The news yesterday said that California is going to run out of money by March 2009. Before that happens our Governator is going to be forced to make drastic cuts somewhere in the state budget. Where?
Seems like someone always wants to make cuts in the education system right off the bat. Uh-uh Gov, don't do it. Californians, and for that matter, all Americans, need more affordable education, not less, to compete in the world market.
Cut open hours of our libraries? Close libraries? No, no, no, Gov! With the cost of everything going up and personal income going down, availability of libraries is more important than ever before. The use of libraries has already gone way up in this dismal economy. Don't mess around with that, Gov. We book worms will hate you if you do that. A lot of us express our opinions by voting, you know.
Jack up the costs of license fees? Double fines for misdemeanors? That will probably happen first. That will certainly be done on city and county levels. Then state entities will be sure to get their share, too.
I know none of this is original with me. I'm probably way behind in my observations and suggestions. Almost everything I can think of to raise more funds to balance the budget is going to hurt the general public a lot. I'm already hurting! We are all hurting, Gov! Almost everything is out of bounds if you don't want to stay off of our sssh- not popular list.
But there is a way to make up the shortfall. It might even take the ledgers out of the red in a hurry. As I said before, I'm sure mine is not an original idea, and sooner or later somebody is going to say it out loud. Probably they already have said it, but I didn't hear them.
So how about it, Governator-in-Charge, consider this: Remember way back near the biginning of the twentieth century when the good people of the nation figured out a way to save the souls and families of all the drunks and heavy drinkers in the country by passing a new amendment in the U.S. Constitution? No, you aren't old enough? So look it up. It didn't work. It just created wonderful ways for people, unafraid of breaking laws, to get rich quick. And the general public loved the excitement and adventure of sneaking into speakeasys or making their own booze at home in the bathtub or hidden under their chicken coops. Fooling the revenuers became the most popular game in the country. It took 11 years of diligent interception of moonshiners and gangsters, but finally Elliot Ness and the government gave it up, and drinking alcoholic beverages was made legal again.
Guess what, the same thing is happening these days. Only this time the police and revenuers are up against a more versatile enemy. This time they are battling the use of a plant that grows easily in gardens hidden among the tomato plants. It flourishes in basements and windowless sheds with the help of growing lamps. It grows like a weed all across the country. It is a weed! It is a pretty plant called marijuana - no, its name is marijuana. It is called pot. It grows easily almost everywhere, but its fans especially like imported varieties.
It is a no brainer that trying to keep people from using pot just doesn't work. It just makes the substance more expensive and increases the income of smugglers and illegal domestic growers. Our prisons are crammed with unlucky users who got caught selling pot. Chasing and capturing these lawbreakers is expensive, but the costs of keeping them incarcerated for years are a big factor in breaking the country's budgets.
So Gov, since treating the problem like the prohibition of alcohol isn't working, lets cut it out. Let's make the use of marijuana legal. Then it turns the whole story around. First off, we can charge big customs duties at the border for the imported varieties. Charge license fees to domestic growers and sellers. Tax the heck out of it at every opportunity. As soon as it becomes legal there are an awful lot of people who will rush to buy it.
It's harmful you say? After observing its use by other people for at least 50 years (I hate the stuff myself and I never could stand smoke of any kind in my lungs) I can't see it as harmful as the ingestion of alcoholic drinks. Regulate it. Arrest people under DUI laws who use it unwisely. Fine them if they drive under the influence. Fine them the same way people are arrested and fined for the misuse of alcohol.
So Gov, that's one way to balance the budget in a relatively painless and realistic manner. Other people will undoubtedly express different views, but I for one would vote to legalize marijuana.
How about you, Gov?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 36
Gettman, a marijuana-reform activist and leader of the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis, champions a system of legal regulation.
Contrasting government figures for traditional crops -- like corn and wheat -- against the study's projections for marijuana production, the report cites marijuana as the top cash crop in 12 states and among the top three cash crops in 30.
The study estimates that marijuana production, at a value of $35.8 billion, exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion).
http://abcnews.go.com/business/story?id=2735017&page=1
While this might be a step in the right direction, I doubt it would produce the kind of revenue needed. But it's a good start, all the same. I'd support it.
