The 259 members of the 109th Congress who failed to vote in favor of correcting a mistake of 69-years and counting have given de-facto approval to the practice of punishing sick and dying people. Granted, the Drug Enforcement Administration has promised the United States Supreme Court that it does not target individual medical marijuana patients, but the agency nevertheless opposes the end of medical marijuana prohibition and therefore desires to, at least, threaten legitimate medical marijuana patients with criminal sanction. But, why? Why is it so hard to accept the private medical use of marijuana?

Are people upset with the medical use of marijuana because they believe it looks like lawlessness? Would such people change their view about medical marijuana if they knew that the American Medical Association once considered the plant to be medicine? If they knew that the Chinese have been using the plant as medicine for thousands of years? If they had a family member who needed marijuana to ease the symptoms associated with cancer, AIDS, and/or chronic pain?

Are people upset with the medical use of marijuana because they believe that some medical marijuana patients do not “look” sick? Well, should Congress order doctors to only prescribe medicine on the basis of who “looks” sick to the average person with no medical background or training? What, exactly, is a cancer patient supposed to look like anyway? How about an AIDS patient? An MS patient? Glaucoma? Arthritis? Is it even possible or desirable to judge by a glance which person deserves a disabled parking permit and which person does not?

Are people upset with the medical use of marijuana because they think that marijuana is addictive? Would such people change their view about medical marijuana if they knew that the supervised use of pain medication is not the equivalent of the unsupervised abuse of pain medication? If not, then should Congress prevent doctors from recommending the use of all medicines that could be addictive or could be abused? Why should people be deprived of useful medicine on the basis that certain individuals cannot be trusted with such medicine? Isn’t it simply cruel to threaten to punish people with incarceration for privately following their doctor’s advice?

Are people upset with the medical use of marijuana because they think that marijuana is dangerous? Would such people change their view about medical marijuana if they knew that no one in recorded human history has ever died from overdosing on marijuana? Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, so should we re-prohibit alcohol and bring back organized crime figures like Al Capone? If not, then why should we keep medical marijuana prohibition in place when it helps foster a black market that provides ready funding to international terrorists? Is it possible that the war on drugs is more dangerous than the medical use of marijuana? Isn’t it the current system of drug regulation that subjects our children to dangerous streets and dangerous temptations? Has Coors Brewing Company ever sponsored a drive-by shooting or otherwise used violence to profit from the sale of beer? Has a legitimate medical marijuana patient’s use of marijuana ever caused measurable harm to society?

According to the polls there is only 20% of the American population that does not favor medical marijuana. That means a whopping 80% of the country favors making marijuana available for doctors to prescribe to patients without government interference. Despite the fact that both federalism and conservatism seem to call for letting States enact medical marijuana laws and keeping government out of people’s private lives, a majority-of-the-majority in the Republican Party refuses to recognize any comity or restraint, and the Democratic Party is sometimes too afraid to stand up for what is often viewed as a “hippie” drug. The result is an out-of-touch Congress that criminalizes the sick and dying.

Oh well, maybe next year common sense will, finally, prevail in Congress again. In the meantime, people who need medical marijuana to survive are forced to go on living with the stigma of being a violator of an unjust law, which is still some kind of law after all, and which, for conscientious citizens, does not feel good to disobey. The good news is that medical marijuana patients are on the side of truth; however, the bad news is that they have to beg Congress to catch up with them for at least one more year.

Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004).

Source: Frontiers of Freedom (VA)
Author: Kenneth Michael White
Published: July 01, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Frontiers of Freedom
Contact: opeds@opeds.com
Website: http://www.ff.org/

Related Articles:

Drug Policy Reform Activists Suffer Defeat
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21952.shtml

House OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21951.shtml

So if you're really interested, and you want to discuss why you think non-violence does not work then you might read an article like this and explain what you take exception to in Gandhi's methods as he actually used them:

If I understood correctly, whig you admitted you would defend yourself and your wife. I agree that I would do likewise. FoM addmitted she would attempt save the girl from the attacker.

