Let Florida Go To Pot (and Liberty)

Greetings.

This Tuesday, November 4th, as Americans head to the polls, initiatives to legalize cannabis for medicinal purposes will be on the ballot in three states: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. While minor distinctions may exist between the three states' bills, at issue is essentially whether or not Americans in these states will vote to continue keeping cannabis legally inaccessible for medicinal purposes or vote to make it available.

For today's entry, I want to focus on my home state of Florida and its Amendment 2 that is up for decision. Essentially, this amendment, if it receives sixty percent or more of the vote, would require the state to set up a medical marijuana dispensary system under regulation from state agencies.

Not every one is happy about this possibility. One web site in particular, dontletfloridagotopot.com, has come out with some rather outlandish justification for why Florida voters should vote against Amendment 2. Chief among their concerns is the possibility of minors getting access to marijuana outside of parental notification.

Specifically, the website claims,

"The amendment allows a teenager to get a recommendation for medical marijuana without the consent of a parent."

This statement is completey misleading. While the actual amendment does not specifically regulate how a minor could be given a recommendation for marijuana, it should be noted that the language of the bill is constructed this way on purpose. This is mainly so that the state of Florida can write the rules regarding minors at a later time, should the amendment pass. States across the union that have passed marijuana legalization bills have, in many cases, HEAVILY regulated use by minors once their respective measures cleared with a vote. California is a great example (http://www.canorml.org/medical-marijuana/patients-guide-to-california-law).

Another deceptive claim is that Amendment 2 is dangerous because "no prescription is required to obtain medical marijuana." Factually, it is true that no prescription is currently required to obtain medical marijuana. However, the reason for this is because it is currently illegal under federal law, due to cannabis still being a Schedule I drug, for physicians to write an actual prescription for it. Thus, under current conditions, a physician's recommendation is the only legal way to obtain medical marijuana in states where it is legal. Thus, to use lack of "prescription language," so to speak, as an argument against marijuana legalization is disingenuous.

The website operators also complain about the likelihood of doctors issuing recommendations for marijuana to patients in order to treat illnesses that are commonly addressed with existing legal medications. My response to this is: so what? If a trained and certified physician believes that marijuana can be legally added to a patient's treatment plan, then why shouldn't it, especially if it has been proven to help with the particular ailment?

Other objections are as follows:

Marijuana is addictive!

The website claims that "1 in 6 kids who try marijuana will become addicted to it." Not only is that statistic inaccurate but, ironically enough, the very source referenced as proof by the website itself actually REFUTES the statement (rather than back it up). The actual figure of children who become addicted as a result of marijuana use is closer to 9%, not 17% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh24-4/201-208.pdf).

It is also worth noting that this figure is well below the 15% of (legal) alcohol addicts and below the 11% of those addicted to stimulants other than cocaine, such as caffeine (also referenced in the same study).

Esssentially, the above study backs up what other honest researchers have said for years: that marijuana is FAR less addictive than many other substances that can be found on store shelves across America.

Marijuana causes mental illness.

For this objection, the website relies on a study of Swedish military conscripts from 1969-1970 in backing up their claims. While it acknowledges the increased risk of schizophrenia in its participants who used cannabis, the study also states repeatedly that actual causation cannot be determined strictly based on cannabis use and can also be attributed to usage of other drugs (i.e. - amphetamines) as well as factors such as personality, etc.

Long story short, the results of this (much older) study hardly give us reason to believe that cancer patients worldwide will soon find themselves in rooms with padded walls as a result of their marijuana-based pain treatment.

Marijuana is marketed to children, causes impairment while driving, and will keep rehab centers open...

...are just a few of the other seemingly breathless claims made by the anti-potters. And they are ridiculous. That is unless of course, these individuals are ready to argue for a categorical ban on alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, chemical-laden foods, prescription medications, and other products that are also "marketed to children," "cause impairment while driving," and "keep rehab centers open." Legal marijuana (medical or otherwise) would logically call for regulations similar to those imposed upon literally HUNDREDS of legal products currently on the market.

On a separate note, as far as the website's claims regarding children are concerned, one can't help but wonder where personal responsibility and parental accountability factor into their thinking. In other words, do the website administrators really believe that parents are so unable to regulate what sort of advertising schemes and controlled substances their children are exposed to that more laws against them are needed? Are they convinced that people today really are unable to think for themselves to the degree that government has to place more bans on inanimate objects and substances? If that is the case, then I submit that we have MUCH larger problems than a simple bill that would legalize a plant.