Heck, I'd take it one step further. Legalize prostitution. What the crap does anyone care if a middle age man is so desperate he has to pay for sex? Again, legalizing it allows it to be regulated. You remove the violent pimps and give the women more safety by making them less fearful of seeking out authorities if they are abused. You can mandate testing for diseases before someone can get their license, raising fees AND keeping people safer.
And because you are no longer housing thousands of vice-related criminals in jails, you reduce prison overcrowding and save taxpayer dollars.
Besides, the governator has his eye on the easy stuff, gov. employees, hospitals, children's health, senior programs, educational assistance programs, school budgets, child protective services, food stamps, and those pesky non-needy people on welfare. Watch for it, it's coming soon.
In the CA county in which I lived, senior programs like meals on wheels, medical escort service, and housekeeping services for homebound were defunded to zero level several months ago. This largest county with the least population in CA, is home to some of the most isolated frail and elderly citizens in the state and possibly the nation. The county itself manages to get 3 frozen dinner meals per week to each homebound senior now, but nobody really knows if those served in this manner are able to use the food or store it safely. Trips from Bishop to Ridgecrest for dentures, and other medical treatment not provided locally are now impossible. I've heard dept. people say "they should move into town if they want services." Maybe so but with rent for a converted motel with one tiny room per person is $500. Some people don't get that much SSI or pension or SS. What are they to do?
Not long ago 20,000 disable veterens were thrown off the assistance programs they depended on for services. Nice, huh? But there was little mention in the media and no public outcry. In this day and age it's ok as long as they don't come for "us."
I find this all very sad and depressing. What are we allowing our leaders to do to those who have sacrificed most and received relatively little in return.
Before the US entered World War II, prostitution was legal in Pensacola, a town of multitudes of young sailors far from home. It was regulated by the city government and it worked pretty well. The prostitutes had to pass health examinations frequently and social disease was kept at a minimum. I would guess there was a lot of graft and 'play for pay' skullduggery going on, but it kept the sailors and straying older men a lot safer than they were after prostitution was made illegal once again. At least that is what I was told.
As for the power of the federal government in this matter may change. Most states are in bad fiscal condition and after they apply for help from Washington long enough, maybe the federal lawmakers will take another look and vote with more pragmatism to legalize marijuana. Probably the new congress coming into office is younger overal than the one leaving office. Perhaps they have a more liberal and practical view of the subject.
Clarke - That sounds like a lot of revenue possibilities to me. I think the general public who have never used marijuana would be surprised by the extent of pot use.
Julie - You are right. I think there is a big health risk to using pot, but maybe no more and not as much as heavy use of alcohol. Too bad people are determined to use either of them. Why do people want so much mood alteration? There are better ways to get emotional relief from the stress of reality.
I am welcoming this bright sunny day. We had gray overcast skies with temperatures down into the 30s at night and no higher than the 40s during the day, and a strong wind up to 50 MPH. I was cold even inside my trailer. Then the electricity failed for several hours three times in one day! I crawled back under the covers, gathered my eight cats as close around me as they would stay, and waited until my heaters came back on. I stopped using propane for heat and cooking more than a year ago when I decided it wasn't safe anymore in this old trailer. I am very afraid of being trapped in a trailer fire.
Paula - Asthma sure is a bummer! My daughter has it too. I'm sure smoking of any kind will not be allowed indoors in public places ever again. But they still allow it inside Indian casinos.
I am enjoying this sunny day even though there are gray clouds lurking on the horizon, and rain and snow in high altitudes is predicted in a few days. For days we have had gray overcast skies with temperatures down into the 30s at night and no higher than the 40s and 50s during the day. What made it bad was a strong wind up to 50 MPH up here in the mountains. I was even cold inside my trailer. Then the electricity failed for several hours three times in one day! I crawled back under the covers, gathered my eight cats as close around me as they would stay, and waited until my heaters came back on. I stopped using propane for heat and cooking more than a year ago when I decided it wasn't safe anymore in this old trailer. I smelled gas a lot. I am very afraid of being trapped in a trailer fire.