I agree with that!

Judge the tree by its fruit. We are the other tree here. Peace. We are waging peace. You are waging war. Which tree yields better fruit?

Your war would be endless. You would not win a total victory but by enslaving the rest, and in enslaving making yourself the very devil, part of the Anti-Christ.

We are who we are and we are here to do what we do. You can do it along with us and talk with us if you respect that we are not going to debate with you about whether the war in Iraq is a good idea, whether we should invade Iran, whether there is any excuse for any of it that we do not consider to be a recycled lie. And you believe it so you speak from your faith but your faith is misplaced.

I used to be a conservative and would have agreed with every word you said. I was brought up to believe in the state and that it was good and it protected us from bad things and defended our rights. I learned otherwise. Most of us have learned that to a large enough extent that we would agree in some respects but some still believe that the war on drugs is just an aberration.

But by the same token we have been brainwashed in so many other ways. We cannot find the truth when deception is the rule. The truth is only discovered in ways that can be concealed from the deceivers, lest they silence it. That is why cannabis is illegal: because it aids in the discovery of truth.

I am sorry for saying you killed people when you did not. It was not my intent to falsely defame you, and I should have more patiently asked than assumed.

You said you were a soldier and you fought. But if you did not kill people you were part of a troop deployment that did, correct?

When a crime is committed, and any member of a group of criminals kills someone, the others, who could reasonably have known the risk that someone would be killed, are held responsible as well, are they not?

I cannot let you out of this that easily. You were still wrong to fight a war based on a lie. You weren't wrong in the sense that you are condemned, but inasmuch as you made a mistake to believe the lie, and you did take actions which resulted in deaths and wounds for which you should take some measure of responsibility. Do you disagree?

I have nothing but respect for Gandhi even though I don’t entirely agree with his degree of passivity.

You don't have to be perfect. But you have to make an effort to respect what you don't understand if you want to learn anything. We are here on this earth to learn and to make it better.

Assume that the attack is going to happen but now you only have a choice between answers #1 & #2 because in a split second the sword will separate this woman’s head from her body.

Can I say I would never use violence in any circumstance? No, I could imagine scenarios. Defending my wife, or someone else, it is possible. I don't seek out opportunities to have any need to do that.

But to play devil’s advocate I’ll put myself in that scenario and I killed the guy and the woman spit in my face because I insulted her honor and culture and I feel like at that moment I should have paid more attention to the lessons preached by Gandhi.

PS-I can live with myself for killing him. I couldn’t live with myself for allowing her head to roll.

This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United State is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; * Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; * Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; * Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; * Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; * New York World Trade Center 2001; * Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United State, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

***

'Bad President' - Yikes McGee

I must have been too stoned this morning when I ranted about the House Resolution. In fact it was just the amendment #46 that received the 259 NO votes. I thought it was the Bill as a whole. I stand corrected and humbly embarrassed.

So 259 Congress critters including the one that I voted for said NO to taking cannabis prohibition enforcement money in certain States away from the Fed in order to give it to back certain State's to clean up meth labs if I read this correctly?

I don’t know any Americans that chop off heads either. I am familiar with some that blow up buildings in the Midwest, mail letter bombs, or shoot Home Depot shoppers with a rifle but our country has over 20,000 homicides a year and that stat is currently in a decline from a high in 1994.

What do we do about it here? The answer is a lot really but we could do more.

Speaking of truth.

Shifts in perception and sensory stimuli caused by drug use, maybe cannabis more so than others because of the internal endocannibinoid system, allows a shift of consciousness that is observable. Seeing, discerning the shift can give insight into the nature of 'states of mind', specifically their not-self nature. The thinker becomes the thought, the thought becomes the thinker, where am "I" when absorbed into playing the guitar? Am I the one directing the fingers? Perhaps "I" am the one hearing the music?

Are we like a spider at the center of the web of our senses?

