US Constitution, Ready for Change

US Constitution, Ready for Change

Posted on November 6, 2016

 

We the People have seem to become a part of a war that we never intended to become a part of. The “War on Drugs” has deemed many of the citizens of the United States to be criminals for such a destructive substance known as “marijuana”. The Reefer Madness, propaganda campaign made famous by Harry Anslinger.

I have yet to find the evidence of the harm that I keep hearing this plant causes, but those looking to keep this plant from the people sure seem to use those same unfounded claims to continue the prohibition of this plant, in turn the prohibition of our rights. I wonder what would happen if we started calling it “CANNABIS” people would start to understand how they have been duped, by their own government since the 1930’s  about a plant that could literally change and help save the world.

time-to-take-it-back

Many years ago there was a document written that outlined specific rights of the people that were to be protected, not only from corporate structures but also limit the power of our government. The Constitution of the United States is missing one important detail, to outline the importance of keeping the cannabis plant in the hands of the people.

It looks like that may now be challenged and a proposal has been written, waiting for the right person to take hold and run with it to the national scene. Are you that person, or do you know that person? Have a look and share it with others if you think this is how it should be.

To hopefully become an initiative and later an amendment to the US Constitution:
“BEING NECESSARY TO THE HEALTH, SELF SUFFICIENCY AND SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ACCESS, KEEP, GROW AND CONSUME THE CANNABIS PLANT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

If you think it’s time for national change. Get involved. Make noise. Force the change you want. It is our right. Don’t let them take it away from us.

Gods Gift

Overpopulation, Fact or Fairytail?

Overpopulation, Fact or Fairytail?

Overpopulation: The Perennial Myth

“What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us . . . . In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.”

This was not written by professional doomsayer Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb, 1968). It is not found in the catastrophist works of Donella and Dennis Meadows (The Limits to Growth, 1972; Beyond the Limits, 1992). Nor did it come from the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State’s pessimistic assessment of the world situation, The Global 2000 Report to the President (1980).

It did not even come from Thomas Malthus, whose Essay on Population (1798) in the late eighteenth century is the seminal work to which much of the modern concern about overpopulation can be traced. And it did not come from Botero, a sixteenth-century Italian whose work anticipated many of the arguments advanced by Malthus two centuries later.

The opening quotation was penned by Tertullian, a resident of the city of Carthage in the second century, when the population of the world was about 190 million, or only three to four percent of what it is today. And the fear of overpopulation did not begin with Tertullian. One finds similar concerns expressed in the writings of Plato and Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., as well as in the teachings of Confucius as early as the sixth century B.C.

From the period before Christ, men have been worried about overpopulation. Those concerns have become ever more frenzied. On an almost daily basis we are fed a barrage of stories in the newspapers and on television—complete with such appropriately lurid headlines as “Earth Near the Breaking Point” and “Population Explosion Continues Unabated”—predicting the imminent starvation of millions because population is outstripping the food supply. We regularly hear that because of population growth we are rapidly depleting our resource base with catastrophic consequences looming in our immediate future. We are constantly told that we are running out of living space and that unless something is done, and done immediately, to curb population growth, the world will be covered by a mass of humanity, with people jammed elbow to elbow and condemned to fight for each inch of space.

The catastrophists have been predicting doom and gloom for centuries. Perhaps the single most amazing thing about this perennial exercise is that the catastrophists seem never to have stopped quite long enough to notice that their predictions have never materialized. This probably says more about the catastrophists themselves than anything else. Catastrophism is characterized by intellectual arrogance. It’s been said of Thomas Malthus, for example, that he underestimated everyone’s intelligence but his own. Whenever catastrophists confront a problem for which they cannot imagine a solution, the catastrophists conclude that no one else in the world will be able to think of one either. For example, in Beyond the Limits, the Meadows tell us that crop yields, at least in the Western world, have reached their peak. Since the history of agriculture is largely a history of increasing yields per acre, one would be interested in knowing how they arrived at such a significant and counter-historical conclusion. Unfortunately, such information is not forthcoming.

Overpopulation

But isn’t the world overpopulated? Aren’t we headed toward catastrophe? Don’t more people mean less food, fewer resources, a lower standard of living, and less living space for everyone? Let’s look at the data.

As any population graph clearly shows, the world has and is experiencing a population explosion that began in the eighteenth century. Population rose sixfold in the next 200 years. But this explosion was accompanied, and in large part made possible, by a productivity explosion, a resource explosion, a food explosion, an information explosion, a communications explosion, a science explosion, and a medical explosion.

The result was that the sixfold increase in world population was dwarfed by the eighty-fold increase in world output. As real incomes rose, people were able to live healthier lives. Infant mortality rates plummeted and life expectancies soared. According to anthropologists, average life expectancy could never have been less than 20 years or the human race would not have survived. In 1900 the average world life expectancy was about 30 years. In 1993 it is just over 65 years. Nearly 80 percent of the increase in world life expectancy has taken place in just the last 90 years! That is arguably one of the single most astonishing accomplishments in the history of humanity. It is also one of the least noted.

But doesn’t this amazing accomplishment create precisely the overpopulation problem about which the catastrophists have been warning us? The data clearly show that this is not the case. “Overpopulation” cannot stand on its own. It is a relative term. Overpopulation must be overpopulation relative to something, usually food, resources, and living space. The data show that all three variables are, and have been, increasing more rapidly than population.

Food. Food production has outpaced population growth by, on average, one percent per year ever since global food data began being collected in the late 1940s. There is currently enough food to feed everyone in the world. And there is a consensus among experts that global food production could be increased dramatically if needed. The major problem for the developed countries of the world is food surpluses. In the United States, for example, millions of acres of good cropland lie unused each year. Many experts believe that even with no advances in science or technology, we currently have the capacity to feed adequately, on a sustainable basis, 40 to 50 billion people, or about eight to ten times the current world population. And we are currently at the dawn of a new agricultural revolution, biotechnology, which has the potential to increase agricultural productivity dramatically.

Where people are hungry, it is because of war (Somalia, Ethiopia) or government policies that, in the name of modernization and industrialization, penalize farmers by taxing them at prohibitive rates (e.g., Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya), not because population is exceeding the natural limits of what the world can support.

Significantly, during the decade of the 1980s, agricultural prices in the United States, in real terms, declined by 38 percent. World prices followed similar trends and today a larger proportion of the world’s people are better fed than at any time in recorded history. In short, food is becoming more abundant.

Resources. Like food, resources have become more abundant over time. Practically all resources, including energy, are cheaper now than ever before. Relative to wages, natural resource prices in the United States in 1990 were only one-half what they were in 1950, and just one-fifth their price in 1900. Prices outside the United States show similar trends.

But how can resources be getting more abundant? Resources are not things that we find in nature. It is ideas that make things resources. If we don’t know how to use something, it is not a resource. Oil is a perfect example. Prior to the 1840s oil was a liability rather than a resource. There was little use for it and it would often seep to the surface and get into the water supply. It was only with the dawn of the machine age that a use was discovered for this “slimy ooze.”

Our knowledge is even more important than the physical substance itself, and this has significant ramifications: More people mean more ideas. There is no reason, therefore, that a growing population must mean declining resource availability. Historically, the opposite has been true. Rapidly growing populations have been accompanied by rapidly declining resource prices as people have discovered new ways to use existing resources as well as uses for previously unused materials.

But an important caveat must be introduced here. For the foregoing to occur, the political and economic institutions must be right. A shortage of a good or service, including a resource, will encourage a search both for additional supplies and for substitutes. But this is so only if those who are successful are able to profit from their effort. This is precisely what classical liberalism, with its emphasis on private property and the free market, accomplishes. A shortage of a particular resource will cause its price to rise, and the lure of profit will attract entrepreneurs anxious to capitalize on the shortage by finding solutions, either additional supplies of the existing material or the development of an entirely new method of supplying the service. Communicating through the use of fiber optics rather than copper cable is a case in point.

Entrepreneurs typically have drawn scientists and others with relevant expertise into the field by paying them to work on the problem. Thus, the market automatically ensures that those most likely to find solutions to a particular problem, such as a shortage of an important resource, are drawn into positions where they can concentrate their efforts on finding solutions to the problem. To cite just a single example, a shortage of ivory for billiard balls in nineteenth-century England led to the invention of celluloid, followed by the entire panoply of plastics.