Amendment 2 and bills like it should be passed overwhelmingly if for no other reason than because, as I have argued repeatedly, our government has no constitutional authority to ban any substance, object, or other nonviolent behavior. Thus, what is at stake on November 4th is not limited to "marijuana" or "no marijuana." Rather, it is a choice between individual liberty and a further encroachment of government upon our right to determine how we nonviolently choose to live our lives. And it is not a choice that should be made lightly. If government can outlaw marijuana today, then there literally is no limit to what they might choose to ban, with the right amount of persuasion, in the future.

Please choose wisely, Florida.

Live Free!

-Warren Brisbane

Monetary Policy, Spending, and Taxation

Greetings.

It's been a couple of weeks since my last post, but it's good to be back.

This week's post will be a short one, as I have come across a video that, in my estimation, is perhaps the most well-done and informative look at our current monetary policy, tax policy, and spending policy that I have ever encountered. Please give it a look and please feel free to share it with as many people as you can.

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/01/biggest-scam-history-mankind-debt-ceiling-truth.html

We are living in perilous times, despite what many well-meaning and glib people would have you believe. In a land that is supposedly "free," our government and those who profit most handsomely from it, have instituted for us a system of enslavement that we would do well to awaken to.

And I pray that we do.

Again, please watch the video and please disseminate as widely as you can.


Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Ferguson, MO: Despair and Hope.

Greetings.

By now, it's almost old news, but the town of Ferguson, MO, this past week, was brought to within one errant bullet (or other hostile action) of being engulfed in a full-scale riot.

Here's what we know: Michael Brown, an 18-year old young man, was shot and killed by an officer of the Ferguson Police Department after he was suspected of robbing a convenience store. From there, things snowballed as outrage and peaceful protests materialized in some areas of town while non-peaceful looting and destruction of property took place elsewhere.

Police squads were soon called upon and then proceeded to repel the peaceful crowds with tear gas, rubber bullets, and other brutal tactics...all while being decked out in full military gear.

As of last night, it has been reported that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has appointed the Missouri Highway Patrol to oversee the peaceful protests even as law enforcement continues to prevent further destruction to private property in the area.


Now for some observations:

1) We will likely never know what really happened concerning Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson, who shot him. Speculation about a video, allegedly containing footage of Brown robbing a store, has been rampant, as have plenty of other rumors. The only facts about the initial incident that anyone can be sure of is that a young man is dead and a community has been outraged as a result.

2) The Ferguson police department and other departments called in to assist them in the immediate aftermath should be investigated; both for use of excessive force and for violating the First Amendment rights of the very citizens they have been sworn to protect. Clear video footage of police officers, decked out in full military gear and riding in what look like military assault vehicles on American streets, is in no short supply; nor is footage of these same police officers firing tear gas, rubber bullets, and using other brutal measures in seeking to repel the peaceful crowds of protestors. The citizens of Ferguson would thus do well to file a lawsuit against every department that participated in such actions and see to it that justice is done on their behalf.

3) At the same time, every thug that participated in looting, destruction of property, and any type of physical assault during the Brown aftermath should be arrested and prosecuted as well. There's plenty of blame to be shared here. Any undue violent action perpetrated by law enforcement is absolutely NOT a justification for private citizens to engage in the same behavior against their neighbors. Raising one's voice in peaceful protest and solidarity with a community is one thing; violating the property of a private property owner who is innocent of any wrongdoing is unacceptable, unlawful, and indecent. And it should be punished.

4) Governor Jay Nixon, Captain Ron Johnson, and the Missouri Highway Patrol deserve credit and praise for seeking to bring a peaceful end to the threat of destruction of their city. Governor Nixon, a Democrat, made the announcement last night that he would authorize the Highway Patrol to oversee security of the peaceful protests happening in and around Ferguson. In doing so, he essentially eliminated any further threat posed by an over-militarized police force and ensured that the State police, headed by Captain Johnson, who grew up in Ferguson, would ensure that their neighbors didn't hurt each other. THIS is how law enforcement should be done; locally and with an eye toward individual communities caring for and protecting one another as they exercise their civil rights. Kudos to Governor Nixon.

Oftentimes, it is truly amazing how one violation of life, liberty, or property leads to so many more on such a grander scale; when, all the while, common sense dictates the opposite. Thankfully, however, it appears at least for the moment that common sense and cooler heads have prevailed in Ferguson, MO. Hopefully, a return to normalcy will soon be on the horizon for the peaceful citizens of this small town.