Buddhists would say there is nothing there at all or any essence is not self either. Christians, my eternal soul. How can these be reconciled?(essence=soul=piece of God=not self -> everything is God, evil arises from delusion, separation of mind from truth by greed/hate/ignorance - all on loan from the universe - my current reconciliation, delusion or not, who can say?) We can only really be sure of what we have experienced ourselves, anything else depends upon the faith in which one invests the source(s).

I have had 'mystical' and/or 'religous' experiences but must ultimately conclude that such 'revelations' may be the mind coping with inevitable realities just as likely as discernment of the true nature of reality. And even should some revelatory experience be valid, it is not a firm enough basis for others to find peace nor the basis for helping others. We can see the negative effects of fanatical belief in revelatory religions, the insistence on dogma for mental or physical control, and now the last thing the state wants is people with true compassion and critical thinking skills to start questioning them. Rule may be enforced at the barrel of a gun but true strength springs from the heart.. ------------------------------------------------------

221

Abandon anger,

be done with conceit,

get beyond every fetter.

When for name & form

you have no attachment

— have nothing at all —

no sufferings, no stresses, invade.

222

When anger arises,

whoever keeps firm control

as if with a racing chariot:

him

I call a master charioteer.

Anyone else,

a rein-holder —

that's all.

223

Conquer anger

with lack of anger;

bad, with good;

stinginess, with a gift;

a liar, with truth.

224

By telling the truth;

by not growing angry;

by giving, when asked,

no matter how little you have:

by these three things

you enter the presence of devas.

225

Gentle sages,

constantly restrained in body,

go to the unwavering state

where, having gone,

there's no grief.

226

Those who always stay wakeful,

training by day & by night,

keen on Unbinding:

their effluents come to an end.

227-228

This has come down from old, Atula,

& not just from today:

they find fault with one

who sits silent,

they find fault with one

who speaks a great deal,

they find fault with one

who measures his words.

There's no one unfaulted in the world.

There never was,

will be,

nor at present is found

anyone entirely faulted

or entirely praised.

229-230

If knowledgeable people praise him,

having observed him

day after day

to be blameless in conduct, intelligent,

endowed with discernment & virtue:

like an ingot of gold —

who's fit to find fault with him?

Even devas praise him.

Even by Brahmas he's praised.

231-234

Guard against anger

erupting in body;

in body, be restrained.

Having abandoned bodily misconduct,

live conducting yourself well

in body.

Guard against anger

erupting in speech;

in speech, be restrained.

Having abandoned verbal misconduct,

live conducting yourself well

in speech.

Guard against anger

erupting in mind;

in mind, be restrained.

Having abandoned mental misconduct,

live conducting yourself well

in mind.

Those restrained in body

— the enlightened —

restrained in speech & in mind

— enlightened —

are the ones whose restraint is secure.

To do this, without anger or grief, I fear may be impossible. It is one thing to have compassion and speak of it, but to relate to another human being on their own emotional levels we must have the compassion to feel those emotions themselves, to feel the anger and the grief which are part and parcel of the experience of loss and injury.

To me compassion is that sense of feeling what another feels, it is to relate as an injury done to ourselves and to share in the feeling.

I believe that as a man I must have all human emotions, and suppress none, but for reasons of immediacy that I must act in some way. But I should not avoid any kind of feeling if it tells me how another feels because that is how I may have compassion with that person. That these emotions can lead to negative actions is where the blockade is for me.

Think of consoling a grieving widow whose husband was killed by a police officer in a mistaken drug raid. Do you have compassion for her without feeling her pain? And it is not a thing you feel for a few minutes and then forget, you hold that within you so that you always have compassion for her. So there is anger and grief (and rage, and a lot of things).

Peace and compassion.

But what the culture teaches, what people are taught to believe, is joy as the goal. And this keeps them ever unsatisfied but willing to subjugate themselves for the promise of a future reward. Like a carrot, before the horse.

If given the time and skill level to suddenly prevent someone from chopping your neighbor’s wife’s head off for being a woman that left her home unescorted by a male how would you react?