In the absence of an efficient and reliable way to match up expertise with need, our efforts are random. And in the absence of suitable rewards for satisfying the needs of society, little effort will be forthcoming. It was certainly no accident that the takeoff, both in population growth and economic growth, dates from the decline of mercantilism and extensive government economic regulations in the eighteenth century, and the emergence in the Western world of a relatively free market, characterized by private property, low taxes, and little government interference.

In every category—per capita income, life expectancy, infant mortality, cars, telephones, televisions, radios per person—the performance of the more free market countries far surpasses the more interventionist countries. The differences are far too large as well as systematic to be attributed to mere chance.

Living Space. But even if food and resources are becoming more abundant, certainly this can’t be true for living space. After all, the world is a finite place and the more people in it, the less space there is for everyone. In a statistical sense this is true, of course. But it is also irrelevant. For example, if the entire population of the world were placed in the state of Alaska, every individual would receive nearly 3,500 square feet of space, or about one-half the size of the average American family homestead with front and back yards. Alaska is a big state, but it is a mere one percent of the earth’s land mass. Less than one-half of one percent of the world’s ice-free land area is used for human settlements.

But perhaps “living space” can be measured more meaningfully by looking at such things as the number of houses, the amount of floor space, or the number of rooms per person. There are more houses, more floor space, and more rooms per person than ever before. In short, like both food and resources, living space is, by any meaningful measure, becoming more abundant.

Finally, it should be noted that the population explosion has begun to fizzle. Population growth peaked at 2.1 percent per year in the late 1960s and has declined to its present rate of 1.7 percent. There is no doubt that this trend will continue since, according to the latest information supplied by the World Health Organization, total fertility rates (the number of births per woman) have declined from 4.5 in 1970 to just 3.3 in 1990. That is exactly fifty percent of the way toward a fertility rate of 2.1, which would eventually bring population growth to a halt.

Everything is not fine. There are many problems in the world. Children are malnourished. But the point that cannot be ignored is that all of the major economic trends are in the right direction. Things are getting better.

Contrary to the constant barrage of doomsday newspaper and television stories, the data clearly show that the prospect of the Malthusian nightmare is growing steadily more remote. The natural limits of what the earth can support are steadily receding, not advancing. Population growth is slowing while the supplies of food, resources, and even living space are increasing. Moreover, World Bank data show that real wages are increasing, which means that people are actually becoming more scarce.

In short, although there are now more people in the world than ever before, by any meaningful measure the world is actually becoming relatively less populated.


David Osterfeld

Dr. Osterfeld was assistant professor of political science at Saint Joseph’s College, Rensselaer, Indiana.

 

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The Mandela Effect, Or Quantum Effect: Do you see it?

The Mandela Effect, Or Quantum Effect: Do you see it?

The Mandela Effect, Or Quantum Effect: What do you see?

If you haven’t yet heard about the Mandela Effect, get ready to learn about it. It is very interesting and very, very “woo woo”. I seriously did not want to say anything about it because it is, far and away, the biggest, strangest, scariest and weirdest thing I have ever come across. But as you can tell, I decided I just had to say something about it anyway. By the time you get to the end of this, you will understand the reticence, because if people do NOT get this, they think that you are….well, crazy.

First, to define it. The term Mandela Effect was coined by a lady named Fiona Broome.  Evidently, thousands of people recall Nelson Mandela dying in prison, and recall watching the funeral on television and details that don’t bear out via internet searches. Mandela evidently died in 2013, not in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s as many people recall. More people recall other things than the earlier demise of Mandela, so it is a bit of a misnomer, bit it has been named “Mandela Effect” because of so many people having that memory of Mandela’s death. I’ll run through a short list of things, and you can see what your memory tells you about this “effect”. It runs across the full spectrum of media, product names, marketing and even scripture….Scripture is why I have involved myself in looking into this so intently.

So, here is the “Mandela Effect” intro…(drum roll, please!)

What is the most common adult diaper on the market? “Depends” is what everyone calls it, and what a lot of people remember, but…(you might need one by the time I am done, ahem)…It is now, and always has been, “Depend”. No “s”.

How about Bragg’s vinegar? That is seriously good vinegar, and highly recommended by many for all of the great things that good cider vinegar does for a body. Now it is….and always has been, “Bragg”. Again, no “s”.

Do you remember “Looney Toons”? Well, they still have “Tiny Toons”, but “Looney Toons” is now, and always has been, “Looney Tunes”.

Do you remember Redi Whip? The aerosolized whip cream in the refrigerator section? It is now, and always has been…”Reddi Wip”.

How about “Fruit Loops”? Evidently, now, when it came out in the late 1950’s, it was, and always has been, “Froot Loops”.

I definitely see the humor in “Looney Toons” and “Fruit Loops” both being on this list!

In the original Disney movie Snow White, what did the evil queen say when she spoke to the mirror?……….

... -guest-wish-list---evil-queen-from-snow-white-and-the-seven-dwarfs

(long pause for effect…Pun intended….)

“Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?”

That’s what I recall. But now, it is, and always has been….”Magic mirror on the wall…”

Mind you, this is on old VHS tapes, and on our old DVD here. It changed on our shelf, and even our youngest noted it. Honestly, it made her mad.

How about “The Empire Strikes Back”? If you remember the fight scene between Luke and Darth Vader, where Vader chops off Luke’s hand, what did Vader say to Luke about Luke’s father?

Was it, “Luke, I am your father”?

Or, was it, “No, I am your father”?

Lots of people remember, “Luke, I am your father”—

but now…it is and always has been, “No, I am your father”.

Evidently, James Earl Jones didn’t forget the line he originally said. Glitch in the matrix?

There are literally hundreds of these examples. I don’t see, or agree with all of them, but here is a list someone began so that people would have an easy way to check things.

Then, for those of you who are believers, what kind of animal lays down with the lamb?

If you answered “lion”, we remember the same thing. I even have it marked in both places in Isaiah (11:6 and 65:25) in my very worn out KJV 1611 from the 1990’s.

But now, it says, “the wolf shall also dwell with the lamb….” And it “always” has said the wolf shall dwell with the lamb. But it didn’t. And according to one person who was working on a play, it changed about 9 months ago in Isaiah 11:6. According to a good friend, her scriptures said “lion” in Isaiah 65:25 on May 26th, and then on May 28th, it had changed to the wolf.

These are hard copies of printed bibles that are on our shelves. Not new ones that have been edited in a publisher’s office and then printed. This is changing on the shelf.

Also, a very famous verse that both believers and non-believers have memorized is different. In Matthew 7:1, it always used to say “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.  Now it says, “Judge not that ye be not judged”.

There are a lot of things out there that people are saying is the “Mandela Effect” that is really just a memory issue. But there are many, many, other things that are solidly changed… and changing scripture is a huge, huge issue. And there are a lot of changes in scripture and most of them are in the King James Version.

We have six different versions of KJV here, and my Nelson Study Bible has the most changes along with my KJV 1611. The Scofield KJV Reference Bible still says  in Matthew 9:17 “Neither do men put new wine into old wineskins, else the wineskins break, and the wine runneth out, and the wineskins perish; but they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” But the other KJV versions here now say “bottles” instead of wineskins. And “bottles” makes zero sense. Old bottles do NOT break when you put new wine into them. A cork might blow, but the bottles don’t break unless you drop them.

This is a video from a guy that I think really has this issue figured out. This is about the division between those who see this, and those who don’t. It’s about half an hour in length and may help you get this a little better:

 

Here is the latest video from photohelix. This explains the quantum aspect of this a little more. It is a bit lengthy, over an hour, but it gives insight that appears to be very important into this issue.

 

Let me know your thoughts on this. I’m very curious to know what people think.

Original article here: https://truthfarmer.com/2016/06/12/the-mandela-effect-or-quantum-effect-what-do-you-see/

The Marijuana Conspiracy – The Real Reason Hemp is Illegal

The Marijuana Conspiracy – The Real Reason Hemp is Illegal

The Marijuana Conspiracy – The Real Reason Hemp is Illegal
by Doug Yurchey, June 15, 2005 

NOTE TO THE READER: Words and sentences within this type of brackets [ ] are not part of the original article!

And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land.– Ezekiel 34/29

THE REAL REASON CANNABIS HAS BEEN OUTLAWED HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH ITS EFFECTS ON THE MIND AND BODY.

 marimoney

MARIJUANA is DANGEROUS.

Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people.

The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.

Where did the word ‘marijuana’ come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant…as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:

* All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974.

* It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981.

* REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.

George* George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.

* Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow’s export to England; Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer.

* For thousands of years, 90% of all ships’ sails and rope were made from hemp. The word ‘canvas’ is Dutch for cannabis; Webster’s New World Dictionary.

* 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc. were made from hemp until the 1820s with the introduction of the cotton gin.

* The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross’s flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp; U.S. Government Archives.

* The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons. Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th Century; State Archives.

* Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.

* Rembrants, Gainsboroughs, Van Goghs as well as most early canvas paintings were principally painted on hemp linen.

* In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs; Department of Agriculture

* Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935; Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

* Henry Ford’s first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONTRUCTED FROM HEMP! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, ‘grown from the soil,’ had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941.

* Hemp called ‘Billion Dollar Crop.’ It was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars; Popular Mechanics, Feb., 1938.

* Mechanical Engineering Magazine (Feb. 1938) published an article entitled ‘The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop that Can be Grown.’ It stated that if hemp was cultivated using 20th Century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

The following information comes directly from the United States Department of Agriculture’s 1942 14-minute film encouraging and instructing ‘patriotic American farmers’ to grow 350,000 acres of hemp each year for the war effort:

‘…(When) Grecian temples were new, hemp was already old in the service of mankind. For thousands of years, even then, this plant had been grown for cordage and cloth in China and elsewhere in the East. For centuries prior to about 1850, all the ships that sailed the western seas were rigged with hempen rope and sails. For the sailor, no less than the hangman, hemp was indispensable…

…Now with Philippine and East Indian sources of hemp in the hands of the Japanese…American hemp must meet the needs of our Army and Navy as well as of our industries…

…the Navy’s rapidly dwindling reserves. When that is gone, American hemp will go on duty again; hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines; hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore. Just as in the days when Old Ironsides sailed the seas victorious with her hempen shrouds and hempen sails. Hemp for victory!’

Certified proof from the Library of Congress; found by the research of Jack Herer, refuting claims of other government agencies that the 1942 USDA film ‘Hemp for Victory’ did not exist.

1cannabisHemp cultivation and production do not harm the environment. The USDA Bulletin #404 concluded that hemp produces 4 times as much pulp with at least 4 to 7 times less pollution. From Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938:

‘It has a short growing season…It can be grown in any state…The long roots penetrate and break the soil to leave it in perfect condition for the next year’s crop. The dense shock of leaves, 8 to 12 feet above the ground, chokes out weeds.
…hemp, this new crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry.’

In the 1930s, innovations in farm machinery would have caused an industrial revolution when applied to hemp. This single resource could have created millions of new jobs generating thousands of quality products. Hemp, if not made illegal, would have brought America out of the Great Depression.

William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst’s grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp.

In 1937, Dupont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. Dupont’s Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of Dupont’s business.
THE CONSPIRACY

Andrew Mellon became Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont’s primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: ‘marihuana’ and pushed it into the consciousness of America.
MEDIA MANIPULATION

A media blitz of ‘yellow journalism’ raged in the late 1920s and 1930s. Hearst’s newspapers ran stories emphasizing the horrors of marihuana. The menace of marihuana made headlines. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to loose morality.

Films like ‘Reefer Madness’ (1936), ‘Marihuana: Assassin of Youth’ (1935) and ‘Marihuana: The Devil’s Weed’ (1936) were propaganda designed by these industrialists to create an enemy. Their purpose was to gain public support so that anti-marihuana laws could be passed.

Examine the following quotes from ‘The Burning Question’ aka REEFER MADNESS:

  • a violent narcotic.
  • acts of shocking violence.
  • incurable insanity.
  • soul-destroying effects.
  • under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax.
  • more vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marihuana!

Reefer Madness did not end with the usual ‘the end.’ The film concluded with these words plastered on the screen: TELL YOUR CHILDREN.

In the 1930s, people were very naive; even to the point of ignorance. The masses were like sheep waiting to be led by the few in power. They did not challenge authority. If the news was in print or on the radio, they believed it had to be true. They told their children and their children grew up to be the parents of the baby-boomers.

On April 14, 1937, the Prohibitive Marihuana Tax Law or the bill that outlawed hemp was directly brought to the House Ways and Means Committee. This committee is the only one that can introduce a bill to the House floor without it being debated by other committees. The Chairman of the Ways and Means, Robert Doughton, was a Dupont supporter. He insured that the bill would pass Congress.

Dr. James Woodward, a physician and attorney, testified too late on behalf of the American Medical Association. He told the committee that the reason the AMA had not denounced the Marihuana Tax Law sooner was that the Association had just discovered that marihuana was hemp.

Few people, at the time, realized that the deadly menace they had been reading about on Hearst’s front pages was in fact passive hemp. The AMA understood cannabis to be a MEDICINE found in numerous healing products sold over the last hundred years.

In September of 1937, hemp became illegal. The most useful crop known became a drug and our planet has been suffering ever since.

hemp plantCongress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. Anslinger, head of the Drug Commission for 31 years, promoted the idea that marihuana made users act extremely violent. In the 1950s, under the Communist threat of McCarthyism, Anslinger now said the exact opposite. Marijuana will pacify you so much that soldiers would not want to fight.
Today, our planet is in desperate trouble. Earth is suffocating as large tracts of rain forests disappear. Pollution, poisons and chemicals are killing people. These great problems could be reversed if we industrialized hemp. Natural biomass could provide all of the planet’s energy needs that are currently supplied by fossil fuels. We have consumed 80% of our oil and gas reserves. We need a renewable resource. Hemp could be the solution to soaring gas prices.
 

THE WONDER PLANT

Hemp has a higher quality fiber than wood fiber. Far fewer caustic chemicals are required to make paper from hemp than from trees. Hemp paper does not turn yellow and is very durable. The plant grows quickly to maturity in a season where trees take a lifetime.

ALL PLASTIC PRODUCTS SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP SEED OIL. Hempen plastics are biodegradable! Over time, they would break down and not harm the environment. Oil-based plastics, the ones we are very familiar with, help ruin nature; they do not break down and will do great harm in the future. The process to produce the vast array of natural (hempen) plastics will not ruin the rivers as Dupont and other petrochemical companies have done. Ecology does not fit in with the plans of the Oil Industry and the political machine. Hemp products are safe and natural.

MEDICINES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. We should go back to the days when the AMA supported cannabis cures. ‘Medical Marijuana’ is given out legally to only a handful of people while the rest of us are forced into a system that relies on chemicals. Pot is only healthy for the human body.

WORLD HUNGER COULD END. A large variety of food products can be generated from hemp. The seeds contain one of the highest sources of protein in nature. ALSO: They have two essential fatty acids that clean your body of cholesterol. These essential fatty acids are not found anywhere else in nature! Consuming pot seeds is the best thing you could do for your body. Eat uncooked hemp seeds.

CLOTHES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. Hemp clothing is extremely strong and durable over time. You could hand clothing, made from pot, down to your grandchildren. Today, there are American companies that make hemp clothing; usually 50% hemp. Hemp fabrics should be everywhere. Instead, they are almost underground. Superior hemp products are not allowed to advertise on fascist television. Kentucky, once the top hemp producing state, made it ILLEGAL TO WEAR hemp clothing! Can you imagine being thrown into jail for wearing quality jeans?

The world is crazy…but that does not mean you have to join the insanity. Get together. Spread the news. Tell people, and that includes your children, the truth. Use hemp products. Eliminate the word ‘marijuana.’ Realize the history that created it. Make it politically incorrect to say or print the M-word. Fight against the propaganda (designed to favor the agenda of the super rich) and the bullshit. Hemp must be utilized in the future. We need a clean energy source to save our planet. INDUSTRIALIZE HEMP!

The liquor, tobacco and oil companies fund more than a million dollars a day to Partnership for a Drug-Free America and other similar agencies. We have all seen their commercials. Now, their motto is: ‘It’s more dangerous than we thought.’ Lies from the powerful corporations, that began with Hearst, are still alive and well today.

The brainwashing continues. Now, the commercials say: If you buy a joint, you contribute to murders and gang wars. The latest anti-pot commercials say: If you buy a joint…you are promoting TERRORISM! The new enemy (terrorism) has paved the road to brainwash you any way THEY see fit.

