We’d like to show the side of the world you don’t normally see on television.
Think Anew..Act Anew ! "See" A New Green Earth !!! It is time that hemp, which can be used for items ranging from paper products to carpets, from textiles to food & oil, from construction material to paints, once again be made "Legal" !!!
Latest Activity: Jul 30, 2012
Overlooked in the ongoing debate on marijuana is the fact that
and Now on:Carlos Santana~
I admit I tend to bang on about illusions a lot... but only because they play such a vital role in keeping us in our place.Here's a little short story for you. It has a point so bear with me:One day…Continue
Started by Ron Tocknell. Last reply by Ron Tocknell Jul 23, 2011.
Among It's 'Many' Positive Utilizations : Cannabis (Hemp) 'IS' A "Medicine"..'Not' a drug ! "Viva La Medicina" !Your brotherjbContinue
Started by jb. Last reply by jb Mar 9, 2011.
Come watch the United Nations International Day of Peace September 17 to 21 2010 here..…Continue
Tags: international.day.of.peace, peaceday.tv, peace
Started by John'nie West Sep 14, 2010.
What gives one person power over another? In the wider animal kingdom (of which, let us not forget, we are a part), there is a huge diversity of strengths and weaknesses. The lion, for example, is…Continue
Started by Ron Tocknell. Last reply by jb Jul 21, 2010.
Too much is invested into the criminalisation of cannabis for it to be legalised any time soon. We have to play the Long Game. This is only one area in which Law conflicts with Right. The fact that people can get high on it is a gift to those who hold control. It provides a justification... however weak. But there are many laws that conflict with what is clearly and unambiguously Right. An example would be (and I am using UK laws here) where land owned by the local authorities is left unused and with no foreseeable plans. It becomes an eyesore and potential hazard.
But land owned by the local authority is land owned by the community, whom the local authority represent. However, it would be illegal to build on this land without local authority consent. It would be illegal to build anywhere (including on one's own land) without planning permission. So, if a group of Guerrilla Builders decided to build a house on local authority-owned land, even if the plans could show that all building safety regulations were being adhered to and that the design is in keeping with the immediate environment... and even if the labour were provided free by volunteers and the materials were recycled materials donated by supporters and therefore costing the local authority and the taxpayer nothing, it would be deemed a criminal act.
Now let's suppose the objective of this house would be to provide a home for a homeless family and that not one person would be making a penny from the project. This would not minimise the illegality... but would add additional plus points to the positive nature of the perceived outcome.
Now let's look at the points in favour of this action:
Now let's take a look at the negative points:
Now the beauty of this project is that it doesn't give the controlling authorities a single hook on which to hang a justification for taking obstructive legal action.
What has this got to do with cannabis legislation? Bear with me...
This is an act of what I am calling Impeccable Activism. The objective is to do something that has no negative implications whatsoever... and yet comes into conflict with law. It is an act that has only beneficial and positive outcomes and is therefore clearly and unambiguously Right.
But, of course, laws have been breached and the authorities must take legal action. Those involved with the project must be arrested. This is playing directly into the hands of the activists, who maintain a pleasant manner and do not even criticise those who are obliged to put a stop to the project. Nothing the activists do can possibly be defined as wrong.
This creates a dilemma for the authorities. The project will have public support and will attract press and media attention. It would bring the discussion of Law vs Right into the public consciousness in a way that it cannot be swept away.
Although the legal argument is clear: the law has been breached, the moral argument cannot be dismantled. It forces the discussion of the fact that the law often conflicts with what is clearly and unambiguously Right.
This clearly highlights the fact that the law is no longer based on the concept of Right and Wrong. We all know this anyway but arguments along these lines are easily dismissed. In this instance, it would be impossible to dismiss the argument.
I think, even in the UK, it would be unwise for anyone with political ambitions to declare themselves an atheist. In the US, it would be suicide. Every leader claims to be on the side of God and committed to doing what is Right. That false claim can be used to reinforce a demand for a vital clause in the law: when Law conflicts with what is clearly and unambiguously Right, Law must give way and Right must prevail.
No US president would dare deny that laws are made by man but Right and Wrong are dictated by God. The President cannot claim superiority to God and any attempt to do so would immediately bring the people en mass out in opposition and the President would have to stand down.
The argument for The Rule of Impeccability is strong. The objective of law is to uphold what is right and just. Jefferson said: "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty".
What the people need to do is demand that the Rule of Law is always subservient to the concept of Right and Wrong. Otherwise, law is unfit for purpose.
Because law is unavoidably complex, there will always be situations in which the letter of the law is in conflict with what is clearly and unambiguously right and actually supports what is clearly and unambiguously wrong. But this is always dismissed with: "It aint right and it aint fair but it's the Law". This argument sets out to demolish the perception that law should always be the deciding factor without question.
Cannabis legislation cannot be used to force this argument onto the table because the narcotic aspect can always be presented as the moral argument against decriminalising it. What we need to do is find situations in which activists can conduct an act that can only be described as beneficial and positive with no loss or harm caused to anyone... but which also conflicts with the law. This will bring the demand for a clause that ensures the Right outcome prevails over the letter of the law. This is The Rule of Impeccability.
Laws won't have to be changed but, with The Rule of Impeccability inserted, it would mean that no one would get away with crimes on technicalities and no one would become innocent victims of inflexible laws that conflict with what is clearly and unambiguously the right outcome.
With that clause inserted, all legal rulings would have to be tested on a case-by-case basis against The Rule of Impeccability by weighing the positive against the negative aspects. Currently, someone who uses cannabis to ease the pain and discomfort of something like MS can only do so by breaking the law. None of the benefits of cannabis can be utilised because it has been outlawed by inflexible laws that currently serve as the last word on the subject.
It would be very difficult for any legislator to argue against a universal legal clause that serves only to ensure the right outcome is achieved in instances where the law conflicts with Right. It would be impossible for a senator, congressman or certainly a president to get away with declaring: "To hell with what God says is right! I say what goes!"
Softly softly catchee monkey.
And Now:Our new ~Hemp Will Save The Earth~Discussion on ~Carlos Santana~
OIL & EARTH DON'T MIX!
© 2023 Created by Richard Lukens. Powered by
You need to be a member of Legalize Hemp ! to add comments!