Where the cutting ought to be done in education is in the bloated administration structure.
BTW, those of you who think cannabis is as dangerous as alcohol are WRONG! First of all, it is NOT addictive, and a toker is far too relaxed and euphoric to do harm to anyone...unless you consider the screaming munchies harmful.
We should treat substance abuse as a public health problem and regulate the sale and distribution of all intoxicants in the same way we handle alcohol. There's a lot of tax revenue there.
My mom grew up in Iowa. She remembered local government burning wild hemp when she was a girl. Wild hemp was pretty common in the midwest.
Things are a bit different in the land downunder,prostitution is legal, and confined to certain areas in each major city, even most small towns have a brothel. As for pot, they haven't gone as far to legalise it as yet but it has been decriminalized in a few states. I have known people who have smoked it from the sixties and don't seem to suffer and ill affects. However going on what friends have told me with the use of hydroponics, pot is very different these day. And apparently can be quite addictive, a lot of teenagers are getting in trouble in our small community over using hydro, as they call it'. I believe it is about twenty times stronger than the pot that is grown naturally. Anyway I'm a bit like you my friend I just get high on life. I hope you are well Ruth and keeping warm, Kaz and Tallara send {{{HUGS}}} and there's one from me as well, take care.
Darcey D.
A light "experimental" user in my teens of this harmless substance so many want to pin a bad rap on under the guise of "sending the wrong message."
(aside: what the REAL "wrong message" is, is that new cancers diagnosed is expected to grow by 1 percent annually. 12 million new cancer diagnoses worldwide THIS YEAR and **7 MILLION PEOPLE are expected to die from it.** These deaths are directly attributable to TOBACCO and NICOTINE. As opposed to ZERO deaths caused by marijuana. And, the US gov't LEGALIZES **that!**)
Well, all evidence about marijuana's harm is already known to be factitious and facetious and is just an outright LIE.
Then, a few days ago, the truth occurred to me: The US gov't HAS NO RIGHT to make, write or create laws that:
A. FORCE DETAINMENT / INTERNMENT / PROSECUTION / IMPRISONMENT OF US CITIZENS OVER ADULT PERSONAL CONSUMPTION OF SUBSTANCES.
B. THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF LAWMAKERS TO CREATE SUCH LAWS AND THE VALIDITY OF THOSE LAWS SHOULD BE ENTIRELY CALLED INTO QUESTION, AS, IN TRUTH, THEY HAVE **NO RIGHT** TO CREATE NOR ENFORCE SUCH LAWS.
C. WHERE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION / BILL OF RIGHTS DOES IT GIVE CONGRESS THE RIGHT AND AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS MAKING A PLANT CONTAINING THE 5 ATTRIBUTES (LARGE, GREEN, LEAFY, FLOWERING, EDIBLE) ILLEGAL?
In short, the US CONSTITUTION / BILL OF RIGHTS does NOT support either writing those laws into existence NOR enforcing prosecution regarding them.
Like alcohol prohibition laws, these laws created to make marijuana illegal are 100% fully **illegal** themselves. This is why alcohol prohibition had to be repealed. It was NOT LEGAL for Congress to make such laws.
If ANYONE is listening, NORML and the other .orgs need nothing more than these facts to take this "legal battle" to the Supreme Court in order to get ALL laws making marijuana illegal 100% dismantled and repealed.
Thank you.
fairminded
Thanks for a well thought out idea, Ruth. It does seem that marijuana is at least as harmless as alcohol. I've heard all of the arguments for keeping it illegal, but haven't heard too much about making it legal. The one thing that occurs to me is that I can tolerate someone high on marijuana much easier than someone high on alcohol. It just seems like the drunk becomes difficult to be with. The pothead stoned on weed seems pretty mellow and accepting of the surroundings. So, I think that your idea is worth looking into.
