Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

No Legalized Pot In Idaho

Beware what you make legal, people will think it is right.

No Legalized Pot In Idaho

No Legalized Pot In Idaho

Be prudent, Idaho

What’s the hurry?  Do 10 minutes of research and you’ll read over and over, “the science is too new,” “still too new to prove anything,” “further research is needed.”  Just perusing headlines should give any thinking person cause to evaluate:

1. Fertility risk from cannabis?  Marijuana linked to lower sperm count and more abnormalities (Mia de Graaf, Health Editor for Dailymail.com, published 9 October 2018)

2. Pot Holes Legalizing marijuana is fine.  But don’t ignore the science on its dangers(Judith Grisel, May 25, 2018, Washington Post)

And possibly the most damning:

3. George Soros has spent at least $80million to get pot legalized in the US and Uruguay (Ryan Gorman, 3 April 2014, UKdailymail.com)

Now why would Soros have such a vested interest in legalizing marijuana?   The article “Pot Holes” by Judith Grisel (a former pot smoker and now neuroscientist) explains.  Here are some highlights:

She states that we should not be asking whether or not to legalize marijuana, but rather “How will growing use of delta-9-THC affect individuals and communities?”  This question is answered via the well-known effects of heavy marijuana use.  Dr. Grisel asserts that heavy pot smokers:

  • are 60% less likely to graduate from high school — well that will help our society!  Consider the unemployability after we pay huge tax bills to publicly educate them.
  • have reduced activity in brain circuits critical for flagging newsworthy experiences — so heavy smokers are numbing themselves to reality and the joys of it.  Why would a guy like George Soros want that?  Hmmm, let me think.
  • may harm their children and grandchildren.  The offspring of partying (pot smoking) adolescents may be at increased risk for mental illness and addition as a result of changes to gene expression and behavior.  So much like the rush to legalize the birth control pill (only to find generations later that they are linked to an increase in autism), let’s rush to legalize this too — without the research, without the information; so two generations down the road, Idahoans can also say “whoops, guess that was the wrong call.”
  • and to answer the stupid argument “it’s natural” … Dr. Grisel retorts, “so is arsenic.”  I would add that manure is also natural — but can’t imagine many folks recommending its consumption (at least in a truthful manner).

Bottom line.  Marijuana may make a boring life more interesting, but it also has consequences — some we know and others to be known. I moved to Idaho partially because of the legalization of marijuana in my former state. I saw what it was doing to the society (nothing good) and saw what it did to neighbor kids. They destroyed themselves.  Within months, they moved to stronger drugs, left their families — and all the while claiming “it’s natural.”  Well, frankly, they would have been better off smoking manure. I hope Idaho is smart enough to wait and see and is suspicious of the method used by Soros and his ilk. 1. Legalize medical marijuana, then 2. Open Pandora’s box.  No control.  Just consequences.

Dear Legislators, Beware what you make legal, people will think it is right.

