Here is the reason our American economy is in so much trouble as presented by the only politician running for president who is worth a shit. The two “standard bearers” are morons without so much as a clue and our coming depression will stand as my sad vindication of personal accuracy. I can only hope that the violent economic explosion holds off long enough for my torts from the tobacco addicted drug addict who rear ended me can settle and I can buy some Tata Group stocks in India to protect my settlement. Why send the money out of the “safest county in the world”? Because we are about to lose our ass that’s why. Democrats… bah, humbug! Republicans… fuck you for causing this evil to our home Asleep Americans… you have this coming up your asses for being so very easy to decieve I predict you all legalize pot so you can forget some of your very real pain in the not so distant future, Republican morons. It all hooks together with a single word: conceit. response from dr ron paul........... One Response to “Some Information on Law and Pain here in USA” suckmebush Says: September 27th, 2008 at 11:14 amDear Friends: The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived. We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market’s attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets. Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I’d only be repeating what I’ve been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades. Still, at least a few observations are necessary. The president assures us that his administration “is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets.” Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned? We are told that “low interest rates” led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed. Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or “wildcat capitalism” (as if we actually have a pure free market!). Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: “Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.” Doesn’t that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn’t that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn’t the federal government shown that the “many” who “believed they were guaranteed by the federal government” were in fact correct? Then come the scare tactics. If we don’t give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary “the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet.” Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up. It’s the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year. The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days. F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own: Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion. To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end… It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression. The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history. The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question? Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a “rescue plan”? I guess “bailout” wasn’t sitting too well with the American people. The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you’re supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them. I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn. H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have. In liberty, Ron Paul

Remember how I mentioned that it was illegal for the federal government to interfere with California and Oregon like I said in the previous post about federal invasion of the compassion clubs out there? Seems the big money republicans bitched to the federal buddies in Washington and got something done after all. What they got done was to expose the screaming wound in the Constitutional rape job the dea pukes have been doing to the state's rights of anyone they don't agree with. Let me make a small prediction? This whole thing has the distinct possibility of weakening the entire federal control of all the fifty states just a bit because of the excesses of the constitution haters in the dea. I predict a small to significant loosening because the states are not owned by the federal government! dea pukes, you are playing with real fire and your corporate buddies may be very hurt by some gigantic changes taken by states to protect themselves from shits like you liars and slave masters. European friends, we are not all insane police lovers or thugs, either. We are people just like you are and these conceited pension grabbing scums are reealy hurting everyone. Judge says Feds violated 10th Amendment by subverting state marijuana laws As It Stands by Dave Stancliff/For the Times-StandardArticle Launched: 09/14/2008 01:32:06 AM PDTA landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20th in a Santa Cruz courtroom.For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities.The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen.In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next?"The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims," he explained.So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated.California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients, caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient's collective.The group was functioning so smoothly that the city even allowed them to hold regular meetings to distribute marijuana to its patients on the steps of city hall! The federal agents still went after them, which brought about this court decision.When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California's medical marijuana law.We must not forget that medical marijuana brings in about $100 million each year in tax revenue. Conferring total legitimacy to the law will allow this cash flow to continue, and hopefully, increase over time.When the judge ruled the feds were threatening physicians who recommended marijuana, he set the stage for regaining patient's rights. The ruling clearly pointed out that the feds were also threatening government officials who issue medical marijuana cards, and interfered with municipal zoning plans.In the summation, the court found that, "There was a calculated pattern of selective arrests and prosecutions by the federal government with the intent to render California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and therefore forced Californian's and their political subdivisions to re-criminalize medical marijuana."In a recent column, I mentioned California's Attorney General Jerry Brown had passed out an 11-page directive that all law agencies were to go by. I expressed concern that the federal authorities would ignore those guidelines, but upon finding out about this recent ruling I now have some cause for hope.It sure sounded like Hopper was looking forward to the next phase, and he seemed confident that positive change lay ahead. Asked which presidential candidate would be more amenable to upholding medical marijuana laws, he cleverly replied that he thought they both would be willing to work for change. He could be right too. This is a year of change.This on-going battle with the federal authorities ignoring California's laws has been well-documented in the past. Why hasn't there been more coverage for such an epic ruling? Its potential as breakthrough legislation is something all Californian's should know about in my opinion.The war against medical marijuana hasn't been won yet, but this could be the breakthrough everybody's waited for. At the core of the war waged by the federal government against the voter's will, is the failed War on Drugs by the Bush Administration. It's about time someone told them to back off.As It Stands, we can score this as a successful round for state's rights. Yeah! back off feds! you are in clear violation of the law! You are owned by us, now act like it or be dragged into court by about twenty to seventy five million of us reefer grower/tokers and get your dirty asses sued clear off! You are frauds, that is why we are mad at you. Your prohibition is a fraud and your incarcerations are a fraud, too. You had twenty years at Carl and about half that at your humble narrator and all you did to us is Piss Us Off at your lame act. Obey the law, federal agents of the usa! correct the marijuana schedule to adjust for the reality of twelve states with medical use of marijuana and more on the way. Drug warriors! you need viagra! your confidence is waning lol

