Abortion, Miscarriages, Women, and Rights.
The 19th Amendment Made Women Sovereign CITIZENS!
Just because the U. S. Constitution doesn't mention abortion, doesn't mean we can prohibit it. The U. S. constitution doesn't mention anything about airplanes, either. The U. S. Constitution doesn't mention anything about houses or apartments, or condominiums, yet most of us live in such places, constitutionally.
It's foolish to say that since abortion isn't mentioned in the U. S. Constitution, we can prohibit it.
We can't stop stupid arguments, either.
I personally feel like after the 19th Amendment was ratified, women became as powerful as men under the U. S. system of state and Federal government.
Good luck, all you female citizens out there. I find it hard to believe that Roe vs. Wade is under attack the way it is, at the moment. But someone ought to be able to out argue these bozos that want to re-enslave women.
I feel like the Taliban and most of the Republicans are in cahoots with each other to re-enslave all women: the kinds that can get pregnant and have babies.
Dealing with Mild Peripheral Pain
Eventually Became Dealing With Constant Pain;
How to Stop Most Any Pain Dead in
Its Tracks in 30 seconds or less.
Characteristics of mild peripheral pain:
- Mild enough to initially ignore, and push aside just out of our mainstream conscious awareness.
- Eventually becomes a nagging and constant pain in the neck.
This morning I had such a pain. It was actually in my neck area. I ignored it for an hour or so. But it eventually became a nagging and constant pain. Eventually, it really began to bother me. I could no longer ignore it.
HOW I MADE IT DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY:
- I decided to follow my own advice. I stared it down. I concentrated on it. I felt the pain fully. I did NOT peripheralize it any longer. I did NOT push it aside and try to ignore it.
- On the contrary, I stared it squarely directly in the eye.
- I concentrated on feeling this pain.
- Guess what? Within 30 seconds or so, it disappeared completely.
I can imagine that I might have obtained some pain killer, but I had heard that "staring down" a pain, concentrating on feeling the pain, makes it go away altogether. I suppose doing that activates our own endorphin system.
If we ignore the pain, or peripheralize it, it hangs around. Like a stray dog, better to stare it down so that it runs away from us altogether. If we ignore the stray dog, it follows us home. So stare it down, and it runs away, never to be seen again.
NOTE: if we stare down a pain, concentrate on it, and it gets worse - time to go to urgent care or an emergency room.
(May 5, 2022) The Three Mile Island Nuclear Disaster in Pennsylvania.
I quickly glanced at the Wikipedia article on Three Mile Island a few years ago, and did not comprehend the details there. I feel shame that the USA would even consider covering up this disaster that should be more well known than it is.
Unit 2 at Three Mile Island had a partial melt down, and was permanently damaged beyond repair, and has been decommissioned at enormous cost. It took about 15 years to clean it up. I don't think we've been informed of all the details, such as who paid for the clean up.
While building new nuclear plants, the U. S. nuclear industry/government coalition states, "We are not building any more new nuclear power plants."
The Three Mile Island accident should be listed along with Chernobyl and Fukushima. But the containment vesssel at Three Mile Island worked properly, and prevented the release of most radiation, unlike the accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl. Chernobyl did not have a containment vessel; the ones at Fukushima were damaged by the earthquake and explosions.
The proximity to the ocean is probably what made Fukushima less catastrophic. Ocean water moderates atomic fission and radiation.
(April 30, 2022) The Saintly Automobile Company
Former U. S. presidential candidate Ralph Nader became initially famous worldwide after writing a best-selling book about the alleged crimes committed by the "big three" American automobile companies. His book was titled, Unsafe at Any Speed, and focused mainly on the early versions of the Chevrolet Corvair automobile.
In the context of this line of thought, Nader would likely have considered Mercedes Benz Group to be a saintly automobile company, as Mercedes Benz cars in the early to mid-1960's, were well known for their somewhat unique safety features such as having seat belts, padded dashboards, collapsible steering columns, and a safety-zone construction technique for the passenger compartment.
In this context, Mercedes Benz had withdrawn from automobile racing in 1955, supposedly forever, after a horrible wreck involving one of their race cars that occurred during the 24 hours of Le Mans race that year. Management stated that they no longer wanted to be associated with wreckless and dangerous behavior involving automobiles, such as racing cars.
Many spectators were killed in the accident at the 1955 Le Mans race, the worst wreck in history for race cars.
It's so strange to hear that Mercedes Benz today is more associated with the Nazi death camps, than with automobile safety features. I find this so absurd. Compared to the big three, I had always considered Mercedes to be a saintly car manufacturer who tried to keep their customers alive, especially beginning in the late 1950's to about 1965 period. "Detroit" was much more safety conscious for their cars beginning about 1965, soon after Nader's book made such a huge splash.
Note that Mercedes Benz automobiles were not considered to have been built to be so safe until after World War II. This era probably began around 1959 or so: Link to Mercedes Benz of Tel Aviv. Another such link to a Mercedes Benz development center in Israel.
It's also very unfortunate that Hitler came from Germany, as anti-semitism was actually much too common all over the world before World War II. The entire world is responsible to some extent for World War II and anti-semitism.
(April 30, 2022) The Gamble with Nuclear Energy.
No matter the precautions taken, it appears that nuclear energy is a huge gamble for humanity. I don't understand why gambling in a reckless way is so popular. We have manifest proof that no matter the precautions taken, something will eventually go wrong and wreck havoc with nuclear power plants, no matter what. Murphy seems to be right. Something will always go wrong, eventually.
Click here to see Murphy's Law.
But there are safer methods of power generation available. Fossil fuels are very predictable and much safer than nuclear, and fossil fuels can be phased out. Nuclear energy cannot be phased out. It has to be stopped all at once. To phase out nuclear energy requires a bureaucracy larger than the nuclear energy industry.
Nuclear energy requires a vast, autocratic, and mysterious infrastructure involving mega-government powers and presumptions. Nuclear waste and old nuclear plants are difficult to get rid of. Nuclear waste is forever. The idea of deregulation of nuclear energy sends shivers down the spines of both libertarians and mega-government whacks both. There can never be deregulation of nuclear power. Nuclear power = big government forever and ever, Amen. Those who worship big government, worship nuclear power. Period.
These days the media is acting as if nuclear power is as common and safe as a refrigerator humming along in the background. Just wait until the next Alaska sized earthquake. The 1964 Alaska earthquake.
Nuclear energy is insane. The biggest enemies of nuclear energy are the experts who work in the industry, or who used to.
(Over the past 10 years, I have gambled with about $75.00 total at casinos. I lost the $75.00. I take cash into the casino, not credit cards. That is always my policy.)
(April 15, 2022) Rape is Enslavement of the Victim, Can Be Fatal to the
Victim and the Perpetrator, and Is the Theft of Something Valuable.
Also, rape was usually considered a capital crime in most or all of the "old south". People were routinely hung for rape. I also noticed using google search that the State of Virginia records that convicted rapists in that state consisted nearly equally of whites and blacks. (Google search for "rape, capital crime")
I don't know when rape was no longer a capital crime, punishable by death. But, probably the reason this changed was since some of the accused and convicted were probably falsely accused.
In daily life in the U.S. and in the world, a large number of apparent rapists are murd... killed, for whatever reasons. (This item is about what happened with former U.S. Army soldier Sgt. T. J. W.)
I use the word "killed" rather than "murdered" since the killing of a person about to become a rapist implies the killer personally resented the crime of rape about to be committed. I don't think that was the case described above that occurred in Iowa.
A law officer or citizen who kills someone in the line of duty does so out of a sense of duty to uphold the law, which is not about committing a murder, but rather about upholding the law that protects human life. In this case, the life of the rape victim is being protected from a major enslavement: becoming a rape victim. By preventing a rape from occurring, the law of the land is being upheld. To call that process "murder" is not correct English.
Perhaps because the rape had gone too far, and had perhaps actually occurred, the killer of the alleged rapist may have been too late to prevent it; hence, the prison sentence for "murder". This is pure speculation. If he killed the rapist before the rape occurred, then no rape occurred. A rape was prevented instead.
If he had actually prevented the rape, then the near-victim might have testified in his favor, preventing the sentence of "murder" from sticking. This is pure speculation. I am proposing that the convicted murderer should have pleaded "not-guilty". I don't actually know what happened in court, or if there was a trial or not.
So did a rape not occur due to the killer killing the person who attempted to rape someone? Or did the killer kill the rapist after that crime was already committed? I don't know, actually.
Perhaps if non-lethal force had been used to prevent a rape, things would've turned out better for all concerned. I don't know all the facts in this case.
What Does Pot Do To Humans?
Stoned on Pot,
He Won the
Congressional Medal of Honor
in 1970 in Vietnam.
Marijuana with sufficient THC activates the endo-cannabinoid system. This basically causes the human body to tend to stop being in the fight or flight response mode, or emergency alarm mode, and to enter a mode that tends to restore health, or biological homeostasis. This would be the mode that doctors used to advise us to adopt when sick: get plenty of rest and call me in the morning.
Homeostasis means restoration of balance and rest within the body, rather than an emergency, or alarmed mode.
So using pot would tend to make us less upset or alarmed. It would help people sleep and relax. If already rested, it would help us enjoy the moment, and to worry less. All these things would tend to be good for our general health. This is probably why pot helps so many ailments.
Does this mean that pot users are unable to respond properly in emergencies? No. Pot users are as able as anyone to respond to emergencies since the body can easily over-ride the "relaxing" effect of pot in an emergency.
To give just one example, Sergeant Peter Lemon was able to fight off the enemy in Vietnam while under the influence of marijuana along with his fellow soldiers, earning the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Or click here.
NOTE: the endocannabinoid system was not discovered by science until 1988-1992. Also, note that usage of psychoactive cannabis does not seem to attenuate the body's own internal endocannabinoid production, those cannabinoids produced internally by the human body. So using pot simply increases the body's overall cannabinoids. Note using opiods does decrease the human body's own internal production of endo-morphine, otherwise known as endorphin. So biological dependency to marijuana does not occur, though some people appear to be addicted to it.
I personally think this apparent addiction to pot is totally psychological in nature, and can easily be adjusted by giving the "pot addict" total choice to use pot. I believe that when we try to impose our will on a marijuana user to stop using it, a battle of wills is created that turns into a tug-of-war game between people.
I would advise to let the pot user use pot all they want until they realize that they don't really want it so much, or can't afford it. Then they simply curtail their use naturally, rather than fighting with those trying to control their life.
In other words, let the pot user win the tug-of-war game, and let them learn the life lesson on their own that over-usage of pot is not very enjoyable anyway.
Electrolysis of Water
into Pure Hydrogen and Pure Oxygen
Using Low Voltage DC POWER
is EXTREMELY EASY AND SIMPLE.
The electric circuit is very simple: click here.
(March 10, 2022) Old Records of the NORML Canada Website:
The very first NORML Canada website (early Feb. or late Jan. 1996) consisted of just one item, an early version of article1.html, and was the "front page" and entirety of the website. There was also posted at the top of this page, the phone number and email for Umberto Iorfida and NORML Canada in King City, Ontario.
NORML Canada (Feb. 1996-Sept. 2004):
RE: www.calyx.com/~normlca ('til Jan. 2000)
RE: www.calyx.net/~normlca ('til Jan. 2000)
RE: mojo.calyx.net/~normlca ('til Jan. 2000)
RE: www.iowatelecom.net/~sharkhaus (July 2002-Sept. 2004)
RE: last copy of NORML Canada website as of Sept. 2004: click here or click here.
Personal Blog of Bill Carroll:
RE:www.nintharticle.com. (Jan. 2005-now.)
(March 10, 2022) I recently found a website (www.archive.org) that had been "mirroring" the NORML Canada website, or saving old versions of it, without my knowledge. That's how the web used to work. Anyone could copy a web page, or even entire websites, and save that on someone's hard drive, or saved at another website server, for future reference. This was called, "mirroring a website". It was very common in those days as websites disappeared and re-appeared on different servers, and "subbed" at different URL's.
