Posted on 04/19/2015 12:28:31 PM PDT by Michael van der Galien
What do you think of this? Despicable and outrageous, or just the school and police doing their duty?:
"On March 24, cannabis oil activist Shona Banda‘s life was flipped upside-down after her son was taken from her by the State of Kansas. The ordeal started when counselors at her 11-year-old son’s school conducted a drug education class. Her son, who had previously lived in Colorado for a period of time, disagreed with some of the anti-pot points that were being made by school officials."
The school called the police. Coppers showed up at Shona’s home, searched everything, and ended up finding two ounces of cannabis oil which she uses to treat her Crohn’s disease. The result? She could lose her child — her ex has already been granted temporary custody of her son — and Shona faces the battle of her life.
If this horrendous story doesn’t convince you that marijuana should be legalized, I don’t know what will. It’s absolutely insane that Shona and many others like her are treated like psychopathic mass murderers, just because they use cannabis to treat an illness and because they believe others should be allowed to do the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I must say, of all the replies I’ve read I like yours the best. I have had very similar thoughts.
I wonder why the feds are okay with marijuana use but not tobacco use!
I'm pretty hard-core conservative and right-leaning on most issues from social to fiscal. But I do not understand the position on pot.
What does the fact that smoking dope is stupid and somewhat unhealthy have to do with my ability to insist that it be illegal? We (socially and legally) have tried this several times (think alcohol prohibition). Let's compare. I believe that almost all of us think that alcohol prohibition was one of the dumbest things we've ever tried. It didn't stop anyone from drinking and it gave rise to a huge black market. We see the exact same results with prohibition of dope. That is not to mention, I personally don't believe a single one of us has any standing to demand pot be illegal while we smoke, drink, ride dangerous ATV's, eat fatty foods and red meat. The list of things that I do that are either bad for me or potentially dangerous are numerous and I get pretty bent when some liberal (or otherwise) nanny tries to tell me what I shouldn't be allowed to do. How could I, without loudly declaring my own hypocrisy, call for continued criminalization of dope?
All I see from the "war on drugs" is abuse of power and authority, infringement of a LOT of rights, and a multi-billion dollar industry built around it. AFAIK, the DEA has no more legitimate use than the ATF or numerous other suppressive gov entities. I simply don't see how one can be conservative and demand prohibition at the same time.
Seriously, I'm not trolling. I would like to hear any common sense and logical rebuttal as to how we can be true to our own convictions and support prohibition at the same time. I believe we all agree... doing any kind of dope isn't the most intelligent thing a person can do. As far as I know, all illegal drugs are either bad for you, or really really bad for you. I realize there are also social implication and links with crime (most of which wouldn't exist if dope weren't illegal and therefor expensive). I understand the damage that can be done, with dope, alcohol, etc... but where is the distinction with dope that allows me to proclaim is legality?
“Reign in gov’t jackbooted thugs. Leagalizing MJ is a separate issue.”
<p.
I personally believe they are not separate issues, that is one of my biggest issues with criminalization of dope. It is used by authority as an excuse to trample and negate our rights. I’m kind of wishing that most of the people who benefit from my argument weren’t dirty hippies, but I try to apply logic evenly to my convictions. I don’t do dope, won’t do dope, and I’ll do whatever I can to convince my kids to never do dope. But I can’t demand that it be illegal with good conscious. I believe bar owners should decide if their establishments allow smoking. I believe anyone over 18 should be able to carry a firearm and own them without government oversight or permission. I believe we should be able to buy and ride 3-wheeled ATV’s at our own risk. I also believe my neighbor should be allowed to smoke dope as long as he’s not doing it on my property or selling it to my underage children... and I don’t believe the authorities should be able to take away his children, lock him out of his house and search his home based on that fact either.
Just because a point of contention falls in a presumably liberal sphere of support does not detract from or delegitimize it as an issue of States Rights.
If we are to be true to the Constitution, the founding document of the Republic, then it must be followed as written or changed, as prescribed in the Constitution, to suit the tastes of it`s followers. However; IT IS NOT A 'living document', it is the highest order of contractual law and must therefore be followed to the letter.
Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
In no part of Article 1 have I found that Congress has been given the power to regulate any given substance for the purpose of consumption by a human being, therefore it is a states rights issue.
If so, someone please show me where this power resides, 'The good and plenty' clause?! Now who was the lefty congresscritter who cited that one?
I see the jackbooted thug issue as transcending many issues. It certainly exacerbates the failed WOD’s.
No. Anyone still retaining sanity and common sense knows that no problems are going to be solved by making more dope users.
There is a cottage industry of libertarian dope smokers who push every angle in their efforts to sell this bill of goods. Leaving stuff out? You better believe it. Routine stuff for them.