JoeThere is only one enemy; the friendly people you pay your taxes to; the war-makers and nature destroyers. With your funding, they are killing the world right in front of your eyes. HALF A MILLION DEATHS EACH YEAR ARE CAUSED BY TOBACCO. HALF A MILLION DEATHS EACH YEAR ARE CAUSED BY ALCOHOL. NO ONE HAS EVER, EVER DIED FROM SMOKING POT!! In the entire history of the human race, not one death can be attributed to cannabis. Our society has outlawed grass but condones the use of the KILLERS: TOBACCO and ALCOHOL. Hemp should be declassified and placed in DRUG stores to relieve stress. Hardening and constriction of the arteries are bad; but hemp usage actually enlarges the arteries…which is a healthy condition. We have been so conditioned to think that: Smoking is harmful. That is NOT the case for passive pot.

Ingesting THC, hemp’s active agent, has a positive effect; relieving asthma and glaucoma. A joint tends to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy. You are able to eat on hemp. This is a healthy state of being.

(One personal note: During the pregnancy of my wife, she was having some difficulty gaining weight. We were in the hospital. A nurse called us to one side and said: ‘Off the record, if you smoke pot…you’d get something called the munchies and you’ll gain weight.’ I swear that is a true story). [Using Medifast coupons to counteract the results of the weight gain later on is a different story.]

The stereotype for a pothead is similar to a drunk, bubble-brain. Yet, the truth is one’s creative abilities can be enhanced under its influence. The perception of time slightly slows and one can become more sensitive. You can more appreciate all arts; be closer to nature and generally FEEL more under the influence of cannabis. It is, in fact, the exact opposite state of mind and body as the drunken state. You can be more aware with pot.

The pot plant is an ALIEN plant. There is physical evidence that cannabis is not like any other plant on this planet. One could conclude that it was brought here for the benefit of humanity. Hemp is the ONLY plant where the males appear one way and the females appear very different, physically! No one ever speaks of males and females in regard to the plant kingdom because plants do not show their sexes; except for cannabis. To determine what sex a certain, normal, Earthly plant is: You have to look internally, at its DNA. A male blade of grass (physically) looks exactly like a female blade of grass. The hemp plant has an intense sexuallity. Growers know to kill the males before they fertilize the females. Yes, folks…the most potent pot comes from ‘horny females.’

The reason this amazing, very sophisticated, ET plant from the future is illegal has nothing to do with how it physically affects us…..

…POT IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE BILLIONAIRES WANT TO REMAIN BILLIONAIRES!

dareps: I think the word ‘DRUGS’ should not be used as an umbrella-word that covers all chemical agents. Drugs have come to be known as something BAD. Are you aware there are LEGAL drugstores?! Yep, in every city. Unbelievable. Each so-called drug should be considered individually. Cannabis is a medicine and not a drug. We should DARE to speak the TRUTH no matter what the law is.

Also read Doug Yurchey’s follow-up article, “Marijuana Conspiracy – the Sequel” here at the Illuminati News website.

10,000-year History of Marijuana use in the World

The Hempeneer
8,000+ BCE Use of hemp cord in pottery identified at ancient village site dating back over 10,000 years, located in the area of modern day Taiwan. Finding hemp use and cultivation in this date range puts it as one of the first and oldest known human agriculture crops. As explained by Richard Hamilton in the 2009 Scientific American article on sustainable agriculture “Modern humans emerged some 250,000 years ago, yet agriculture is a fairly recent invention, only about 10,000 years old … Agriculture is not natural; it is a human invention. It is also the basis of modern civilization.” This point was also touched on by Carl Sagan in 1977 when he proposed the possibility that marijuana may have actually been world’s first agricultural crop, leading to the development of civilization itself (see 1977, below).
6,000 BCE Cannabis seeds and oil used for food in China.
4,000 BCE Textiles made of hemp are used in China and Turkestan.
2,737 BCE First recorded use of cannabis as medicine by Emperor Shen Neng of China.
2,000-800 BCE Bhang (dried cannabis leaves, seeds and stems) is mentioned in the Hindu sacred text Atharvaveda (Science of Charms) as “Sacred Grass”, one of the five sacred plants of India. It is used by medicinally and ritually as an offering to Shiva.
1,500 BCE Cannabis cultivated in China for food and fiber. Scythians cultivate cannabis and use it to weave fine hemp cloth.
700-600 BCE The Zoroastrian Zendavesta, an ancient Persian religious text of several hundred volumes refers to bhang as the “good narcotic.”
600 BCE Hemp rope appears in southern Russia.
700-300 BCE Scythian tribes leave Cannabis seeds as offerings in royal tombs.
500 BCE Scythian couple die and are buried with two small tents covering containers for burning incense. Attached to one tent stick was a decorated leather pouch containing wild Cannabis seeds. This closely matches the stories told by Herodotus. The gravesite, discovered in the late 1940s, was in Pazryk, northwest of the Tien Shan Mountains in modern-day Khazakstan. Hemp is introduced into Northern Europe by the Scythians. An urn containing leaves and seeds of the Cannabis plant, unearthed near Berlin, is found and dated to about this time. Use of hemp products spread throughout northern Europe.
430 BCE Herodotus reports on both ritual and recreation use of Cannabis by the Scythians (Herodotus The Histories 430 B.C. trans. G. Rawlinson).
200 BCE Hemp rope appears in Greece. Chinese Book of Rites mentions hemp fabric.
100 BCE First evidence of hemp paper, invented in China.
100-0 BCE The psychotropic properties of Cannabis are mentioned in the newly compiled herbal Pen Ts’ao Ching.

0-100 CE Construction of Samaritan gold and glass paste stash box for storing hashish, coriander, or salt, buried in Siberian tomb.
23-79 Pliny the Elder’s The Natural History mentions hemp rope and marijuana’s analgesic effects.
47-127 Plutarch mentions Thracians using cannabis as an intoxicant.
70 Dioscorides, a physician in Nero’s army, lists medical marijuana in his Pharmacopoeia.
100 Imported hemp rope appears in England.
105 Legend suggests that Ts’ai Lun invents hemp paper in China, 200 years after its actual appearance (see 100 BCE above).
130-200 Greek physician Galen prescribes medical marijuana.
200 First pharmacopoeia of the East lists medical marijuana. Chinese surgeon Hua T’o uses marijuana as an anesthetic.
300 A young woman in Jerusalem receives medical marijuana during childbirth.
570 The French queen Arnegunde is buried with hemp cloth.
500-600 The Jewish Talmud mentions the euphoriant properties of Cannabis.
850 Vikings take hemp rope and seeds to Iceland.
900 Arabs learn techniques for making hemp paper.
900-1000 Scholars debate the pros and cons of eating hashish. Use spreads throughout Arabia.
1000 Hemp ropes appear on Italian ships. Arabic physician Ibn Wahshiyah’s On Poisons warns of marijuana’s potential dangers.
1090-1124 In Khorasan, Persia, Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, recruits followers to commit assassinations…legends develop around their supposed use of hashish. These legends are some of the earliest written tales of the discovery of the inebriating powers of Cannabis and the use of Hashish by a paramilitary organization as a hypnotic (see U.S. military use, 1942 below). Early 12th Century Hashish smoking becomes very popular throughout the Middle East.
1155-1221 Persian legend of the Sufi master Sheik Haydar’s personal discovery of Cannabis and his own alleged invention of hashish with it’s subsequent spread to Iraq, Bahrain, Egypt and Syria. Another of the ealiest written narratives of the use of Cannabis as an inebriant.
1171-1341 During the Ayyubid dynasty of Egypt, Cannabis is introduced by mystic devotees from Syria.
1200 1,001 Nights, an Arabian collection of tales, describes hashish’s intoxicating and aphrodisiac properties.
13th Century The oldest monograph on hashish, Zahr al-‘arish fi tahrim al-hashish, was written. It has since been lost. Ibn al-Baytar of Spain provides a description of the psychoactive nature of Cannabis. Arab traders bring Cannabis to the Mozambique coast of Africa.
1271-1295 Journeys of Marco Polo in which he gives second-hand reports of the story of Hasan ibn al-Sabbah and his “assassins” using hashish. First time reports of Cannabis have been brought to the attention of Europe.
1300 Ethiopian pipes containing marijuana suggest the herb has spread from Egypt to the rest of Africa.
1378 Ottoman Emir Soudoun Scheikhouni issues one of the first edicts against the eating of hashish.
1526 Babur Nama, first emperor and founder of Mughal Empire learned of hashish in Afghanistan.
1532 French physician Rabelais’s gargantua and Pantagruel mentions marijuana’s medicinal effects.