The purpose of "mirroring" a website was to keep the 1st Amendment alive when conditions were adverse, or if a website just goes down permanently.
The people at archive.org, or third parties using www.archive.org, saved copies of the NORML Canada website on numerous occasions in the early 2000's.
However, I was not using the domain name, "NORML Canada", or anything like that, as I was just a volunteer worker. I did not feel that I had the authority to register the domain name, and I don't think Umberto Iorfida (President of NORML Canada) knew that much about the web in order to do that himself. I confess that I did not yet know how to register a domain name in those early days, either. (It's actually very easy.)
Therefore, we used free webspace provided by others for the NORML Canada website "subbed" at various URL's, such as www.calyx.com/~normlca, or mojo.calyx.net/~normlca, or www.calyx.net/~normlca. Later, it was website space at my own telephone number web account in Iowa, at www.iowatelecom.net/~sharkhaus. (I also paid for hosting webspace, for the NORML Canada website, at one or two small ISP's in the USA and in Canada during this period. This was the period (1996-2000) when ISP's were usually locally owned store-fronts, not associated with any large corporations or the telephone company. There were, however, a small number of very large nationwide dial-up ISP's such as AOL, but the access dial-up tel. numbers often required the use of a long distance phone call. I had an AOL account and email during the period 1996-2000.
Even as late as early 2005 when my own www.nintharticle.com website began, I did not have broadband access that often, having to use dial-up for uploads most of the time. Some of the large video files still at www.nintharticle.com today, were uploaded in very early 2005 using physical CD-ROM's at the Auburn University library. A month or two later around April or May 2005, I finally bought a laptop computer with built-in wifi connectivity for the first time, and then began the era of seeking free wifi internet access when traveling.)
The first versions of this website maintained by myself were at server space provided free of charge by Calyx Internet Service in New York City, by a guy named Nicholas Merrill from early 1996 until Jan. 30, 2000. According to a rumor I heard, Nick had also been the original web maintainer for NORML in Washington, D.C. before 1996. Carl Olsen of Iowa NORML fame might know more about this subject.
The main URL https://www.calyx.net still exists as a Virtual Private Network from Calyx Internet Service in NYC.
The NORML Canada website was taken down by myself from Jan. 30, 2000, until mid-July 2002. Shortly after that, I was informed that my boss had become Attorney John Conroy, the founder of NORML Canada who took over from Umberto Iorfida.
When I put the website back up in mid-July 2002, it was at the URL, as linked to by NORML in Washington, D.C., at "http://www.iowatelecom.net/~sharkhaus". In Iowa at home from about Sept. 2001 until Jan. 2003, I had DSL "broadband" access using my own account with the local telephone company. Even though I owned an Apple laptop computer starting in 2002, my "Apple Titantium Laptop" did not have wifi built-in, nor did my ISP provide wifi connectivity at home.
So put "http://www.iowatelecom.net/~sharkhaus" in the search field at archive.org for old archived websites, and you will find numerous copies of the original NORML Canada website, beginning quite late around mid-2002. This website had existed well before that. (I used a tape drive backup system for quite a few years in the early 2000's, so I was making copies of everything.)
If you search for www.calyx.net/~normlca, www.calyx.com/~normlca or mojo.calyx.net/~normlca at www.archive.com, you may receive a notice that archived copies may be available from Nick Merrill of Calyx Internet Services in NYC. I don't know actually.
The War to End All Wars?
The Eleventh Emergency Special Session
of the United Nations General Assembly.
(FROM Wikipedia.org:) The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.
(March 5, 2022, modified April 17, 2022) It is a HISTORICAL FACT that the United Nations, and the League of Nations both, were created to prevent wars from ever occurring. It is totally pathetic that this ideal is not only forgotten these days in the year 2022, but denied altogether by media and politicians. This is a disgusting error being made daily by the world's media that disinforms the general public of the easily demonstrable truth. This error to not inform the public truthfully is not only embarrassing, but downright idiotic, and maybe criminal.
The fact that the United States as led by President Truman nearly totally disarmed immediately after World War II is further evidence in the faith the U. S. had in the ability of this new formal organization to keep the peace after 1945.
There is plenty of evidence available that many people associated with the formal founding of the United Nations after World War II, such as former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, to name just one, fully expected the U.N. to begin preventing wars from occurring starting in 1945.
After all, the victorious founders of the U.N. were called "The United Nations" well before 1945. They used that term during World War II, actually. There must've been this agreement among these five permanent members of the U. N. Security Council to plan on not having anymore wars when this "bitch of a war" finally comes to an end.
There is no historical evidence whatsoever than Britain and the United States were not planning on not having anymore wars, if possible, during the period 1945-1950. And remember that Churchill lost his parliamentary majority just before the end of World War II, similar to how F.D.R. died just before the end of World War II.
Churchill was defeated by a left-leaning new Prime Minister. This should give evidence that the problem that created the Korean War five years later had nothing to do with the left-right argument, that is always in process in any country at anytime.
The current "war crisis" isn't just about Ukraine and Russia, it's about any members of the United Nations. It could be argued that the entire world is now responding to the crisis concerning Russia's illegal use of force against Ukraine, ignoring Russia's own promises as enshrined in the original and amended United Nations Charter.
Note that Russia, as successor to the U.S.S.R., is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. But the Security Council failed, as usual, to act decicively in favor of peace, since the issue was again about Russian aggression.
Specifically, this recent failure was: "the Russian Federation's use of its veto power within the United Nations Security Council on 25 February, 2022, to defeat draft resolution S/2022/155 deploring the invasion and calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops." (Quoted from Wikipedia article about this subject.)
The result was that, according to U.N. rules, within 24 hours of that failure of the U.N. Security Council, the General Assembly convened the Eleventh Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, in order to deal with the crisis internationally.
That special session on March 2, 2022, just issued: United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1.
I am curious as to what else the U. N. may or may not do to further the cause of civil government solving the Russian/Ukraine conflict?
In early 2022, Russia did not comply with the demands of the United Nations to stop the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and is now reaping the consequences.
(Feb. 15, 2022) Take Inventory of Women's Rights
at the State Level Before
Getting Upset and Confused about the Expiration of
the ERA at the Federal Level.
(Feb. 19, 2022) The old proposed Federal ERA Amendment has expired before being ratified by a sufficient number of states, according to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
But state laws and state constitutions control corporations and most other things, so we need to first take inventory of women's rights in each state. The presumption that women do not have equal rights after the expiration of the proposed U. S. Constitutional amendment has expired, could be a confusing distraction from the actual reality.
Regarding the proposed U. S. Constitutional amendment, it makes sense to start all over again, and pass new Equal Rights Amendments or laws in each state at the state level as needed. Then all the states could ratify the new proposed ERA for the U. S. Constitution.
So step two would be for Congress to propose a new ERA for the states to ratify without an expiration date.
But after taking inventory, step one, it may turn out that the goal has already been reached in most of the states, at the state level, other than ratifying the new U. S. Constitutional amendment.
(Feb. 16, 2022) Why Biden May Have Decided to Appoint
a Black Woman to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The other day, I was reading about the subject of abortion, and found out somewhere (can't remember the source) that black women have the highest rates of abortion in the United States. Even hispanic women in the U. S. are twice as likely to seek abortions as white women, according to what I was reading on the internet a few days ago.
Therefore, since it isn't "kosher" for the President to ask potential appointees about their views on abortion rights, Biden may think this could be a way to put a likely pro-choice female justice on the U. S. Supreme Court.
Just a theory.
We do know that Biden is passionately pro-choice.
FAKE STAND IN THE
SCHOOL HOUSE DOOR
WAS A POLITICAL
(Jan. 11, 2022) When Gov. George Wallace
Received 90% of the Black Vote, Running
for Governor of Alabama.
He won again, but this was the last time he ran for office.
Obviously, blacks were encouraged to vote in 1982 in Alabama as they still are today, as far as I know.
Facts about Wallace the media never point out:
- Wallace may have appeared to stand in the way to pretend to be blocking the admission of black students at the Univ. of Alabama in June 1963, but the Federal courts had already ruled against continued racial segregation, and Pres. Kennedy had already taken control of the Alabama National Guard, and ordered them to use force if necessary to allow the black students to enter the campus and take part in their education there.
So it is much more accurate to report that "Wallace stood aside to allow racial desegregation." And that standing aside to allow the black students to attend the U. of Alabama occurred during his first term as Governor, not later.
- The same thing occurred in all the desegregation cases around the State of Alabama, and there was little if any resistance since most people there accepted the changes as being inevitable, and actually desirable in most respects.
- Why would stores and restaurants not wish to have more customers???? Segregation was expensive and difficult for businesses, and reduced the sales and satisfaction of black customers. Ending it was good for the economy of Alabama, and that state never looked back unless forced to do so.
- LBJ's "war on poverty" probably helped the economy of Alabama more than any other state, and Wallace had to know that.
Why does everyone want to believe that it's actually 1964 now? Wallace was the liberal Democrat running for Governor in 1958, when he lost to John Patterson. In 1982, Wallace was actually returning to his previous liberal beliefs. But this time, he won the election.
Today, we are in the year 2022, not 1964, or 1869.
CLICK HERE: Our Gang.
During World War II, "Gang" Had a Positive Meaning.
I apologize for using "gang" as a pejorative term. I used to not do that. I suppose I have become infected with a bad habit.
NOTE: I had not read the full article about Obama and Durbin's and other Congresspeople's usage of the word, "gang", until AFTER I wrote this entire item. This article does a much better job than the online dictionaries, which I didn't know at first. The history of the word "gang" is fully explored in the Chicago Tribune article from 2011, much more than I could ever have imagined!
Here it is: according to Senator Dick Durbin, former President Barack Obama, old dictionaries, and my own personal memory of things, the word "gang" used to not have a pejorative meaning. It simply means "a group of workers" originally. In fact, in my own lifetime it used to be necessary to put the word, "criminal", in front of "gang", as in "criminal gang", in order to convey the meaning usually attached to "gang" in the year 2022 in the United States.
The original negative association with "gang" probably began back when Al Capone, etc., was giving it a bad name. This would be about 1920 or 1921 or so. By about 1930, I speculate that "gang" by then had a pejorative meaning which it did not have prior to about 1920.
But then between probably 1931 when Al Capone went to prison, then around 1933 when alcohol probibition largely ended, etc., and criminal gangs went out of existence in most of the USA, and up to around 1995 or so, I recall that "gang" often began to carry with it a positive connotation again. It started meaning, a fairly small and cohesive group of people who worked very well together, as a unit, rather than causing each other trouble. This meaning probably became dominant also during and immediately after WWII (worldwide approx. 1935-1945) when a large gang called "the Allies" eventually defeated another large gang called "the Axis".
Also, we have to remember the history of how Lucky Luciano and other actual criminals, are known to have helped the Allies, especially in the invasion of Italy during WWII. There are probably other such examples other than Luciano. (I'm not an expert of that issue. It appears that Luciano continued to be involved in crime even after being deported to Italy (Wikipedia) after the war. Oh well.)
But, I don't think that most of what is currently known about Luciano was well known in the 1960's or 1970's. (I just read the Wikipedia thing a few moments ago, so it's mostly new to me other than what I posted in the previous paragraph that imples that Luciano became a good guy, etc., etc.)
The prime examples of "good gangs" in this era would be the large numbers of tiny rock music groups, or small gangs, who became the most famous "things" in modern culture after World War II. The previous generations prior to WWII were used to most mainstream music (popular music) being performed by fairly large formal orchestras usually with various solo artists being promoted individually and separately. In other words, the specific orchestras and specific solo artists did not always perform together, and any orchestra could accompany any solo artist. Orchestras tended to be stationary, while solo artists (singers) tended to move around more. Only country music and jazz in the USA has a long tradition of tiny groups performing music until rock and roll came about in the early 1950's. Rock (originally called, "Rock and Roll"), is the newest large genre.
Little known fact: country music did not explode in popularity until the early 1970's in the USA. Before that, country music was the smallest and most marginalized of all the music genre's, even in the South. I grew up there, and I can promise you that pop music dominated the south that I grew up in; and I personally witnessed the changes there toward country becoming actually regionally dominant beginning around 1973.