I would even go further and say that even those really nasty drugs...crack cocaine, amphetamines...even heroin...should be legal. Prohibiting them make criminals out of addicts, both by their usage of banned substances, and by the crimes they have to commit to raise the money to support their habit. If drugs were legalized, crime rates would drop, organized crime would lose a major source of income, and the jail population would go down by about 50%, solving another major problem in California...overcrowding of jails.
My former barber was jailed for running a meth lab in his garage. When he got out and managed to rebuild his business and his shattered finances (he lost his house) he told me that drugs will never be legalized because there is a huge law enforcement interest group in this country that has made its living enforcing drug laws, and they will oppose fiercely any effort to take away their livelihood. Ain't gonna happen. But it should.
If Cigarettes and alcohal, with all their known ill effects can be legal and regulated, then so should be pot.
"he told me that drugs will never be legalized because there is a huge law enforcement interest group in this country that has made its living enforcing drug laws, and they will oppose fiercely any effort to take away their livelihood. Ain't gonna happen. But it should."
You're right, this is yet another lame stalwart excuse not to repeal marijuana prohibition laws BUT neither does the US Constitution / Bill of Rights recognize the creation of laws CONTRARY to the US Constitution / Bill of Rights **in order to** provide gainful employment to any particular sector of society / group of people.
Thus, that argument is entirely laid-to-rest upon hitting the social-civil spectrum of US residents.
Just like laws cannot be created keeping the Big Three automakers' employees working. Neither can Congress make laws NOR KEEP "ILLEGAL" LAWS IN PLACE for the purpose of keeping particular people employed.
Like those before them who enforced alcohol prohibition "laws," these too will have to find another job.
If ANY of you think this matter of Congress making laws, rules and regulations ENTIRELY ILLEGALLY AND CONTRARY TO the US Constitution / Bill of Rights is a light thing, think about this:
It is identical with Congress making laws that every Tuesday everyone has to wear blue shirts. Because THEY feel blue shirts are **safer** for adults than any other color ON THAT DAY.
Sounds stupid?
Sounds like it's against your "rights" and "freedom of choice"?
Thank again.
It is EXACTLY what creating OTHER ILLEGAL laws is. 100% AGAINST the US Constitution / Bill of Rights, and against your individual liberties and personal choice PROVIDED YOU BY the US Constitution / Bill of Rights.
Even though they have done this and continue to do it, these false laws MUST BE put in check because if they are *not,* you as US citizens are allowing and providing groundwork and precedence to be set that enable Congress to create and make ANY such laws in the future. And, do not think they will *not* continue to create and make OTHER ILLEGAL LAWS as they already have with marijuana prohibition.
This matter (Congress creating *illegal* laws) MUST be taken to the Supreme Court to be ruled on the legitimacy of. Authorities making these illegal laws MUST be called into question.
Yet these plants are allowed to flourish. There are no laws prohibiting their growth.
If you want to know what they are, Google "poisonous plants" for a list. Many of you do not need to look further than your own back yard to see them.
Poison Ivy is one such plant.
By contrast, Marijuana is NOT a poisonous plant. You could eat a whole plant and not die. Indeed, in Indonesia VP Endorses Cannabis for Cooking (search Google news).
This is why it is 100% ILLEGAL for Congress to make laws that provide for the FORCED DETAINMENT / INTERNMENT / PROSECUTION / IMPRISONMENT OF US CITIZENS OVER ADULT PERSONAL CONSUMPTION OF Marijuana.
The US Constitution / Bill of Rights has NO PROVISION IN IT WHATSOEVER providing Congress with the authority or right to create such prohibition laws regarding marijuana.
REALLY NOW......
Well, tell me then, where is the *ACCEPTED medical value* of alcohol?
Where is the *ACCEPTED medical value* of tobacco?
Where is the *ACCEPTED medical value* of junk food and Big Macs?
What is the *ACCEPTED medical value* of coffee?
What is the *ACCEPTED medical value* of chocolate?
What is the *ACCEPTED medical value* of car exhaust (yet that is consumed by default of breathing in)?
What is the *ACCEPTED medical value* of Jack-In-The Box hamburgers?
