Having an MD is No Guarantee You Won’t be a Fucking Moron

Earlier today, I did a "Land of Democracy Update" over the very recent Fed raids in Colorado in advance of what's effectively blanket legalization of marijuana as decided by Colorado voters recently. (Thanks, Choom Master.)

I actually thought Dr. John Mitchell was tongue-in-cheeking me on Twitter.

Screen Shot 2013 11 21 at 8 58 42 PM
 

That's why I replied with this.

Just Doing My Job
Just Doing My Job

But he was actually serious, the little fuckhead.

pot use damages hippocampal function. Alters cytoarchitecture. This is locus of human memory function. New neuron growth damaged

I actually don't smoke it all that often and I don't like having it around. I rely on friends for the occasion here & there—twice per month would be a good estimation. I just prefer my whiskey, at which I'm expert. I had my day way back when, 32 years ago. Stoned literally 24/7, and actually got my best grades in college. A 3.8, all As and a single B. Went to class stoned. Studied stoned. Took tests stoned.

Problem was, I don't like being stoned that very much. Too intense for me (except on the occasion) as I introvert big time. Mental masturbation, and I get absolutely nothing accomplished. On occasion, fine. Not a regular deal to me and I found that out quick.

Here, DOKTOR. This was just 3 months ago, after 32 years of damaged hippocampal function, altered cytoarchitecture—with obvious negative effects on the locus of my memory (this was after I started a business in my bedroom and grew it to 30 employees and $3.5 mil annual revenue, incidentally)—and the inability to form new neurons in spite of the fact that I learned to fly hang gliders 15 years ago, then sailplanes, then powered aircraft.

Make sure you see the last coupla minutes, because that's smokin' by any standards.

Poor me. Destroyed by smoking the Devil's Weed for 32 years.

Dr. John Mitchell, in Southern California: you and those like you are the absolute worst kinda shit. You presume, because of a fucking MD dregree, to dictate to others and clap your hands when lives get destroyed over it by thugs in gang colors under the color of law.

Go. Fuck. Yourself. Dr. Mitchell.

Jury Nullification vs. The Drug War: NJ Weedman on His Unlikely Marijuana Acquittal

I just stole Reason.tv's title because it basically has it all. The video is just under 10 minutes. You should watch it, and especially if you don't toss jury summonses in the trash as I've done every time, all my life. I have never "served" on a jury (slavery supposedly ended). If you want me to serve on a jury, I expect to get paid at least as much as the average hourly rate of the attorneys working the case, or $250/hr, whichever is greater.

...Anyway, I don't know I've ever stood up, saluted, clapped, and given a solemn nod & bow to anyone more that I did for this man.

Do not let appearances fool you—this man is smart. I could quibble with this & that, but this is generally right on the money on essentials. If ever accused of a victimless "crime," (the scare quote denotes an offense against the State), then do exactly as this man says. Represent yourself, and have the taxpayers provide you a public defender to make your legal bitch 24/7.

So, OK, watch it. In the first trial, he gets a hung jury (7 of 12). Gets retried, and then gets all 12 for acquittal from a potential 10 year sentence. Fuck You! DA! Up Your Pathetic Little Whore Ass!

And do check out the Fully Informed Jury Association. I've been linking to them now & then as long as I've been blogging.

OMG: 44 yr-old SanJay GupTa Discovers That Marijuana is Pretty Harmless…in 2013

What a fuckweed.

CNN's chief medical expert Sanjay Gupta announced Wednesday night that he has reversed his blanket opposition to marijuana use.

There's a short video too.

Here's Wikipedia on the good doktor.

Sanjay Gupta (/ˈsɑːndʒeɪ ˈɡuːptə/ sahn-jay goop-tə; born October 23, 1969) is an Indian American neurosurgeon and an assistant professor of neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine and associate chief of the neurosurgery service at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.

A media personality on health-related issues, he is best known as CNN's multiple Emmy award winning chief medical correspondent, hosting the network's weekend health program Sanjay Gupta, M.D., and making frequent appearances on their American Morning, Larry King Live and Anderson Cooper 360° programs. His reports from Charity Hospital, New Orleans, Louisiana, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina led to him winning a 2006 Emmy Award for "Outstanding Feature Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast". Additionally, Gupta publishes a column in Time magazine and is a special correspondent for CBS News. His books Chasing Life and Cheating Death were New York Times and national bestsellers. His latest book, Monday Mornings, a novel, was released in March 2012 and became an instant New York Times bestseller. It is currently being adapted as a television show with David E. Kelley and Gupta serving as executive producers.

From 1997 to 1998, he served as one of fifteen White House Fellows, primarily as an advisor to Hillary Clinton. In January 2009, it was reported that Gupta was offered the position of Surgeon General of the United States in the Obama administration, but he withdrew his name from consideration. In January 2011, he was named "one of the 10 most influential celebrities" by Forbes magazine.

That resume isn't anything like some random blogger like me who goes off on something and a month or two later, or even a year or two later, says: "hey, I fucked up."

I'll gladly spot him my 8 years of age seniority. I guess smoking dope was just unheard of in high schools of the 80's and colleges of the early 90s. He just didn't know. And so he went on to gain his fame in media and government—though I redundantly repeat myself with an article of emphasis—under an honest stance of belief based on science and his own observations.

Yea.

...And now, after all these years, it's not at all like he sees the writing on the wall or anything and wants to get characteristically ahead of the inevitable.

Nope.

He's "evaluated the scientific evidence."

Yea. Right.

This is not anything like a total finger in the wind. Not at all.