Another famous gang: the very famous and loose grouping of U. S. entertainers who called themselves "the Rat Pack", all of whom were individually superstars in their own right, and as a group or "gang", became even more famous. (The fact that this variable group sometimes mostly all starred together in many specific movies playing criminal characters, is irrelevant.)
The members of the Rat Pack were also all mostly all involved with World War II in some way, and therefore, they are assumed to understand the "necessary evil" context in which war is always waged. No soldiers or "partisans" at war have ever intended to kill innocent bystanders, or even each other, but it happens all the time during war since some higher power (the government) is commanding it. This sort of "nod, nod, wink wink", may be part of the Rat Pack's secret reality. I don't know.
After World War II the soliders who had fought in that conflict were never blamed personally for having PTSD or such severe problems. But the "gang" attitude was probaby created first from the war they had all taken part in.
I speculate that the positive connotation for the word, "gang", continued in U.S. culture until at least the mid-1990's, or even into the 2000's. I was personally still using it in a positive way into the new millenium, requiring myself to add the word "criminal" to it if negative meaning was implied. And I was personally shocked when I encountered someone who didn't preface "gang" with "criminal" in order to mean "criminal gang", unless a pejorative meaning was obvious and unavoidable.
I don't recall the date, but I do recall a conversation with someone about this very precise issue wherein I defended my usage of the word "gang" as used to mean "a small group of people who work very well together".
I was fully aware that "gang" could have the negative meaning, but I fully meant then "gang" to mean something good, not something bad; and I fully expected my audience to understand and agree with me that "gang" often meant something not just "good", but unusually good, as in a well rehearsed act in a stage production or movie, performed by a gang of theatre people who work well together.
In my opinion, "gang" implies a degree of group-cohesion in theatre greater than implied by the word, "troupe". I suppose a "troupe" has to have some cohesion and group-ability, but "gang" makes it seem even more so, if you ask me.
In the series of movie "shorts", Our Gang, we have to remember that intermarriage between the races was still quite discouraged, even illegal in parts of the USA, but white children having black children as playmates and black teenagers as baby sitters, or older blacks of any age as baby sitters, was totally accepted in those days. Note that as long as everyone followed the official or unofficial "race rules", there was quite a bit of harmony between whites and blacks and other races in the USA. Race trouble was actually quite rare with only very occasional flare-ups. I personally think things are worse today than then in some respects. The media seems to want to be devisive these days, it appears. Back then, there was no devisive media influence in terms of race. NONE!
In fact, watching TV or listening to the radio was how most people used to get away from trouble - it was entertainment, not schooling. School was where trouble was studied and understood and explained. Media was how we "escaped" from troubled things.
I have never meant "gang" to mean that crime is OK, but I have always, until very recently, always required "criminal" to be put before "gang" to have a pejorative meaning, unless a negative meaning is obviously implied by context: Al Capone's "gang". I am sorry if I have also become infected with the pejorative meaning. We have to purify the word "gang" again to have a positive meaning as it originally had, as in:
gang: a small group of workers or others who work unusually well together.
(Jan 22, 2022) Australia: Drinking Small Amounts of
Alcohol Much More Damaging to Health than Previously Thought.
Very occasional binge drinking probably
safer than daily regular light usage of alcohol.
(Jan. 24, 2022) Biden and Psaki recently advised the people of the USA to drink some alcoholic beverages. I personally heard Psaki advise an audience to drink some alcohol, implying that using pot, which is actually SAFER, is "bad" and "still treated as illegal" under Biden.
Unlike pot, drinking alcohol adds a solvent into our body that causes all the bodily fluids to mix with each other, among other things. It wrecks the subtle interplay of how our DNA expresses itself, thwarting the daily regular healing processes in every nook and cranny of our bodies. It causes our sleep after drinking it to not give us any real rest. We wake up tired and unprepared instead.
Never mind. I won't go any further. But I will say that I was very surprised to learn that very occasional binge drinking is probably safer than regular daily light usage of alcohol.
Here's what they found out in Australia about the dangers of light regular alcohol use: click here.
Since very occasional binge drinking can be once per week, once per month, or twice or thrice per year, etc., it is hard to define compared to daily regular light usage of alcohol.
Personally, I haven't touched anything other than .5 percent (aka, alcohol free beer) since Halloween 2018.
Heineken now has a nice tasting alcohol free (.5 or less percent alcohol) beer, and Lagunitas now has a nice tasting "alcohol free" IPA (.05 or less percent alcohol) beer. I like the alcohol free Lagunitas IPA more than their regular IPA.
Solar Energy is Actually
Safe Nuclear Fusion Energy.
(The Sun is a Nuclear Fusion Reaction, 91 Million Miles Away.)
(Jan. 13, 2022) CLICK HERE for Winston Cone Optics
The most advanced solar thermal technology on earth.
This is Dr. Roland Winston's company.
- This company designs and builds CPC's, or "compound parabolic concentrator" style solar collectors, also known as "Winston Cone Optics" based solar technology. The "Winston Cone", or "CPC", is a sort-of "light funnel" that collects diffuse or parallel light and concentrates it. The Winston Cone solar collector is not a tracking collector. It has no moving parts. It does not have to be directly pointed at the sun, and it also works to some extent in cloudy weather. It can look like a cone (or a dish) or like a trough. The trough type would use a horizontal heat collecting pipe running through it.
- Dr. Roland Winston:
- Worked for many years as a nuclear physicist at the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago.
- Discovered the "Winston Cone" while trying to measure extremely weak forms of energy.
- past head of the University of Chicago Department of Physics,
- a member of the founding faculty of the University of California Merced,
- and as of 2013, head of the California Advanced Solar Technologies Institute.
My knowledge about the CPC as related to solar energy began back in late 1975 or late 1976 when I read in Popular Science magazine about a solar heated building built for Abt Associates, the U. S.'s largest social science research firm, in Cambridge, MA. A company by the name of Great Natural Structures had just designed and built the solar office building, there, according to the article.
I called directory assistance and obtained the telephone number for GNS, and had a phone conversation with the architects/engineers who ran GNS, and was invited to travel up to Massachusetts in the Winter to look at the building.
From looking at Dr. Winston's company's website, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong. I thought Winston Cone, or CPC style solar collectors were already being mass produced. Years ago, I did a google.com search for it, and saw a lot of results: many advanced solar collectors for sale from all over the world, some with evacuated tube (vacuum) insulated heat-receiver pipes.
From looking through the Winston Cone Optics website, it appears that Dr. Winston is still trying to get his ideas into production! I had no idea the world was so backward!
I'm glad I finally found Dr. Winston's website.
I've had a few conversations with people who sell solar collectors, and I mentioned "CPC" type collectors to them. They all seemed to know what I was talking about. But now I realize I was deceived, probably unintentionally.
(Nov. 18, 2021) An Extremely Short History
of the U. S. Congress,
Research and Development, and Capitalism
Fact: the age of telecommunications in the USA was largely fomented originally by U. S. government investments into Samuel F. B. Morse's telegraphy activities and experiments. It's also true that the U. S. Department of Defense was largely responsible for the internet, especially in the early days.
Even today in 2021, the DOD has some ultimate control over the internet, which most people are not aware of.
Note that the banking and investment sector around 1842 in the USA was greatly distressed due to the crash of 1837, that was caused by the extremist anti-bank machinations of the administrations of Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. So Morse was apparently forced to seek funding directly from Congresss since the private sector was so weak at the time. (Bank-runs: Jackson and Van Buren favored gold and silver money over paper money, and favored "money in the pocket or under the mattress" to "money in the bank". This conflict was not totally resolved until the early days of the "Great Depression", in early 1933, under F.D.R. Until deposit insurance was put in place, everyone would periodically panic, and yank all of their money out of their bank accounts, causing the bankruptcy of many banks. People who kept their money in the bank would also lose all of their savings when their bank went broke. Using gold and silver and paper money all as "legal-tender" does not create a stable banking system, unless a deposit insurance system is also implemented. But in that case, why use gold and silver at all? Since the F.D.I.C. was created, there have been very few bank failures in the USA.
It's also true that throughout U. S. history, paper money has always been much more popular than gold and silver for large amounts. Only during "panics" did gold and silver become more popular than paper money.
But when the bank panic was over and things returned to normal, people generally preferred paper money as it was easier to handle and less likely to be lost due to having a hole in the pocket. Contrary to popular belief, paper money in the form of Treasury Bills or Bonds from the U.S. Treasury was widely used as money throughout U. S. history as it paid interest to the holder. See U. S. Notes by John Jay Knox for more information about the history of paper money issued by the U. S. government throughout U. S. history. Note that private state banks also issued their own paper currency, redeemable in gold and silver coin, until the Civil War period. Generally, this paper money, or "bank notes" issued by private state banks was the main circulating medium in the USA then, although it was redeemed at all banks at a discount, except from the issuing bank where it was redeemed at face value. During the Civil War, the "national banks" began issuing bank notes when state banks stopped issuing such notes. The "Federal Reserve Notes" of today which began in 1913 are somewhat similar to the "national bank notes".
The "space race" between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., which was also a technological competition, also is given credit for stimulating a great deal of technical and economic progress for the U. S., and the entire world. The space race was largely connected to the U. S. military at first until NASA was formed.
Note that the Wright brothers went to the U. S. Army and Navy very early to seek investment and collaboration in the development of the earliest airplanes and airports.
Since these sorts of private/public investment activities were done openly, I don't think it should be called "corruption". Congress is a fairly large group, and represents the American people as a whole, who also benefitted greatly from this open collaboration.
Leading edge technological progress does not grow and blossom without various primary collaborations: academia, media, U. S. congress, state legislatures, and military. I feel like more, rather than less, open collaboration between these groups results in greater success and progress for everyone.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and allies should do their homework, and should be aware that an informed and collaborative Congress, operating openly, helps the USA as a whole become prosperous. AOC's recent moves to restrict the investment activities of members of Congress does not indicate much awareness of American history and free markets.
The U. S. Congress and state legislatures, in general, do not operate secretly.
The development of railroad companies was also an ongoing collaboration between the state and national governments and many private companies; but this was a transparent development process that everyone knew about who read the newspapers.
Senator Shaheen (N.H.) Says Revolution Will
Occur If Any New Illegality of Abortion Occurs.
(Nov. 30, 2021) It's as if only third parties, not the pregnant women themselves, would have any say concerning the pregnant women's own reproductive rights. Are women merely cattle, or surrogates for third parties when they become pregnant? Are pregnant women permanently enslaved, against their own wills, by becoming pregnant?
For "Polio", "Yellow Fever", and "Malaria",
and other diseases,
Sometimes Vaccinations are Required
in order to enter most countries
around the world.
Hey Ted Cruz, if requiring vaccinations is a sign of fascism and totalitarianism, then the world has already been under fascist control for maybe 77 years or so, already. But it was "the Allies", the future United Nations, that imposed the rule, not the fascists and Nazis.
Well before the covid-19 pandemic, in order to legally enter most countries around the world, one must be vaccinated for various diseases, and one must produce proof of having been vaccinated upon entering most countries. This is nothing new, but the diseases change from year to year, decade to decade.
I speculate that most people around the world who are "anti-vaxxers" are not "world travelers", and are not planning on becoming world travelers, since these people would not be allowed into most countries in the world today without proof of vaccination for things like polio, yellow fever, and malaria, at the moment.
I suppose we should add "covid-19" to the list.
Here is the WHO's recent list of required vaccinations by country: click here.
(Nov. 20, 2021) The White Inferiority Movement!
Fewer white males attending colleges.
In school, if we study, do our homework, and listen to what the teacher is saying, often times we receive an "A" grade for these superior efforts. We are consequently judged to be superior to those making B's, C's, D's and F's. This has little or nothing to do with our race or ethnicity.
However, white males lately are said to often be choosing to not even apply to go to college. So these guys are basically choosing to be judged as "F" students. This is not a good sign. These are not signs of white superiority.