Yet, ALL THESE PRODUCTS and SUBSTANCES are **100% LEGAL** and they HAVE ZERO MEDICAL VALUE. Though, studies show many of these substances result in *obesity* that is a HIGH cause of death. Others result in outright death (alcohol / nicotine).
No one has EVER died from marijuana.
No one has EVER died from marijuana.
No one has EVER died from marijuana.
No one has EVER died from marijuana.
No one has EVER died from marijuana.
Thanks for the comments.
I know my posts are WAY too long. Those are the cut down versions! :-)
The thing that frosts me. I mean really crushes all sound reasoning about this issue is this...
Almighty GOD created cannabis.
It's HIS plant. This plant contains the 5 critical items "and God saw that it was good." (Genesis).
Large, green, flowering, leafy and edible.
Additionally, if you take the square footage a fully grown, mature marijuana plant inhabits and do some math, you will see, that, if left in a preserved, natural growth state, cannabis plants inhabit (CAN inhabit) nearly 1/4th to 1/3rd of the earth's ground surface.
Look at this YouTube video: http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Y00kIp1og
Look at the size of the plants!
You know what that indicates?
That the gov't NEVER took any thought for entirely wiping out a core, crucial plant species off the face of the planet and WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT their doing so would have.
How arrogant. They don't care what their actions do to the earth by their attempting to remove a core, beneficial plant from off the earth.
To take a plant Almighty God, in His wisdom **created** -- and overrule God's creation.
God said to rule over ("and let them have dominion over" - Genesis), but He *never* said to OVERRULE.
Who do they think they are? They make themselves greater than GOD.
Now, as the US gov't hangs on the bring of financial destruction ( http://i33.tinypic.com/2h5td8i.jpg) , one could ask themselves about the judgment of God in this scripture:
"and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." Rev. 11:18.
I'm not "religious," but it would make sense that the Lord destroys them who destroy His earth He created. They're never taking any question about the consequences of their doing so.
Another thing to ask yourselves: Are there any environmental - ecological problems the earth is now facing?
Well, if you remove the ocean, you've got a problem.
If you remove the polar ice caps, you've got a catastrophe.
If you remove a major, core plant species, you've got a disaster.
But, that is exactly what they did and are doing now. Blocking the flourishing of a naturally-occurring plant that can and SHOULD inhabit MASSIVE ground coverage.
You know what photosynthesis is. You know how it is needed to process other elements on the planet balancing the ecosystem.
The US gov't NEVER did ANY testing to fully understand the IMPACT and processing power cannabis has.......... before they **destroyed** the entire species and are trying to further destroy it.
They NEVER even thought about it.
It's as if they removed the polar ice caps or the ocean itself. And, they did so, NEVER even asking what contrary impact doing that would, could or DOES have.
If lawmakers are going to craft laws that allow prosecution, imprisonment of people and confiscation of their property for merely choosing to consume an entirely non-lethal, non-poisonous, edible plant, they need to *justify* those laws.
In particular, they need to justify:
*Protection.
Presumably, laws are made to protect people.
How is the protection of citizens furthered by locking them up with violent criminals in prison?
How is the protection of citizens furthered by taking away their property (confiscation)?
How is the protection of citizens furthered by levying numerous sanctions upon them?
How is the protection of citizens furthered by forcing them to have a criminal record?
*Cost.
The cost -- $100s of billions (note: see National Debt - http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock ) are blown on an ongoing basis to enforce marijuana prohibition laws, prosecute and imprison people who, by mere personal consumption choice, end up violating those laws.
Justify the loss of $100s of billions blown.
What does that money buy?
People *get* marijuana anyway.
People *consume* marijuana anyway.
What does the money buy?
*Loss.
The LOSS of revenue and the LOSS of taxes, and the LOSS of new jobs for people who could work in an industry whereby cannabis/hemp would produce myriads of consumer and energy related products. Note: the first car was built to run on hemp fuel.
Hence, that loss of revenue NEEDS TO BE JUSTIFIED by lawmakers.
Why is there the loss of money, both for people's lost income, and tax related income for the nation?
*Destruction (of people's lives).