Ah, my kinda blog comin on today! Another state in our United States is coming onto the very reasonable idea of decriminalization of cannabis. Well! C'Mon with it, Massachusetts! You know, I have decided what to do with all the form letters from my hick state's representatives and senators. I am going to put them on the wall in frames and laugh at them. I shall will them to my grandkids who shall look on the output of Senator Grassley and laugh their asses off at what a jerk and a dumbass he was. Yes, my friends, the drug warriors are slipping into history's toilet, albeit slowly... but surely. Well! here is today's great story for us to read:

Marijuana: Massachusetts

Decriminalization Initiative Polling

 Well

• from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #548, 8/22/08

A Massachusetts initiative that would decriminalize marijuana possession looks set to win in November, if polling numbers from this month are any indication. According to a 7NEWS/Suffolk University poll, the initiative now has the approval of 72% of voters. Only 22% of respondents said they opposed the decrim measure, while 6% had no opinion. The initiative, sponsored by the Committee for Responsible Marijuana Policy, would replace current criminal penalties for marijuana possession with a civil penalty of forfeiture of the marijuana and a $100 fine. It looks like the Massachusetts public is on board with decrim, said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University. "This issue suggests that there is a libertarian streak in the thinking of Massachusetts voters," he said. The decrim initiative, known as Question #2 on the November ballot, is the only one of three initiatives garnering majority support, according to the poll. An initiative that would reduce and ultimately eliminate the state income tax was trailing 50% to 36%, while an initiative that would bar dog racing that entailed wagering was hovering at the half-way mark, with 50% approval and 37% and opposed. Massachusetts voters may be uncertain about dog racing and opposed to messing with the state tax system, but they seem clear about the need to decriminalize marijuana possession. If they pass the initiative, Massachusetts will become the 13th decrim state and the first since Nevada in 2001.

So! Waddaya say, Senator Grassley? you feeling more and more isolated like an out of step dork?

 

Me? I been growing reefer for decades. That is why I am your humble narrator, SuckMeBush!

 Ok, so this is dated quite a bit... but it shows that freedom in our homes is not something we grower/tokers will just hand over to the police state thugs.

 

NORML Weekly Press Release January 6, 2000

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Infrared Thermal Imaging Unconstitutional Search Erie County, PA: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld an appellate court ruling that the warrantless use of an infrared thermal imagining device, used to detect marijuana growing in a home, violates the constitutional rights of the homeowner under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the 2-1 decision, Judge Stephen A. Zappala, writing for the majority, contrasted the differences between the use of thermal imaging devices and the use of drug-sniffing dogs, which the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be legal without a warrant. Zappala wrote, "The thermal imaging device, unlike the trained drug dog, does not have the ability to distinguish between legal and illegal activities occurring within the home based upon the amount of heat detected. In this respect, [use of the thermal imager] is the very antithesis of a dog sniff because the trained narcotics dog alerts only in the presence of contraband whereas the thermal imager indiscriminately registers all sources of heat. " The case began in April 1994 when an informant told the Erie County Mobile Drug Task Force that Gregory Gindlesperger was growing marijuana at his home using artificial heat lamps. A thermal imaging device was then used to scan Gindlesperger's home, which indicated an unexplained heat source in the basement which was not consistent with a furnace or other home heating sources. These results were then used to obtain a search warrant for the house and Gindlesperger was subsequently arrested for cultivating 21 plants. The trial court rejected the defendant's motion to exclude the evidence and found him guilty. The case was appealed and the appellant court sided with the defendant saying the use of the device was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "We applaud the court's decision," said Tom Dean, Esq., NORML Foundation Litigation Director. "High-tech surveillance by overzealous police officers is perhaps the greatest threat to personal security that we will face in this new century." For more information, please contact Tom Dean, Esq., NORML Foundation Litigation Director, at (202) 483-8751. To view the decision, visit http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/index/SupremeArchieve/121999.cfm.