1. Stop the attack

2. Allow the attack to happen

3. blow yourself up at a bus station

4. Sit in a corner like Gandhi and do nothing

5. Other (please explain)

Number 3 is right out, and don't accuse Gandhi of sitting in a corner and doing nothing. You trivialize someone who did a great deal and that insults both him and everyone who respects what he did and how.

How do I know the attack is going to happen? Am I deceived with lies by people who want me to go in and kill the man. Am I responsible for killing an innocent man if I do so and then find out it was a lie? There are far too many things that could be wrong with the scenario you present, and perfect knowledge can never be assumed.

You killed people for the state, because you believed lies. And you did not intend to kill wrongfully, but it was wrong. That is what I believe. I don't say that with condemnation, and it is something you can be forgiven as all things can be, but we should be honest about our mistakes and admit when we were wrong.

at the Rainbow Bridge,

Could you please describe what compassion is in your own words? It is not grief and it is not anger, it is something else that remains.

Mental and emotional states can only be described by metaphor. It is a projection of a real phenomena into another medium. The natural 'medium' for compassion is the heart/mind/soul thus any attempt I make to describe it would be 1 d projection. The closest I can think of to describe what I am saying is think of a cube.

Now draw the cube. This drawing is a 2-d projection, a shadow of the real cube. Likewise, any description of 'love', 'compassion', 'joy', or 'equinamity' can only be a projection. Since most peoples perception of reality is like a reflection of the actual reality, distorted through their filters of mental conditioning, the illusions are often more comforting than the reality.

Can you describe to me exactly what is blue? Assume I look at blue all the time but have no perception of 'blue'? At least with sense objects, one person can point at a thing and say 'blue' then our mind can perceeive what differentiates it from 'black'. Compassion is neither the anger nor the greif but what those may arise from. What is it that makes one angry at injustice? Sad at sight of suffering? See I can't point into your head and say "there is compassion".. I can only experience my own.

But there is still grief and anger in me while there is also compassion. Should I lose the grief and anger completely I might be unmotivated to do something. Should there not be a balance?

Well, from what I have read, I can't speak from experience because I still have some craving, I do not believe I am 'enlightened' as I have read but that would be 'nirvanna' and just because you are neither angry nor sad, does not mean you would not act. The whole point is to uproot cravings that cause anger or grief(or lust,greed..) so that there is peace. They describe it like 'relief', like extinguishing a fire, more than 'joy' for joy itself is impermanent, craving for it and absence of it are dukkha(unsatisfactory), and it is not self.

He will totally bankrupt this American Big Government,

An end all this bloated interference..

Unlike that martyr my cause is simple. I will defend myself. I will defend my family, my friends, and members of my community from the mental mind set that would blow up themselves and innocent lives. I call what I would do “self defense” rather than “advocating” blood. The idea is to stay alive. By surrendering my life, I did not mean I would commit suicide. I meant that I would respond to the aforementioned defenses with lethal force it that is what it took to remain alive.

That is what I did many years ago by volunteering to serve in the armed forces of my nation. I was willing to put my life on the line in defense of our way of life this thing we call freedom.

I realize that you and I may be quivering over the means to an end. But let me ask you this if I may?

If given the time and skill level to suddenly prevent someone from chopping your neighbor’s wife’s head off for being a woman that left her home unescorted by a male how would you react?

1. Stop the attack

2. Allow the attack to happen

3. blow yourself up at a bus station

4. Sit in a corner like Gandhi and do nothing

5. Other (please explain)

But there is still grief and anger in me while there is also compassion. Should I lose the grief and anger completely I might be unmotivated to do something. Should there not be a balance?

The letter of the law is adhered to assidously while we disagree about the spirit. What is freedom? What is liberty? How is big government a threat to these things? How can freedom exist when the 'world' will be 100% owned?