In my opinion, everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, should be superior, and should be trying to make all "A's" in school. To attack "white superiority" is the same as attacking "asian superiority", which is the same as attacking "black superiority".
My opinion is that blacks, whites, asians, and mixed race people, and so forth should all be making "A's", and should all be superior people, if possible.
Let's stop flunking out - let's be superior!!!!!!
"Right to repair" rights go way beyond automobile repair issues. I heard about this mainly by listening to NPR.
(Oct. 26, 2021) The Right to Repair Everything....
In France, according to NPR and other sources, consumers and lawmakers are demanding and requiring that everything that can be purchased, to have "right to repair" rights for the owner, and for all consumer goods to be graded according to the degree to which the item can be repaired after it is purchased.
Yes, under the law in France a "repairability grade" will be required to be assigned to each consumer item.
It's about time. I hope the same thing occurs in the USA for everything that can be purchased by anyone here. Even garbage disposals.
Why should everyone be required to purchase new things when the old ones hang up or break??
Was Colin Powell a "Fall-Guy"
for the 2nd Iraq War?
When Was the Last Time
There Was a Shootout Over Alcohol
in the USA between suspects and the authorities?
(Oct. 6, 2021) Imagine, if you can, a shootout taking place over a few cases of beer between the police, and suspects in the USA. But this sort of thing still goes on if it's over a small amout of legal-marijuana, and people still get killed, even after state-legal pot laws were enacted. What a waste of human life!
Yesterday in pot-legal Tucson, Arizona, a DEA agent was gunned down and killed by a suspect on an Amtrak train parked at the Tucson Amtrak station. The marijuana and the suspects were just passing through town. The state of Arizona was luckily not involved in this useless mayhem and death, only Federal agents risked and lost one life, plus one suspect was killed.
Yet, re-legalizing alcohol in 1933 in terms of re-legalizing simple possession of alcohol for virtually all Americans in all parts of the USA, even in "dry" or prohibitionist jurisdictions, is what occurred to the betterment of the USA.
And I conjecture that most Americans assumed this is what they were voting for when marijuana was re-legalized in many states since 2012, and in Arizona in 2020. Did citizens of the USA vote for the continued chaos, death, and mayhem still taking place?
But no. Federal law for marijuana is currently interpreted in such a way that merely possessing and using small amounts of state-legal marijuana privately, either when traveling through or residing in areas where it's still prohibited, is still totally illegal, and people still shoot at each other over the mostly harmless substance, more harmless than alcohol.
Unless the proposed MORE act making its way through Congress is improved, many more DEA agents and other police, and U.S. citizens and visitors, will likely be shot and killed, for enforcing and living under Federal and state laws against otherwise "legal marijuana", unless Federal and state law is re-interpreted or changed for the better.
According to senior Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and others, this is really stupid and likely unconstitutional policy, and exemplifies faulty legal and moral reasoning, to risk and discard human life in such a cavalier manner over a mostly legal substance.
We should ask all of our elected Congress people to please amend and improve the proposed MORE Act currently making its way through the nation's Capital, to please add legalization of simple possession of state-legal pot in areas where it's otherwise still prohibited, in order to help prevent such tragedies from occuring again, that occurred at the Tucson Amtrak station on Oct. 5, 2021, taking one Federal agent's life, and one suspect's life, for absolutely no good reason.
Legalization of Medical Cannabis in Morocco.
(Sept. 14, 2021) Wikipedia article about cannabis in Morocco. On May 26 and June 16, 2021, a law was passed legalizing medical usage of cannabis in Morocco. Morocco, after Lebanon, is the second predominantly Muslim country to vote "yes" for some form of medical legalization of cannabis.
Note that Morocco and the United States have had close diplomatic relations since 1777, before the U.S. had even won the Revolution when George Washington established personal diplomatic relations with that country. Soon after the Revolution, Morocco and the U.S. signed treaties of friendship which are still in effect.
It is well known that legalization of cannabis in Morocco is very popular for the past 10 years or so. Here is an article that asks if the European Union is in harmony with this goal while discussing recent events in the Moroccan constitutional monarchist legislative sphere: click here.
The Silent Slaughter of the USA.
Sometimes the Acrobats Fall, but There's No Safety Net.
Most of this slaughter is accidental, yet self-inflicted!
Your Body Creates It's Own Internal Morphine.
It's Called "ENDORPHIN".
(June 26, 2021) Johnson and Johnson Leaves the Slaughterhouse Business.
(Aug. 16, 2021) Your body doesn't need opiate medicines at all. Such pain killer chemicals are produced and regulated internally by our own bodies. Everyone should know this fact. Otherwise, we are programmed to do dangerous things with opiates.
Why opiates are not really necessary to fight pain. My One Experience with Opium (one shot of morphine after a leg fracture, waiting for the ambulance).
NOTE: when someone slaughters, it's usually not inflicted on a specific individual member of the species being slaughtered; it's indiscriminate killing, unlike murder or suicide, which are both inflicted on individuals, or an individual.
(update July 16, 2021) I heard on the radio today (NPR?), that accidental drug deaths in the USA have skyrocketed during the Covid-19 pandemic by about 30 percent! The death rate from drugs for the USA was already extremely high in the USA before the covid pandemic. Wall Street Journal article about this.
(The horrible stats pointed to below are from 2018 data.)
(July 6, 2021) Very few of these deaths from drugs were intentional, so this is a statistic that measures a type of accidental death. Yes, it's self inflicted if we ignore the doctor that gave us the prescription for the killer-drug, if the victim has a prescription. But these are generally not suicides.
But shouldn't the drug users take responsibility themselves, whether addicted or not? For 2020 stats from the CDC, they're now saying about 90,000 per year died from both licit and illicit drugs in the USA, and opium was the main one.
The statistic varies slightly from year to year. The USA was recently in first place in terms of "death by drug". For 2021, (using 2018 stats) we're apparently in second place. Ukraine is number one (using 2018 stats) at the moment. For women, we're still number one (the USA) in terms of death by drug.
Question: do most people in the USA really know the risks of using opiates and other drugs which can easily cause death if misused?
At least the experts still say that no one is dying from cannabis.
Death by drug statistic: click here.
Death from various causes, mapped: click here.
FACT: NPR Reported Taliban Taking Over Afghanistan Way Back in June.
Google News Search will show many such articles.
The Sleep Deficit Problem Caused by Alcohol,
Now Being Blamed on High Potency Pot.
But any amount of pot of any potency makes sleepy poeple feel their sleepiness.
The sleep deficit blame error.
I'm not a doctor, so the following is not written in proper medical language, and it's just my opinion.
One of the routine functions of the body's endo-cannabinoid system as activated by any pot usage is the regulation of the body's sleep need assessment process as well as other things such as "food need assessment". Therefore, any amount of marijuana with at least a modest amount of THC will create sleepiness if the body needs sleep.
The Error About to Occur: in Colorado, high-THC pot has been restricted lately. The real underlying problem is probably the use of alcohol, even moderately, by those who use pot, leading to pot being blamed for the sleep deficit problem which alcohol, even in small amounts, always creates. In Arizona, against the wishes of NORML, they are just on the verge of making that same mistake there.
High potency pot, and marijuana of any potency, is not the cause of the problems occuring. Being tired, needing sleep, is the problem. Tragically, I don't think restricting high potency pot and hashish will have any effect on the underlying problem since pot of any potency will create the awareness of being sleepy if the person really needs sleep. Coffee or tea might be better than pot for a person in that situation. Or taking a nap might help.
Further pot usage after the nap will not create sleepiness. This helps prove that the sleep deficit has actually been alleviated by "power-napping" after pot usage. Better to have already medicated the sleep deficit. That has been my experience over many years.
Small or large amounts of consumed alcohol always creates a sleep deficit. Alcohol, unlike pot, reduces REM sleep. (I believe that pot by itself increases REM sleep.)
For the well rested, pot can be a stimulant. Many use pot and work out. Many use pot and write music. But most performers say not to use it before performing live.
THEY MIX VIRTUALLY ALL ROCK MUSIC GENRES IN COLORADO.
My Move to Colorado in 2005,
and what I discovered about the "Rock Music Scene" there.
Question: were rock music genres originally created in the USA in order to separate culturally the high school students from the college students???? The drug war tends to do that, just as music genres tend to separate different age groups from each other. In other words, rigid music genre's tend to separate different age groups.
But does music really age?
NOTE: the last time I had been in Colorado was when passing through the state in 1977 on the way to California.
When I first entered the State of Colorado in November 2005, driving in from the east on I-70, as I got closer to Denver, I got tired of listening to my own CD or cassette tape mixes, so I switched on the radio. I don't recall what station I tuned in.
First of all, I generally like music from a wide range of eras, such as classic rock from the 1960's, 1970's, and dance-rock from the 1980's. I generally skip disco from the 1970's. I also like newer things from the 1980's and 1990's and after. In fact, I personally don't care what "genre" or era the song is from, as long as I like it.
My own mixes, my own CD's and tapes that I made myself, are quite mixed, so when I listen to the radio, I'm always changing stations when a song comes on that I don't like.
Stations around the USA generally are set up to play fairly narrow genres, so if a listener is sick of classic rock, they generally have to change stations to find something more contemporary.
So, after entering the State of Colorado in Nov. 2005, I turned on the car radio for a change. After a while, I noticed that the station I had found was playing a wide mix of rock music from different genres, different decades, just like my own mixes. This was different!
In fact, at first I thought I must be mistaken. Perhaps I had accidentally selected one of my own CD's or cassettes. But no, it was really the FM radio that I was listening to, and the radio station was actually playing a very wide variety of rock music from different eras, different genres, all mixed together! Except for college stations, this was very unusual.
Later, I found that this was normal in Colorado. I began to wonder how it came about that rock music had gotten so chopped up everywhere else, and arranged rigidly around different genres, when in fact, it was actually one large genre, just as country music is one large genre. I found out gradually that Colorado was very "rock music friendly", unlike most of the USA.
But everyone, I suppose, respects "classic rock" there, unlike in the rest of the USA.
I had been sort-of irritated for many years, having to make my own mixes. Was I unususal, or was Colorado more normal than the rest of the USA?
Later, I rented a storage unit in Fort Collins, Colorado, for all my excess junk I had taken out of storage back east before my move to Colorado. At the storage place, I heard a band playing rock music. I honed in on the music, and found the group playing in a storage unit, all their equipment being stored between practice sessions in the unit that had A/C power outlets, of course. I learned that in Colorado, rock bands are encouraged to practice at storage places, in general, rather than in garages located in residential neighborhoods.
Also, in the Netherlands in 1992, I had discovered that most towns in Holland have special places provided by the city where bands can practice and play music loudly without disturbing anyone in their homes.
I guess I had tracked down two "cool" places: Colorado and the Netherlands, both places where someone can light up a joint without getting arrested, and both places where rock genres are not so rigidly "enforced", and both places where the "wiser-hippies" were always welcome (or tolerated) to some extent.
There are Two Ways to Stop Inflation:
Throughout history, price inflation or deflation for desktop computers and peripherals has not been greatly associated with the monetary activities of the Federal Reserve. Instead, we have had continuous deflation due to the continous advancement of micro-computer technology since this era began around 1975 or so. This deflation in the cost of micro-computer technologies is generally taken for granted, and should be referred to as the "Henry Ford" method of price deflation, since Ford was known for steadily reducing the price of his Model T, year after year, by increasing production and reducing the costs of production. While supposedly paying the highest wages in "Detroit".
My impression is that Jerome Powell seems to often be of the mindset that encouraging open markets, easy credit, and competition is one of the ways to bring about lower prices in many areas of the U. S. economy. He seems to think that price inflation can moderate on its own, generally speaking.
In fact, raising bank interest rates could actually cause inflation by reducing the ability of new competition from entering the markets, if we would just give deflation caused by competition a chance to occur. There are other things that create inflation: labor unions, raising the minimum wage, rent control, etc., etc., etc.
But increasing the available number of rental units should also reduce the price of rent, etc.
Dutch Marijuana Policy.
Hard Drugs Kill; Soft-Drugs Don't.
