Monday, February 14, 2011

"The Trial for the Century"

The true value of Cannabis as both unique and essential makes Roger Christie's trial the most proximate opportunity for ending the illegal war on "every herb bearing seed" through "essential civilian demand."

"The Trial for the Century" will determine whether we are in time to plant hemp this Spring. One planting season may be all that's left to effectively mitigate global broiling by increasing UV-B radiation. The true value of Cannabis in the context of multiple crises makes Roger's trial globally significant, and worthy of international support and attention.

Pray for Roger, and pray that we are not too late to make this critical shift in values, "of first necessity to the wealth and protection of our nation" and planet...

“Trial of the century” is an idiomatic phrase used to describe certain well-known court cases, especially of the 20th century. It is often used popularly as a rhetorical device to attach importance to a trial and as such is not an objective observation but is the opinion of whoever uses it.”

“It’s a way of saying, ‘This is really fabulous. It’s really sensational.’ But it doesn’t really mean anything.” – Attorney F. Lee Bailey

Ref: Wikipedia

Adding substance to hyperbole, Hawaiian THC Ministry Reverend Roger Christie’s trial is surely and magnificently “The Trial for the Century” potentially advancing legal distinctions that are critical to national security and global integrity. Whether our species has the capacity to evolve into conscious active respect for Nature, rather than blindly achieving violent extinction, will be presaged by what happens to Roger Christie and the Green 14.

This is true because, in the end, it’s not really about the “pakalolo.” Roger’ trial is about Cannabis vs. climate change. If we don’t solve changes in our atmosphere, using Cannabis in a proportionate organic agricultural response to increasing UV-B radiation, beginning this Spring, then it won’t matter much what other problems we do solve.

There is no ‘marijuana’ on a burned out planet, so let’s deal with the biggest problem first. We can worry about arranging the deck chairs after we steer clear of the iceberg we’re about to plow into.

You don’t have to be a Harvard economist to know that once the U.S. loses “reserve currency status,” as we’re about to, then things are going to get really, really hard. If we don’t have the world’s most unique and essential agricultural resource in our fields, seeded and ready to harvest by this fall, America will be poor.

Invest in heirloom seeds now, while your money still has perceived value. Hemp inclusive regional economies are the future, so get started planting for seed, not just sensi, this Spring.

Restoring integrity to the Natural Order and honoring the primary relevance of Natural Law in determining the quality and sustainability of life on this planet is fundamental to our survival, and to Roger’s release from federal prison — before any trial.

The ‘trial’ must happen first in the objective Court of Public Opinion, but it isn’t Roger’s trial. It’s the trial of the Cannabis plant itself.

Is “Santa Maria” is a gift from “God” or a botanical harlot sent by “The Devil?” The true, unique and essential values of Cannabis makes the question seem as ridiculous as it is. Prohibition is soon to be revealed as the absurd circus that it is.

In Hawaii the circus will be rolling into town two months before Roger’s trial to saturate the Islands with jury nullification flyers.

Everybody knows somebody who knows somebody who knows someone who has money to invest in the future of this planet. Roger’s case is potentially the most legally explosive focal point for a polar shift in values, favoring “Gaiatherapeutic” industries.

If hemp can heal the atmosphere, as Roger Christie, I and others insist it may be able to do (if there are enough growing seasons left), then Roger is a visionary cultural world leader, entitled to due compensation for the time he’s served and for the libelous characterization, that has been the only justification for the egregious violations of his civil liberties.

Conscious realization of ‘time’ as the limiting factor in the equation of survival makes Roger’s a defense of global necessity. The Trial for the Century could be a turning point, punctuating the global shift in values that has already started.

Discovery of the endogenous endocannabinoid system makes the punitive scheduling of Cannabis dangerously primitive by comparison and functionally obsolete. The nutritional value of hemp seed as both unique and essential; the ecological importance of Cannabis monoterpenes for reflecing solar radiation away from the Earth; the critical importance of a return to organic/non-GMO agriculture; the extreme urgency of planting Cannabis in every possible soil and climate condition.

Add to that the clear and present threat to national security, global integrity and the functional integrity of the United States Constitution whose First Amendment has been traded for the insultingly obviously libelous contradictory characterization of Roger Christie as “a danger to his community” by an unobjective court where the judge works for the plaintiff, that’s imposing a hard drug epidemic on Hawaiian society by eradicating marijuana; where violent offenders are being released on bail at the same time that Hawaii’s first Ho‘omaluhia Drug Policy Award recipient languishes in federal prison; an dfinaly, “the whale in the living room”, the stark hypocrisy of a President who admits to smoking marijuana who continues to enforce marijuana prohibition.