Since the war on drugs has been so successful in eroding peoples rights, dividing and marginalisig large segments of the population, the war on terror ate up even more at the same time creating 1 billion potential enemies throughout the world. You need 'anti-terror' laws to deal with the people when they wake up to the fact that they are ruled by a criminal syndicate, the velvet glove hides an iron fist. Cannnabis users have seen the reality since the 70s... your liberty is what the state defines it to be... hence the state becomes the virtual body that 'absolute power' becomes invested in rather than the people who must live with the real results of the actions of the virtual body.

I read the US constitution once. American culture is pervasive in Canada, we really are not that much different. Fewer guns, medicare, but essentially ruled by fiat currencies via the global banking cartels. Our velvet gloves are thicker and we don't incarcerate people forever for trifles but we are enjoying the same culture in Canada. Energy hogging, wasteful, fat with wealth but poorly distributed.

Somewhere in the Abidhamma, The Path of Purification, there was a section on what they called the near and far enemies of the 'four divine abidings' love, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equinamity. These emotional/mental states are associated with meditative absorbtions and this was all mapped out. It's funny that all that sticks after 6 years but the only near and far enemies I remember are those of compassion . It's near enemy was anger, its far enemy was grief. I could have that reversed but either way, this can be directly realized. When we see suffering do we not feel anger at a cause of suffering, or grief at the suffering of another? It's a balance, should one feel compassion, either of those (or both) may destroy your calm.

Why does that matter? Because the basis of 'freedom' lies with compassion for others. Freedom cannot be without insuring that it is not usurped from individuals, not circumvented by prevarication, deception, and war. Not undermined by constant wrangling. When an enemy of compassion overtakes the mind, clear rational thought becomes far more difficult.

Today, for the second time, my sister and I had to try and catch one of our semi-feral cats. He was a homeless cat that used to have a home, a big orange tabby, just like Morris. My sister fosters them for the local humane society, we have several cats because they do not kill them here, we just keep them. Occasionally we trap a new one... this orange tabby had a golf-ball sized cyst on his back that was excised about 2 weeks ago. He got 8 stitches and now they have to GO... so today we tried to box him again. He KNOWS when we have the intent to cage him but the thing just has to be done.... after 2 YEARS of being here he just started to trust us. Today he was terrified, he actually took a swat at me. It made me angry that we could not catch him, it has to happen so we eliminated his hiding places... he was just panting with terror... we quit. He has to go to the vet but he knows and remembers the last time.

Do you think the PTB think that way about us? Could they be so arrogant? Wild animals that run away from submitting to their 'procedures'? Drug users rounded up, caged like animals, and forced to 'clean up' for our own good? Well sometimes I think the paternalism stretches to animal husbandry sometimes.

If you can avoid being a martyr without betrayal, never be a martyr. We should revere the memory of those who died in such a way. I do, but not for the blood they shed, rather for the integrity which they carried. The blood is horrible, hateful, murder. It is the death of a man or woman who served his fellow and died for it. It is the death of an innocent. Despise it.

Martyrs are not the same as slaves. Martyrs are free men who gladly surrender their lives to prevent the intolerant from taking other lives. You are saying that you are a martyr, or are willing freely to become one.

I enjoy your commentary immensely but I have to disagree.

I don’t advocate blood.

It is the intolerant person who has no qualms about taking my life or yours for ideological or political differences that advocates the blood letting.

Free men like me do not consider ourselves martyrs because we would gladly surrender our lives to prevent the intolerant from taking your life. Do you see this fundamental difference? I sincerely hope so?

To say that 259 of our representatives merely scoffed at medical marijuana patients with a NO vote on the bill House Resolution 5672 is entirely inaccurate.

BTW: Thanks mayan for the link to the roll call vote on this resolution.

Via that link I discovered that the guy I voted for in Congress was a NO voter of this bill. I voted for my congressional representative because he typically mirrors my views. I live in a medical marijuana state so I became concerned this morning why his decision was a NO vote?

HR 5672 had 75 amendments to it.