1533 King Henry VIII fines farmers if they do not raise hemp for industrial use.
1549 Angolan slaves brought cannabis with them to the sugar plantations of northeastern Brazil. They were permitted to plant their cannabis between rows of cane, and to smoke it between harvests.
c. 1550 The epic poem, Benk u Bode, by the poet Mohammed Ebn Soleiman Foruli of Baghdad, deals allegorically with a dialectical battle between wine and hashish.
1563 Portuguese physician Garcia da Orta reports on marijuana’s medicinal effects.
1578 China’s Li Shih-Chen writes of the antibiotic and antiemetic effects of marijuana.
1600 England begins to import hemp from Russia.
1606-1632 French and British cultivate Cannabis for hemp at their colonies in Port Royal (1606), Virginia (1611), and Plymouth (1632).
1616 Jamestown settlers began growing the hemp plant for its unusually strong fiber and used it to make rope, sails, and clothing.
1621 Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy suggests marijuana may treat depression.
1600-1700 Use of hashish, alcohol, and opium spreads among the population of occupied Constantinople. Hashish becomes a major trade item between Central Asia and South Asia.
1753 Linnaeus classifies Cannabis sativa.
1764 Medical marijuana appears in The New England Dispensatory.
1776 Kentucky begins growing hemp.
1794 Medical marijuana appears in The Edinburgh New Dispensary.
1798 Napoleon discovers that much of the Egyptian lower class habitually uses hashish. Soldiers returning to France bring the tradition with them, and he declares a total prohibition.
1800- Marijuana plantations flourished in Mississippi, Georgia, California, South Carolina, Nebraska, New York, and Kentucky. Also during this period, smoking hashish was popular throughout France and to a lesser degree in the US. Hashish production expands from Russian Turkestan into Yarkand in Chinese Turkestan.
1809 Antoine Sylvestre de Sacy, a leading Arabist, suggests a base etymology between the words “assassin” and “hashishin” — subsequent linguest study disproves his theory.
1840 In America, medicinal preparations with a Cannabis base are available. Hashish is available in Persian pharmacies.
1842 Irish physician O’Shaughnessy publishes cannabis research in English medical journals.
1843 French author Gautier publishes The Hashish Club.
1846 French physician Moreau publishes Hashish and Mental Illness
1850 Cannabis is added to The U.S. Pharmacopoeia.
1850-1915 Marijuana was widely used throughout United States as a medicinal drug and could easily be purchased in pharmacies and general stores.
1854 Whittier writes the first American work to mention cannabis as an intoxicant.
1856 British tax “ganja” and “charas” trade in India.
1857 American writer Ludlow publishes The Hasheesh Eater.
1858 French poet Baudelaire publishes On the Artificial Ideal.
1870-1880 First reports of hashish smoking on the Greek mainland.
1890 Greek Department of Interior prohibits importance, cultivation and use of hashish. Hashish is made illegal in Turkey. Sir J.R. Reynolds, chief physician to Queen Victoria, prescribes medical marijuana to her.
1893-1894 The India Hemp Drugs Commission Report is issued. 70,000 to 80,000 kg per year of hashish is legally imported into India from Central Asia.
1906 In the U.S. the Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, regulating the labeling of products containing Alcohol, Opiates, Cocaine, and Cannabis, among others.
Early 20th Century Hashish smoking remains very popular throughout the Middle East.
1910 The Mexican Revolution caused an influx of Mexican immigrants who introduced the habit of recreational use (instead of it’s generally medicinal use) into American society.
1914 The Harrison Act in the U.S. defined use of Marijuana (among other drugs) as a crime.
1916 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief scientists Jason L. Merrill and Lyster H. Dewey created paper made from hemp pulp, which they concluded was “favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood” in USDA Bulletin No. 404. From the book“The Emperor Wears No Clothes” by Jack Herer the USDA Bulletin N. 404 reported that one acre of hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres (17,000 m2) of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/7 to 1/4 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. … If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags. However, mass production of cheap news print from hemp had not developed in any country, and hemp was a relatively easy target because factories already had made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool, and linen, but there were relatively small investments in hemp production.
1915-1927 In the U.S. cannabis begins to be prohibited for nonmedical use. Prohibition first begins in California (1915), followed by Texas (1919), Louisiana (1924), and New York (1927).
1919 The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol and positioned marijuana as an attractive alternative leading to an increase in use of the substance.
1920s Greek dictator Ioannis Metaxas cracks down on hashish smoking. Hashish smuggled into Egypt from Greece, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Central Asia.
1924 Russian botanists classify another major strain of the plant, Cannabis ruderalis.
1926 Lebanese hashish production is prohibited.
1928 Recreational use of Cannabis is banned in Britain.
1930 The Yarkand region of Chinese Turkestan exports 91,471 kg of hashish legally into the Northwest Frontier and Punjab regions of India. Legal taxed imports of hashish continue into India from Central Asia.
1933 The U.S. congress repealed the 21st Amendment, ending alcohol prohibition; 4 years later the prohibition of marijuana will be in full effect.
1934-1935 Chinese government moves to end all Cannabis cultivation in Yarkand and charas traffic from Yarkand. Hashish production become illegal in Chinese Turkestan.
1936 The American propaganda film Reefer Madness was made to scare American youth away from using Cannabis.