The irrational social prejudice against Cannabis is humankind’ s most self-destructive bias, obviating the possibility of a morally grounded, free organic agricultural market. Marijuana prohibition has infected human ‘politiconomic evolution’ with a Mutant Government Outcome (MGO) “terminator gene” which inevitably conveys disparate economic advantage to those who are willing to compromise the integrity of the ecosystem by valuing toxic wealth over environmental health.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

"the center of true religion"

The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience
is the sensation of the mystical.
It is the sower of all true science.
He to whom this emotion is a stranger,
who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe,
is as good as dead.
To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists,
manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty,
which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms-
this knowledge, this feeling,
is at the center of true religion.

~ Albert Einstein ~

The Disastrous War on Drugs Turns 40: How Does the Grassroots Stop the Misdirection by an Oxymoron?

The following is my reply to Ethan Nadelmann's essay concerning the future of drug policy reform

"The Disastrous War on Drugs Turns 40: How Do We Stop the Madness?"


The surest way to end Cannabis prohibition is to recognize Cannabis as both unique and essential to the survival of our species. The ecological argument of Cannabis vs. climate change has yet to be considered by the drug policy reform establishment, so how can we expect anyone else to understand that reintroduction of Cannabis agriculture, manufacture and trade to the free market economy is critical to the survival of our species?

DPA tripping to extinction
UV-B radiation is blocked by Cannabis monoterpenes -- so what's "illegal"?

What is it about Cannabis vs. climate change, that the drug policy reform establishment doesn't want to recognize the strongest argument in favor of ending prohibition -- Cannabis monoterpenes potential for radiative forcing as a biogenic way of addressing "global broiling" by increasing UV-B radiation?

If DPA won't bring attention to Cannabis vs. climate change, then all of you DPA $upporter$ who really want prohibition to end this year, instead of "someday,maybe" can stop sending money to George Soros, and start sending it to Reverend Roger Christie in Hawaii. As far as I know, DPA hasn't sent Roger a thin dime in twenty-five years of Cannabis activism.

Expanding upon my previous hurried comments, offered ultimately as good news (in harmonic tones effecting world peace)...

We the People must consider that prohibition of Cannabis could end in a week through a simple, objective shift in values. Cannabis is both unique and essential, not illegal. A matter of historical, religious and scientific fact, any other assessment of Cannabis as other than "strategic" treasonously undermines national security.

Cannabis is healing. Fossil fuels are toxic. Cannabis is globally distributed and free to anyone who wants it. Petroleum is unevenly distributed and expensive in every way. How could our species ever achieve balance as long as our money is based in toxins that are "Gaiacidal" and spiritually bankrupt, from inception?

Game over. The DEA has been begging to be sued for ten years of public fraud based on this spurious and fatally misleading definition of "hemp":

"...stalks and sterilized seeds — is what some people refer to as “hemp.” However, “hemp” is not a term that is found in federal law."

DEA Clarifies Status of Hemp in the Federal Register, October 9, 2001

Neither statement is true.

It is a "misprision of treason" for failing to act in the interest of national security by refusing to recognize the true value of a strategic resource. Cannabis can't be both a "strategic resource" and a "Schedule One drug," so who is responsible for perpetuating this legal contradiction?

Come on DPA, MPP, NORML, etc. what EXACTLY is the hold-up in applying a fraction of your massive combined annual budgets to supporting the magnificent grassroots exercise of the Law of the Land, over anti-Constitutional prohibition statutes being tested in "Trial for the Century" of THC Ministry Founder, Reverend Roger Christie? If you recognize the historical significance of Cannabis, then you must see the power of Roger's challenge of wrongful authority. Why won't you support it?

Cannabis is not, cannot, and never has been truly illegal because without it our species won't see the end of this Century. Time is the limiting factor in the equation of survival. We don't have another planting season to waste.

The First Amendment is the first line of defense against prosecution by any objective court. Genesis 1:29 makes the end of Cannabis prohibition a matter of religious freedom. Our freedom to farm "every herb bearing seed" is the first test of religious freedom. On page one of the King James Bible used in U.S. courts and swearing in of elected officials, "God" is quoted on the first page, referring to "herbs" three times.

Drugs don't make seeds. Herbs do. The legal distinction is enormous. Yet with all of the resources of the drug policy reform establishment applied to the argument against the horrid, inevitable results of prohibition, the most fundamental truths are still not being presented or supported.