By voting NO my congressman and 258 other elected representatives not only turned down the medical marijuana component which was the 46th amendment to this bill he also voted NO to the following few other items as well:

To increases funding for the Violence Against Women Act by $10,000,000.

To increase funds for the direct and guaranteed loan programs by $40 million.

Amendment that sought to increase funds for the FBI by $40 million.

An amendment to increase funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program by $532 million.

Amendment increases funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program by $25 million.

An amendment to increase funding (by offset) for the Department of Justice Drug Court Programs by $5 million.

Amendment adds $12 million to the COPS bulletproof vest program.

Amendment provides an additional $2 million for the West Coast commercial salmon industry.

I could go on and on but so does the PORK in this horrible bill and if you want to see it for yourself here is the link to the individual amendments…

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d109:./temp/~bday6Np:1[1-75](Amendments_For_H.R.5672)&./temp/~bdErZ5

My point is that I could theoretically write an article that condemns my Congressman for being in favor of violence against women since he voted against additional funding for those victims.

By the same token my Congressman is also on the side of criminals. He failed to approve more bullet proof vests for police officers and he also failed to approve more money for the FBI. He must be pro crime!

To call the 259 NO voter’s murderers is a bit extreme. You need to take into consideration all of the things that a NO vote said NO too. Personally, I think the NO vote on this particular bill was the right vote unless you are BIG FAN of the government’s ability to excel at wasteful spending! PORK PORK PORK Why pass another crappy spending law? Just so we can save medical marijuana at #46? Then what about #52, or #12, or #75 and on and on! You get the picture by now I hope?

We can always work to get medical marijuana recognized and the fact that it was even an amendment to this bill is in fact a sign of hope for the future!

Peace and freedom for all can only come about with tolerance in our society rather than intolerance. IMHO

This why freedom isn't free. Freedom, historically speaking, unfortunately is only purchased with the blood of a "free" person's fight against the intolerant person's intrusions.

One of those freedoms has been the right to disagree with others including our very own government. On the whole, we live under a system whereby we can disagree with some degree of civility (our courts) as opposed to a system whose ideology, quite simply, is and suggests rather strongly, “Death to ALL infidels.”

All of us are carrying on in our own ways. I don't want to offend you but I think that when Jesus was here as a man he was a man and he was like us. He wasn't here being impervious to human emotions, all of them. He was capable of hate, but he chose love. He had free will just like we do.

He was just like us, maybe. Going and saying things and helping people. Doing what he could. And the truth is he was also telling people that cannabis was the way to help.

And that's why he was stopped, he was killed, and his killers made up all kinds of stories to justify it when they were condemned, and they killed the Christians who carried on the word and the sacrament and they perverted the words to their own purposes, burning and destroying all others.

That's what I believe.

Would He visit a Democrat or Republican Convention?

Would He want to Hear Jerry Falwell preach?

Would He want to check in on the street people?

Would He want to visit people in prison?

And it further occurs to me in their context, that Berkeley (and to a lesser extent the whole of San Francisco) is really Sodom to them. They revelled in calling Saddam Hussein "Sodom" by the way, too. In fact, everything is explained very well in this, "culture war", crusade, world war.

So with that fixation, on Sodom, we should call them: Sodomites.

Sometimes I just like turning it around because I know it will enrage them but it is absolutely true, they are serving the wrong image of God, they are serving "Selfish-God" -- Samael, the Blind God. The aspect which is the deceiver, and the destroyer.

Judge the tree by its fruit.

There is no more important point. You can never read what I say or what they say and other than looking at the fruit know that there is a difference. We Christians of Cannabis are as much entitled to speak in the same language as they, and there is no judging the trees by looking at them.

We do not sell death. We do not sell lies.

I don't think that's really accurate. It's kind of like the people who used to say that a vote for Ralph Nader was a vote for George Bush. Or that a vote for anybody but "my favorite candidate" is a vote against "my favorite candidate." Including those of us who abstain for principled reasons.