After he got done claiming that there is no war on Christianity and proclaiming that things are better for Christians under Obama than they’ve ever been before, he moved on to attacking Christians for states that don’t sell alcohol on Sunday. BTW he also wants us to know that he doesn’t appreciate being assaulted by the word “God” on our money.
Wait till he find out "Year of Our Lord" is written on the US Constitution.
Now THAT'S funny!!! I can just see the serious look on his face, and the jaws of the Stasi bouncing off the floor.
Of course, they'll probably call the cops anyways, just to be safe.
"Zero tolerance" of a peasant child who knows his/her Rights...
There's a pattern?
Kid snitched out by gruberment drones for exercising free speech.
The Hartes snitched out by gruberment drones "watching" a hydroponics store.
Wichita decides to do something to eliminate excess snitching, and the head Kansas gruberment law drone tries to put the kibosh on this exercise of voting rights.
Lots of conservatives don't know about The Managerial State (aka the UniParty):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state
Paul Gottfried, in After Liberalism, defines this worldview as a "series of social programs informed by a vague egalitarian spirit, and it maintains its power by pointing its finger accusingly at antiliberals." He calls it a new theocratic religion. In this view, when the managerial regime cannot get democratic support for its policies, it resorts to sanctimony and social engineering, via programs, court decisions and regulations...
The Managerial State has got a neat little trick known as Anarcho-tyranny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Anarcho-tyranny
Sam Francis wrote: What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny – the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through "sensitivity training" and multiculturalist curricula, "hate crime" laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.
And he also wrote: The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites ... or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and "pathological" elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms – people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible – not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations.
=====================
The War on Drugs is GREAT for the Managerial State. :)
The kid is the one who snitched on his mom since you seem obsessed with the term.
He is the one who opened his mouth in the first place.
His mom was using a substance that is currently illegal in Kansas...should childrens services simply have ignored that fact?
Would you be saying the same thing if his mom was using crack around him?
of course not.
(not comparing crack to pot I'm pointing out that both are illegal in Kansas)
"The Hartes snitched out by gruberment drones "watching" a hydroponics store."
Nope...a state trooper observed them leaving the store and an investigation was started based on the false assumtion they were growing pot...which again...is currently illegal in Kansas.
They also have a 7 million dollar lawsuit going over the raid...which I hope they win.
"Wichita decides to do something to eliminate excess snitching, and the head Kansas gruberment law drone tries to put the kibosh on this exercise of voting rights."
State law trumps city law....which as a Gun owner...I can say is a good thing...otherwise there would be a mine field of patchwork anti gun laws in my state that I could run afoul of without even knowing just by driving through a small town with my hand gun in my shoulder rig.
If you want the State law changed...then work to change it...bitching about it...or using false premis's to make an argument doesnt mean anything.
I expect to get beat about the head and shoulders for saying this but...
Imo, the war on drugs is utter and complete fail for the same reasons that the war on alcohol was.
The legalization of drugs comes from the same mindset and same period of our history as the legalization of alcohol and has had exactly the same effect. That effect has been to ramp up organized violent crime, compromise our courts and officers of same, as well as our LEOs.
Even those who aren’t caught up in the bribes and payoffs tend toward getting caught up in the seizures of private property for the profit of their organization.
That it all stems from the mindset of practical eugenics, that being that in order to have a perfect society, we must first perfect the persons that will be in that society, and all attempts at perfecting man are absolute and unqualified idiocy also has a part in my opinion.
I've got one. So it's bad for you AND it's a stupid thing to do. If that is the basis of your argument, how does that give congress or even the states the power to criminalize it? This is no different than the tobacco wars, just as one example. Americans, even those who consider themselves conservative, have been indoctrinated to a point where they believe it is acceptable to force others to comply with their ideals.. or decide what is or is not good for them. I think most dopers are idiots. So what? That doesn't mean I think I should be able to have a say in what they smoke at home. Maybe I also think they shouldn't be drinking soda, getting fat and signing up for disability. Does it matter what I think? Hell no it doesn't. You would agree with Bloomberg banning soft drinks? If we are to have convictions, they should be pure, not conditional.
If you want the State law changed...then work to change it...bitching about it...or using false premis's to make an argument doesnt mean anything.
ZOMG! You're still at the starry-eyed idealist stage, aren't you, you poor thing.
Laws are for peasants, Crimmy.
I could tell you a story about somebody working to detach his property from a local municipality, but the point of the story would be right over your head.
May your chains sit lightly, and don't forget "to vote", sweetheart! LOL :)
Both governments and people have powers.
Governments don't have rights. Just powers. Powers that 'We, the people' assign to them.
/johnny
I have graave misgivings about leagalizing pot.
Not the least of which for over 40 yrs- govt presented it as a gateway drup- what changed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.