DrugSense Drug War ClockCurrent TimeFederal SpentState/Local SpentTotal SpentAll Drug ArrestsCannabis ArrestsImprisoned
American Dollars Spent, and American Citizens Arrested, Because of the Dubious “War On Drugs” THIS Year Alone …
1937 U.S. Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act which criminalized the drug. In response Dr. William C. Woodward, testifying on behalf of the AMA, told Congress that, “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug” and warned that a prohibition “loses sight of the fact that future investigation may show that there are substantial medical uses for Cannabis.” His comments were ignored by Congress. A part of the testimony for Congress to pass the 1937 act derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint paper.
1938 Supply of hashish from Chinese Turkestan nearly ceases. The U.S. company DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp.
1940s Greek hashish smoking tradition fades.
1941 Cannabis is removed from the U.S. Pharmacopoeia and it’s medicinal use is no longer recognized in America. The same year the Indian government considers cultivation in Kashmir to fill void of hashish from Chinese Turkestan. Hand-rubbed charas from Nepal is choicest hashish in India during World War II.
1942 U.S. scientists working at the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the CIA’s wartime predecessor, began to develop a chemical substance that could break down the psychological defenses of enemy spies and POWs. After testing several compounds, the OSS scientists selected a potent extract of marijuana as the best available “truth serum.” The cannabis concoction was given the code name TD, meaning Truth Drug. When injected into food or tobacco cigarettes, TD helped loosen the reserve of recalcitrant interrogation subjects.
1945 Legal hashish consumption continues in India. Hashish use in Greece flourishes again.
1951 The Boggs Act and the Narcotics Control Act in the U.S. increases all drug penalties and laid down mandatory sentences.
1960 Czech researchers confirm the antibiotic and analgesic effects of cannabis.
1963 Turkish police seize 2.5 tons of hashish.1965 First reports of the strain Cannibis afghanica and was used for hashish production in northern Afghanistan.
1967 “Smash”, the first hashish oil appears. Red Lebanese reaches California.
1970-1972 Huge fields of Cannabis are cultivated for hashish production in Afghanistan. Afghani hashish varieties introduced to North America for sinsemilla production. Westerners bring metal sieve cloths to Afghanistan. Law enforcement efforts against hashish begin in Afghanistan.
1970 The US National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) forms. That same year the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act repealed mandatory penalties for drug offenses and marijuana was categorized separately from other narcotics.
1971 First evidence suggesting marijuana may help glaucoma patients.
1972 The Nixon-appointed Shafer Commission urged use of cannabis be re-legalized, but their recommendation was ignored. U.S. Medical research picks up pace. Proposition 19 in California to legalize marijuana use is rejected by a voter margin of 66-33%.
1973 Nepal bans the Cannabis shops and charas (hand-rolled hash) export. Afghan government makes hashish production and sales illegal. Afghani harvest is pitifully small.
1975 Nabilone, a cannabinoid-based medication appears.
1976 The U.S. federal government created the Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Use research program to allow patients to receive up to nine pounds of cannabis from the government each year. Today, five surviving patients still receive medical cannabis from the federal government, paid for by federal tax dollars. At the same time the U.S. FDA continues to list marijuana as Schedule I meaning: “A high potential for abuse with no accepted medical value.”
1977 Carl Sagan proposes that marijuana may have been the world’s first agricultural crop, leading to the development of civilization itself:“It would be wryly interesting if in human history the cultivation of marijuana led generally to the invention of agriculture, and thereby to civilization.” Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Speculations on the Origin of Human Intelligence p 191 footnote.
1977-1981 U.S. President Carter, including his assistant for drug policy, Dr. Peter Bourne, pushed for decriminalization of marijuana, with the president himself asking Congress to abolish federal criminal penalties for those caught with less than one ounce of marijuana.
1980s Morocco becomes one of, if not the largest, hashish producing and exporting nations. “Border hashish” is produced in northwestern Pakistan along the Afghan border to avoid Soviet-Afghan war.
1985 Hashish is still produced by Muslims of Kashgar and Yarkland in Northwest China. In the U.S. the FDA approves dronabinol, a synthetic THC, for cancer patients.
1986 President Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, reinstating mandatory minimums and raising federal penalties for possession and distribution and officially begins the U.S. international “war on drugs.”
1987 Moroccan government cracks down upon Cannabis cultivation in lower elevations of the Rif Mountains.
1988 U.S. DEA administrative law Judge Francis Young finds, after thorough hearings, that marijuana has a clearly established medical use and should be reclassified as a prescriptive drug. His recommendation is ignored.
1992 In reaction to a surge of requests from AIDS patients for medical marijuana, the U.S. government closes the Compassionate Use program. That same year the pharmaceutical medication dronabinol is approved for AIDS-wasting syndrome.
1993 Cannabis eradication efforts resume in Morocco.
1994 Border hashish still produced in Pakistan. Heavy fighting between rival Muslim clans continues to upset hashish trade in Afghanistan.
1995 Introduction of hashish-making equipment and appearance of locally produced hashish in Amsterdam coffee shops.
1996 California (the first U.S. state to ban marijuana use, see 1915) became the first U.S. State to then re-legalize medical marijuana use for people suffering from AIDS, cancer, and other serious illnesses. A similar bill was passed in Arizona the same year. This was followed by the passage of similar initiatives in Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
1997 The American Office of National Drug Control Policy commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a comprehensive study of the medical efficacy of cannabis therapeutics. The IOM concluded that cannabis is a safe and effective medicine, patients should have access, and the government should expand avenues for research and drug development. The federal government completely ignored its findings and refused to act on its recommendations.
1997-2001 In direct contradiction to the IOM recomendations, President Clinton, continuing the Regan and Bush “war on drugs” era, began a campaign to arrest and prosecute medical cannabis patients and their providers in California and elsewhere.
1999 Hawaii and North Dakota unsuccessfully attempt to legalize hemp farming. The U.S. DEA reclassifies dronabinol as a schedule III drug, making the medication easier to prescribe while marijuana itself continues to be listed Schedule I as having “no accepted medical use.”
2000 Legalization initiative in Alaska fails.
2001 Britain’s Home Secretary, David Blunkett, proposes relaxing the classification of cannabis from a class B to class C. Canada adopts federal laws in support of medical marijuana, and by 2003 Canada becomes the first country in the world to approve medical marijuana nation-wide.

2001-2009 Under President G.W. Bush the U.S. federal government intensified its “war on drugs” targeting both patients and doctors across the state of California.
2005 Marc Emery, a Canadian citizen and the largest distributor of marijuana seeds into the United States from approximately 1995 through July 2005 was on the FBI #1 wanted drug list for years and was eventually indicted by the U.S. DEA. He was extradited from Canada for trial in the U.S. in May 2010.
2009 President Obama made steps toward ending the very unsuccessful 20-year “war on drugs” initiated during the Regan administration by stating that individual drug use is really a public health issue, and should be treated as such. Under his guidance, the U.S. Justice Department announced that federal prosecutors will no longer pursue medical marijuana users and distributors who comply with state laws.
2010 Marc Emery of Vancouver, BC, Canada, was sentenced on September 10 in a U.S. District Court in Seattle to five years in prison and four years of supervised release for “conspiracy to manufacture marijuana” (eg. selling marijuana seeds).
2010 Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana in California is placed back on the ballet (named The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010). Current voter poles suggest that the proposition has about 50% population support and will likely win or loose by a margin of only 2%.
Oct 2010 Just weeks before the November 02 California election on Prop. 19 Attorney General Eric Holder said federal authorities would continue to enforce U.S. laws that declare the drug is illegal, even if voters approve the initiative, stating “we will vigorously enforce the (Controlled Substances Act) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use.”Nov 2010 California Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, was narrowly defeated by 53.6% of the vote. This would have legalized various marijuana-related activities in California, allowing local governments to regulate these activities, permitting local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorizing various criminal and civil penalties.
Nov 2012 The States of Colorado and Washington legalize marijuana / cannabis for recreational use; promises are made to the people that these new initiatives will have no impact on medical marijuana in those states. The country of Uruguay legalizes marijuana / cannabis for recreational use. The US District of Columbia decriminalizes personal use and possession of marijuana / cannabis.
July 07, 2014 Cannabis City becomes Seattle’s very first legal marijuana shop for over-the-counter purchase & recreational use. This generated world-wide media attention and a serious discussion over the legalization of marijuana and a possible end to the American “drug war.” The first purchase, by Deb Green a 65-year old marathon-running grandmother from Ballard, is part of the collection of the Museum of History and Industry in Seattle, Washington.
Nov 2014 The States of Alaska and Oregon legalize marijuana / cannabis for recreational use; the States of California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii and Massachusetts all begin to draft legalization legislation.
July 24, 2015 With the passage of Senate Bill 5052 Washington State medical marijuana comes fully under the control of the newly re-named Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB). Originally posted here: http://www.advancedholistichealth.org/history.html

Adapted from the following sources:
Understanding Marijuana, a New Look at the Scientific Evidence by Mitch Earleywine
The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer
www.scientificamerican.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis
www.concept420.com
www.time.com
www.safeaccassnow.org
www.pharmacytechs.net/blog
www.skunked.co.uk/articles
www.druglibrary.org
www.justice.gov/dea
www.cannabiscity.us

Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight | Transform: Getting Drugs Under Control

Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight | Transform: Getting Drugs Under Control

The content of this blog is available to download as a briefing here >

Portugal decriminalised the possession of all drugs for personal use in 2001, and there now exists a significant body of evidence on what happened following the move. Both opponents and advocates of drug policy reform are sometimes guilty of misrepresenting this evidence, with the former ignoring or incorrectly disputing the benefits of reform, and the latter tending to overstate them. 

The reality is that Portugal’s drug situation has improved significantly in several key areas. Most notably, HIV infections and drug-related deaths have decreased, while the dramatic rise in use feared by some has failed to materialise. However, such improvements are not solely the result of the decriminalisation policy; Portugal’s shift towards a more health-centred approach to drugs, as well as wider health and social policy changes, are equally, if not more, responsible for the positive changes observed. Drawing on the most up-to-date evidence, this briefing clarifies the extent of Portugal’s achievement, and debunks some of the erroneous claims made about the country’s innovative approach to drugs.

Background

Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so.2
The initial aim of the commissions, and of the decriminalisation policy more broadly, was to tackle the severely worsening health of Portugal’s drug using population, in particular its people who inject drugs. In the years leading up to the reform, the number of drug-related deaths had soared, and rates of HIV, AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Hepatitis B and C among people who inject drugs were rapidly increasing. There was a growing consensus among law enforcement and health officials that the criminalisation and marginalisation of people who use drugs was contributing to this problem, and that under a new, more humane, legal framework it could be better managed. 
Portugal complemented its policy of decriminalisation by allocating greater resources across the drugs field, expanding and improving prevention, treatment, harm reduction and social reintegration programmes. The introduction of these measures coincided with an expansion of the Portuguese welfare state, which included a guaranteed minimum income. While decriminalisation played an important role, it is likely that the positive outcomes described below would not have been achieved without these wider health and social reforms.3
Finally, although Portugal’s decriminalisation policy has attracted the most media attention, it is not the only country to have enacted such a reform. While there are variations in how ‘decriminalisation’ is defined and implemented, around 25 countries have removed criminal penalties for the personal possession of some or all drugs,4 contributing to the growing global shift away from punitive drug policies.