JUSTIFY the destruction of MILLIONS of peoples' lives that prosecution and imprisonment causes them.
Would they be **better off** NOT being prosecuted and imprisoned?
Lawmakers, answer that question truthfully.
Or, would they be **worse off** being left alone to conduct their private lives as they see fit and consume what they want, in particular a substance -- marijuana -- that is LESS HARMFUL than alcohol and tobacco?
Therefore, lawmakers, JUSTIFY THE HARM and DESTRUCTION you cause to MILLIONS of people by enforcing laws YOU made; by your making those laws.
Identical scenario. The SALVATION that JESUS CHRIST offers would NOT have happened, that's right, it would have been 100% derailed when Christ walked the earth, had the US gov't been functioning during Christ's time IF they made alcohol prohibition laws at the time of Christ, *as they did for the 13-year period* during alcohol prohibition.
Jesus and His disciples would have been raided and thrown in prison for being LAWBREAKERS, their having consumed alcohol.
How could Jesus have preached?
How could Jesus have hung on the cross, dying for the sins of mankind, had He and his disciples been serving a lengthy prison sentence for being CRIMINALS for consuming alcohol?
US lawmakers, JUSTIFY the Salvation of Jesus Christ BEING THWARTED by YOUR laws YOU made.
YOU would have derailed the Salvation of mankind by your **laws.**
ALMIGHTY GOD would have been *made a criminal* by YOUR prohibition laws.
Writing laws into existence is one thing.
JUSTIFYING those laws is quite another.
And, if there is no conscience, if there is no responsibility, if there is no body of reasonable rationalization to JUSTIFY laws made by Congress, then, I propose that those same laws are EXTREMELY MORE HARMFUL and DETRIMENTAL than the substance (marijuana) they seek to criminalize.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, if you cannot or do not JUSTIFY these marijuana prohibition laws, then, according to this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJRg5fGN-sQ ) showing **you** SMOKING MARIJUANA, **you** should be locked up first.
Are you man enough to face up to your deeds? Or, are you a... "girlie man"?
It is from here: http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi002.htm
I quote:
"Within the **Protestant churches** of England and America a **MORAL reaction** to the excesses of a market-driven expansion of drug/narcotic abuse **inspired** a global anti-opium movement in the late 19th Century.
"**For the first time** in the modern era, the **anti-opium movement,** in alliance with the LARGER TEMPERANCE CRUSADE, succeeded in winning NEW LAWS from the state **restricting the individual's control over the body.**
"With the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914, the American state, for the first time, **imposed the force of law over** the right to use (or abuse) the body as the individual saw fit."
____
So, there we have it. A blending of CHURCH and STATE.
Moral interpretation.
Not even the Holy Bible allows for private interpretation of scriptures:
ref. 2 Peter 1:20 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
Where is the argument/counter-point in this?
Simple. The THROTTLING of *perceived morals* upon individuals, to lesser and lesser degrees.
Is this understood?
It breaks down to perceived and interpreted *percentages.*
Meaning, the US Constitution / Bill of Rights founders and authors KNEW there *would* be crazy, hysterical and panicked individuals motivated by private interpretation of religion rise up, as has always been the case (ref. the Salem Witch hunts - 1692, and the Spanish Inquisition - 1478) to try to dictate their personal attributing of value upon others.
Only, beginning in 1907, Congress bought it. This time being persuaded by Protestant leaders' ecclesiastical tribunals, replacing those behind the Spanish Inquisition and those responsible for the Salem Witch hunts.
Thereby setting a NEW *moral compass* dividing the "good" (non-drug takers) from the "evil" (consumers).
From that time forward, "law enforcement" did and does the bidding of frantic, panicked religious leaders, driven by hysteria, who, through the blending and meshing of church and state doctrines, rules and laws, gave and give their hardy stamps of approval on the new persecutions (called "prosecutions") for private, personal choices of consumption.
And, here's the kicker. These same religious leaders leave WIDE OPEN the creation, promotion and viewing of PORNOGRAPHY, as well as ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION and TOBACCO CONSUMPTION.
Are these not MORE DAMAGING and DESTRUCTIVE than personal, private choice of consumption?
