RELATIONSHIPS... ARE THEY SO SIMPLE?

People. Relationships.

Are they so simple that as I sit here alone, and wish not to be, that I am suffering from a most humiliating condition? I'll call it isolation syndrome.

I wish I had some pictures of myself... I was fortunate to be a good looking male, a magnet and I didn't know it. I have had many relationships in my life. I'm presently single and have been for about ten years.

Do I want to be single, outside of a relationship? No.

Am I adapting? Yes.

But it's not what I'd choose to be,

It's my currently living situation where I've stayed too long.

Are relationships simple? Yes and no.

I can attest to the sense that Love is Elusive... but it's not. What we lack is confidence and as a result we settle for what may not work. If for one night, one week, three years or more, we have a tendency to pretend, as in we don't really communicate.

We're under a lot of pressure in society to mate - for a lifetime. Many of us grow up believing love is elusive and believing who we get is what we get. Oh, it's complicated.

The other person is perfect in the beginning, and we feel in love. We feel that this is it, our only hope - not even a hope - rather a dream come true.

Reality sets in eventually. The real work isn't finding a mate... it finding the correct one, the good fit. Then it's working together. Both need be present.

Likewise... relationships need not be permanent. Heck, they often don't last for long. A year, three years, more... they end. It can make one cynical.

I'm simply reflecting on 40 years of good relationships, no matter how or when they ended. The sex was good, the relationship was good. I just didn't have it in myself to say yes to marriage. Not that this is required, just that even today a relationship outside of marriage is not commonly accepted.

The relationship is not what's difficult. It's communicating that is difficult.

Simply reflecting...

REGARDING MARIJUANA - WHY DO SO MANY POLITICIAN'S IN THE UNITED STATES SEEM SO, "OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY"??? PART THREE.

What do the politicians say? Why is it in states like WA, CO and AK that politicians still insist marijuana is BAD? They are "going along with the voter's choice". They assume no responsibility. They only sign the legal degree.

Freshman Class: "Introduction to Politician 101".

"Marijuana Is Bad". Repeat that 10,000 times.

Freshman Class: "Politician 101".

 "Marijuana Is Bad". Repeat that 10,000 times.

Freshman Class: "Politician 102".

Lecturer:

"What do we know as newly elected politicians class?"

Class:  "Marijuana Is Bad"!!!

"Any questions?"

*******

With the recent bill introduced into Congress, a bill that would move marijuana from Schedule One to Schedule Two, I wrote my Congressmen to urge my support. The following two responses may or may not be from representatives from my state. The point is to review, analyze and deconstruct the meaning and intent of the responses.

Letter One:

Mar. 10, 2015

"Thank you for writing to me with your views on the legalization of marijuana.  I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.

 While I do not support legalization of marijuana, I am sympathetic to people with chronic pain and other serious conditions for which medical marijuana might provide relief.  Since 1996, twenty-one states, including New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana with the condition that it be regulated and under the supervision of qualified physicians, and Colorado and Washington have legalized the drug for recreational use.  I believe that state legislatures are the best place for these decisions to be made, and I do not support federal legislation that would mandate legalization.

 Regardless of whether a state chooses to legalize marijuana, I believe that we should make a concerted effort to prevent recreational drug use, especially by youth.  As you know, the legalization of marijuana use continues to be debated extensively on the state level ##################. I would encourage you to contact your local legislators to express your views on this matter.  You can find your state representatives at the following link: #######################################################################

*******

LETTER TWO:

March 13, 2015

Dear Mr. XXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the legalization of medical marijuana.  I appreciate hearing from you.

I sympathize with those who experience pain from heart-wrenching illnesses, and I understand the challenges and difficulties that those diagnosed with cancer and other life-threatening diseases face.  However, I believe law enforcement would encounter significant problems with enforcing medical marijuana laws.  I also have safety concerns about legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, in part because the Food and Drug Administration has not yet found sufficient evidence to determine that the marijuana plant would be a safe and effective treatment for medical disorders.  Please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should the Senate consider relevant legislation.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.  As your Senator, it is important for me to hear from you regarding the current issues affecting ############# and our nation.  Please do not hesitate to be in touch again if I may be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

******

Review LETTER ONE:

Acknowledges changes in marijuana a laws around the country. Acknowledges marijuana as a medicine. Believes states should have right to decide (federalism). Invokes the FDA which has nil control over plants. Shows ignorance in that she argues for no tolerance for recreational drugs, but in doing so ignores facts like alcohol, coffee, sugar and tobacco. Believes the federal government should not change anything about it's stance on marijuana, why I'm at a loss. Makes use of "by youth" an example/issue against legalization; but the reality is we're talking about adults. 

