MENTAL ILLNESS IN AMERICA, GUN CONTROL AND THE MARIJUANA MYTHOS...

According to the National Institute of Health - NIH, over one quarter of the American population has a mental illness of some kind. LINK: NIH -MENTAL ILLNESS IN AMERICA.

Often, mental health issues are linked with substance abuse issues. Although one might expect that illegal drugs would be most closely tracked and publicized, the truth is strange as the NIH and other foundations actually compares mental illness rates to alcohol, tobacco, and illegal or legit drug use.

The KIM FOUNDATION is another useful website that looks at the actual statistics for mental health and categorizes the conditions.

My feeling is the number of Americans with a mental health illness is double the number suggested. Too many people go through life ignoring the obvious. Too many families are dysfunctional. There is very little out there educationally with regards to being a family, being parents, being the child.

I'm opposed to government intervention into the life of a family, however, going blindly into being a family seems somewhat antiquated to me. Where are the family colleges? Perhaps I should start one.

We do have laws... we have a child protective services division in most states... the trouble is, too many mistakes happen. The criteria for intervention is either outdated or insufficient. We take children away from parents when it's discovered one or both parents use, or did use marijuana. When one or both parents are arrested for marijuana. Contrast that to use of alcohol or tobacco, child abuse or child neglect.... often hard to prove or make a case for.

Having a beer is like smoking a bowl of pot. It's a question and the answer is difficult to ascertain. Why? Because they are different substances. A truck is different than a car, a trip to China is different than a trip to the Grand Canyon in AZ. We live in a world of diversity. Also a dying world.

In the near 60 years I've been alive on the planet in the United States I have witnessed a surreal idyllic world growing up as a child to a world that is endangered by consequences of what humankind has created in the past 200 years. Global warming, destruction of natural habitat, disregard for nature. As a child the world had none of these destructive concerns...  we only worried over the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union.

***

It's the year 2014... 

Marijuana is still a Schedule One drug at a federal level, however two states along with Portland ME have legalized recreational use of cannabis, and 21 other states allow medical use for cannabis.

You can't however own a gun, if, you're a marijuana user, whether state legal or not. You can own a gun no-matter how much alcohol you consume, and tobacco use is not an issue. 

Although many people in a state where marijuana is legal possess a gun, technically, the federal ATF controls the right to ownership, and since marijuana is a Schedule One drug, it's illegal to possess a gun. 

There are also those on the Right who feel anyone with a mental health condition should be denied access or right to possessing a firearm. As I previously pointed out, that's at least a quarter of society, if not more. I say if not more as I personally know about individuals with mental health issues completely off the grid that own guns. They stay off the grid to secure their 2nd amendment rights. 

They may suffer from any of several mental illnesses as previously discussed. To say outright they shouldn't possess a firearm is ludicrous. How often is it that the non-substance abuse, non-drug anything individual is the one to create chaos? 

It's convenient to be able to say those 24% + person's cannot possess a gun. But of those 24% who seeks therapy and assistance in coping with life? The majority I'd say as that is probably where the statistics come from  and not the actual percentage, which as I suggested is more like 50 - 60% of the population. If so, two scenarios... prevent a marijuana user from possessing a gun, a useless proposal, but there goes 25% of the population, and then those with a mental health disorder, I say 50%... requires mental health evaluations to own a gun. 

But is that realistic? No, it's not.

Marijuana use does not contribute to gun violence and as such should be removed from restrictions. Alcohol use does lend to gun violence and should therefore be considered. 

Of those people I know who claim they are free from mental health issues, I can only say good luck. I can also say among those who seek mental health treatment the evidence of gun violence will decrease. Those who refuse treatment are most prone to commit gun violence, something generally ignored in society.

It seems rather twisted that those we respect that show no evidence of a mental health issue more often than the reverse become a threat to society. But it is true. 

As long as we convince ourselves as a society that only "mentally sick" people need to seek help, we will be bound by a syndrome that essentially says if you don't admit it it's not true. 

To clarify:

Marijuana is not a prerequisite to violent behavior.

20 - 26% of the population are considered to be suffering a mental health illness.

The federal government wants to keep guns from those with mental health issues. 