The LP is seriously deluded, I think, but that doesn't mean they are universally Republican-lite. Some of them are. Some aren't. But either way a vote for the LP by someone who would otherwise have voted for a Republican is a vote the Republican did not get. What makes you think that they would have voted for the Democratic candidate?

It was July 2, 1776 that John Adams thought would be celebrated by future generations of Americans writing to his wife Abigail Adams on July 3, 1776:

"The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."

After the resolution was passed the Continental Congress turned to the debate over the Committee of Five's Declaration of Independence. Time was short and Congress adjourned until Wednesday the 3rd. The debates of July 3rd and 4th altered the manuscript and with these changes the Declaration of Independence was approved. Thomas Jefferson was disappointed by the "depredations" made by Congress writing:

The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offense. The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under these censures; for tho' their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

whig #27: "But the pro-war contingent, the ones who will support this administration in light of torture, deception and death, well it's no longer acceptable in my opinion and I'd make that clear."

global_warming #29:"The Libertarian party stands on a platform of less government and more freedom. The party also advocates for the end of drug prohibition, according to its Web site."

High court's Calif. pot ruling also outlaws homemade machine guns

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A recent Supreme Court ruling that Congress can ban homegrown marijuana for medical use in California led Friday to the reinstatement of an Arizona man's overturned conviction for having homemade machine guns.

Prosecutors in both cases invoked the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, despite the fact that the cases centered on items that were homemade, or homegrown, and didn't involve commerce or crossing state lines. The courts ruled, however, that the items still can affect interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by federal law.

In the machine gun case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reinstated the convictions of Robert Wilson Stewart, 67, of Mesa, Ariz. The three-judge panel reversed its own previous decision to overturn the convictions because he never tried to sell his weapons or transport them over state lines.

Federal agents raided Stewart's house in June 2000 and found five machine guns, which Stewart argued did not violate the congressionally mandated ban on certain assault weapons because they were homemade and not for sale. The appellate court initially agreed with Stewart and overturned his convictions in 2003, ruling the interstate commerce clause did not apply.

The three-judge panel, however, was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision after the justices ruled in 2005 that the federal government could prosecute medical marijuana users and their suppliers even if their activity was confined to California.

In the marijuana case, brought by Oakland resident Angel Raich, the majority of Supreme Court justices ruled that the interstate commerce clause makes California's medical marijuana law illegal. The court said homegrown marijuana confined to the state still can affect the entire national market for the drug, allowing for federal regulation.

The same rationale was applied by the appeals court in the homemade machine gun case.

"Sarsfield said his long-held libertarian views played a role in his decision. The Libertarian party stands on a platform of less government and more freedom. The party also advocates for the end of drug prohibition, according to its Web site. "

Makes sense to me.

But the pro-war contingent, the ones who will support this administration in light of torture, deception and death, well it's no longer acceptable in my opinion and I'd make that clear.

I don't think I'm being simplistic at all nor am I conflating in the way you think, although it is a matter of terminology not of concept. I do not believe that the government equals the state. I do not believe the present government, as constituted, is capable of being a social government in the sense that I use that term -- a set of social expectations and behavior which allow people to work together and help one another. I could call that a "society" instead of a "government" and it would be perhaps more strictly accurate from your frame of reference but it isn't a formal difference as I use the terms. A state is a pretend-government that uses force to enact and maintain its authority. It is not social, it is anti-social. It is something which pretends to be social only to prevent an actual government (as I've defined it) to arise.

If you are interested in understanding my terminology better, you might be interested to read Albert Jay Nock: Our Enemy, The State. There are online copies about. Here is one:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock1.html

That will go a long way to describe where I stand with respect to your politically constituted state.

Since words are metaphors it is impossible to avoid sometimes conflating them. Some words have multiple meanings as a consequence of that, sometimes even opposite meanings. Please keep that in mind if you think I'm confused or conflating. Do the underlying concepts conflate? That's what matters.

It's hard to understand someone when they're not making sense as much sense as they think they are.

