Song of the Builders

On a summer morning
I sat down
on a hillside
to think about God -

a worthy pastime.
Near me, I saw
a single cricket;
it was moving the grains of the hillside

this way and that way.
How great was its energy,
how humble its effort.
Let us hope


it will always be like this,
each of us going on
in our inexplicable ways
building the universe.

from Why I Wake Early (2004)
by Mary Oliver

Be free of fearmonger newscasters, greedy bankers, wall st. traders, insurance companies, power companies, all overpaid CEO's, pharmaceutical companies, etc.

"VIVA La Medicina" !

jb

Legalize it. It was made from the Great Creator. Yes, it is medicine, makes one happy :)

There are some elements of "law" that are well worth knowing. The only actual laws (ie; that we are subject to without the requirement for our consent) that exist are those specifically to protect from harm or loss. If your actions are not causing anyone harm or loss, YOU ARE NOT BREAKING A LAW... but you might well be breaking a 'statute'. The difference between a law and a statute is that a law can be and is imposed on all people. A statute can only be applied with consent. However, how do you know if you are giving consent?

When you break a law, the police must read you your rights but there is no legal requirement for you to confirm that you "understand". If you break a statute, you will be told what statute (which they will call 'law') you have broken and you are required to confirm that you "understand" before action can be taken. It's the word: "Understand" that is critical here. The next time you're picked up for possession, assuming that you're not trafficking, which could be legally construed as 'causing harm', when asked if you understand, reply that you fully comprehend what you have been told. You will be asked again if you understand and this can go on for a long time because they need you to at least say "yes" to that question. The term they are using does not mean "comprehend". It means "Stand Under", an archaic term meaning to submit to the authority of another. By confirming that you "understand", you are consenting to the action that will then be taken against you. Interesting, eh? Now watch the video.

The way they twist it..."understand" that some states have legalized pot and some not. The Feds will not because, other than a medicine, it allows an opening in human psyche to think, to question. Question the Federal government? This eventually leads to "Time To Say Enough". For example, after taking your medicine you will most likely see Peace as a preferable way of life and War and greed as barbaric...a light bulb appears and "They" don't like that. But, "They" have a list...lots of lists. I live in Hawaii and cards are available here. My guidance has never allowed me to join that list; a list of, not only pot smokers but, to "Them", a list of suspect enoughers who now see through the veils of dirty government. Hawaii State law has welcomed the list for years with people signing up left and right. But, as of this month, if you are on the list, you will no longer be eligible for any Federal programs and subject to Federal arrest. Watch for this in other states. For example, if you are on any Federal assistance program, such as HUD, guess what...not any more. Another way of trimming the budget at the expense of the people and checking the list twice. And, when we 'say enough' and the shit hits the fan, guess what lists "They" look at for suspect Enoughers. "They have accumulated a list of 'common sense' real thinking people...people they don't want to think. Mass awakening is "Their" fear and is the true reason behind the war on drugs.

I am about to do a tour of the AOAND groups because there seem to be a number that are pretty much on the same page. It might be a good thing if we could all join each of the other groups and encourage a reciprocal membership so, in effect, we become one. Unity is very important here. One voice becomes so much more powerful when it is added to a choir. I think of the line from the Incredible String Band lyric: "... light that is one though the lamps be many".

I think we have to steer from this concept of "Us" and "Them". Our enemy is not those who wield such dangerous power but the power they wield. Admittedly, they would be the hardest to convince that it is in their interests also that they let go. But, without the consent of the many, the few have no power to rule. A King, without the acknowledgment and consent of his kingdom is just a guy in a silly hat.

Ultimately, it is up to us... not some illusory "Them"... to decide the way forward. Appealing to congress etc. simply reinforces the illusion of power that such office wields. It is time to stop playing to that illusion. We need a movement that denounces every aspect of oppression... not just to pot smokers but to all who find themselves victim to what is simply an exercise in control.

It is not down to "Them" to stop controlling us... it is down to us to stop being controlled. I would urge everyone to join every group related to the empowerment of the people and work towards unity.

We need to take action. By this, I don't mean riots in the streets for we are civilised human beings; I don't mean identifying enemies for we are all the victims of distorted power... including those who wield it; I don't mean fighting for there is no one to fight and I certainly don't mean conflict or aggression because this is what we are turning our backs on. I mean simply using the most powerful words in every language: "YES" and "NO". YES to what we shall accept and NO to what we will not accept.

No, Joni... complying is what got us into this mess. Obey only the dictates of your heart....

That's an order :o)

There are a number of groups on AOAND that either promote taking a non violent stand against those who allude to power to the detriment of us all or offer sustainable alternatives to the current unacceptable status quo.

The way I see it, if we're all going in the same direction, it would help if we could all join hands. We need unity on this. I would urge all who feel strongly to join and lend support to any of the groups below of which you are not already a member. This will give us all equal access to shared information and ideas. Let's please unite and share.

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/doit

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/theworldfreedomproject

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/ReversingGreenHouse

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/worldmarchforpeaceandnon...