The number is likely higher, more like 60%. 

There's a difference between those who seek treatment and those who don't.

Prohibiting gun ownership among those with a mental illness, something as simple as general depression, anxiety, ptsd or users of marijuana is not practical, let alone Constitutional. It is not practical as it doesn't take into account the whole story. Those who seek help and those who don't.

Your average serial killer or violent offender is not likely to have sought therapy! There are exceptions... but the majority don't seek assistance. The majority don't use marijuana.

The majority of violent offenders don't seek therapy and don't use marijuana.

Still it's fun to believe the majority of violent persons are in prison, under psychiatric observation, or use marijuana daily.   It simplifies who we should avoid. It simplifies drug testing in the work-place where marijuana is the drug most often in flagged.

But it does nothing to make America safer.  To do that we need to revisit science. But to revisit science means changing the way we do things, and what we have been led to believe is true.

CANNABIS IS ALREADY LEGAL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE - THE GOVENOR AND OTHER POLITICIANS SIMPLY DON'T UNDERSTAND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!

I'm not going to beat around the bush... marijuana is Constitutionally already legal in New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state! The only hurdle as I see it is a clause that questions "sobriety" in Article 83 of the NH Constitution.

[Art.] 83. [Encouragement of Literature, etc.; Control of Corporations, Monopolies, etc.] Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of t he pe ople and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it. The size and functions of all corporations should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capitalization and provision should be made for the supervision and government thereof. Therefore, all just power possessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts of all such persons, associations, corporations, trusts, and officials doing business within the state; to prevent fictitious capitalization; and to authorize civil and criminal proceedings in respect to all the wrongs herein declared against.

June 2, 1784
Amended 1877 prohibiting tax money from being applied to schools of religious denominations.
Amended 1903 permitting the general court to regulate trusts and monopolies restraining free trade.

So what does this look like to you?:

Is this the image of a murderer, a child rapist, a kidnapper?

How is this picture different?:

A field of tobacco. A plant and commodity.

Or this?:

A field of cannabis. A plant, a commodity and medicine.

I'll repeat:

"[Art] 83: Therefore, all just power possessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts of all such persons, associations, corporations, trusts, and officials doing business within the state; to prevent fictitious capitalization; and to authorize civil and criminal proceedings in respect to all the wrongs herein declared against."

In relationship to the unfair prohibition of one agricultural commodity against another, unless there is a clear and imminent danger of death or a verified terrorist threat to society, an agricultural commodity cannot be prohibited in the State of NH.

"[Art.] 83. [Encouragement of Literature, etc.; Control of Corporations, Monopolies, etc.] Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country..."

"Natural History of this Country?"

The greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add a useful plant to its culture.
- Thomas Jefferson

Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country.
- Thomas Jefferson

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,
- Genesis 1:29

He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man:
- Psalm 104:14

We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption.
- John Adams

It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to understand that it is legal under the NH Constitution to use hemp/cannabis as long as no one is hurt in the process... or just as sobriety is determined in cases of alcohol use, that marijuana is treated equally and fairly under the laws that protect society.

That it becomes apparent that what happens is, law enforcement is intimidated into violating NH Constitutional law by conducting raids on individuals and families whose sole purpose is in growing, selling or using hemp/cannabis as in an agricultural commodity under peaceful and benevolent terms; as a result of police actions people are hurt, families torn apart, people are killed or the action of illegality creates a back-side composed of cartels that exhibit reative types of control, death and destruction. All is unfair, as it is far less common that law enforcement will enact a similar action involving commodities like alcohol or tobacco.


Am I advocating "breaking the law in New Hampshire"?

No. Absolutely not! What I'm suggesting are the laws in place regarding cannabis/hemp/marijuana are currently Unconstitutional. I'm suggesting it is the right of the people to demand and acquire redress for violations of their Constitutional Rights. I'm saying, marijuana laws in New Hampshire are a violation of the People's Constitutional Rights.

Am I suggesting that the Governor of NH is ignoring and violating the rights of NH Citizens by what I call looking the other way when it comes to cannabis? Absolutely! The governor should be able to recognize the legitimacy of cannabis as an agricultural, scientific, medicinal commodity within the state and immediately take measures to bring marijuana laws into compliance with Constitutional law. Or prove why she can't or won't!