The Dutch are famous world-wide for allowing "coffee-shops" to sell marijuana to adults, and allowing them to use it in the shops. The weed is technically not legal, but those possessing less than 5 grams are allowed to keep their "stash". This policy has generally been in effect since sometime around 1975, when Dutch judicial authorities in some areas of the country stopped shutting down the shops that were selling pot, and stopped prosecuting those who possessed it. But policy varies from province to province, town to town. Also, those possessing it were allowed to use marijuana inside the "coffee-shops", but not necessarily anywhere else. But today in 2021, the police sometimes still confiscate the cannabis inventory and money in the possession of any particular marijuana shop, but the shop remains open for business within hours or days of the "bust". (Sometimes shops are permanently shut down for various reasons.)
Some areas have marijuana cafes run by the local government, so those shops are not raided or fined.
This policy began in the era when the "hippies" were taking over the world - the period from about 1968 to about 1975. Many Americans, Canadians, British, and others from around the world had relocated to Holland due to their tolerance for the so-called "youth culture". Also, just as Canada allowed tens of thousands of Americans to move to Canada to avoid being drafted into the U. S. Army to fight in Vietnam, so did the Netherlands allow a fairly large number of those same people to relocate there to avoid the draft.
The Dutch frankly felt that the tremendous reduction in hard-drug deaths caused by encouraging soft-drug (cannabis) usage instead, was worth any small trouble caused by marijuana. And that trouble was generally being kept out of Dutch houses and apartments and off the streets. Note that the only "safe-place" to use cannabis was in the coffee-shops, not at home. (People nearby or in the same house can still call the cops if they detect someone using it even at home, and the pot user still has no defence if the police show up.)
Also note that any pot shops that sell any drug other than weed will be shut down as soon as possible, and there are no exceptions.
The Dutch accept that humans use drugs, either over the counter or by prescription. Without erroneously blaming pot for all the heroin deaths, which makes no sense, the Netherlands has one of the lowest death rates in the "free" world from hard drugs.
The Dutch also have a cultural habit of never accepting casual or recreational hard drug usage socially. Scorning hard drug users in terms of forcing them to use it privately generally keeps hard drug usage minimal.
This doesn't mean that there are no hard drug users in Holland, but Dutch society does not encourage hard drug usage except under a doctor's supervision as a legitimate medicine. And they still teach their people that hard drugs are very dangerous, and should not be used beyond the prescribed dosage due to the threat of accidental death!
The idea that hard drugs and soft drugs go together is not part of Dutch culture, and the stats back this up. Human decision making takes priority over any other tendencies there.
Dutch Definitons regarding cannabis and other illicit drugs:
Hard drug. Any illicit drugs, or "drugs of abuse", known to be addicting or dangerous other than cannabis such as opiates, cocaine, amphetimine, etc., etc.
Soft Drug. Various forms of cannabis, mostly for smoking. However, cannabis edibles are not very popular in Holland, but are occasionally available in coffee shops. From looking online, it appears that edibles may be becoming more popular there lately.
Medical Marijuana: the only really fully legal cannabis in Holland at the moment is for those using it with a doctor's prescription. For legal residents in Holland, there is also regulated access to medical cannabis from pharmacies using healthcare insurance to buy it, but I am not that familiar with their current policies or available products regarding medical use. Generally, medical marijuana in Holland is smoked. There were a number of medical marijuana coffee shops in Holland. Since edibles are apparently becoming more popular for "recreational" use in Holland, I would assume that medical usage of oils and edibles are also becoming more popular there.
Tobacco. Traditionally, weed and hashish were generally mixed with tobacco for smoking in pipes or in "joints" in Europe and in the Netherlands, but now tobacco smoking is supposedly not allowed in any Dutch catering establishments, such as pot coffee shops. There was also an obvious trend in Holland toward smoking pot without mixing it with tobacco. (North Americans visiting Holland generally did not use tobacco in their joints, even before tobacco was banned in all bars and cafes there, etc.)
NOTE: most people "get away" with using weed at home or in hotels, but there is no legal defence if anyone calls the police, assuming the police respond. Hotels may not allow it, even in smoking rooms.
If George Floyd Had Been in Eugene, Oregon,
He Would Still be Alive Today.
New First Responder System for Drug/Mental Health Issues Supported by Most Oregonians.
(updated July 23, 2021) New York City, Denver, Other Places Proving "Cahoots" Model Works.
(March 19, 2021) "Decrim." policy varies from state to state, place to place. There's "decrim." policy that is similar to prohibition ultimately, and there's "decrim." policy that is similar to Al Capone style semi-legality. I am in favor of decrim. policy which is ultimately prohibiting hard-drug usage, rather than profiting from addicts and addiction.
(NOTE: the change begins with 9-11 call center policy. People would still be calling 9-11 to get help. But the police would no longer be the First Responders.) CALL "CAHOOTS", DON'T CALL THE POLICE ON HARD-DRUG USERS! in my opnion, for hard drugs like opiates, the decrim. policy which promotes prohibition of hard drugs is the one which would save lives. I believe they're attempting to do this in Oregon. The idea is that if hard-drug users are less repressed by extreme-illegality of hard-drugs, the authorities can take constructive action without using the police, to actually help addicts return to normal, healthy, and productive life styles. The First Responders in this case would be unarmed "mental health experts", not armed police.
In other words, decrim. policies are enacted to prevent the drug users from becoming too furtive and secretive in their drug usage. This would allow everyone to successfully help the drug users to obtain help, such as housing, welfare, medical care, and so forth, including help with their use and possible addiction to life-threatening "hard-drugs".
Note that George Floyd would likely still be alive if "Cahoots" had been the First Responders in Minnesota.
Similarities Between the War on Marijuana Users
and the Jewish Holocaust.
(March 19, 2021)When I first met Umberto Iorfida, President of NORML Canada, by telephone in very late 1995, or very early 1996, he actually compared the U. S. led "war on marijuana users" with the Nazi holocaust perpertrated against the Jews. That war on the Jews started before World War II had begun, about the same time that the war on marijuana users was being ramped up by the U. S. government culminating with the "marihuana tax act" of 1937.
I know that this analogy isn't perfect. The truth is that the Germans as led by the Nazis actually embraced the hemp industry, just as the U. S. government relaxed their prohibition against hemp during World War II, both documented by Jack Herer in his famous book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes.
Please note that the real purpose of the marihuana tax act was to prohibit cannabis, not to actually tax it, as no substantial tax revenue was ever collected due to this tax act except perhaps during World War II, when hemp prohibition was relaxed.
I also wish to point out that even Jack Herer admitted in his book that it has never been proven that the DuPonts promoted cannabis prohibition behind the scenes in order to help them successfully promote Dupont's synthetic fibres such as nylon, which had just been invented.
This implies that the real purpose of the marihuana tax act was to attack those people of color who were largely the users of marijuana in those days, such as blacks and Mexicans (who probably didn't know about prescription cannabis medicine).
Note that in those days, the potency of cannabis (marijuana) was variable, unmeasured, and unknown!
(Even today in March 2021, I believe that the psycho-active potency of cannabis is still an unknown and mysterious quality that may or may not be related to THC content. For one thing, I have found for myself that outdoor grown weed has a greater "high" effect than indoor grown high-THC weed, although outdoor grown cannabis has much less THC than indoor grown.)
But Umberto Iorfida kept up his attack on pot prohibition using the holocaust analogy, for as long as I can recall.
Umberto resigned as President of NORML Canada around 2003, turning it back over to attorney John Conroy who had founded NORML Canada in the early 1970's.
World War II Economic Exchange Items: remember that nylon stocking from the USA, Zippo cigarette lighters, along with Hershey's chocolate bars, and American cigarettes, all became the prized and primary "black-market" items exchanged by everyone all over the entire world during World War II.
Science Sometimes Distorts Things:
Current NORML USA Driving and Marijuana Page.
Old NORML Canada driving and marihuana page.
Impairment: disconnected from the environment. Are pot users disconnected from their environment? Pot users are sometimes accused of being too much connected to their senses. Is this going to help or hurt driving ability? Shouldn't we be "in the senses" more when we're driving?
The notion that the correlation between highway accidents caused by marihuana usage would simultaneously increase after legalization of weed, also dis-includes (read the fine print) that alcohol remains the main cause of the increase in highway accidents, with or without the marihuana usage measured.
The percentage increase of driving accidents also increased due to the heating up of the local economy in areas dominated by "big tech" in the USA from about 2014 until the present. This is the wave of intense economic prosperity in most of the USA, and silicon valley and its satellites of "big tech" are at the head of this economic pack.
All the research about driving and marihuana usage notes that actual measured real-life performance of just-pot-stoned drivers are always found to be at least equal to the performance of non-stoned controls. Also, the degree of impairment caused by weed usage is usually found to be insignificant in the big picture. Some studies have actually found that there's a very slight negative correlation between pot usage and highway accidents.
I invite anyone to research the subject yourself, but ignore the deceptive headlines. Those charged with highway accident culpability due to the per se' marijuana and driving prohibition laws in some places, should just plead "not guilty" if charged (assuming there was no impairment). Then hire some "expert witnesses" if you have to.
Beware of scape-goating. In terms of culpability, the tradition of blaming cannabis usage for impairment caused by simple fatigue or other factors, is unfortunate and misses the mark totally.
Since patients suffering from insomnia are generally greatly well medicated by medical marijuana usage, a better rested cross section of society tend to be regular users of cannabis, and people who are well rested are less likely to have vehicle accidents. Pot really improves sleep quality, and helps reduce insomnia, and the sleep deficit parameters measured indicate that pot, unlike alcohol, really does reduce the measured sleep-deficit.
There are other drugs which also improve measured driving performance, such as caffeine and other stimulants. But pot, which is not usually called a stimulant, helps highway safety by being one of the best OTC sleep aids when used regularly. Pot users are generally not falling asleep at the wheel since they slept well the night before.
The fact that there are very few pot-heads who are also insomniacs is the main point here (This would be just those pot-heads who also don't use alcohol). Those who use pot and alcohol together are the one group who delete or reduce the insomnia-cured group. Alcohol does not cure insomnia in the long-run, and when sleep-deficit parameters are measured.
In fact, it seems that alcohol usage alone creates sleep deficits.
The late Peter Lewis of automobile insurance fame (Progressive), was a great proponent of pot legalization. You can draw your own conclusions.
Positive Outcomes from Social Cannabis Usage:
I think, personally, that the positives of allowing social usage of weed are much more numerous than the negatives.
Here is a very short list of positives from social weed usage:
- 1 - pressure is put on social pot users to "edit" their own behavior in terms of usage such that coughing and other bothersome private behaviors, are minimalized, which results in users of weed taking control of their usage a bit more than if being used just in private.
- 2 - Such serious problems, and even deaths, of people "over-vaping" could be reduced in the social context.
- 3 - In Holland and Germany, there is the really ancient tradition of treating those with breathing "abnormalities" such as sneezing and coughing resulting from tobacco or pot usage, or from the weather, or from having a cold, to be SUDDENLY socially "blessed" by one's friends (or nearby strangers) who invoke a spiritual or health-related healing phenomenon when the words, "GESUNDHEIT!!!!!!!" are shouted at the afflicted party. "GESUNDHEIT" actually means "social and private well being" also. This is the same word in Dutch: "gezondheid".
To avoid that invocation of super-natural or health-related healing, one can also reduce their usage of the substances causing the sneezing or coughing. In Holland and Germany, unlike England and the USA, it's not considered polite or healthy to accidentally cough, spit, sneeze, grunt, moan, belch, or otherwise make any noises with the human respiratory system and voice that sounds anything accidentally like the German or Dutch languages. Such involuntary or accidental grunting snorting, sneezing, and coughing are better left to the small room known as the W.C. (water closet), where it's OK to sneeze and cough, grunt and moan, or curse in Dutch or German (privately), or otherwise make horrible bodily sounds in public.
Note that the only time in my entire life when I was asked to leave a Dutch marihuana coffee shop was once when I couldn't stop coughing once due to not controlling my usage of pot and/or hashish. It was a good lesson in social pot usage, and usage of pot in general upon latter day reflection.