For those of us who are serious about essential liberty, we must always be vigilant and ready to raise our voices in solidarity with those whose liberty is put in peril in any way, shape, or form.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

The Federal Government, Clean Water Act Authority, Property Rights, and You.

Greetings, Patriots.

As Americans (at least those of us who are paying attention) are fixated on 24-hour news coverage about the deteriorating situations in Iraq and Gaza, I believe that we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from what's happening back here at home. This is especially true as it pertains to a development that has surfaced recently concerning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), cattle ranchers and other land stewards throughout the nation, and the very resources that these ranchers and landowners depend upon to sustain their operations and provide for themselves and their families.

I'm talking about water and, legislation-wise, I'm talking about the Clean Water Act. This piece of legislation has, for decades, given authority to the federal governemnt (particularly the EPA) to enforce rules and regulations governing the many water sources on U.S. soil. Since it was originally passed in 1972, like many pieces of legislation, it has been abused and utilized as a means to trample the very private property rights that have served as the cornerstone of this nation's greatness for so long.

In the latest chapter of this particular sad saga, the EPA and ACOE are now seeking to expand the definition of "Waters of the United States." Specifically, the new rules being proposed by federal regulators would, with a few EXTREMELY VAGUE exceptions, require cattle ranchers and landowners to get permission from federal authorities before they could utilize any sources of water on or around their land. Essentially, these new regulations would confiscate authority directly from the hands of property owners and locally-elected and appointed regulators and put it in the hands of federal bureaucrats with no direct connection to the communities which this new regulation directly affects.

A couple of things. First, regulations like these stand to severely hurt the agricultural industry across the country. Farmers and cattle ranchers depend on natural resources in order to preserve their livelihoods and this usually depends on them getting the right resources (i.e. - water) to the right places at the right time. Burdensome regulations will only serve to disrupt that schedule and jeopardize the health of farms and ranches across America.

Secondly (and more importantly), as I've already alluded to, at most this should be a local and state issue...and not a federal one In other words, states and local government, elected by the people, should have jurisdiction over their locally owned and operated natural resources. There is absolutely NOTHING in the United States Constitution that gives a federal entity authortiy to take for itself the kind of power now vested in EPA and ACOE. There is absolutely NOTHING that gives the federal government permission to hold hostage the very essence of the well-being of thousands of people in the name of some vague environmental agenda that will only hurt the environment and the people living in it. As Americans, we should be outraged and we should be moved to action.

And here's how to do it. The link below will take you to a web page with instructions on how to leave a comment with the EPA and ACOE. Make your voice heard and do not let them get away with implementing this despicable rule without hearing from you first.

http://cqrcengage.com/beefusa/app/write-a-letter?0&engagementId=47396

Additionally, however, there are other ways to protest; one of which is to unite and join together to legally challenge this rule. If you are a landowner and are upset about this, then I urge you to find people of like mind and of similar livelihood who can come alongside you to help bring about an end to this tyrannical measure. Remember: strength in numbers.

Finally, you can practice civil disobedience. How specifically? I cannot say. I am neither a landowner nor a cattle rancher and, in all honesty, this does not directly affect me. I am passionate about it because I am passionate about private property rights and don't want my own rights to be threatened at some point some day. I also believe very strongly that the most potent weapon that each and every human being on this earth possesses is the one between their ears. My strong recommendation, then, is that you THINK about creative ways to get around this burdensome regulation and that you go as far as your conscience and circumstances will allow in protesting it via civil disobedience. Get creative and live free!

In closing, I should probably reiterate that, even as we are calling attention to the federal government's abysmal actions in this instance, we should not neglect to ignore what's happening overseas. Gaza, Iraq, ISIS...all of it is important. All I will say here, for purposes of brevity, is that we should pray and hope that none of these disintegrating situations taking place will eventually lead to a mobilization of America's fighting men and women. We simply cannot afford it, in blood or treasure, and it is not our place to intervene in the first place. Our country is still reeling from over a decade of perpetual warfare to the point of possibly destroying itself as we know it. Thus, we must remain vigilant and loud if we are to prevent further sacrifice of our own national life blood.

Until next week.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Government "care"

Greetings, Patriots.

My regards for not posting last week. Times have been busy.

I want to start off this week's post with a recollection from my young adult years. Just over a decade ago, I had the opportunity to travel and live abroad. Specifically, I lived in an eastern European, post-Soviet bloc country that was still very much in the throes of its transition from an oppressive communist system of government to a more western, "capitalist" (if it could be called that) system.