Why does the drug policy reform establishment continue to fail in presenting the most straight-forward and powerful arguments? Millions upon millions of dollars have been applied to pointing out the problems and lobbying for legislative action. How much has really changed as a result of all that time and money spent?

My frustration with the drug policy reform establishment has to do with the oxymoronic paralysis of progress that is the direct result of a disparity of wealth that exists within the drug policy reform culture. Over the past twenty years of being involved with the global effort to end the "drug war" I've witnessed talented, intelligent communicators of truth, such as Reverend Roger Christie (See http://the-last-marijuana-tria.../) be roundly ignored by the inefficient and ineffectual expenditure of millions of dollars, countless volunteer work hours, and much too much precious time, to be content with another of Ethan's lucid, eloquent, informed, though practically incomplete, accountings of the harms of prohibition. What's missing is a cohesive, comprehensive, objective valuation of Cannabis as a "strategic resource""of first necessity""critical to national security""unique and essential""beyond the rightful jurisdiction of any court" as Jack Herer, Roger Christie, I and many others in the grassroots Cannabis culture have been writing, filming, and speaking in public about for decades, over and over again. And conditions continue to deteriorate at an accelerating pace without a proportionate response, and in the case of Ethan's recent NORML conference outburst, counter-productive public rudeness.

As brilliant and passionate and dedicated to a righteous cause as Ethan Nadelmann is, why is he and how can he not recognize Cannabis as both unique and essential? It is baffling to me. Prohibition cannot exist in the presence of true value, so what's blocking that shift?

Six American Presidents have recognized Cannabis as a "strategic resource" available by "essential civilian demand" yet DPA fails to acknowledge the power in that. Will President Obama be publicly mandated by the drug policy reform establishment to recognize Cannabis as both unique and essential, an historically revered "strategic resource" deserving of sacramental legitimacy? How bad do things have to get before Cannabis is recognized by the drug policy reform establishment as critical to national security and global integrity?

How long will it take before common awareness that (at last!) the majority of American's polled understand the urgent necessity of ending Cannabis prohibition leads to victory over unaccountability, falsehood and illogic? Instead of keeping the keep the ball rolling on the most recent wave of positive energy generated by Prop 19, by focussing on Roger Christie's "Trial for the Century" the drug policy reform establishment is ignoring (or in the case of NORML's St.Pierre & Belville, taking pot shots at) a major legal opportunity.

The Constitutional battle that's about to happen in Hawaii presents an opportunity to actively engage the 'feral government' that has blatantly traded due process for slander & libel, in the unlawful imprisonment-with-out-trial-or-bail of Roger Christie. Simply by accusing Christie of being a "danger to his community" the rights and privileges guaranteed by the State and Federal Constituions protcting freedom of religion have been suspended to silence a recognized "Peacemaker."

Roger Christie's trial is several magnitudes of significance larger than Prop 19, with a fraction of the investment from the monied elements of the drug policy reform establishment -- which includes the wealthy pot growers and most of the rich dispensary owners making bank on prohibition, whose vested interests don't favor seeing the Cannabis plant liberated.

There is so much to be said by the grassroots that has not been heard because the "freedom to complain" is being eloquently choreographed, scripted and substituted for the larger truth applied in direct action. On January First, 1992, Roger Christie and I set a legal precedent when we planted 'marijuana' in a public exercise of peaceful civil disobedience in Lahaina, Maui, after I sent a registered letter to Hawaii's State Attorney General, Warren Price. The formal challenge of rightful jurisdiction was six pages long (with references) and demanded that AG Price take individual responsibility for the true value of Cannabis. Once again a contest between Price vs. value. Price lost, and resigned from public office a few months later.

As I've written to DPA, MPP, NORML, etc. for years, the arguments in favor of Cannabis vs. climate change are the most broadly compelling, along with food security and nutrition, two areas where Cannais is both unique and essential. Why have there not been Congressional hearings to weigh the value of Cannabis agriculture against the lingering vestiges of "Reefer Madness"?

Ofcourse the conditions of environment, economics and social imbalance has created a condition of extreme global emergency, poised on the edge of synergistic collapse. The Earth's boreal forests are dying from pest infestation, logging, increasing UV-B radiation and warming of the atmosphere. The pines used to produce copious quantities of atmospheric aerosols called "monoterpenes." Presently, the balance of monoterpenes in the atmosphere is plummeting. If we don't start planting Cannabis as fast as we can, everywhere we can, it will soon be too late to avoid irreversible collapse. Expanding the arable base, increasing efficiency of our economic model to mandate accelerated reforestation with the help of the "Tree of Life" is humankind's only chance for survival.