Drug use
One of the most keenly disputed outcomes of Portugal’s reforms is their impact on levels of drug use. Conflicting accounts of how rates of use changed after 2001 are usually due to different data sets, age groups, or indicators of changing drug use patterns being used. But a more complete picture of the situation post-decriminalisation reveals:
  • Levels of drug use are below the European average5
  • Drug use has declined among those aged 15-24,6 the population most at risk of initiating drug use7
  • Lifetime drug use among the general population has increased slightly,8 in line with trends in comparable nearby countries.9 However, lifetime use is widely considered to be the least accurate measure of a country’s current drug use situation10 11
  • Rates of past-year and past-month drug use among the general population – which are seen as the best indicators of evolving drug use trends12 – have decreased13
  • Between 2000 and 2005 (the most recent years for which data are available) rates of problematic drug use and injecting drug use decreased14
  • Drug use among adolescents decreased for several years following decriminalisation, but has since risen to around 2003 levels15
  • Rates of continuation of drug use (i.e. the proportion of the population that have ever used an illicit drug and continue to do so) have decreased16
Overall, this suggests that removing criminal penalties for personal drug possession did not cause an increase in levels of drug use. This tallies with a significant body of evidence from around the world that shows the enforcement of criminal drug laws has, at best, a marginal impact in deterring people from using drugs.17 18 19 There is essentially no relationship between the punitiveness of a country’s drug laws and its rates of drug use. Instead, drug use tends to rise and fall in line with broader cultural, social or economic trends.

Health 
It has been claimed that the prevalence of drug-related infectious diseases rose after decriminalisation,20 yet this is strongly contradicted by the evidence. Although the number of newly diagnosed HIV cases among people who inject drugs in Portugal is well above the European average,21 it has declined dramatically over the past decade, falling from 1,016 to 56 between 2001 and 2012.22 Over the same period, the number of new cases of AIDS among people who inject drugs also decreased, from 568 to 38.23 A similar, downward trend has been observed for cases of Hepatitis C and B among clients of drug treatment centres,24 despite an increase in the number of people seeking treatment.25
Harm reduction has been one of the cornerstones of the Portuguese approach
Deaths 
Some have argued that, since 2001, drug-related deaths in Portugal either remained constant or actually increased.26However, these claims are based on the number of people who died with traces of any illicit drug in their body, rather than the number of people who died as a result of the use of an illicit drug.27
Given an individual can die with traces of drugs in their body without this being the cause of their death, it is the second number – derived from clinical assessments made by physicians, rather than post-mortem toxicological tests – that is the standard, internationally accepted measure of drug-related deaths. And according to this measure, deaths due to drug use have decreased significantly – from approximately 80 in 2001, to 16 in 2012.28
Homicides
A widely repeated claim is that, as a result of Portugal’s decriminalisation policy, drug-related homicides increased 40% between 2001 and 2006.29 30 But this claim is based on a misrepresentation of the evidence. The 40% increase (from 105 to 148) was for all homicides, defined as any ‘intentional killing of a person, including murder, manslaughter, euthanasia and infanticide’31 – they were not ‘drug-related’. In fact, there are no data collected for drug-related homicides.
This claim stems from the 2009 World Drug Report, in which the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime speculated that the increase in homicides ‘might be related to [drug] trafficking.’32 However, neither the UNODC nor anyone else has proposed a causal mechanism by which the decriminalisation policy could have produced this rise, and given that the policy did not include any changes to how drug trafficking offences were dealt with, the possibility of such a link seems highly implausible. Furthermore, Portugal’s homicide rate has since declined to roughly what it was in 2002.33
Crime
Despite claims to the contrary,34 decriminalisation appears to have had a positive effect on crime. With its recategorisation of low-level drug possession as an administrative rather than criminal offence, decriminalisation inevitably produced a reduction in the number of people arrested and sent to criminal court for drug offences – from over 14,000 in the year 2000, to around 5,500-6,000 per year once the policy had come into effect.35 The proportion of drug-related offenders (defined as those who committed offences under the influence of drugs and/or to fund drug consumption) in the Portuguese prison population also declined, from 44% in 1999, to just under 21% in 2012.36
Additionally, decriminalisation does not appear to have caused an increase in crimes typically associated with drugs. While opportunistic thefts and robberies had gone up when measured in 2004, it has been suggested that this may have been because police were able to use the time saved by no longer arresting drug users to tackle (and record) other low-level crimes.37 Although difficult to test, this theory is perhaps supported by the fact that, during the same period, there was a reduction in recorded cases of other, more complex crimes typically committed by people who are dependent on drugs, such as thefts from homes and businesses.
Decriminalisation significantly reduced the Portuguese prison population and eased the burden on the criminal justice system
The impact of economic recession
There is a real risk that Portugal’s severe economic recession will undermine many of the drug-related health and social improvements observed since 2001.
Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with greater levels of drug-related harm and drug dependence,38 39 40 and public spending cuts taken in response to economic crises can exacerbate this situation.
Significant reductions in health and welfare budgets in Portugal have led to fears that the country may experience a dramatic increase in HIV infections, as Greece did when it closed drug treatment and harm reduction programmes as part of its attempts to reduce public spending.41 
The independent Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which was responsible for implementing the national drug strategy, has effectively been abolished and absorbed by the country’s National Health Service, which in turn has had its budget cut by 10%.42 A number of harm reduction services are also facing partial closure, or experiencing significant delays in receiving public funding, all of which has had a negative effect on the extent and quality of services provided.43 
The threat posed by economic recession underscores how crucial adequate health and social investment was in achieving the gains made following decriminalisation. The challenge now for Portugal is ensuring these gains are not lost.
References
1 For example, in 2011, 81% of all cases were suspended by the commissions: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2013) ‘National report 2012: Portugal’, p. 102.
2 Domosławski, A. (2011) ‘Drug Policy in Portugal: The Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use’, Open Society Foundations Global Drug Policy Program, p. 30.
5 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2011a) ‘Drug policy profiles — Portugal’, p. 20.
6 Balsa, C., Vital, C. and Urbano, C. (2013) ‘III Inquérito nacional ao consumo de substâncias psicoativas na população portuguesa 2012: Relatório Preliminar’, CESNOVA – Centro de Estudos de Sociologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, p. 59.
8 Balsa, C., et al. (2013) op. cit., p. 52.
9 Concurrent trends in neighbouring countries are discussed in Hughes, C. E. and Stevens, A. (2010) ‘What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs?’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 50, pp. 999-1022.
10 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2010) ‘Methodology—World drug report 2010’, p. 12.
11 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2010) ‘2010 Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe’, p. 10. 
12 See references 7 and 8.
13 Balsa, C., et al. (2013) op. cit., p. 52.
14 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2013) op. cit., pp. 65-67.
15 Three data sets used:
16 Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência (2013) op. cit., p. 21.
17 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2011b) ‘Looking for a relationship between penalties and cannabis use’.
18 Reuter, P. and Stevens, A. (2007) ‘An Analysis of UK Drug Policy’, UK Drug Policy Commission.
20 See, for example, Melanie Phillips’ claim at: Full Fact (2012) ‘What effect has decriminalising drugs had in Portugal?’, 31/01/12.
21 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2011a) op. cit., p. 20.
22 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2014) ‘Data and statistics’.
23 Ibid.
24 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2012) ‘Country overview: Portugal’.
25 Hughes, C. E. and Stevens, A. (2010) op. cit., p. 1015.
26 Pinto Coelho, M. (2010) ‘Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal – The real facts!’, World Federation Against Drugs, 02/02/10.
27 Hughes, C. E. and Stevens, A. (2012) op. cit., pp. 106-108.
28 Data for year 2001 taken from Hughes, C. E. and Stevens, A. (2012) op. cit., p. 107; data for year 2012 taken from Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência (2013), op. cit., p. 64.
29 Pinto Coelho, M. (2010) op. cit.
30 Phillips, M. (2011) ‘Drug legalisation? We need it like a hole in the head’, MailOnline, 17/11/11.
31 Tavares, C. and Thomas, G. (2008) ‘Statistics in focus: Crime and criminal justice’, Eurostat, p. 3.
32 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2009) ‘World Drug Report 2009’, p. 168.
33 Clarke, S. (2013) ‘Trends in crime and criminal justice, 2010’, Eurostat, p. 8.
34 Pinto Coelho, M. (2010) op. cit.
35 Data taken from Hughes, C. E. and Stevens, A. (2010), p. 1009, and European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2013) op. cit., p. 106.
36 Data for 1999 taken from Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência (2004) ‘Relatório Anual 2003 – A Situação do País em Matéria de Drogas e Toxicodependências’, p. 141. Data for year 2012 taken from Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência (2013) op. cit., p. 105.
37 Hughes, C. E. and Stevens, A. (2010) op. cit., p. 1010.
39 Hannon, L. and Cuddy, M.M. (2006) ‘Neighborhood Ecology and Drug Dependence Mortality: An Analysis of New York City Census Tracts’, The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol, vo. 32, no. 3, pp. 453-463.
40 Najman, J.M et al., (2008) ‘Increasing socio-economic inequalities in drug-induced deaths in Australia: 1981-2002’, Drug and Alcohol Review, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1-6.
41 Stevens, A. (2012) op. cit.
42 Khalip, A. (2012) ‘Once a model, crisis imperils Portugal’s drug program’, Reuters, 13/08/12.
43 Pinto, M. S. (2012) ‘The Economic Crisis is a Danger for Harm Reduction in Portugal’, Drogriporter, 06/02/12.

