of my recent posts: http://bobkatlair.blogspot.com/2011/10/critical-thinking-101-welcome-to-second.html, my friend and fellow blogger Slam Dunks, comments:

"I think it is healthy for folks to reflect on turning points in there life--how they became what they are today. Though I can't relate to your choice, I respect the right for people to make their own decisions."

October 18, 2011 9:44 PM

Making my own decisions Key to that comment, if I may, is his admission that he "can't relate to ... (the) choice," yet he respects the right of people to make their own decisions.

After HS graduation which I didn't attend, and working at that dept store and classes at college made no sense to me... I really didn't know what to do. There was a side of me that was social, but another side of me that was quite a-social. I considered suicide, as I was not happy. I had a girlfriend, but it was more frustrating than fun. My studies were very difficult, having barely been a C avg. student during HS. Originally I did not see myself moving away from home. Literally, I had no future. Just dreams, and they were worthless I thought at the time.

No, what changed ultimately was me. An old story by now, but one I repeat, one I understand not everyone can relate to. One not everyone can believe, nor accept.

Fact is, around age 19 I smoked cannabis for the second time, and something wonderful happened. Something extraordinary and completely unexpected. My brain snapped into focus. I discovered myself. My dreams held meaning, and my future promise.

God, to live with that awakening in complete opposition to current and past prohibition of just that activity. And no end in sight as the federal government gears up to spend everything it can to continue to wage war on cannabis, in the name of "Battling Drugs"!

Critical Thinking 101 required of me my ability to think for myself, to take possession of of my spirit and my survival. To look out for #1.

Things didn't work out exactly as I'd planned after that... but I sure did make ground... progress.

So tell me again why cannabis is illegal? Why I should feel shame for my past, and why my future is filled with more of the same hypocrisy and oppression? Tell me again why the federal gov't has a patent relating to the medical benefits of cannabis, and yet refuses to remove it from it's Schedule One classification that emphasizes ZERO medical value?

Why are people allowed to get drunk after work, but not allowed to relax with cannabis?

It takes critical thinking to figure the answers out. You decide.... regardless of polls, recent legal battles to legalize pot, what benefit to society is there to ban a plant that is non-toxic, 100%natural, and safer than legally available alternatives? What spend billions of dollars a year, destroy countless individuals and families to support a law with no bearing in reality? Seriously, cannabis prohibition is without merit. Without justification. It needs to end.

That is critical thinking. To see the obvious.