FACT: Traffic Fatalities Dropped Substantially after legalization of marihuana & legalized medical: study.
NOTE: The above study does not attempt to establish causality for automobile accidents, except in terms of alcohol, but they speculate (incorrectly) that marihuana may cause accidents. However, the authors speculate that few legal weed users are driving since they would tend to use it only at home since there's no where else legal to use it.
Nothing could be further from the truth in reality. Most pot users in Colorado use weed and drive every day of their lives, though few use it in the car except perhaps when they can't use it in the house, perhaps.
In fact, on April 20 (4/20) every year the worst traffic jam imaginable occurs in the metro Denver area as thousands and thousands of tokers use their cars and trucks to head downtown for the 420 celebrations (unless they go somewhere else now), then they mostly all drive back home when it's over.
I've never seen a single aritcle about lots of accidents occurring every year on April 20th since that's not what happens when thousands and thousands of stoners hit the road all at once.
Believing in Pot Addiction
Is the First Step to Becoming an IDIOT, or MUCH WORSE!
In terms of understanding so-called "pot-addiction", we have to ask one important qustion: does medical science really know how so-called "pot addiction" biologically works, in terms of the internal chemicals and bodily physiological processes involved in creating the biological profile often diagnosed as "pot addiction", just as such biological profiles are well known for the "addictions" concerning alcohol, opiates, barbituarates, caffeine, and most others? Or is "pot addiction" really just a measure of insubordination in a totalitarian "drug-czar" controlled drug-using environment?
In other words, is "pot addiction" really a scientifically and medically accepted phenomenon outside psychiatry and law enforcement? Or are the words "marijuana addiction" a political label for an outcast group of "drug-war" victims of all races???
Does "pot addiction" have biological markers that any medical expert can spot after performing (anonymously) blood tests, other medical tests of the alleged addict's body, and so forth, with those test results alone being the authority in terms of the diagnosis of "marijuana-addiction"? If pot is really an "addiction" outside subjective/political character analysis, those test results alone outside politics would prove or disprove that "subject a" is or is not a physiologically addicted (dependent) subject due to cannabis injestion.
To be addicting, the alleged addicts' marijuana consumption allays the horrible withdrawal symptoms (from blood tests, or other anonymously performed medical tests with clear test results alone identifying the addiction condition) which promote or create his or her repeated usage of the addicting substance (cannabis with high THC content).
Or is cannabis "addiction" really not based upon well known biochemical behaviours of the human body as measured by scientifically validated medical test results and measures, outside the domain of political defamation and assassination of an outcast group of users of a certain substance?
Social usage changes behavior:
The only time in my entire life when I was ever asked to leave a "marihuana coffee shop" in the Netherlands, was once many years ago when I was unable to stop coughing when smoking some hashish or marihuana. When coughing, I just kept on smoking, regardless. Bad idea. It was a real lesson concerning "social" usage of weed.
If the legalization groups and politicians in the USA had successfully completed major reform efforts with the social usage issue first, rather than putting it last, I doubt that the USA would've had even one case of "vaping illness" here. The vaping illness problem is unheard of in the Netherlands as far as I know. But most pot users there are social users, so coughing is a no-no, so this changes behaviour to some extent. People still cough in Holland due to overconsumption, but not so much as in the usa where most use it alone.
Many or all of the victims of "vaping illness" in the USA could very well have died from simple choking. Being unable to breath properly is one of the symptoms. If we smoke or vape too much, the resultant coughing, wheezing, sneezing, and the resulting mucous, and breathing difficulties can have serious consequences.
Choking is the 4th largest cause of accidental death in the USA! Even if there were no marihuana in the USA, there would still be many deaths from accidental choking. If we choke on a glass of milk, should we blame the milk???
I feel the same way about weed. If someone chokes to death on a relatively harmless substance or material such as milk or cannabis, I don't find it useful that many are blaming the substance, and not the choking reflex itself.
If we stop using weed, the coughing, wheezing, sneezing, and mucous being created in our throats and lungs, will decrease naturally if we simply take control and responsibility for our actions, and cease the causes of our immediate problem.
In terms of the current so-called, "vaping crisis", the CDC in Atlanta did not blame the weed or THC since choking was the real cause of death, probably, in most of the cases of vaping illness. The Vitamin E acetate is mainly suspected of creating the adverse reactions in the lungs of the dead "victims".
The U.S. media seems to accept the bizarre situation whereby those who use weed excessively are not being asked to get control of themselves before they cough or choke to death from all the mucous created by their bodies responding to excessive marijuana usage. Just as with tobacco, we should be telling the users of weed that they, and they alone, are responsible for their own consumption habits and results.
Those who are "out of control" should be thrown out of the cafe, rather than being told they will always be addicts! The U.S. Government's own Shafer Commission stated nearly 50 years ago that weed usage does not create dependency, and is not addictive.
Note that a few years ago, there were "fake explanations" actually circulating in the media about a newly discovered mechanism (physiologial) for pot addiction. But this fake science all disappeared when real experts pointed out that they were 100% bullshit. They're gone for now.
But be aware that science does understand the "addiction mechanisim" for all the other so-called addicting drugs such as alcohol, barbiturates, tobacco, caffeine, and most others. At least I think they do. Where there is totalitarianism over human behaviour, there is also always a lot bullshit.
FIGHT TERRORISM, AVOID ALL HARD DRUGS.
DRUGS ARE NOT THE ANSWER!
Your body's internal morphine system: click here. Note that the endorphin system was not even discovered by modern science until 1973; yet, we have plenty of evidence before that that people didn't really need opiates to fight pain. My mom told me that when I was five years old. High School comrades told me that in 1972. Dutch people lectured me about how "hard drugs" (such as, especially, opiates) were really dangerous starting in 1988.
Note that trained medical professionals have been prescribing opiates for thousands and thousands of years, so the era of knowing for sure that opiates aren't really necessary has essentially just occurred (1973). But when the Beatles called for pot legalization in 1967, six years before the discovery of the endorphin system, they were already speaking of the dangers of "hard drugs" such as Heroin, and favored marijuana instead.
The Beatles never asked anyone to legalize Heroin.
I never asked for any morphine or opiates. But apparently morphine and other pain killers are legal in the USA, if you feel you need them. Circumstances taught me that it's probably not necessary for me to use opium.
The first responders had asked me if I wanted some "pain killer", and I responded, "Why not?" I was lying on the ground after having broken my right leg. Although both lower leg bones were broken, I was lucky that the fracture was not a compound fracture, so there was no bleeding. Due to traffic congestion, it had taken about 25 - 30 minutes for the paramedics to arrive, so I had plenty of time to evaluate and think about the amount of pain I was experiencing. This was my first and only fracture accident, and I was probably in a state of shock already (before the jab of morphine) which is similar to the effect of drugs. I felt dizzy before getting the jab, and found it funny how my foot was pointing in the wrong direction. It was funny to look at it.
Frankly, after receiving the injection of "pain killer" about 30 minutes after the accident, I finally noticed about a five to ten percent reduction in the pain, so the effect from "pain killer" was disappointingly minimal for me. I waited 30 minutes for virtually nothing. Pot has a huge effect on me, but opium would be a total waste of money.
I did not yet know that I had received a shot of morphine until the bill arrived about two months later: $15.00. (Those who are experts on the price of morphine can probably guess what year the accident occurred.)
Note that my tolerance to opioids was probably minimum since I had never chosen to use any opioids in my entire life. Therefore, I was probably already receiving effectively the maximum safe dosage. Any more would probably have killed me (I received one injection of morphine, whatever the standard dose is).
The first responders called for an ambulance, so again we waited. I did not ask for nor receive any more pain killer for the next few days spent in the hospital. I didn't need it, since I was already under the influence of pain killer. My endorphin system worked pretty well during the ordeal, and I never asked for any pain killer or sleeping pills, as I was able to sleep without any difficulty. I suppose the physical damage to my leg created severe fatigue.
I learned for myself that external pain killers are probably going to be a waste of time and money, and have very little effect. Morphine is legal in situations like this one. (OR morphine was legal in situations like that one.)
I find it odd that anyone would ask for something that really doesn't work very well compared to the human body's built in endorphin system. On the other hand, my injuries had been minor compared to what could've occurred.
Perhaps in the West, our doctors, nurses, first repsonders, and so forth "believe" too much in pain killers that really don't work very well.
The Chinese are right: PAIN KILLERS ARE USUALLY A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.
FACT: the Chinese communist revolution was primarily a war against opium and "the West". Mao had all the opium sellers shot by firing squad. This is common knowledge. Or maybe it's a lie. I don't know. I never lived in China. But I know they tried to eradicate opium in China under the communists.
The opium wars. I am referring here to the extreme humiliation of the Chinese by the British in relation to the opium wars, that created mass addiction to opium in China. The opium generally came from British controlled India. Some still see the Communist Revolution in China as still being a response to the British opium wars, that severely humiliated China, and may still humiliate them.
It's very ironic that the British had just abolished chattel slavery about the time that they enslaved the Chinese to opium.
So slavery to opium never really ended in the British Empire.
NOTE: if the war on opium in China was never really won, then the Communist Revolution there was a complete FAILURE, and the British are still controlling the minds of the Chinese by making them addicted to opium.
NOTE: this means that Hong Kong is both a symbol of British opium, and of Western control and domination of China.
However, at the dentist, I will probably always ask for anaesthesia.
I have always been afraid of opium. But what about all the other potentially fatal drugs out there?
NOTE: as a young person below the age of 6 years old, I once found a scary book in our house with drawings of an opium addict using some form of opium, which terrorized me at the time. I was told that the book was titled, "Confessions of an English Opium Eater", but I couldn't read yet. I could only see the drawings.
I never read much more than one or two paragraphs of the book, so I can't give you a book review.
However, don't make the deadly mistake of worrying about opiates while ignoring all the other potentially fatal drugs out there. There's a lot more of them that can kill in addition to opiates. The DEA has the list of all of them, I'm sure.
A licensed pharmacist once told me there were over 2,000 controlled substances which are legal in the USA, but I don't know how many of them can be fatal, perhaps all 2000 or so?
QUESTION: why did the first responders not mention that they were about to give me a shot of morphine? They said "pain killer" instead. They were obviously ashamed of even mentioning "opium" by name!
No one said the word "opium", even at the hospital!
THIS IS A SIGN OF MENTAL INSTABILITY, to be so ashamed of themselves as they work.
THE DARK AGES. History should record that the U.S. mainstream TV and radio media, for the most part, did not even cover the subject of marihuana legalization much at all until immediately after, but not before, the November 1996 California and Arizona elections, where medical marihuana was legalized in both places. The USA like some of our allies now, was a somewhat backward nation in 1996. But the main part of media was afraid to editorialize much, or speak out much against drug policy at the time within the USA. Sad. (There was NO substantial coverage leading up to the election, though, in terms of the subject of weed. There was still a near-total black-out until the election result period in Nov. 1996.)
CBS news and CNN (and perhaps others) sent reporters over to the Netherlands in Nov. 1996 where a lot of the pot-media were ensconced, and to California and Arizona, and covered the issue ONLY AFTER the election had occurred, but not much if any before. Except for neophyte internet and perhaps local TV news media coverage, there was nearly a total mainstream media blackout before that election-result period extending back many decades. The point here is that there was a near black-out before the election, but not for the results of the election when the near-black-out ENDED!!!!!!!!!!
In 1996, the new internet media was covering it, but not TV and radio; this was largely before much of any audio or TV media using the internet other than "print media".
Although Arizona went retrograde for a while after the will of the people was expressed in 1996, California progressed. But the period before 1996 was an almost unbelievable "dark ages" in terms of mainstream acceptance of weed legalization, and this attitude extended worldwide, other than European media coverage of the Dutch scene. However, at that time, no one in Europe was even discussing the issue of legalization; it was then and now also all about "decrim" on that side of the Atlantic.
This is probably one of the reasons the media today in the USA speak out so much about weed these days; an attempt to re-balance our embarrassing history.