Yes. Counting the **10s of millions of people** dead and dying each year directly due to consumption of "legal" products. By far.
But, THIS is the *black hole* you get into when you set private interpretation of scripture and of morals.
*Perceived degrees and percentages* of separation between the "good" and the "evil."
What does GOD say regarding doing this?
Christ, in Matthew chapter 13:
24 ... The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
___
So, they MUST again *run over GOD* - they *tear up the Holy Bible* by OVERRULING Christ in order to put in place and *enforce* laws that forcefully replicate the dividing of the "good" and the "evil."
Truth is truth.
fairminded
If the US gov't is so interested in *protecting* US citizens they have to ban a God-given plant off the face of the earth, how come these same people allowed Americans to lose TRILLIONS of dollars in real estate in the last several years?
Same rule: Freedom of choice. People *chose* to consume toxic debt (in this case) and THAT is perfectly OK with the gov't. There was ZERO oversight, regulation or monitoring in the real estate sector done by the gov't.
As a result, MILLIONS of people were destroyed financially.
AS IF suffering great harm and losses in the *capital arena* is LESS dangerous than consuming a substance that is, at best, highly questionable in relation to it actually causing any harm.
It's perfectly OK with the gov't that MILLIONS of American citizens are 100% destroyed and totally wiped out financially by consuming financial programs the gov't totally approved of.
But, this same gov't sends $100s of MILLIONS to Mexico to help THEM "fight" a War on Drug Disorder, wherein the ONLY CRIME is people choosing to personally consume using their own free will substances proven to be LESS HARMFUL than tobacco and alcohol.
Anyone care to explain to me the social/political/fiscal logistics of this?
CBS Special on the coming Second Mortgage Meltdown
ALT-A loans and Option ARMs: $2+ TRILLION *more* going up in smoke.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4668112n
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUuROWEMjm0
Where is the **obligation** of the gov't to protect its citizens from harm and destruction?
It's non-existent. It's a myth.
WHY, then, do they continue to destroy people's lives via FORCED DETAINMENT / INTERNMENT / PROSECUTION / IMPRISONMENT / CONFISCATION of PROPERTY of US CITIZENS OVER ADULT PERSONAL CONSUMPTION OF SUBSTANCES LESS HARMFUL than alcohol and nicotine?
fairminded
Here is the number 1 greatest hypocrisy *of all time* - hitting the social/political world currently.
Are you ready? Brace yourself.
There are MILLIONS of "devote and faithful" members of churches all across this US nation.
MANY of them are now facing financial DEATH due to the toxic loans (ARMs, ALT-A loans and Option ARMs) they made during the last several years.
Now for The Great Hypocrisy.
What are the heads and leaders of churches TELLING their "flocks" WHEN the faithful supporters and members and congregation of their churches come to these leaders who they have supported by giving them BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for years, with their financial (housing) crisis and problems?
What are the leaders telling them?
I have an idea.
They are saying, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee... I give you 'Jesus.'"
Of course, this is a fast and furious LYING TWIST of scripture and a con-artist non-remedy.
They're (mis)quoting Acts 3:6 - "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."
But, to the greedy, fraudulent congregation leaders, THIS scriptural misquote answers ALL the financial plights of their church members.
What is the hypocrisy? The man who came to Peter got ENTIRELY HEALED, for remedy.
What are the members receiving from THEIR leaders, when THEY are in need? 100% bullsh|t.
Who is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for MILLIONS of people getting absolutely DEFRAUDED out of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for decades?
The US gov't, who is the one who gave and gives these churches and religious organizations LEGAL authority to practice various "religious" doctrines INSIDE the USA. Providing ZERO oversight and regulation of these religious leaders who, in turn, have and still are fleecing US citizens out of HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars.
Zero regulation. Zero oversight.
Say it ain't so.
Therefore, what is the US gov't's *current policy* regarding financial protection of US citizens who were and are now coming to these same organizations (who preach *against* rights of personal consumption) granted power to function and GET money from US citizens?
There IS none. It's non-existent.
fairminded