To say that being overseas was an "eye-opener" for me, especially as a young person in my early twenties, would be an understatement. There were many aspects of the culture in which I now found myself that I found quite shocking, even as I observed the growing number of similarities that it bore to the American culture from which I had just traveled.

In particular, I will never forget visiting a popular place that was close to the town square and seeing just how filthy, decayed, and decrepit that a certain part of it had become. And I remember thinking how incomprehensible it was that anyone could allow their property to become that unkempt and sullied and downright painful to look upon. As I aired my observations out loud (which I'm known to do regularly), I was then told WHY the town center had become so unclean.

It's well known to many people that during the Soviet era, government controlled most everything; the economy, property, much of human behavior, et cetera. As a result of this, government also found itself largely responsible for the CARE of everything as well. As most liberty-loving people are aware, this is often a recipe for disaster since government is usually good at only one thing; namely, punishing violators of individual liberty and property rights. Be that as it may, however, many people during the Soviet era looked to their central planner overlords as "groundskeepers" in addition to their plethora of additional roles.

When the Soviet Union came crashing down in 1989, however, much of the government went belly-up and, with it, many of the services that it had once provided...to include property upkeep. Hence, the graffiti and other forms of blight that I witnessed shortly after my arrival.

"So what?" you might ask. What does this story have to do with anything? In truth, there are perhaps several lessons that we can draw from this short illustration. However, for purposes of this blog, probably the chief lesson for us here is that government, despite its best intentions, often does its constituents the greatest disservices when attempting to conduct the most noble services that are outside of its most fundamental role. In this case, government did its people a disservice by taking on the responsibility of civic upkeep, thus disincentivizing private citizens and enterprises to take on that role themselves...which likely would have resulted in a better job of keeping the grounds clean and healthy-looking. Instead, government control and care led to poorer quality.

The list of examples goes on, too. When we entrust our health care (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare), our retirement (Social Security), our environmental well-being (EPA), our housing market (Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac), and other aspects of our existence to a centrally planned bureaucracy, two things happen: 1) We lose liberty, and 2) We are less motivated to care for and steward those life aspects ourselves thanks to government's empty promises to care for and steward them for us.

Government's legitimate function is two-fold: 1) Protecting life, liberty, and private property rights; and 2) enforcing contracts between private parties. When it goes beyond that two-fold function, as we have allowed it to here in America, it becomes an enemy of the people, rather than an ally.

Our only option at that point, as free people, is to disobey the unjust laws that are hostile to the cause of liberty. Because, too often, as John Adams once stated: "Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

Let us fight then, whether by repealing unjust laws or by disobeying them, to preserve the cause of liberty and live free. The fabric of our great nation depends on it.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

To Protect and To Serve?: Trust in Government and the Human Condition

Greetings.

Recently, I was shown a video clip taken from the reality television series, "What Would You Do." For those not familiar, the show is essentially a series of mock situations that actors perform which lead bystanders to believe are really happening, when in fact they are not. The objective of these mock situations is to determine what kind of responses people would likely have if a real-time situation (like the one being acted out) actually took place.

This particular clip that I was shown was filmed at a New Jersey oceanfront bar. The two actors were posing as a drunk attractive female (celebrating her 21st birthday) and a young man trying to pick her up and take advantage of her. Needless to say, the object of the clip was to determine if anyone would step in, put a stop to it, and stand up for the young woman who, in a real-time situation, likely would have ended up being sexually assaulted.

Thankfully, as you can see in the video, several bystanders DO step up to protect the young woman. Among them are two gentlemen and several women.

Unfortunately, however, those NOT among the alert bystanders are two off-duty police officers who not only don't step up to assist the potential sexual assault victim, but can be heard in the video egging the predator on and even suggesting where he might take the young woman to carry out his crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QcLs98NeJY

(Note: The entire video is worth watching, but to see the actual portion with the two off-duty cops, watch 6:45-8:15).

It gets worse. After the producers come out and reveal that the entire set-up is a hoax, the off-duty cops are then asked why they didn't intervene. Their response is simply that they didn't want to "complicate" things by stepping in.

Some observations should be made here. First of all, obviously NOT ALL police officers are like this. Many are fine, upstanding citizens who are every bit as principled and sincere as they come. They are great family men who love and invest in their communities and, as such, are to be commended.