Here's a new study from Harvard which debunks the mantra that marijuana causes men to grow female breasts, and causes their sperm count to decline, and their testicles to shrink.
American youth were actually taught that lie for many decades.
FACT: in terms of feeling the "stoned" effect from marihuana usage, some people's bodies apparently do not have the ability to do that. These people feel "nothing" from using marihuana. I don't know if they would beneift medically from it or not, depending on what ailment is being medicated. Perhaps their bodies' endocannabinoid systems were working better already.
The Truth: no one knows why this is. Also, some people who do not feel the "stoned" effect of marihuana initially, after a month or so of use, a switch permanently closes and the user may finally feel some change in awareness after usage.
Some medical usage of marihuana is not related to the "feeling stoned" effect, but I speculate that there are some medical benefits from "feeling stoned" for many.
From the so called "Shafer Commission" report, aka, "Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Part V, Implementing the Discouragement Policy, Total Prohibition, Part 2"
The fatal-flaw of the Shafer Commission was to not recommend full legality. In fact, they discouraged legalization, opening the door to the current era of decriminalization, corruption, and terrorism. Keith Stroup of NORML has repeatedly stated in the last few years that decriminalization has been a disaster.
The current era of corruption and terrorism began, more or less, around 1972 or so. Decrim. of marihuana also began about 1967 for the U.K., and about 1972 in Ann Arbor, MI. The first major terrorist event in the current epoch was probably the Munich Olympics attack in 1972 by the PLO.
Note that former PA Gov. Raymond Shafer was a member of both the 9-11 Commission, and "Nixon's marihuana commission" which is usually referred to as "the Shafer Commission".
I have copied part 2 of that section below:
2. Application of the Criminal Law Is Constitutionally Suspect
The preference for individual privacy reflected in the debate over the philosophical limitations on the criminal law is also manifested in our constitutional jurisprudence. Although no court, to our knowledge, has held that government may not prohibit private possession of marihuana, two overlapping constitutional traditions do have important public policy implications in this area.
The first revolves around the concept that in a free society, the legislature may act only for public purposes. The "police powers" of the states extend only to the "public health, safety and morals." In the period of our history when the people most feared interference with their rights by the government, it was generally accepted that this broad power had an inherent limitation. For example, early prohibitions of alcohol possession were declared unconstitutional on the basis of reasoning such as that employed by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in 1915 in the case of Commonwealth v. Campbell:
It is not within the competency of government to invade the privacy of the citizen's life and to regulate his conduct in matters in which alone is concerned, or to prohibit him any liberty the exercise which will not directly injure society. Noting that the defendant was "not charged with having the liquor in his possession for the purpose of selling it, or even giving it to another," and that "ownership and possession cannot be denied when that ownership and possession is not in itself injurious to the public," the Kentucky court concluded that: The right to use liquor for one's own comfort, if they use it without injury to the public, is one of the citizen's natural and inalienable rights. . . . We hold that the police power — vague and wide and undefined as it is — has limits. . . .
Even the perceived dangers of opium were not enough to convince some members of the judiciary that the government could prohibit possession. It is historically instructive to consider these words, penned in 1890, by Judge Scott in Ah Lim v Territory:
I make no question but that the habit of smoking opium may be repulsive and degrading. That its effect would be to shatter the nerves and destroy the intellect; and that it may tend to the increase of the pauperism and crime. But there is a vast difference between the commission of a single act, and a confirmed habit. There is a distinction to be recognized between the use and abuse of any article or substance. . . . If this act must be held valid it is hard to conceive of any legislative action affecting the personal conduct, or privileges of the individual citizen, that must not be upheld. . . . The prohibited act cannot affect the public in any way except through the primary personal injury to the individual, if it occasions him any injury. It looks like a new and extreme step under our government in the field of legislation, if it really was passed for any of the purposes upon which that character of legislation can be sustained, if at all.
As a matter of constitutional history, a second tradition, the application of specific provisions in the Bill of Rights, has generally replaced the notion of "inherent" limitations. The ultimate effect is virtually the same, however. The Fourth Amendment's proscription of "unreasonable searches and seizures" reflects a constitutional commitment to the value of individual privacy. The importance of the Fourth Amendment to the entire, constitutional scheme was eloquently described by Justice Brandeis in 1928 in the case of Olmstead v U.S.:
The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfaction of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
Although the Fourth Amendment is itself a procedural protection, the value of privacy which it crystallizes is often read in conjunction with other important values to set substantive limits on legislative power. The Supreme Court, in the case of Griswold vs. Connecticut, held in 1965 that Connecticut could not constitutionally prohibit the use of birth control devices by married persons. Although the Justices did not agree completely on the reasons for their decision, Justice Douglas stated in the opinion of the Court:
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means of having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedom." (citation omitted) Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
Four years later, the Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Georgia, held that even though obscenity is not "speech" protected by the First Amendment, a state cannot constitutionally make private possession of obscene material a crime. The Court's reasoning is revealed in the following language:
[The] right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, (citation omitted), is fundamental to our free society. Moreover, in the context of this case — a prosecution for mere possession of printed or filmed matter in the privacy of a person's own home — that right takes on an added dimension. For also fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy . . .
While the judiciary is the governmental institution most directly concerned with the protection of individual liberties, all policy-makers have a responsibility to consider our constitutional heritage when framing public policy. Regardless of whether or not the courts would overturn a prohibition of possession of marihuana for personal use in the home, we are necessarily influenced by the high place traditionally occupied by the value of privacy in our constitutional scheme. Accordingly, we believe that government must show a compelling reason to justify invasion of the home in order to prevent personal use of marihuana. We find little in marihuana's effects or in its social impact to support such a determination. Legislators enacting Prohibition did not find such a compelling reason 40 years ago; and we do not find the situation any more compelling for marihuana today.
"Decrim." Goes Awry in Ohio.
(April 22, 2016) DOMESTIC TERRORISM RAISES ITS UGLY HEAD.THE UNTOUCHABLES TOUCHED A LOT OF LIVES IN DECRIMINALIZED CHICAGO:
DOMESTIC TERRORISM COMMITTED BY AL CAPONE'S
GANG ON SAINT VALENTINE'S DAY, 1929.
Within the past few years, Keith Stroup of NORML (U.S.) has stated that decriminalization (of marihuana) has been a disaster. I know that this quote is not easy to find at www.norml.org, but the evidence is cleary visible in that no "decrim. states" have directly transitioned from "decrim." to full legality for adults, yet. Ironically, "decrim." was always seen in many areas as a way to create "defacto legalization".
Instead the drug war industry has tried to institutionalize the association between marihuana, other illicit drugs, and organized crime, even in areas which had already decriminalized the personal possession of small amounts of marihuana.
It's obvious that decriminalization policy and organized crime work hand in hand.
In many areas since the 1980's, decrim. has become a two-faced policy that can appear to be prohibition, or near legality, depending on the way it's implemented. Some people in decrim. states are routinely allowed to use and sell marihuana, some are not. It's all about political connections, I suppose. Something went wrong with this "crime-cell" operating in Ohio.
Disaster in Ohio, a decrim. state: recent mass murders were apparently committed in Ohio against family members involved in an illicit marihuana grow operation. Only small amounts of weed for personal usage are classified as a decriminalized offense in Ohio.
It is obvious that the perpertrator(s) of this horrible series of crimes in Ohio wished for their murderous acts to be associated with such similar acts committed by persons proud of being called, TERRORISTS.
What's the difference between organized crime and terrorism? Not much. The terrorists often kill themselves after killing their intended victims. Organized crime generally doesn't commit suicide. Charles Manson and his criminal gang were not terrorists, but rather a group aspiring to be like organized crime.
SHOUTING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATRE; Mainstream Media Slanders Science and Truth: "SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA" FRAUD AND CHAOS.
(6 August 2015) High Times' recent report on the issue of synthetic marijuana.
Actual "synthetic marihuana" is called "marinol", or "dronabinol", and has been around for decades, but contains only THC, and is very expensive compared to natural cannabis. Marinol is considered safe and non addictive when used in practical doses, but is very difficult to manufacture, and will consequently likely never be competitive with the marihuana (cannabis) plant.
For years now, the media and businesses both have been erroneously calling various products "synthetic marihuana" which contain none of the ingredients of natural cannabis, not even THC.
There are probably various products being called "synthetic marihuana" that contain various active ingredients.
This fraud, distortion, and misinformation created by businesses and the news media makes no sense at all. The lies about "synthetic marijuana" are confusing the general public, slandering the companies which manufacture synthetic THC, slandering the people and companies who produce actual marihuana, slandering the scientists who discovered and first synthesized THC, and probably causing deaths and other injuries to the unsuspecting general public.
Here is a link to information about actual synthetic marihuana, not the fake stuff. Frankly, I've only met one person in my life who liked it.
Todd McCormick said kind words about prescription synthetic THC (aka, "Marinol") to me, and he has some real conditions that are aided by the medical marihuana and/or pure synthetic THC.
My April 16th, 2018 Letter to NORML
and the FDA Concerning International De-scheduling of Cannabis:
I am writing in to express my support in the reconsideration of the Schedule I designation of the cannabis plant under international conventions. To be more accurate, I join the large group of persons who feel that cannabis should be totally descheduled.
Schedule I is the most restrictive designation that exists for controlled substances and it is generally reserved for only the most dangerous drugs, such as heroin. Maintaining cannabis in this or even less severe designations, is improper and is in conflict with the available science.
Cannabis clearly does not share the ‘high’ abuse potential associated with other Schedule I substances like heroin, or even other legal substances like alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, or prescription opiates. According to a comprehensive review by the United States National Academy of Sciences, cannabis’ dependence liability is similar to that of caffeine (7 percent) or anxiolytics (9 percent), and is far lower than the dependence liability associated with other substances like alcohol (15 percent) and tobacco (32 percent).
My personal experience with cannabis and coffee, however, leads me to opine that coffee, tea, and other caffeine containing substances are much more dependency producing than cannabis for myself. Regular cannabis usage is often rationally chosen and undertaken by users such as myself, due to the alleviation of various common and pre-existent medical symptoms, later to be confused with alleged cannabis withdrawal symptoms. However, if the so-called withdrawal symptoms were already present in the lives of the future cannabis user before they began using cannabis, then these were not withdrawal symptoms since no cannabis was being used as of yet, when the medical symptoms were originally noted and communicated to doctors or other healthcare providers, as in my case.
For example, I had suffered for over 15 years from insomnia, and had tried many over-the-counter remedies and techniques for insomnia reduction, without success before I discovered cannabis worked for me; however, I never tried barbituates or other much more severe narcotics out of simple fear of the dangers of such things.
Furthermore, it is also apparent that cannabis possesses an acceptable and known safety profile compared to so many other more dangerous drugs. Unlike most therapeutics, cannabis possesses no known risk of lethal overdose. Further, the acute toxicity of cannabis is very low, and it is recognized that “there are no cases of fatal cannabis poisoning in the human medical literature.”
There exist numerous FDA-approved controlled trials assessing the safety and efficacy of cannabis in various patient populations. A scientific review of several of these trials concludes: “Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable. It is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking.”
Finally, it is illogical to opine that cannabis “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment.” Several countries – such as Canada, Jamaica, and the Netherlands – as well as over two-dozen US states recognize the therapeutic use of cannabis by statute. It is now estimated that over 1.2 million Americans are using cannabis as a legal medicine under state law.
Rather than continuing to keep cannabis misplaced in Schedule I, a better option would be to deschedule it – in other words, to remove it completely from the international drug conventions – so that nations may regulate its commercial production and retail sale in a manner similar to alcohol or tobacco. Numerous nations, like Canada and Uruguay, have already moved in this direction and I encourage regulators to give serious consideration to this policy change.
I also call your attention to the U.S. Government's own 1971 "Shafer Commission", also known as "the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse", which opined that recreational marijuana usage was essentially harmless and easy to control. In this study, there is no mention whatsoever of there being any withdrawal symptoms caused by regular recreational marijuana usage.