REALITY - MOVIES AND TELEVISION, SEX AND OTHER HISTORIAL INUENDO...

Society is so complex. It's said "you're simply a cog in a giant machine".

So imagine; you've finished work for the day and you're home. Maybe you have family, maybe not - so maybe you're home alone (with animal companion [?]). Depending on your mood and habits, maybe you sit down to watch some TV, or Netflix, or any number of other mediums out there.

I'm the "home alone type with companion cat" and the first thing I do after greeting my companion is to break open a beer. I hop online and respond to and write e-mails, read suggested links and then maybe watch a movie or TV series. I used to play video games alot, but have gotten side-tracked by the excellent productions in TV and Movies out there and available, often streaming which means hardly any wait time.

There are many Wow's in my garden of favorite shows. I like Sci-Fi, Historic stuff, Detective stuff, Mysteries... sometimes one has to let go of one's resistance to perceived reality to enjoy the show. Other times the show is mystical but believable.

But imagine you start to see a pattern. An unrealistic pattern. That's what this post is about.

Most like a good James Bond thriller. It's action packed, thrilling, on the edge of the chair or wishing the sex scene involved you.  The odd thing is, without even being aware of it, James Bond is, based on studies, an alcoholic which by realistic interpretation should be dead by age 56 based upon alcohol consumption and least of all, able to pull off the action hero he portrays. USA TODAY - James Bond - Dead at 56.

Or NY POST - Cover Story - Bond an Alcoholic

James Bond is not alone and worse, how realistic are the movies and TV we watch?

Many of us, at least those over 40 or 50 have heard comical (now) stories about censorship on TV and in movies. How in "I Dream of Jeannie", 1965 - 1970, censor originally place strong limits on her costume which involved no showing of her navel.

Or "Leave It To Beaver", 1957 -1963. In the first ever series premier it appears filmmakers already ran into censorship problems. According to recent news, The Beaver and his bother Wally decide to buy a pet alligator. They plan to keep it in the toilet, yes, rather odd; the problem is it was against Public Broadcasting rules to show a toilet, let alone a bathroom in film! A compromise was established where the scene would be allowed if shot from behind the toilet facing out of the bathroom.

There are many odd, moralistic and seemingly unrealistic rules out there with regards to TV and movies. Whole books have most likely been published by that alone.

Considering how disgusted my grandmother was of Beatle's music, and the fact that many books by famous authors were banned for sale in the US from the early 1920's because of articulated sex scenes until about 1964, it is not surprising there were strict laws or regulations imposed upon words, actors and substance - meaning the story.

Rarely was it "all the truth, nothing but the truth..." except in courts. Those that watched shows like "I Dream of Jeannie", "Leave It To Beaver", "Lassie", or "Gun Smoke", were literally smoked. With the invention of wireless radio, came the invention of "doctored media" called censorship.

Censorship has been broadly discussed in topics regarding the original Star Trek TV series, or "The Fugitive" Starring David Janssen - 1963 to 1967. The guilty party could never escape Justice, and the fugitive endured 4 years of TV wandering until the final episode where he was able to prove his innocence. I myself watched the entire 4 years live, as in waiting each week for a new episode. It seems like along time ago. Based on a true story, the real Dr, Rich Kimble didn't have such a successful conclusion.

Times have changed, haven't they? We can see nudity in movies and more. But oddly, rules still apply based on a report I read from a mainstream cable movie icon that the amount of nakedness exposure in movies or TV need be limited to 5 seconds, as any longer and the general population gets distressed.

Now where are the rules more complicated when it comes to drug use?

Yes, there are some movies where drug use is prevalent, but when narrowing this drug use down to the 3 most popular recreational forms of drug use an odd picture emerges. The top three recreational drugs based on current research are alcohol, tobacco and marijuana.

Alcohol Use: The number One drug of choice on TV or in movies. It's use is so common as to make it insidious when considering research conducted using (previous discussed) studies based upon James Bond movies.

But sadly, my two most popular modern TV shows that I loved have one big flaw. Use of alcohol is beyond human endurance... the amounts of alcohol consumed are beyond comprehension.