On the other hand, though, incidents like this can teach us plenty; not just about law enforcement and government, but about human nature as a whole. And that's simply because ALL OF US are susceptible to the same flawed human condition that lead to misdeeds of commission and omission like the ones that we witness in the video. Police and government officials are certainly no exception to this. But yet, we continue to place a disproportionate amount of trust in our "of the people / by the people" government, often not realizing that "of the people / by the people" necessarily implies that the same people who are just as susceptible to crime as the rest of us will end up representing and protecting us.

For those of us, like myself, whose level of trust in government is often tentative at best, the take-away here is simple: YOU are ultimately responsible for your own security, provision and other life needs. Yes, government has a legitimate role in society; namely the protection of life, liberty and property. Yes, the police need to be involved to a degree when a violent act occurs. But relying on government 100% of the time to have the moral fortitude to do what is right is a dangerously flawed and misguided approach to securing one's life and person. And as sovereign citizens, we, first and foremost, must be prepared to take responsibility for ourselves, our families, and for our communities.

Again, I have no doubt that there exist plenty of fine, upstanding men and women who wear a badge and would have wasted no time in stopping what they thought was a sexual assault in progress, had they been given the chance. But because exceptions to that rule exist, it is incumbent on individuals to ensure that their rights and property are protected and secure at all times. It is YOUR responsibility. And it starts with YOU.

Videos like this one can be hard to watch, but they serve as stark reminders of why we should place trust in anyone (government included) with a great deal of reserve and hesitancy. My hope is that all of us will do that. And that you will live free in an unfree world.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Don't Fence Us In - The Border Crisis and Essential Liberty.

Greetings.

Been another eventful week as we have seen plenty of activity in our world. Threats to liberty abound, as always. Fortunately, so do liberty-loving patriots like yours truly and, presumably, those of you who read this blog.

This week, coverage of the ongoing crisis at the southern border of the United States has been continual. For those paying attention, towns all along our border with Mexico have been virtually overrun with immigrants as young as five years old. These children, we are told, are seeking nothing more than to be reunited with their parents and, as such, should be allowed in and not deported. On the other side of the ideological debate, angry calls for immediate deportation have been equally plenteous.

As with any major event, there has been no shortage of anger, opinions, protests, cable news interviews, and plenty of calls for government officials to "do something" in the wake of what has transpired. In particular, renewed and reinvigorated calls for increased border security abound, especially pertaining to building a "wall" along our southern border with Mexico. Arguments in favor of this, predictably enough, are usually infused with such terms as "national security," "safety," "economic health," and "eliminating welfare dependence."

How should those who value essential liberty respond to all of this? I suggest the following:

1) We should be compassionate. This nation was founded on limited government, but what often gets left out of the discussion is the fact that our founders sought limited government in part so that individuals and private enterprises could care for their neighbors according to their needs. Government cannot do this, so we, as sovereign individuals, must. Extending care and concern for these children is a moral imperative.

2) Building a fence is not the answer. It never has been. The only thing a tall fence will create is demand for slightly taller ladders. Granted, I speak hyperbolically here, but the principle is the same. Using government force to keep people out may solve the problem for a time. But it will not ultimately solve the problem long-term. People will find a way to get into the country regardless of how many armed guards and miles of fence are placed at the Mexican border.

3) Immigration reform should be simplified and should focus on knowing who is here and why. Lest we forget, we are a nation of immigrants. Our society was built by those searching for a better life than what they found in their native countries, very much like many of the immigrants who cross our borders today (to include, yes, SOME of those who do so illegally). Our immigration process should be simplified so that anyone who wants to come here, work, be productive, and contribute to society can do so without the specter of expired papers and possible deportation looming over them.

4) Welfare reform and government spending are ultimately the means to solve the border crisis. Let's not kid ourselves: our growing welfare state is what is attracting many (though certainly not all) immigrants here in the first place. While welfare and perpetual poverty are often inextricably linked here in America, many of those coming here illegally still see our system as a way out of the third-world hell-holes they are coming from. And thus, they are all too happy to cross the border illegally, live off of our system, and enjoy the benefits of "enhanced poverty," as it were. Making welfare as localized and limited as possible would disincentivize those whose aim is to be a life-long beneficiary of, and not a producer within, our society. It's time we got serious welfare reform and justice for the individual taxpayer.

As always, both conservatives and liberals are missing the point here. The solution is neither to "deport and militarize" our border, nor is it to perpetually provide a taxpayer-funded haven to those who have come here illegally. As with every other issue our nation faces, individual liberty, for the immigrant and for the taxpayer, should be front and center in finding a solution.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane