ConCen
The Idiocy of prohibition - Printable Version

+- ConCen (https://concen.org/oldforum)
+-- Forum: Main (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The War on Drugs (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-28.html)
+--- Thread: The Idiocy of prohibition (/thread-11805.html)



The Idiocy of prohibition - number23 - 12-22-2007

You Are Afraid To Use a Plant
or
A Solution to the Problem of Prohibition Emerges In the Light of Difference Between A Colonial and Non-Colonial Mindset.


What could be more mind-bending than the incredible effects produced by Salvia Divinorum?
Perhaps a good contender for that title is the "logic" by which the WI state legislature is considering a ban on the plant. Meanwhile, alcohol is still readily available to anyone.

The story out of Johnstown, Colorado (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14891317/detail.html) of a teenager beating a seven year old girl to death in a game of "Mortal Kombat" is just a recent addition to the unimaginably vast archive of deadly incidents that involved alcohol.

Granted, there have been some gruesome news stories associated with Salvia use too, but it's a very recent trend within the last decade. Drunk people have been wreaking havoc and taking lives for thousands of years. And you'll never see a major media story about someone's positive and life changing "breakthrough" with salvia.

Can anyone explain why plants like salvia divinorum and cannabis remain more legally restricted than alcohol?
What's the logic here?
The answer is that there is no logic. The real reasons are matters of business, among other things which I will only begin to go in to here.

So, the business aspect of the reason for prohibition is especially highlighted in the case of cannabis [hemp], due to all its medicinal and industrial uses.
As for things like LSD, mushrooms, peyote and Salvia Divinorum, the reasons are a little less clear. While the others mentioned all have been tested extensively and proven effective in therapeutic settings, Salvia in particular does not have any widely known uses beyond it's extreme powers of consciousness alteration.

So then it becomes a question that big brother maybe does not want us to experience reality in certain ways.
The question is, "why?"
What is it about this mint from Oaxaca that is so special that it now warrants the attention of the media and state and federal governments, yet the same attention is not directed towards alcohol which is just as much a potentially dangerous thing to consume?

They say it is because the plant is "dangerous", and people under its influence might hurt themselves or others. They say it is to protect the safety of the public.

Ok, but why am I "allowed" to ingest one thing [alcohol] that will put me in a state where I may potentially harm or kill, and why am I not "allowed" to ingest another [salvia] that may have the exact same potential?

Moreover, why does the government seek to regulate my life on such a level?
Are we not capable, as people, of making these decisions for ourselves?
These are questions we should be asking whether we consider ourselves "citizens" or not. Supporters of government, or otherwise. Like it or not, it is here now and we have to deal with it or we risk ending up like any other populace that has ever fallen under the boots of dictatorship.

They are lying about prohibition and here's why:
If it was only about protecting people's safety, alcohol would be a Schedule I drug like heroin and cannabis.
If prohibition is only about protecting people's safety, why does government seek to drastically upset the lives of those who chose not to follow its ridiculous rules against certain substances?
It is obviously about much more than just "safety."

For one, it's about protecting the market for pharmaceutical companies. This is done by violently threatening people away from using plants they can grow themselves or purchase from a local grower, thus making pharmaceutical products one of the only readily available choices for someone not willing to put their livelihood and safety at risk by pursuing a product that happens to be of a so-called "illegal" status. Realize that it is only a risk of safety for someone to pursue a so-called "illegal" product simply because: it is allegedly "illegal"!. Were it not for the apparatus of enforcement surrounding this alleged "rule" against a plant, it would be no risk to anyone to seek to utilize the plant. There's your risk to "public safety". Gangsters with guns pointed at you telling you what you can't put in your body.

Do you see how ridiculous it is that "safety" is always touted by lawmakers as the reason for enacting laws of prohibition?
How are they making anyone safer by threatening to put them in prison for breaking a rule? They're not. They are lying. In fact they are threatening to make you very un-safe very quickly if they find out you are breaking their rules. So it's in fact not at all about "safety" in the terms that they describe. Rather it is about keeping their system of organized coercion "safe" from any potential alternatives of human interaction.

Talk of "safety" is used so the gullible will go along with the program because they take comfort in the thought that Big Daddy [government] wants to keep The Children, and Everyone, "safe."

But it's not about making us safer.
And it goes way beyond the concerns of the pharmaceutical industry. That is just scratching the surface.

As I said, it's about making things safer for the government.
This is accomplished by controlling us.
If we were to think and act too freely we might start to get the idea that government is not here to help us and is in fact a parasitic system that feeds off the productive of society without being productive itself.

No. Prohibition is about regulating life to the point where
YOU ARE AFRAID TO USE A PLANT.
Just sit with that idea for a second.
Let it permeate through your brain.
Let it trickle down through your emotional filters and belief matrices.

You are afraid to use a plant.

What does that mean?
What forces could seek to intentionally inspire such fear in you?
What are the tactics and mindset employed by someone who uses such fear to their advantage?
How far-reaching are the goals of someone who would seek to inspire such fear at that level in you ?
What is gained by lying about the effects of these plants in attempt to make you afraid of them?
Even if you are not swayed by propaganda, you are afraid of gun toting, badge wearing thugs coming round your place to tear up your garden and put you in prison - because that is what they do if they catch wind that you might be using any forbidden fruits.

This is the kind of control we are dealing with. It's not just a government with some silly laws. It is a group of people hellbent on controlling your life down to these minute details, and employing armies brainwashed from birth to do so, and have been doing so for ages.

For an enlightening exercise you might ponder this question: "What is gained by creating such a stigma around PLANTS?"

From whence comes this seemingly unfounded insanity?

It only seems confusing and inexplicable if you are coming from a materialized, westernized, colonized world view. A world view that has been numbed to former ways of knowledge, severed from long standing traditions of wisdom, and denied access to an honest picture of past events.

We look at cannabis and we see a plant. Useful, yes, but it's just a plant. It looks beautiful, tastes great, makes good medicine and food, and gets you high. But it's just a plant. That's how we see it. Just a plant. A green thing that grows.
So it seems a little wacky that government wants to control it so much.

OK, so government is in bed with private industry, and those private industries would be virtually non-existent if we could all just grow and utilize hemp locally. So it makes sense that they would band together to prevent us from using it. This makes sense because that's how class systems work. Those at the proverbial "top" know "what is best" for those lower than them, and actively pursue such ultimately self-serving interests at the expense of all else.
Yes, it's f'd up, but this is life on planet earth [for the time being].
If you deny that we live in a class system like this, then you must have yet to take an honest look at reality, or to talk to a police officer who will be happy to tell you which class of citizen you are.

However, if you step outside the very narrow, westernized, colonized, "scientific", "logical", "rational", less-than-holistic and frankly dumbed-down world view, a very different picture comes in to focus.

From the pre-colonial, or un-colonized, or non-colonial mind we see a holistic cosmology where nothing is "just this" or "just that". Great reverence is placed before all things of the earth and sky. Everything has it's place and its own utterly sacred significance in the interconnected web of existence.

Maybe "mere plants" are not just mere plants.
Reality is much greater than we like to imagine.
Some of us are lucky enough to have experienced this first hand.
Taking this in to account, we must consider that perhaps the efforts to undermine and suppress certain aspects of reality have been greater than we imagine, or would feel comfortable imagining.
I can not yet make mere words do justice to what I am trying to convey. I call on all readers to use their imaginations and heartfelt emotions to grasp the fullness of this message.

See, even most 'Americans' can still realize that a large number of politicians and corporate business people are liars and vampires.
So it's not that we are lacking all sense entirely, but we are definitely lacking proper historical and "spiritual" perspective on this whole thing.

And it's no surprise.

It has been beaten out of us over the centuries; from the middle east to the Romans, to the inquisitions and feudal kings, right up through global colonialism, the 'great depression' and Latin-American death squads. Our teachers and carriers of previous wisdom have most all been silenced one way or another, most of them killed along with their entire families. Whole lineages and cultural traditions have been washed away in torrents of blood, leaving not much left but shattered psyches and frayed, distorted remains of old traditions.

This has been going on for centuries and is now coming to an end. We are on the threshold of the New World that has been talked about. It is named such because its architects have sought to destroy the remnants of what humanity once was. When you make an addition, or want to build a whole new house [human civilization] you must first tear out the old structures [wisdom traditions] that will get in the way of your new plans.

So now maybe you can start to see the roots of our confusion.
Maybe you can start to see your state as a thoroughly colonized being. You can see the place of the colonizers who have undertaken this massive endeavor of uprooting our previous understandings and replacing them with facades of lies.
You can see them for what they are: deceitful criminals of the highest order, with wealth great enough to maintain their position at the top of the totem of power, by effectively funding the slaughter and enslavement of all the rest.
You can see the power we have given them through our acceptance of their false teachings that came in the form of 'public education' and various religions.
You can see how easily we have been lead into a corral so carefully crafted that we barely even notice it exists and in fact even enjoy our places in it. Indeed their criminality is of such a caliber that they have succeeded in dictating what constitutues "criminal behavior". Quite a feat, but it seems the logical place for the top gangsters in town.

Prohibition is so damn confusing to some of us because we are LIVING beings trapped in an ANTI-LIFE system. I say anti-life because the life is being sucked out of us. Prohibition is but one nozzle on this life sucking vacuum. This truth can be known if you get right in front of it and stare into the sucking blackness with no illusions. See it for what it is. Don't run away from the noise and threatening motions like a frightened cat.

You know why cats are afraid of vacuums? Because they're loud and intimidating.
Sound familiar?
Certain authoritarian, black robed lawyers come to mind.

Cats are also afraid of vacuums because we can't just sit them down and explain to our furry friends that it's just a tool that we control and that we don't intend on hurting them with it, that we are not making threatening advances at them but are in fact just cleaning house.

This is where my analogy, obtuse as it was, totally falls apart and yet still illustrates this idea.
Because this vacuum of governmental prohibition IS out to get you. That's the whole point. They are attacking you full bore. Prohibition is one weapon in the arsenal.

But I'm telling you, because I can communicate with you in ways I can not with a cat, that the loud noise and threatening demeanor is all just hot, dirty air.
They try to play it off as "official" and "legal" but that's all bullshit. They are just men and women enforcing ideas at the barrel of a gun. There is no piece of paper in the universe that can somehow "justify" a so-called "prohibition" on organisms that grow out of the ground. Like a vacuum, somewhere behind all the facade of posturing and noise, there is a power cord that we can unplug. It starts in the mind of every individual who is affected by this system.


The Idiocy of prohibition - number23 - 12-22-2007

So, factually, what exactly is a so- called "law" and where, when, why and how did it create this alleged "duty" on me? Have you ever examined exactly what a "law" is?

Before anyone can accurately claim or establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" a certain "law" created an obligation or anything for that matter, you need to know what a "law" is first, then you can examine exactly where, when, why and how an obligation or "duty" was allegedly created.

Think about this for a moment, if there was no "law" about having a so-called barber's "license," then there could be no cause of action for cutting hair without one. The "law" itself is being used against me and I'm supposed to be able to question all the evidence and testimony being used. The burden of proof includes proving the "law" created a duty "beyond a reasonable doubt" or, "by a preponderance of the evidence," in the case of a "civil" cause of action.

"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind."
— Rudyard Kipling.

So, what is a "law" or a so-called "statute" anyway?
What is it and why does it appear to have an almost hypnotic effect on most people?

That hypnotic effect is probably due to the level of violence used to force compliance with it. But, exactly what is it, and how and why does it allegedly create any obligation whatsoever?

A "law" is an opinion backed by a gun.

That's it folks, that's all it is; the rest is just political window dressing as I will show. For example, a "statute" is just another fancy word for a "law." Even a "judge's" opinions are called the "law." Lawyers call this "decisional law."

Lysander Spooner said it best:

"What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they can subject to their power. It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be.

It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed."


-Lysander Spooner's Natural Law, or the Science of Justice: A Treatise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing that All Legislation Whatsoever is an Absurdity, a Usurpation, and a Crime. Part First.

Lawyers, not me, define a "statute" as: "The written will of the legislative department..." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1212.
The lawyers doing business as the "United States Supreme Court" hold the same belief, see John P. King Mfg. Co. v Council of Augusta, 277 U.S. 100 at page 102 to confirm.

Simple observation shows us that, factually, a so-called "legislative department" is just men and women. If not, then what is a "legislative department," rocks, flowers, puppies, reptiles, raisins?
It follows that a so-called "law" is just the "written will" of men and women. We should not forget this "written will" differs from mine in that I don't force my "written will" on anyone under any pretense of "protection" and most assuredly not at the barrel of a gun.

Does the "law" seem as sacred to you now? Don't confuse a political "law" with a natural law such as the law of gravity. The law of gravity is not the invention or whim of man; it's an observation. Just as important, when was the last time you were forced by another person to comply with the law of gravity? And why is that? Amazing, the earth rotates on it's axis everyday without a sacred "act of congress."

In my experience, no "judge" has admitted or acknowledged the so-called "law" is just the "written will" of some individuals even when he is made aware of it: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

That's why I request what is called "judicial notice." I request that the "judge" take "judicial notice" the "statute" I was charged with "breaking" is factually the "written will" of individual men and women. No "judge" has ever complied with this despite the fact taking "judicial notice" is "mandatory" under the rules of evidence. In Arizona, and in the federal courts, it's rule 201 (d). In California, it is under § 451 of the evidence code.

Try imagining why an alleged benevolent, "honorable" protector of the people would refuse in every instance to take notice of what the "law" really is. Why the refusal to comply with a mandatory function of his exalted "office?"
Then consider this happens in every instance no matter what the geographic location. What are the odds? What are these "honorable" lawyers afraid of? It's called the "monkey defense," hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

When confronted with the truth, "judges" are non-responsive [won't answer "Yes" or "No"]. Their sacred "law" isn't so sacred when it's just the "written will" of some men and women.

I ask for "judicial notice" of what a pretended "law" is because the "cop" is supposed to prove, "beyond a reasonable doubt" this so-called "statute" created a "duty" on me. If the "judge" takes notice a "statute" is nothing but the will of a group of men and women, then the "cop" has to bring forth the facts he relied on to support his opinion their "will" created a "duty" ' on me to act, or not act, in a certain way.

The "cop" is pretty ill-equipped to do this because his traditional accouterments (gun, stick, badge, uniform, anti-social behavior etc.) don't help
him any. In other words, swift and blinding violence is about as effective here as it is in solving geometry problems. Maybe "congress" can pass a "law" magically transforming everyone into a mathematician?

In fact, in every single instance where I have asked a "cop" what a so-called "statute" was, they were unable to answer; they just don't know and lawyers don't think they need to know. Yes, "cops" won't hesitate to kill you if they think you are a violator, but, while they are killing you they cannot tell you what you are allegedly violating. Has this created any "reasonable doubt" in your mind yet? This "cop" is certainly not in a position to testify he saw me violate a "statute" when he doesn't even know what it is.

"Your Honor, I'm the one who discovered the theory of relativity."
"Really officer Carrol, what does the "e" stand for?"
"How should I know, that's irrelevant your honor."
"I agree."

During one" trial" in Arizona I asked a "cop" if he knew what a "license" was. He admitted he didn't know. I suggested that since he didn't know what a "license" was that he was in no position to testify I was required to have one. What did the "judge" with the robe do? That's right, "judge" Donald bailed his buddy out; he asked, "Officer, do you know what a license looks like?"
"Yes I do your Honor."
The "judge's" response?
"That's good enough for me."
Not surprising that the "appellate court," yet another lawyer who is now a federal judge in the ninth circuit, "ruled" she saw "nothing wrong" with what her fellow politician did.

The "judge" is not supposed to have any discretion to permit such an individual to testify because § 602 of the Arizona evidence code states:
"A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter." (Emphasis mine).

If the "cop" doesn't know what a "statute" is, not what one says, but what it is, then he "has no personal knowledge of the matter" and "may not testify;" unless of course "personal knowledge" is now synonymous with gun, badge and a willingness to kill men, women and children for not "following orders."

If this "cop" doesn't know what a so-called "statute" is, then it's impossible for him to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" I allegedly violated one. This is much easier to understand if I don't use the word "law." Instead, I'll use "XYZ" so you are not hypnotized by the word "law."

COP: "Marc broke the XYZ your Honor."

MARC: "OK, if you say so; but what is XYZ?"

COP: "I don't know; but you broke it all right."

Would you rely on this guy's testimony? Traffic court "judges" do everyday. It's no different if accused of breaking the "law" by a man who doesn't know what a "law" is.
-------------------------------

from Marc Steven's Adventures In Legal Land


The Idiocy of prohibition - nataraja - 12-23-2007

i break it down to the basic fundamental issue. there are so many reasons to end prohibition and absolutly non that can stand against logical argument.

that basic fundamental issue.

what right does the goverment have to control what i can and cant put into my body, whats next controlling our diet, why draw the line there, why not supply us with the mood stabalizers and food that we need then we can realy be your perfect orderly soceity.


the general intelligence of society has made huge leaps in the last 3 generations, and some might argue its an illusion of knowledge.

i still theres two problems in the world, end advertising influence in the media, completly remove it and ban it. the media should be dictated by anyone.

we need to fix this indoctrinated perspective that is supplied out of the education system and all types of media. we should be taking whatever steps is neccessary to supply a free thinking mind into all our youth, and the media is all the same, there is an illusion of different outlets but they never contradict each other, never. i claim fraud.


The Idiocy of prohibition - number23 - 12-23-2007

totally agree.
it just shows that there is no "logical" reason for anything in terms of the global political order being the way it is.

when us plebians use the term "logic" or "reason" we imply there is a hint of fairness somewhere in there. whether or not that implication is justified is not the issue. in my experience what people mean when they say "logic" when talking about government is that there is fairness involved.

well obviously nothing about government is fair at all. but we are conditioned from birth to believe that fairness is a fundamental reason for government existing. but it is not. in fact the opposite is true.

un-learning is much harder than learning, and requires a certain mental agility that has been largely amputated from us by massive brainwashing and the use of dietary toxins like fluoride.


The Idiocy of prohibition - nataraja - 12-23-2007

i concur