...There is only one thing to do with people like this and that's to beat them to a bloody pulp and leave them for dead. But that's not all. Once they are dead, all relatives must be admonished to go at least once per year and piss on the grave.

But there's more. Given the hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug convicts and their families destroyed over the time SanJay was 'grappling with the science,' I figure there's a few million who would love to piss on his grave as well.

Thanks for fuckin' nuthin', SanJay. Now go fuck yourself.

Lead Balloons

First up this morning, Billy points to "A Bill." I agree with him. Although, I must say that Barney Frank's statement goes just about as far as any "lawmaker" can go without just cutting to the essentials of the matter, which is that it's none of your business..."voter."

Certainly, the implied insanity of the current state of affairs is pretty well reasoned out, within the context of the reality that the State is all powerful and it really owns "your" life & the time of it, and not you. Even so, the title above speaks to just how this will likely go over.

(Near) Triumph For Zero Tolerance

Well, there's been a new development since when I saw this earlier, but as I often do, I read this whole post before clicking on the link it referenced.

Then, upon seeing the photo of the man, j'ai tout compris. Good thing they found the sand grain-sized pot bit on his shoe (0.003g / 0.0001oz). With that Jamaican look and dreads, he might have had to endure a lung biopsy for any possible non-metabolized bits.

Looks like some sense has prevailed, though that would only be after putting the man through the ordeal of an arrest, prosecution and the prospect of a four year jail sentence. So I'm sure that Mr. Brown is just "thrilled to death." Still makes us look like a bunch of pussies when it comes to "zero tolerance" though, dontcha think?

Outrage

I think what follows qualifies for the term.

I don't follow QandO Blog on a daily basis. I check in every so often. Last night I did just that, and came across this entry documenting the federal jury service of Dale Franks, one of the principal self-described libertarian writers of that blog. "Free Markets, Free People;" so they say. Well, let's see about that.

In short, "Mr. Rhett" got stopped at the San Ysidro border from Mexico into the U.S. while going about the affairs of his business: his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Without putting up any resistance, or doing harm to a soul, border agents discovered he was transporting a significant amount of an herb that "the public," according to Franks, has deemed "contraband." (It's always convenient to have euphemisms close at hand; it really greases the skids when it comes to lying to one's self, or others.) Here's Franks:

So, essentially, we sent Mr. Rhett to a ten-year stretch on the federal pokey.

It was really an interesting process—from my point of view, if not Mr. Rhett's. Especially the deliberations. We really did go through the exhibits carefully, in some cases finding information that hadn't been mentioned in the trial. We had quite a bit of argument, and really questioned one another's assumptions and conclusions. And we did it all civilly.

It was a good experience. My only regret is that we really couldn't honestly find enough reasonable doubt to acquit Mr. Rhett. We really doubted he was the mastermind behind all this. He was just the driver. But, he was the one that got caught, and when you assume the risk, well, you assume the risk.

Well, at least "[i]t was really an interesting process," and "...a good experience." There's that. In my book, Franks is just engaging in a round-about way of describing a hard on, and hey, it only cost a peaceful man minding his own business 10 years of the time of his one and only life. Never discount the value of a hard on.

So, here are my three comments to the post, in rather quick succession (with an edit of two for correction):

I never imagined it could be such risky business running drugs with "libertarians" in the house.

Oh, well; you have traffic. There’s that. From the looks, little of it libertarian. But I suspect you know they know, a long time ago.

Here’s to fancy "legal" arguments. Argue it up, Franks. A man is paying 10 years of his life for the sake of your technical arguing prowess (if not hard on). I’m impressed.

***

"Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." — from The Law - Frédéric Bastiat

***

Franks:

"Well, I’m not an opponent of jury nullification, per se. I think I am, however, against its use to operate against a policy with which I personally disagree. I would push for it in a case of injustice, but, since I live in a country where the public ultimately sets policy, policy disagreements aren’t in my view, good enough to justify it."

First, nobody is or should imply that you had any obligation to put yourself at risk by scamming your way onto the jury so you could hang it. On the other hand, I would applaud such monkey-wrenching, considering that 10 years of an innocent man’s life is at stake — not to mention the disastrous long-term effect on any children he might have, wife, and other family. Did he employ people now out of a job? ...And other ["unimportant"] considerations like that.

You did, however, have a moral obligation to make your "policy" view clear to the judge and prosecutors, letting them know, in no uncertain terms, that if they put you on the jury, then it’s an automatic not-guilty unless they can show that Mr. Rhett actually objectively harmed somebody.

What is clearly implied by the quote, however, is that policy set in some fashion by what you term "the public" can’t rise to the level of "injustice." So, presumably, it would have been "unjust" had, for instance, the prosecutors misapplied one of the charges against him, or, say, demanded a lesser or greater penalty than "the book" called for.

So you’ve just redeemed Jim Crow laws, institutionalized slavery...hell, even the Nuremberg Laws. All "public policy."

I guess the only way to achieve outrage, in your mind, is if the numbers on your slide rule don’t work out just right and that exalted "public policy" isn’t quite efficient enough for your tastes. Then again, there’s also the hard-on element, as noted above.

In a sane, rational, and just world, you wouldn’t be able to live down taking 10 years of a man’s life in your entire lifetime without just cause; and stepping into a voting booth to elect people to enact "legislation" to assuage "public" irrational fear of "them drugs" — exposing "public" foolishness in falling for any hysteria professional liars dream up next — doesn’t count. I hope the few true libertarians who still come around here never let you forget who is the innocent man, and who is the guilty man. Wanna guess which one is which, and why?

Utterly disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself for the rest of your miserable life.

If you feel like chiming in, I'd suggest any comment you write would be better served over at that entry than here.