Understand, the following shows are great entertainment and fun to watch:

1) Battlestar Galactica; 2003 - 2009
2) Saving Grace; 2007 - 2010
3) Lost Girl; 2010 - PRESENT

However, the alcohol consumed is totally unrealistic!. It's actually treated like it's water, which in the show it probably is, but seriously, there is a limit!

Tobacco use used to be common in TV and in Movies; but for the past 20 years far less common, if not missing entirely. Oddly, public use although it's said public use has declined, it appears to me to be as common as it ever was. Perhaps the survey's are flawed.


Marijuana use virtually was non-existent in mainstream TV and movies unless used to denote a questionable character, often a disturbed character, and generally a teenager. The exceptions began in the 1960's and especially 1970's.Movies like Weeds, Cheech and Chong, Omar and Kumar.

In virtually every other TV or movie out there the use of marijuana is marginalized to include characters with emotional or psychological problems, or at risk teens. Almost never does one see marijuana being used in an everyday setting, during a friendly party, a wedding reception, or a casual everyday sit down among friends. Yet everyday, all across America, 25 million casual users sit down, talk while routinely enjoying the marijuana experience. The unfortunate reality is that there is very scant existence of that in TV or Movies.

Everything on TV is assumed to be based on reality, yet not. It's exactly what entertainment was designed to be, with some real good and many others are plain old bad.

THE HISTORY OF DRUGS OF ABUSE IN AMERICA REVISITED

IT'S been said that "crime in America is a sty in everyone's eye". Politicians, for that reason, like to make a case for election or reelection based upon their stance of "being tough on crime!"

It's not easy for a politician to stand up in front of a crowd shouting, "I will assure you, when I'm elected there will be no rapes, no murders, no kidnappings... I will stamp out crime!" The reason it's not easy for a politician to say this is it's a given. These are crimes against humanity; it's expected laws against these types of deviant behavior will be swift and sure.

What a politician needs is a crime that's tangible, one not cast in stone. A crime that has a basis in morality, or principal. A crime such as a poor individual stealing food to feed his family. A crime where public opinion matters. A crime like reading books deemed immoral and dirty. A crime like "using illegal drugs". The former was a crime in America until 1964. The latter crime, use of "illegal drugs", took hold early in the twentieth century. It began with unprecedented legislation called the "Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906", in which all ingredients in a pharmacological mixture as well as food, must be identified and reported on the label. The obvious target of this legislation were "snake-oil cures", which often contained high levels of narcotics, alcohol or WKW (who knew what? snake venom, dung, toe jam, etc).

Narcotics; is a modern day term generally used to denote drugs based upon opiates. The list includes opium, morphine, codeine, as well as coca based extracts such as cocaine.

Opium was once a commonly used "recreational" drug in the old world. The Chinese had the biggest export market on for it. It was as lucrative as oil is today. It could be bought anywhere without question. Another more common name for it was laudanum.

It was actually another pseudo-narcotic that tipped the tide in favor of federal regulation of "drugs" and that was cocaine. The father of all modern "Drug Dealers" could be said to be John Pemberton, the inventor of Coca Cola in the late 1800's. Originally, as many are aware, Pemberton's Coca Cola contained high amounts of cocaine. Until the invention of Coke, coca and cocaine were simply another natural drug available at any store that sold extracts and herbs as medicine. The original Coca Cola soda drink was developed as yet another plant extract elixir, one promising to promote general overall health and a sense of well-being.

"Drug Stores" back in the late 1800's were also the neighborhood soda joint... where one could get a milkshake or ice-cream cone along with whatever medicinal supplies a person or family might need. The pharmacist was also the soda jerk. Unfortunately, Coca Cola proved to be very addictive, much like tobacco is today. John Pemberton himself succumbed to the effects of cocaine addiction and died in 1888 of the complications of cocaine addiction. He wasn't alone. Many died; this was the Industrial Revolution, people worked long hard hours.Unwinding at the end of the day, well just imagine what that must have been like?