 Original story here:Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight | Transform: Getting Drugs Under Control.

It’s all fun and games…’til someone actually defines Christianity. | Fire Breathing Christian

It’s all fun and games…’til someone actually defines Christianity. | Fire Breathing Christian.

It’s all fun and games…’til someone actually defines Christianity.

Please share…Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Pin on PinterestEmail this to someone

FunAndGamesV2650pw

I’m a Christian.

You’re a Christian.

Practically everybody in America is a Christian.

Naturally then, this makes practically every politician in America a Christian (Barack Obama, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton included, of course).

Just ask ‘em.

When they respond by saying that they’re a Christian, that can only mean one thing: They’re a Christian. More often than not, they’ll claim to have been a Christian for a loooong time (sometimes from birth, even).

So if there’s one thing we know, it’s that we have oodles and oodles of professing Christians ’round here in ‘Merica. We have bucketloads and truckloads of supposed followers of Jesus Christ here in the good ol’ U S of A.

[insert “U! S! A!” chant here]

Which makes this whole “steaming pile of a wrecked culture” thing kinda mystifying then, right? I mean, if we have all o’ these “Christians” wandering the countryside and permeating the American culture, how is it that said culture is in the midst of a headlong qualitative free-fall into oblivion that only seems to be accelerating in momentum by the minute?

PleaseRead600pwRedV2

The answer is as obvious as it is hated by most professing American Christians. The answer is that most professing Christians simply aren’t really Christians at all. For all of the sweet vague talk about Jesus, Christianity and the like that may pour from their lips, they are actually vigorously and personally opposed to the true confrontational and corrective Gospel of Jesus Christ. Where true Christianity brings light and life to everyaspect of life, their version of Christianity is just another dead religion in a box. (See: Christianity in a Box: Containing the Contagion of Obedience to Christ.)

And that, friends, is “the truth that dare not be spoken”. Proclaiming that fairly obvious, glaring, yet also very hard and convicting truth is something that you just…don’t…do.

Not in “Christian” America.

And why?

‘Cause it’s not nice.

It’s not loving.

As the world and Satan defines things like “nice” and “loving”, anyway.

You just don’t ask American professing Christians what their claim to Christ actually means in any kind of detail. You dare not challenge them that way.

That’s rude!

It’s disrespectful!

And you really don’t ask ‘em to define their understanding of things – like the term “Christian” itself – directly and exclusively from [*gasp*] the Bible. I mean, how rude is that, right?

And disrespectful, too!

And ya really, really don’t ask ‘em how they go about applying what the Bible says about everything in their daily lives because…well…when it comes right down to it, they just don’t care what the Word of God says in detail.

If they don’t care about what it says in the first place, they’re obviously not interested in applying what it says to anything that makes them uncomfortable or challenges their assumptions, traditions, and feelings. They’re not up for testing themselves to be sure that they’re in the faith, as the Word commands (see: 2 Corinthians 13:5), because the faith that they have simply isn’t biblical Christianity, however much they may like the sound and comfort of using that label.

They want the word or the tag of Christianity, but not as a term rooted and defined by the binding, sufficient, authoritative, and supremely loving details contained in the Word of God. No, they don’t want that Christianity. They want the one that is just a synonym for “nice”. Or “loving” Or…you get the picture.

They want the term “Christianity” as it is redefined by their own personal emotions, traditions, hopes, and desires, rather than a true biblical Christianity that is defined by the Nature of God as revealed in His Word. (See: The Rise of Mr. Potato Jesus)

So for them “Christian” means “nice”, with a purportedly deep and spiritual cherry on top.

They want to claim Christianity without seeking to know and submit to Christ as King in practice.

And if you dare point these truths out, you know what you are?

Hateful.

And hated.

The “nice” and “loving” worshippers of a happy, hippy, nonjudgmental Mr. Potato Jesus will suddenly become decidedly (and rather hypocritically) un-nice, un-loving, and incredibly judgmental.

Their smiley faces will become frowny faces. And worse.

We have been warned of this reaction to the loving, confrontational, corrective Gospel command to repent and submit to Christ the King as King in practice:

Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, andyou will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.

~ Jesus (the real One) in Matthew 10:21-25 (emphasis added)

PleaseFeed600pwBlue

These are hard things. And, as already covered, they – and those who faithfully proclaim them – are therefore viewed by the world as the epitome of unpleasantness.

Yet the same Word that defines Christianity and the Christian worldview in detail also gives us a very clear understanding of the concept of love itself.

True love is found in the Nature of God as revealed in His Word. Thus, true love of things like art, politics, government, law, and economics, for example, are all found and understood through the personal revelation of Jesus Christ. True love for our neighbor – including the unbelieving neighbor – is also covered in detail in that Word, and it requires us toconfront and correct error through the whole, undiluted Gospel.

A true and burning love for our Lord and the lost is what compels us as His people to obey His Word and take up His Great Commission to make obedient disciples of all.

If we really, truly love these the lost (including the happy, nice, professing Christian lost) – not as the world defines love, but as Christ (the Word made flesh) perfectly embodies it – then we will lovingly confront and correct the profound and eternally significant errors of those “Christian” lost.

The loving confrontation and correction that comes through the true Gospel and true Great Commission is not “nice” according to the world. It is not “loving” according to the world. The world and those opposed to the true Gospel and Great Commission will always hate it, until and unless God supernaturally intervenes in their lives through the faithful proclamation of His Gospel by His obedient people.

The false gospel of “nice” might be incredibly popular in America, but it is a worldview lifted firectly from the serpent’s tongue (see: Candy Christianity – America’s Counterfeit Gospel).

That false gospel may have built many a mega-church and given many a temporary comfort to many an unbeliever, but it is, in the end, only a gateway to death. (See: The (church built) zombie apocalypse is upon us.)

The true Gospel – true Christianity – is not a fluffy, shallow, happiness-inducing message. It is the most hated, divisive, confrontational, and necessary message every brought to the ears of man.

How divisive is this Christianity?

How divisive is this Jesus?

Consider the following:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own householdWhoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

~Jesus (the real One), in Matthew 10:34-39 (emphasis added)

This Jesus demands – and defines – everything, which is precisely why the test for our true conversion always and often in Scripture is presented in light of our love and zeal for knowledge and application of His Word:

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. . . If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

~ Jesus (the real One) in John 14:15-23 (emphasis added)

Jesus and His people are not hated and have not been crucified in the past for purveying a “live and let live”, happy, hippy dippy gospel. They are hated  – murderously so – because they do just the opposite.

The Christ and Gospel of true Christianity are not watery, weak, or vague. They are vivid, detailed, and essential to any true pursuit of anything in God’s creation.

Any other Christ, any other gospel, and any contrary claim to Christianity must be lovingly, clearly confronted and corrected through the true Gospel command to repent, believe and submit to Christ as King in practice.

That is not a very “nice” or “loving” thing to do, according to the standards of the world and worldly.

But it is the perfect, loving, and necessary thing to do for love of Christ the King and those who are foolishly – and suicidally – rebelling against Him.

~