At this time in 1971, medical usage was virtually unmentioned altogether along with any withdrawal symptoms. I personally still feel that this U.S. Goverment commissioned study released in 1971 remains the best final word on the subject.
Please recall that marijuana in 1971 was never regularly available to anyone inside the USA.
In 1971, virtually no marijuana was being produced inside the USA nor Canada, and the supply from nearby foreign countries such as Mexico, Jamaica, and Columbia was often intermittent and sporadic, which constantly produced self-evident proof that lack of cannabis did not produce any serious discomfort or withdrawal symptoms for anyone who wished to use it everyday. From this well known historical fact, we can conclude that the term "withdrawal symptom" for cannabis only came into existence when medical usage became widespread quite recently, but this medical usage scenario also tends to confuse withdrawal symptoms for pre-existing medical symptoms; pre-existent to cannabis usage altogether.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this effort to return cannabis to a more common-sense regulatory scenario under local and state control, which would shift national and local drug control resources more to controlling truly deadly drugs such as barbituates and opiates.
THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT, BUT WAS NOT CLEARLY REALIZED UNTIL AFTER THE ABOVE LETTER WAS SENT TO NORML USA:
Note that in 1971, "marihuana" was very difficult to smuggle into the USA in large and profitable amounts without detection. It was then of much lower potency, and thus, much more bulky than the cannabis of 2018. The borders of the USA in 1969-1972, although more porous than today, were still being watched closely, and authorities actually succeeded in greatly reducing the flow of this "weed" into the USA in 1969 with "Project Intercept", and also later probably 1971-1972. We can conclude that supplies were successfully interrupted and unreliable, creating the perfect scenario to study alleged "withdrawal symptoms" just in time for the Shafer Commission. This report was officially released in 1972, but numerous reliable leaks to the news media in the Fall of 1971 were observed by everyone.
Making Cannabis Infused Cooking Oil Easily with Hashish:
NOTE: in Europe, they sometimes use the more pure expensive, fresh, and pure hashish for cooking, but it's hard to know how pure it is unless you know exactly how it was made. You might ask the seller of the hashish questions about that. The types made without solvent can also be used. In Holland, all hashish except the most expensive hashish, should probably not be used to put into oil, especially not hashish which has visible mold on it, such as some of the more cheaper types. (Just as blue cheese is blue due to some sort of mold or bacteria, there are lots of people who like this type of weed.) In the USA, there is no imported hashish to speak of, so most of it over here is probably OK unless otherwise it is known the hashish is unsuitable.
This method of making cannabis-infused cooking oil is much easier than most methods and takes about 5 to 10 minutes, total. What is needed is about 750 ml. of cooking oil, such as olive oil, and about 1 gram of shatter, wax, honey oil, or any other pure form of hashish. The hashish should be pure enough to put into edibles. I used some with measured THCA of 82.9 percent.
Needed items should all be clean and food-grade:
- spoon, fork, or tongs;
- about 750 ml. cooking oil such as olive oil,
- 1 gram of hashish,
- 1 heat-proof cooking pot, measuring cup, or container with pourable lip, large enough to hold all of the oil,
- 1 cooking pot with pourable lip large enough for all of the oil.
Put 1/2 of the oil (about 1 pint) into the clean cooking pot, then place over medium burner heat. The other approx. 1 pint of cold oil will be used soon to cool off the warmed up oil, so keep the cold oil in the original container, or pour it into the other cooking pot or heat-proof measuring cup or container.
Immediately place the 1 gram of hashish into the warming oil in the pot on the stove.
Begin to lightly stir the oil as it heats up on the stove. Watch as the hashish dissolves into the oil at about the temperature that the oil can no longer be comfortably touched with the human finger. This is at about 130 degrees F. or so. If there is suspicion that the oil or hash is not clean, then maybe the oil should now be heated up to the boiling point of water for long enough to kill bacateria, but this will destroy some of the active ingredients in the hashish also. If to be used for cooking, this will also be accomplished during the cooking process.
Or, as soon as the oil can no longer be touched comfortably, cut off the heat, but continue to stir the heated oil as the hashish dissolves.
If using honey oil packaged in small round plastic container with lid, first make sure the container itself is completely clean on the outside. Then place the opened plastic container, with the lid also if it has hash on it, into the warming oil being stirred, so that the warm to hot oil can dissolve the honey oil, leaving none in the container or on the lid. Do not try to pour or spoon out the honey-oil from small plastic containers. As soon as the honey oil is dissolved completely into the hot oil, remove the opened plastic container and lid from the cooking pot with a spoon, tongs, or fork.
When the hashish or honey-oil is completely dissolved into the hot oil, only then, pour the warm/hot oil back into the original container or into the other cooking pot or container with the cool oil. This will cool off the hot oil so that it can be used nearly immediately. Then carefully pour back into the original oil container.
Use like regular cooking oil in edibles of all sorts. The potency can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the amount of oil per gram of hashish. The above recipe makes oil with the approx. potency that 1 ml. of this oil contains slightly more than 1 mg. of THCA. One tablespoon contains slightly more than 15 mg. of THCA using wax of 82.9% THCA. content. (830 mg. of THC distributed into 750 ml. of cooking oil. This is slightly less than a quart.)
Amazingly, I randomly bought some brownie mix that uses 2/3 cup of oil to make 16 brownies. I've calculated that this oil just made contains about 175 mg. of THCA in 2/3 of a cup, which distributed into 16 brownies means each brownie has about 10.9 mg. of THC per serving, the maximum dosage allowed in one state from commercial edibles is 10 mg. of THC per serving. Oops. (This is not a law, but a regulation for commercial bakers of cannabis edibles in one U.S. state.)
Police to Ban Hashish in Amsterdam?
Dutch police afraid cannabis consumption will be reduced if dabbing catches on there.
At the 2014 High Times Cannabis Cup, the cops in Amsterdam in projecting new policies from city hall, and presumably the mayor's office, issued an edict against "dabbing", and also, an edict against "sharing of cannabis" in the coffee shops.
First of all, what is "dabbing"?
Dabbing is a new way to consume or smoke the hashish-like and usually semi-liquid concentration of the active ingredients of marijuana called "honey-oil" (which contains no actual oil, though it seems to be oily in consistency) usually using an appliance called a "titantium nail". Other types of marijuana concentrates may also be "dabbed" or smoked with varying results in various ways, including traditional hashish pipes. Don't put oily substances in these new smoking devices.
In other words, it's essentially no different than smoking hashish, as opposed to the cruder version, marijuana itself. There were already 2 or 3 types of hashish already being smoked normally in pipes or mixed with weed or tobacco, and smoked like a joint, before "dabbing" was invented which is just a new method of smoking a more pure form of hashish, really. Nothing more.
Note that "honey-oil", and "hash-oil" are not the same thing. So called "hash-oil" contains added oil, usually cooking oil. "Honey-oil" and most other newer types of hashish and marijuana concentrates do not contain any actual added oil at all, though honey oil appears to be oily.
I really don't see what the fuss about dabbing is really all about once the facts are known, as hashish has been in use in Holland for decades. However, some of the titantium nail smoking devices look extreme and bizarre, which can hurt legalization efforts. Some "nails" are heated up using a LPG blow torch, while others are heated using electricity, either from the AC wall outlet, or from batteries.
The electric devices don't look that odd.
However, the LPG blow-torch heated nails, look extreme and possibly hazardous.
They also may be afraid that cannabis consumption activity in the marijuana coffee-shops will slump when dabbing catches on in Europe, as one "dab-puff" is very strong, reducing traditional hashish and marijuana consumption activities.
Medical marijuana users are also advocates of the titantium nail/honey-oil method of using marijuana and marijuana concentrates.
Saving lives through knowledge:
Licit and Illicit Drugs; The Consumers Union Report
on Narcotics, Stimulants, Depressants, Inhalants, Hallucinogens,
and Marijuana - Including Caffeine, Nicotine, and Alcohol. [Paperback]
Has a chapter on THE U.S. GOVERNMENT NARCOTIC FARM; LEXINGTON, KY.
(Book sent free of charge by NORML.org to all new members.)
HELP PREVENT PRESCRIPTION & ILLICIT DRUG DEATHS!
How to Secretly Smoke Weed in Your Apartment.
Many persons get in trouble smoking weed in their apartment. Although marijuana is legal in some areas for some people, landlords and neighbors can also be a problem if your smoking amounts to harrassment of neighbors. This is actually not necessary. It is actually very easy to avoid detection.
if you're in a larger apartment building (or hotel) with a central exhaust vent system, you can just smoke in the bathroom with the door closed where the vent is usually located.
You can also get some sandalwood incense which virtually eliminates magically the smell of cannabis almost instantly if burned after smoking in the same room. The air purifier called OZIUM has also been touted as a way to nearly eliminate cannabis smell, but sandalwood incense seems to work better if you ask me.
Make sure there's a good exhaust fan.
First of all, don't open all the windows wide. Instead, close them. Cut on the new or existing exhaust fan assuming it vents air reliably into the air outside your apartment; preferably on the roof if it's a townhouse style apartment. Many larger apartment buildings already have vents installed in all the bathrooms in all the units. Check to make sure the exhaust fan actually vents to the outside of the building. This can be difficult or easy. Some apartment buildings already have a huge exhaust fan system that pulls air through all the units up into a common air-exhaust system. In many cases, this vent is located in the bathroom or the kitchen. If it's an exhaust fan, you can tell if it's an exhaust fan by placing small sections of toilet paper over the grill to see if there's any suction.
If you find a fan or vent grill, and it's the type that does not vent air to the outside, it will not help anything. Some of these types have two separate grill sections separated by a blank-plastic-panel that does not have any grillwork or holes between the two grill sections, then it is probably the useless type. (There are other useless types as well. In a moment, we will test your exhaust fan.) This type of useless exhaust vent simply circulates air around inside the room it is installed in.
Duct-free recirculating exhaust fan is NOT OK for this scenario.
As you can see here, there's no way to really
tell what kind it is except through testing it.
To check what type of fan or vent you have, turn it on, or open it, and try to place short sections of dry toilet paper upon the different grill sections to see which way the air is blowing, and if there is enough suction to hold the paper without falling. This is just a suction test. The useless type will suck in air through one area or section, and blow it out through another area or section of the grill work of the exhaust fan.
TEST ONE. Assuming you have the proper type, once you THINK you have all the windows, doors, and other openings closed and the exhaust fan running, you can then go around and check to see how sealed up your apartment really is in terms of air flow. With the exhaust fan running, check this by barely opening any particular window to the outside air. Place your hand near the opening and check for air briskly flowing into the apartment through the barely opened window (less than 1/4 inch open). If the apartment is well sealed, when you open the window while the exhaust fan is running, air should be noticable as it flows in quickly.
If airflow is NOT noticable flowing into the apartment through the small opening, then you are NOT safe from detection.
If airflow is flowing strongly into the apartment through the small opening, then you are probably safe from detection.
DO NOT OPEN ANY MORE WINDOWS WHILE YOU SMOKE. The exhaust fan will suck the smell and smoke out of the apartment as long as you DO NOT open any other doors or windows other than that one which is barely opened. If you open one or two windows completely, or more, the exhaust fan is no longer "in control" of the air flow. We want a controlled flow of air into, and out of the apartment. We also want air flowing into the apartment through every possible crack in the entire apartment so that smoke does NOT flow out of the apartment through these outlets. The only outlet that should have cannabis smoke and odor coming out of it, should be the exhaust fan outlet.
These procedures and tests should keep you safe and secret except in one unfortunate scenario. Some exhaust fans have not been installed correctly, and vent into a large attic for numerous units where smells can easily migrate to other units through the attic. This is the most difficult situation to detect unless you actually can get into the attic to check the ductwork.
Note that if the exhaust air system, or exhaust fan system vents into the attic or other semi-enclosed crawl areas instead of the outside air, there could already be a mold problem in such an attic or crawl space. This is probably against most building codes as the building may already be rotting away!
In that case, move to a properly designed and built abode that is less prone to rot and trouble, and make sure you burn the sandalwood incense in the room where you just smoked.