Consider our current drudge of a 40-hour work week, with generally fair wages and benefits, though that is up for debate. In the 1880's, according to this research authored by Jeremy Atack and Fred Bateman, the Journal of Economic History, 1992, the average work-week was 60 hours, 10 hours a day, six days a week. One might consider the work environment back then also. The 1800's saw an end to a mostly agricultural society and a certain inseparable connection with nature. It saw a mass migration to an urban lifestyle for jobs, becoming city-dwellers. Sure, many of us know of those times as the Civil War era, the Wild West, Indian Wars, the Gold rush and Global Conquest. However, let's not forget the millions flocking to factory jobs in the cities often with unhealthy working environments and little in the way of regulations.

The result of the Civil War alone left a federal government shaken, and President Lincoln's passage of the Emancipation Proclamation further angered many people, which upset many a politician.

Now, brokering for power, politicians begin to see a hole in the "fabric of society and politics". A lot in this hole is truthfully disturbing, as in not knowing what's in that drug you're taking, or the food you're eating. But it's as if the Pure Food and Drug Act was simply a precursor to what would follow. The fact that the Chinese had taken over San Francisco and made it into an opium den, the fact that people were consuming colas and dying; those and other obvious problems prompted passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act, of 1914, which placed federal control over any drug deemed a narcotic, including opium and cocaine.

Marijuana, then called cannabis or ganja, was not included in this act. It remained legal and was a useful, commonly prescribed drug by a family physician. The most important goal of the Harrison Narcotics Act was to close all Chinese opium dens in America and end the Chinese monopoly on the market. It accomplished both goals.

Considering the "dangers of unregulated use of narcotics", one would think the government got it right for a change. This type of legislation and control of natural medicines was unprecedented in American or any society around the world. And around the world it went, eventually eliminating anything designated as a narcotic from public access, without a doctor's prescription.

Who knows what might have been, if we'd stopped there. But in 1920 alcohol production was made illegal under the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution. On the surface alcohol prohibition may seem today like it was out-right wrong, foolhardy and unwarranted. However quite the opposite is actually the truth. 

We've all heard, I think, about the Women's Temperance Movement.

Beginning in the 1820's prohibition of alcohol was being advocated. Hard liquor mostly, but the movement grew. Some of the rationale was moral, in fact a lot of the movement was held on moral grounds; but there were many women admitting their husbands would abuse them when using alcohol.

The Eighteenth Amendment was inevitable, but short-lived. It was rooted in history, slowed by the Civil War when alcohol saw a huge boost in use and acceptance. Prohibition taught us about the human psyche and freedom. The violence that occurred as a result of prohibition was unprecedented. The ingenuity of people to smuggle and distill their own alcohol was astonishing. Despite the hundred year fight by prohibitionists to ban alcohol, in 1933 the Twenty-First Amendment repealed alcohol prohibition.

However, the truth of the matter is, actually, it wasn't the violence during Prohibition that changed the collective mind in Washington, it was the need for money, for taxes. Washington was broke, the Great Depression was ravaging the US. Something had to give. That something was alcohol and taxes. And "getting rid of Mexican immigrants" taking jobs from Americans, and Blacks, who it was determined, being empowered by their new-found "freedom", had decided to take an interest in White girls. This was the early 1900's.

It might have been said then in 1937 with passage of the Marihuana Tax Act, that more taxes were on the same collective mind in Washington. But sadly, this wouldn't be true. A new kind of politics was in America... with a new Federal Bureau of Narcotics headed by the infamous Harry Anslinger - Devil's Weed (or here for the Wiki Link).Marijuana was treated like a machine gun, a "danger to youth", and the tax required growing the plant first, then claiming it in person, product at hand, only to be charged with growing cannabis without a tax stamp. It was expensive, a stamp, and it created "prohibition" as a catch-22 that wasn't found to be Unconstitutional until the 1960's. It was an experiment by governments to see what their limitations were in violating civil rights.

Next up on the chopping block: How Popular is Alcohol anyways??? The Reality of Alcohol and TV, Movies and Real Life Along Side the reality of Marijuana... Add to that 5 seconds of "sex", like a nude body and research indicates, any more than that and Americans start freaking out... okay. So maybe next time I'll spend an hour talking about baseball instead of marijuana or sex... depends upon my audience and my mood.