ANALYZES:

"Marijuana Is Bad".

DECONSTRUCTION: 

"Marijuana Is Bad".

*******

Review LETTER TWO:

 Does not believe marijuana is a medicine. Believes Law Enforcement is incapable of functioning if marijuana were legal. Believes like Ex-Pres. Reagan, marijuana is as bad as walking into a nuclear blast. Totally will not support the bill. 

ANALYZES:

"Marijuana Is Bad".

DECONSTRUCTION: 

"Marijuana Is Bad".

 

REGARDING MARIJUANA - WHY DO SO MANY POLITICIAN'S IN THE UNITED STATES SEEM SO, "OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY"??? PART TWO.

The United States is not a Democracy. That is a misnomer we have been raised to believe, though why is a mystery. We are a Republic, though even that is too simplistic. It essentially means we are a federalist nation who elects those to perform governmental tasks such as making laws, via an electorate body of people, selected to be our agents and to represent our interests during elections.

Democracy and federalism define types of government and distribute of power. But there are three more types of government that describe our form of government, which our Founding Fathers debated. One can read more about the US type of governance here: American Form of Government

The three additional subtypes of government are: 1) martial 2) religious 3) commercial.

The original 13 Colonies favored a religious form of governance on a federalist level. A small central US government where states could form an individualist, religious form of state government. Each state with it's own independent religion. Havens.

This would include atheists, such as the story of the "Maypole of Merrymount", written by Herman Melville.  Some see the story of Merrymound as a Wiccan/Pagan society. Others view it simply as an expression of freedom from religious doctrine. The latter is most correct as religious beliefs and morality were strictly enforced in Europe, and many colonists wanted freedom to decide for themselves.

Ancient Rome had a martial form of government, upon which much of our national philosophy is based. Ancient Israel had a religious form of government. Our Founding Fathers decided upon a commercial form of government.

Forms of government: what does it mean?

It simply means that the United States formed a federalist democratic  form of government based upon commercialism whereby the chain of command is a state with individualistic citizens who vote for their state government, which the state government possessing their own state Constitutions, then works with the federal government. It requires cooperation, compromise, and acceptance.

The question many American citizens are asking is how well is our form of government working?

If polls are any indication, the answer is not very well. Many polls rate satisfaction with government below 50%. Having said that there is much in the way of reform never expected based on our experiences since the 1950's.In part based on the power of the World Wide Web (WWW), where communication between people around the world has exploded, the WWW gives people instant news and information.

Governments used to anonymity and an uniformed populace are now being forced into being transparent. At the same time much of the wealth of the US is contained with a very limited number of corporations. The American middle class is folding in upon itself. Since money is power the new Tea Party in the US is based upon wealth versus power, but this modern day Tea party excludes the poor and those of us just below middle class which is a growing segment of the population.

Still there is much that has changed and much evidence WE are winning.

Gay Rights has gained a significant foothold in America. Equally impressive is an end to marijuana prohibition, based wholly on anecdotal lore and unscientific claims, around 21 states now have legalized marijuana for medicinal use, and three states have legalized adult use of marijuana for whatever they choose to use it for.

Meanwhile the Federal Government  stands firm on it's stance of Nixonian prohibition of marijuana, still insisting it has no medicinal value and a high propensity for extreme addiction. The federal government cites the fact that the FDA has not shown marijuana to be safe and effective, nor has it shown marijuana is not extremely addictive. The branch of the federal government designated to enforce drug laws, the DEA, continues to stonewall reform.

Despite this three members of Congress have signed on to present a measure designed to reschedule marijuana a Schedule Two,  accept the decisions made by states in addressing marijuana use, which includes the three states where marijuana use is legal for adults for any use.

"The senators -- Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Corey Booker, D-N.J. -- are proposing legislation that would legalize state medical marijuana programs under federal law and reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act."