Sincerely,

Kim Piotrowski
Marsing, ID

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

8 Comments on No Legalized Pot In Idaho

  1. While I appreciate Redoubt News’ will publish views from various perspectives held within the Redoubt area’s society, I truly feel that someone should rebut the nonsense published by Kim Piotrowski, lest some well-meaning citizens reading here naively hop on a runaway train of ignorance.
    With the readers’ indulgence I must begin from way out there in left field, so as to create some context with which to grasp some often-times overlooked subtle nuances underlying the arguments both for and against legalization of the wicked weed. Bear with me and I promise to connect this all up.
    From known history we notice that in 1947 the CIA was created by the “National Security Act of 1947”. By 1949, that Act had been amended to create at the White House something called the “National Security Council” (NSC), which was where G.H.W. Bush (41), as President Reagan’s vice president, placed a go-getter Marine named Oliver North, who brought in some of the Viet Nam war’s Phoenix Program assassins such as Poindexter and Rodriguez. Those are some of the characters, along with a young Governor of Arkansas named Bill Clinton, who imported into Arkansas (not to mention Los Angeles and Florida), on government-owned aircraft (believe it or not), with the assistance of the DEA, the FBI, and the ATF, more than twenty tons of cocaine. The importation of all that cocaine into America was a project operated clandestinely by the NSC at the White House under Reagan. Its existence surfaced during Senate hearings on the war crimes committed by our government while running its Iran-Contra clandestine program.
    But by the time the National Security Act of 1947 which had created the CIA was fully fleshed out in 1949, the Act had not only created the NSC but also had been modified to create a really cute little abstraction called the “Black Budget”. (Keep reading please – I promise to connect this up for Kim Piotrowski.)
    On the morning of September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11’s black operation which destroyed the World Trade Center and blew away that section of the Pentagon where the proof of what Donald Rumsfeld had just announced on the 10th, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced to the world that the Pentagon had lost $2.3 Trillion dollars during the previous year.
    Proof: (one minute video) https://youtu.be/E12b4V1ilmg
    Analysis: (five minute video) https://youtu.be/j4dzECaBxFU
    I have been asking for years if anyone can tell me how it came to be that the Pentagon, with a budget of somewhere around a half-trillion dollars for one year, could lose 2.3 trillion dollars during that same year. I mean, where did that money come from? Congress certainly did not give the Pentagon an additional 2.3 trillion dollars, so where did it come from? Who did give that money to the Pentagon, eh? Of course we know it came from that Black Budget which the National Security Act of 1947/49 created. And where, we must also ask, did the Black Budget come up with over two trillion dollars to launder at the Pentagon? Well, the unspoken trick about the Black Budget is that the CIA has to earn it by doing illegal things, such as doing a huge international arms trading business, laungering all sorts of black market deals, and, walah! – by directing the international illegal drug trade.
    Proof: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wachovia-settlement-idUSTRE62G35720100317
    “Wachovia pays $160 million to settle drug money probe”
    “Sloman said a “systematic” failure by Wachovia, now a unit of Wells Fargo & Co, to maintain effective anti-money laundering (AML) controls had led to more than $400 billion in unmonitored funds being channeled to accounts at the bank between 2004 and 2007 by currency exchange houses in Mexico, mostly through wire transfers
    He added this money included millions of dollars that were used by Mexican and Colombian cartels to purchase airplanes in the United States for cross-border drug trafficking operations, according to a U.S. investigation lasting more than four years, which also involved the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).“
    (end quote)
    More Proof: Federation of American Scientists’ archive of the US Senate Investigation of BCCI –
    https://fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/
    BCCI was the CIA’s go-to bank for international money laundering, gun running, and drug distribution which was busted for doing such things.

    So the answer to my question is the so-called “War on Drugs”, of course.
    Now you can know why the government has a vested interest in keeping all drugs “regulated” and/or “illegal”. Especially the psychedelic drugs such as magic mushrooms, peyote cactus buttons, and marijuana. Such drugs enhance awareness of mental states, and anyone with an enhanced mental state perception is quite likely to question authority, especially when the “authorities” put him in jail for smoking a weed.
    But there is another question – Where did those two trillion dollars go? While I cannot prove anything about where that money went, I can in good conscience assure you that some of that money went to our Universities, notably to science labs where government (or CIA) sponsored “studies” are done in the name of “science”. Such illicitly funded “studies” are heavily influenced by the needs of the funding’s sources, be it “government” or be it the CIA, which arguably now controls too much of Wall Street and the U.S. Federal government and has its hooks in our State legislatures as well.

    The “science” to which Judith Gridel alludes in her article “Pot Holes”, to which you linked in your article above, is, and always has been, skewed by the financial needs of biology departments, physiology departments, cultural anthropology departments, and many other departments, who direly need outside funding for many of their projects. A fat wad of cash from the CIA’s Black Budget looks very tempting to the faculty and staff of countless Universities, many of whom are only too eager to take the money and produce the sort of findings (they call them scientific facts) which the cash donors need for their propaganda purposes.
    It is well known that our government is keenly interested in just what you and I perceive, and spends huge sums of money in its efforts to influence our “perception”. If you need proof of that, just leave me a question in the comments thread under this article.