Good Morning fellow grower tokers of medical and recreational Cannabis. Yesterday your humble narrator had the excellent experience of a lengthy conversation with our good friend Carl Olsen who is a major backer of legalized cannabis here in the fortress America. He has been generating some wonderful legal briefs outing the lies and lawbreaking of the DEA, may God judge them for their lies and destructions upon the ill and the dying for monetary gains as well as fame here and now. The following is a legal brief he has forced to be accepted by the DEA in such a manner that they must confront the federal law errors he presents as violations of federal law here in the United States. I, your humble narrator, completely agree with this nice man. Please help this wonderful man with legal costs! It costs thousands of dollars to present a case to the US Supreme Court because of ridiculous publishing costs. The following is one of his filed cases to the DEA, all very legal and, if we win it, it will kick the DEA and its ilk right in the nards. I guarentee they will totally not like this legal move and the quality it is presented in is very high. They must make serious effort in order to defeat it because Carl Olsen is calling them federal lawbreakers to fail to reschedule cannabis when California declaired cannabis as a legal, medical drug and thereby fullfilled the law that triggered the automatic reschedule of our weed. It is not too complex. Read it and enjoy. Carl took great pains to make this document.

Carl Olsen, August 5, 2008 Page 1 of 4

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION Petition by Carl Olsen ) NOTICE AND DEADLINE TO for the rescheduling of marijuana ) CEASE AND DESIST ILLEGAL pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 811 ) ENFORCEMENT OF and 21 C.F.R. § 1308 ) FRAUDULANT MARIJUANA ) REGULATION August 5, 2008 Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration Department of Justice Washington, DC 20537 Re: Petition for Marijuana Rescheduling Dear Sir/Madam: You are hereby notified that the current scheduling of marijuana in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1308.11 Schedule I, is in violation of federal law, Title 21 United States Code, Section 903, and you must immediately cease and desist enforcement of the illegal regulation of marijuana until marijuana is correctly scheduled or removed from the schedules entirely. Failure of the Drug Enforcement Administration to cease and desist enforcement of the illegal regulation of marijuana within 30 days will result in a federal civil injunction being filed against the Drug Enforcement Carl Olsen, August 5, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Administration in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. MEMORANDUM OF LAW It is established federal law that the states, and not the federal government, determine accepted medical practice. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006); 21 U.S.C. § 903. Twelve states have determined that marijuana has accepted medical use. Rescheduling of marijuana should have been automatically triggered in 1996 when California enacted the first state law accepting the medical use of marijuana. In Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 1987), the U.S. Court of Appeals told the DEA that a controlled substance cannot be scheduled in Schedule I if it has accepted medical use anywhere in the United States (". . . Congress did not intend 'accepted medical use in treatment in the United States' to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state . . ."), which proves the states, and not the federal government, determine accepted medical practice. In Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the U.S. Court of Appeals told the DEA that there is no federal definition of "accepted medical use" (". . . neither the statute nor its legislative history precisely defines the term 'currently accepted medical Carl Olsen, August 5, 2008 Page 3 of 4 use' . . ."), which proves the states, and not the federal government, determine accepted medical practice. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483, 492 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court told the DEA it could not put marijuana in Schedule I if marijuana had any accepted medical use: Schedule I is the most restrictive schedule (footnote omitted). The Attorney General can include a drug in schedule I only if the drug "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," "has a high potential for abuse," and has "a lack of accepted safety for use . . . under medical supervision." §§ 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). Under the statute, the Attorney General could not put marijuana into schedule I if marijuana had any accepted medical use. In Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that Congress put marijuana in Schedule I. But Schedule I is only the "initial" schedule for marijuana. Congress never said the initial schedules were permanent. 21 U.S.C. § 811(a) requires the DEA to "add to", "transfer between", or "remove" substances from the schedules as necessary. See 21 U.S.C. § 812(c) (". . . Initial schedules of controlled substances Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended pursuant to section 811 of this title . . ."). Ms. Raich did not tell the DEA it could not put marijuana into schedule I, but the DEA should not have to be told that it must obey a federal law. The DEA should have rescheduled marijuana in 1996 and was legally obligated to do so at that time. Carl Olsen, August 5, 2008 Page 4 of 4 In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court told the DEA that a federal interpretive rule cannot conflict with an accepted state medical practice. The DEA cannot create an administrative rule that conflicts with 21 U.S.C. § 903, and it cannot maintain an existing regulation that conflicts with 21 U.S.C. § 903. Marijuana, temporarily scheduled by Congress in 21 U.S.C. § 812, Schedule I(c)(10) in 1970, has been incorrectly classified in 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(22) since 1996 because it no longer fits the criteria for inclusion in Schedule I as set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(A)-(C): Schedule I. - (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. Because marijuana has been incorrectly scheduled since 1996, the DEA must immediately cease and desist the enforcement of the illegal regulation of marijuana until the federal scheduling has been corrected. Respectfully yours, __________________________ Carl Olsen 130 E Aurora Ave Des Moines, IA 50313-3654 515-288-5798 Certified Mail Receipt No. 7006 2760 0004 2439 1694 And he lives Right in my neighborhood of several years past. Ah, how nice. You go, Carl. We are pulling for you.