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/ChangingNormal

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/foodfreedom

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/newagesolutions

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/newhumanexperience

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/peacedaybroadcast

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/takecareofyourshare

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/peaceportal

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/humanrights

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/art

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/legalizefreedom

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/heartsoffireproject

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/positiveaction

http://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/group/timetosayenough

Us and Them…this has been a meditation since 1973 when Pink Floyd released their song, “Us and Them” from “Dark Side of the Moon”. Yes, we are all One…all a piece of the same puzzle…universe…light/energy source…however you wish to describe it. The Oneness is in Balance, alluding to an element known as Division. In the Big Picture, there is no up or down, right or left, in or out, right or wrong, etc. Our Balanced Universe is made up of Light and Dark in Harmony. Light is most often associated with Good and Dark with Evil. The battle between Good and Evil has existed throughout eternity and, when in balance, there is Peace. To quote John Lennon from an earlier post, “Society is run by insane people for insane objectives”. These are “Them”, the dark ones…those yet to be awakened. I must assume that we, on AOAND, are of the light, the Good…”Us”. We desire Peace and Love on Earth. At this time, there is a Spiritual battle between Us and Them. It is not the power they wield that we fight as their power has no effect on Us without Them behind it. They are not an illusion. There is Us and Them. The intention for “Us”, as put forth in the mission statement of AOAND, is to enlighten “Them” through our music and multi-media talents thus, creating Balance. The Division between “US” and “THEM” will dissolve into Harmony and Peace and Love will prevail.

An interesting case in our local paper this week: The headline: "DRUGS SWOOP ON OLD CHAPEL" headed an article about a raid on an old derelict chapel... only to find several pots of John Innes potting compost and the remains of a few cannabis stalks. As a taxpayer, I am naturally concerned about the cost of this operation and was moved to write to the paper (see copy of letter below). I'll let you know if it's published (certainly no guarantee) and update on any (if any) responses from other readers.

"When is a "drugs swoop" not a drugs swoop? When it's a John Innes No.5 swoop.

I'm not criticising the police for not getting to the old Methodist Chapel in Birdwood sooner, as I don't doubt they would have done had the "suspicious behaviour" been reported. However, I would be interested to know the cost of this operation to taxpayers. Whatever the cost, it will surely prove to be the most expensive haul of spent compost ever.

I know it's a tired old argument but one that warrants repeated airing if only because it makes logical sense. Why are we wasting police resources on unsuccessfully attempting to eradicate cannabis when the only "criminal activity" associated with it is directly attributable to the fact that it is illegal?

If tea were to become illegal, there would be a host of "new crimes" associated with it: possessing tea, drinking tea, supplying tea, cultivating tea. The necessary subterfuge required and risks involved would push the price of tea up to the point that tea addicts (of which I confess to be one) may well resort to other crimes, such as theft, mugging etc. to feed their hopeless tea addiction. Tea dealers would have to obtain supplies from the criminal underworld and, consequently, associate with other areas of crime in the process. Within a very short time, tea would be responsible for all manner of criminal activity and would become serious social problem. But tea does not create a medical or social problem; legislation against it would create the problem.

And so it is with cannabis. I am not woken up at 03:00am most weekends by people smoking cannabis in the park opposite my house. The substance responsible for most antisocial behaviour is alcohol, which is not only legal but the last Labour government saw fit to increase access by extending licensing hours to 24 hours. Cannabis users tend to prefer the comfort of their own home and the most notable effect of this drug is increased laughter and an intensified capacity for creative activity. Hardly a social problem! This is a classic case in which the law has created the "crime". It is the legislation against cannabis that creates the social problems associated with it, not the substance itself nor its use.

I would agree that cannabis can have a serious negative effect on some people although the recent claims that it initiates schizophrenia has never been substantiated. But it is certainly not something to be taken lightly. However, wheat intolerance can cause quite serious health problems but it would hardly justify making bread illegal. Lactose intolerance, nut allergies and all manner of negative reactions to otherwise perfectly safe products can be managed by avoiding them. There are far more cases of negative reactions to alcohol and tobacco; both of which are legal. There are far more genuine crimes directly attributable to alcohol than any other substance. The police do not dread Friday and Saturday nights because people might be at home smoking cannabis but because of the violence, criminal damage and threatening behaviour sparked off by alcohol consumption. How many people each year die of cannabis consumption compared to those who die from alcohol consumption?

The law should exist to protect the public from crime. It should not be in the business of creating crime."

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Legalize-Freedom/105796039468175?ref=ts

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Legalize-Freedom/105796039468175

OIL & EARTH DON'T MIX!
Help The Earth Grow Green Again !!!
LEGALIZE HEMP
It Can Save Our Planet !

And Now:Our new ~Hemp Will Save The Earth~Discussion on ~Carlos Santana~

 

Hemp Will Save The Earth

https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9411551358&topic=26831

 

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:

• It would turn what is currently a hazardous eyesore into an aesthetically pleasing and safe space.
• It would put good use to land that is otherwise unused.
• It would accommodate a homeless family.
• It would improve the quality of life for all who live within the immediate locality.
• It would cost the government and the taxpayers nothing.
• It would utilise recycled building materials that would otherwise go into landfill.
• It would provide training and experience for anyone who wishes to get involved with the project.
• It would be an act of pure altruism.
• It would be providing something of benefit to the community.

Now let's take a look at the negative points:

• It would be illegal.
• Er.... that's it.

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.

 

Why is The Only Cancer Cure illegal?

 

"Legalize Cannabis~Hemp & SAVE Our Earth & Lives"

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Legalize-CannabisHemp-SAVE-Our-Earth...