The Marijuana Menagerie- Part 2


In the first post on this series, I covered several areas affected by the support or opposition of Pot. I shared what I knew from the perspective of law enforcement, the government, Christians, Leftists and Libertarians. Due to the length of the total post, I have broken it up into more readable pieces and hope not to destroy the flow of the original ideas behind the length of the post.


Continuing from the first post, I should mention what I know about the terms “lawful” and “legal.” I don't think I could clearly make the point of this post if I didn't. Simply, what is lawful is what is right according to law. For law to exist, it should be consistent, properly applied and it should punish evil or crimes. If crimes are committed, crimes according to the rightful application of law would have a victim, would have witnesses and damage to person and/or property would have to exist. Additionally, the mind to have committed the crime accompanied by the action must be proven simultaneously in court for a charge to stick with the verdict chosen by a jury not the judge, ever!


What is legal however is a much different thing and really results in the most abusive and corrupt forms of government because it is basically "anything goes." What I mean to say is that as long as you are or perceive yourself to be a government entity or affiliated with one, you can make law, it just doesn't make it lawful, it merely makes it legal. Today, we have a legal system or what many call a “criminal justice system, not a lawful system which is why nothing works as it should. Have you ever asked why they call it a legal system or why they call it “criminal justice” not victim justice?


Is Pot a crime? Not in itself it isn't. It is an inanimate object; it is like a fork or a gun. So just because something "is," doesn't make it a lawful crime, does it? Let's consider the action of possession. Should possession be a crime? The first thing I would ask is if possession is a crime, what crime was committed? Owning anything should not be a crime because it doesn't even remotely fit within the definition. It’s like owning a fork or a gun, the mere act of ownership and possession is not a crime because it doesn't fit either. So, at this point, I think we can safely say ownership and possession is not a crime.


Is the use a gun or a fork in the commission of a crime criminal? Maybe but depends on the circumstances. If it was, it could be seen be seen a weapon and if used to violate another person then it would arguably, depending on all the evidence, be properly defined as a crime. If I used Pot, in the commission of a crime however, what would that look like? It would be difficult to make that stick and in a lawful court most likely wouldn't. The best they could get was probably under the influence but even if a man was under the influence, could it be proven that Pot was the motivator or would it just be the action and the mind to do the action that mattered? To be blaming a substance is an excuse. If a man beats his wife, in many cases it may not even matter who started it and it really didn’t matter if they were drinking or smoking and to connect those two, to me is a bastardization of the law. Another example would be claiming mental incapacitation at the time of the crime. To me, that is an excuse in a social justice court.


Speaking of under the influence if we are speaking in terms of law, would this Pot application be consistent with other examples like...Big Pharma for example? If I committed a crime and I was under the influence of Big Pharma meds would that count as under the influence? Probably not.


If Pot, Meth or alcohol is truly the issue why is the user punished and not the creator or controller? Take alcohol for example, ISP regulates the sale of alcohol and the government also benefits from not only the sale but the citations for intoxication. Bars sell it but when people are intoxicated, who gets blamed? The bar owner? Why wasn’t it the irresponsibility of the person or ISP or the government and why is this not a conflict of interest? I guarantee you if ISP were sued or some government agency, they would probably think twice before selling it. Why isn’t Big Pharma cited or sued? I smell collusion and of course money. I guess while we are at it, we could ask, why the government is involved in the sale of anything when it creates unfair competition against private business and isn’t government control of private business considered Fascism?


If all of this is true and the law has become inconsistent in its application, it is an abuse and misapplication of the law! If what I say is true then any misapplication of the law is unlawful or what we say today...legal. So, ironically speaking, can what is legal actually be unlawful? I believe it can. I also believe that anything “legal” is an excuse to give government abusive unlawful authority over those they claim to serve.


What about possession with intent to sell? Should that be a crime? Well, first of all, is there proof that one in possession of pot has intent to sell? If not, I would say the charge couldn't stick. In a free-market capitalist environment, I look at this issue a lot like I do prostitution. Is the one in possession with intent to sell the criminal or is it just providing a service to meet a desired need? Is the one with the desired need the criminal or both? If so why? Like the Prostitute, one could argue she provides a service and wouldn't be in business if there wasn't a need so who is the criminal again? The prostitute or the one with the desired need or both?


If a desired need or possession is a crime, under what and who’s definition? Would that fall under what is legal or lawful and would it be applied consistently? If so, consider cops that go under cover. Many of them, I argue according to legal terms and consistency, commit crimes to catch criminals. Is this lawful? If it is, could we not argue that when we get caught that we could say we were under cover ourselves? How would they prove what we say wasn’t true? The very idea that the average citizen would allow anyone in government to possess a controlled substance and even use that substance with the intent to distribute is laughable and just opens doors for governments to exercise and abuse that power that they most likely gave to themselves.


Ever wonder why cops go undercover to catch prostitutes acting as the one with the desired need? The one that really spins me is how law enforcement can legally occupy Kiddie porn sites under the guise of catching a pedophile? Are you serious? Shall no darkness come upon them?


How can anyone tell me or how can anyone believe anyone that tells me that they are impervious to the dark Satanic sphere? Are they super human? Hardly. Have people forgotten or do they not believe in dark forces and ways people can be subjugated? Besides, allowing the government to rise above the law to break the law “in the name of the law” is the essence of tyranny no matter what excuse they use. How would people hold them accountable and it is obvious that we can’t?


So, what then is the real issue or the real crime and against whom would that crime have been committed? I would argue, their stated crime would be against the state as a violation of the statute but what they don't tell you is why and how that statute was created and who benefitted from it. Governments always sell the passage of statutes for the good of the community, but it is seldom the case. Someone created it, advocated for its passage and there was a reason. I believe with what I know about politics that the reason that the crime is against the state is that the State didn't get their cut. In other words, it’s about money and/or control and not about morality as they want us to believe and I think have pretty well laid out the case proving it.


Anytime someone is cited, it is because they didn't pay the State what they should have when asked. Driving suspension for failure to pay registration-license suspension for not keeping your license up to date, fail to pay property tax-lien or lose your home. Sell something without paying another tax and you are penalized. Forget the fact that you pay tax on everything you buy but you also pay a tax on what you sell which to me is a form of double taxation. Is double taxation lawful or legal and is it a crime? What about a death tax? Nice going away present right?


In the last post I will try to wrap up the rest of the loose ends that need to be tied and try to complete most of my thoughts on this issue.


11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All