If I am wrong, then I invite anyone to give me one good reason that's true not to grow Cannabis. If anyone has a better idea than Cannabis agriculture, manufacture and free, untaxed trade, for mitigating climate change, then I'll work on your idea for free for the rest of my life.

We have nothing to fear but the atmosphere itself. If we don't solve the climate change equation, it won't matter what problems we do solve.

There is no money on a burned out planet Mr. Soros, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Branson, Mr. Nadelmann... while US currency still has perceived value, please, invest in Roger Christie's "Trial for the Century" in order to reclaim the world's most useful crop. This is where the real progress can be made in a timely way.

Bans on irreversible plant technologies (GMOs) need to be immediately imposed on agriculture as unnecessary and counter-productive to feeding the world, and a threat to global integrity.

Free Roger Christie! Now!!

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Substantive Due Process & the curious case of Roger Christie

"Substantive Due Process" is the fundamental constitutional legal theory upon which the Griswold/Roe/Casey privacy right is based. The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause not only requires "due process," that is, basic procedural rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights. "Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. "Procedural" rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

"Supporters of Substantive Due Process...point to its long history and its dynamic ability to defend basic human rights from infringement by the government. They argue that Substantive Due Process provides comprehensive nation-wide protection for all our most cherished rights, which might otherwise be at the mercy of state governments. They argue that the doctrine is a simple recognition that no procedure can be just if it is being used to unjustly deprive a person of his basic human liberties and that the Due Process Clause was intentionally written in broad terms to give the Court flexibility in interpreting it."

Strict scrutiny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law. Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards employed by courts to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or principle that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued. Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue.
The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products (1938), in the context of the New Deal. Governmental restrictions on constitutional rights that undergo strict scrutiny are most commonly but not invariably found invalid. The first and most notable case to apply strict scrutiny and find the governmental actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Supreme Court upheld racial-based curfews of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Strict scrutiny arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed[citation needed], particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. These are the two applications that were anticipated in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subject to this standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts, by Adam Winkler, found that laws survive strict scrutiny over thirty percent of the time. In one area of law, religious liberty, laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly sixty percent of applications.[1]

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

the Big Picture

Call in to my Blogtalkradio show at noon today to discuss the Big Picture: "Cannabis vs. Climate Change."

Arguing inconsequential details of ending prohibition is "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." If we have another growing season to make the coordinated transition from global hydrocarbon addiction/overdose to carbohydrate sustainability, we'll be very very very lucky.

Humans have got to grow as much Cannabis as fast as we can, in as many soil and climate conditions as we can, or increasing UV-B radiation is going to cook us. Google "global broiling, hemp" to read details of hemp monoterpenes replacing the monoterpenes from pine trees, declining as the boreal forests disappear.

Arguing about taxing®ulating pot (i.e. imposing an insolvent, politically corrupt, counter-productive, crippling bureaucracy on organic agriculture) is a potentially extinctionistic waste of precious time, the limiting factor in the equation of survival.

Cannabis is different than booze or tobacco because the quality of marijuana products is determined primarily by genetics, not agricultural method. While organic cultivation sets the standard for purity, relatively minimal gardening skill and attention to the plants is required to produce an enormous quantity of a very high-grade product. Dispensaries will wind up growing their own or buying from self-regulated caregivers & gardeners who grow more than they need to satisfy demand from community, friends and family.

Free market competition and personal reputations for excellence will determine whose Cannabis products are most in demand. Because of its exceptional degree of safety, marijuana has been traded under the worst possible conditions of social imbalance, without harming anyone.

Tainted products are an unfortunate reality in a black market, not in a free market. Testing and safety analysis is and ought to be more affordable and available for those who want to have their herb analyzed, but .

Individual responsibility for personal choices needs to be taught from a young age. Imposition of regulations on adults who make safe choices based on mature judgement is tyranny.

"Dolphin Economics and a polar shift in human values"
Date / Time: 2/8/2011 12:00 - 2 PM
Category: Energy
Call-in Number: (347) 202-0195

Sorry to disagree with you CB, but Flop 19 was a tar-baby that may represent "political reality" to some, but would have caused a shitstorm of legal confusion and a blizzard of media distraction had it passed. As it is, the way is clear in the US for a stronger grassroots movement in proportion to the crises we face: "essential civilian demand" for a "strategic resource."