The Repubnicants were downtown and the Shadow was in west Philly.

A bunch of us had some lunch at a nice restaurant. Since I had a minivan, I got elected to take Ben, his friend, Steve Hagar and a couple of others to the Liberty Bell, where I met Ed Forchoin, toked with him and called for the immediate legalization of Cannabis.

I walked with Ben and his lady friend to and around the "roundhouse," as the main police station is known... cause it's round ...

At the main intersection in downtown Philly at the corner of the roundhouse and the park I stood with his lady and a few others watching him gather two "free pot" signs, crossing three streets in a circle and ending up across from us, by himself, amongst about 100 policeman as they waited for instructions.

He said reactions were "mixed" in the crowd.

Very self-assured man ...

A good day ...

Libertarians are not against social networks, I think they are against the idea that the government is the only social network that can help anyone, ever.

A church is a social network that helps people. A community food bank is a social prorgam that helps people.

There are all kinds of social programs that help people that aren't part of the government and aren't administered or controlled by the government.

The problem is, when people start looking to the government to solve all of their problems, they turn politics into a very power ful - and they create the mythic powers that politicans believe they have.

And they stop thinking about what they can do to solve their own problems, or how they can organize their own community or spiritual affiliation to solve their problems.

The War on Drugs is a government social program. The War on Drugs is what you get when the government tries to solve a personal medical and emotional problem like addiction.

The problem is, for socialists, social equals government. Socialists treat people like they're complete idots and need a paternalistic authority to tell them how to live and what to spend their money on.

I am a Democrat, not a Libertarian, but I am extremely annoyed by the bitterly simplistic, rather bitchy characterizations about Libertarians that seem to be floating around now.

The 259 murderers who voted against Hinchey-Rohrabacher belong in a cage where they can harm nobody else.

Never forget the 259...

Final Roll-Call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll333.xml

THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...

Lawmaker Wants UW Lecturer Fired Over 9/11 Views (vote in survey!): http://www.channel3000.com/news/9457154/detail.html

Sept. 11 claim stirs UW probe: Instructor says U.S. planned the attacks to provoke war: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706sept11claim.htm

Lecturer backed on talk about 9/11: http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/index.php?ntid=89596&ntpid=1

Former Reagan Deputy and Colonel Says 9/11 "Dog That Doesn't Hunt": http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706doesnthunt.htm

Professor Jim Fetzer on Hannity & Colmes: http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/jimfetzer.html

James Fetzer/ 911 Panel Discussion Los Angeles (video): http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706jamesfetzer.htm

CDI: 'Pull It' Means 'Pull It Down': http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html

You have to wonder, even if you have not been born with a full engine, you have to wonder, why did these people vote this way?

It is a big world, and evening supper is planet wide, why did they vote this way?

This world is so wrong,

Instead of Life,

Their is confusion,

There is war

and so much violence

That is so true, I don't understand how women have become the needy in this world, for have not women been the workhorse in this world?

Surely fom, you can see the mindset of the opposition, hippies, also known as druggies, pot heads, wear their differences on their backs, long hair, colored tee shirts, they are different, and they choose to be different.

While those gas bags in DC, who wear different clothing, and can taste the finest cut of beef, continue to vote to "..spending Federal tax dollars on medical marijuana investigations.."

Those gas bags in fine clothing and finely cut hair, can only continue to vote this way, it is their pay check to their happy farm, they do not understand freedom or the American Bill Of Rights, they have no Spiritual Reference, they are Living This Life in good company.

He's a longtime cannabis law reform activist. He's running for the Senate, I believe, in Wisconsin now.

Excerpt:

Despite the fact that both federalism and conservatism seem to call for letting States enact medical marijuana laws and keeping government out of people’s private lives, a majority-of-the-majority in the Republican Party refuses to recognize any comity or restraint, and the Democratic Party is sometimes too afraid to stand up for what is often viewed as a “hippie” drug. The result is an out-of-touch Congress that criminalizes the sick and dying.