Although my own personal opinion is removing marijuana from being scheduled period, as it is a plant with many virtues, this is a bill with merit, as it is the first step towards righting a wrong that never should have happened in the first place. For that reason I wrote to my state Senators requesting they vote yes on the bill.

In the final installment for this post we will review, consider and deconstruct the responses from my state Senators, who will remain nameless - as their responses mimic similar responses from other governmental law-makers, most of whom seem to be out of touch with reality when it comes to marijuana laws reform.

It's almost as if on their first day on the job during a "Introduction to being a US Representative", they are told, "under no circumstances is marijuana to be discussed, considered for legalization, nor accepted as acceptable for public use".

The Federal Government continues to stonewall legalization efforts and to discount legitimate use of marijuana.

So what do members of Congress feel about moving marijuana fro Schedule One to Two?

Coming up next...

REGARDING MARIJUANA - WHY DO SO MANY POLITICIAN'S IN THE UNITED STATES SEEM SO, "OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY"??? PART ONE.

We're going to view, analyze and deconstruct one letter of response from each of two unnamed US Senators, picked at random.The topic is a bill being introduced into Congress to move cannabis from Schedule One to Schedule Two; along par with heroin and Oxycontin: US NEWS - Federal Marijuana "Decriminalization". 

The goal is to recognize and honor the right of states to regulate marijuana on their own terms without federal intervention. The is federalism... something our forefathers were very much divided upon. It all goes back to what a fledgling nation should be constructed of.

European history is very ancient, something Americans tend not to understand. If America had not been where it is, unknown as it was, only to be discovered as early as the 1400's, modern day history would obviously have been very different. By 1620 however the first of many colonists arrived in the New World. They were people who wanted a new beginning, a new world to live in.

Which brings me back to federalism, the right of states to govern themselves while a federal government does little more than settle disputes between the states and negotiate with foreign countries. Many forefathers favored this form of government like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Others favored a democracy, which oddly enough means having one very strong central government, elected by the people. There would be little in the way of state's rights under a democracy.

The whole goal our forefathers had was to fashion a government that could not become oppressive and controlling like that of England. At the time King's Soldiers could enter any house at will to search and seize anything not claimed on taxes due. That is what ultimately led to the Boston Tea Party. Colonists protesting the King's right to invade a persons privacy and extort extravagant taxes.

Having won the Revolutionary War, our founding fathers created the US Constitution. The Constitution was a sacred, legal document defining a democracy. It implied no rights to the states. At the time as famously know there were 13 Colonies. All had different ideas for life in the New World.

Of particular concern drafting the Constitution were the rights of states... something that bothered some of those who signed the US Constitution. They signed it with a promise, a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a federalism accomplishment, and it's existence is exhibit A of why the the controversy over marijuana exists today.

If there were no Bill of Rights out-lining the rights of states and individuals with those states, our federal government would be there to decide it all for us. It's something they, the Federal Government tries to do often.

Marijuana was placed into/as a Schedule One drug in 1970. At that point it became extremely illegal to possess and use. The purpose of Schedule One is to classify extremely dangerous drugs into a category from where there is no return. Drugs in this category mean they are extremely dangerous. There is zero medical benefit, they are extremely addictive.

Deep six drugs in this category!

Trouble is, marijuana was only temporarily placed as a Schedule One drug back in 1970 at Nixon's urging. He promised a complete, independent review of marijuana which would decide it's permanent status. I have written numerous times before about Nixon's Blue Ribbon, Shaffer Committee, which was to decide upon the danger and virtue of marijuana.

The Shaffer committee found no reason to schedule marijuana. It recommended legalization. Nixon pulled strings, established marijuana as a permanent Schedule One drug based upon no scientific justification, and history and the War on drugs came to be.

Fast forward to 2015, almost 78 after marihuana prohibition started, when now 3 states have legalized marijuana for "recreational use" and around 21 states have legalized medical use. This goes back several decades to where in the 70's many states reduced penalties and Oregon adopted a Constitution amendment legalizing marijuana.

The problem is the federal government and marijuana being a Schedule One drug under federal law.

The bill to honor states rights in this matter is extremely important. So I wrote my Congressmen. in Part Two we will review, discus and deconstruct their responses to plea to say yes.

.