    I have read that article, “Pot Holes” by Judith Gridel, to which you allude. Here are a couple of excerpts which should water down your own initial interpretations of the import of that article.

    (Quoting)
    “It’s true that a lack of benefit, or even a risk for addiction, hasn’t stopped other drugs like alcohol or nicotine from being legal, used and abused. The long U.S. history of legislative hypocrisy and selective enforcement surrounding mind-altering substances is plain to see. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, the first legislation designed to regulate pot, was passed amid anti-Mexican sentiment (as well as efforts to restrict cultivation of hemp, which threatened timber production); it had nothing do with scientific evidence of harm. That’s true of most drug legislation in this country. Were it not the case, LSD would be less regulated than alcohol, since the health, economic and social costs of the latter far outweigh those of the former. (Most neuroscientists don’t believe that LSD is addictive; its potential benefits are being studied at Johns Hopkins and New York University, among other places.)” (end quote)

    And this one – (Quoting)
    “Still, I’m not against legalization. I simply object to the astounding lack of skepticism about pot in our current debate. Whether or not to legalize weed is the wrong question. The right one is: How will growing use of delta-9-THC affect individuals and communities?
    “Though the evidence is far from complete, wishful thinking and widespread enthusiasm are no substitutes for careful consideration. Instead of rushing to enact new laws that are as nonsensical as the ones they replace, let’s sort out the costs and benefits, using current scientific knowledge, while supporting the research needed to clarify the neural and social consequences of frequent use of THC…” (end quoting)

    So the article you reference is itself not claiming that the scientific community is certain about marijuana, but it is certain about arsenic and cow dookey. 😉
    But what you and I can be certain about is that the CIA got its hands on much of that two trillion dollars by overseeing the growing, distribution, and marketing of illegal drugs which THEY CANNOT PROFIT FROM IF DRUGS WERE SUDDENLY DECRIMINALIZED. Decriminalize all drugs and the damned Black Budget goes away. With it will also disappear much University laboratory nonsense, such as the old stand-by adage touted by the media and press in the 1960s and 1970s which claimed that LSD will damage chromosomes – a blatant government lie.
    That is one damn good reason to decriminalize – not just “legalize” so State governments can tax the stuff, but to flat out “decriminalize” all the way, so that government does not abuse its “authority” by claiming to own our bodies. Let’s look at that angle now.

    There is one extremely important consideration which Statists always, invariably, (but wrongly), overlook in their zeal to use the force and power of government to regulate their good neighbors’ behavior and life-styles. That is this —
    Nowhere in the national Constitution, nor in any State constitution, is any government authorized to own our bodies. That authorization does not exist. If anyone or any corporate entity or any government entity claims some authority to own my body, I shall oppose that mightily. My body belongs to my soul, and my soul belongs to its creator, which is not any man-made government and is not any man-made corporate dynasty. To back up my claim about that I simply refer to Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, wherein he speaks of our “Unalienable Rights” which are given us by, quoting, “Nature, or Nature’s God”.

    I would ask readers to consider the validity in a phrase which I’ve been using for years — *”Self-ownership is the opposite of Slavery”*. If the self-ordained author of the above article cares to argue with me about that statement, I’d be happy to respond. As a soul who insists on my Unalienable Right to be a self-owning individual, I do not consent to any collectivist Statist body of governing idiots who in their pontificating vanity and endless egoism try to tell me what I will or will not put into my body. To assume some non-existent authority to regulate my physical intake is to assume ownership over my body. If I am not the owner of my body, then I am a slave. That is simply true.

    Now this is getting to be too long for one comment, but I’m not done. Therefore, as soon as I get caught up on my work here at my place, I will reply to my own comment and address a very important part of Kim Piotrowsky’s article – the societal effect of millions of American people smoking their pot. I know a little bit about that, because I’ve been smoking pot for half a century. Next year will mark the fiftieth year since I discovered the amazing benefits of smoking pot. I will get into that in my next comment. Thank you for reading.
    Salute!
    Elias Alias

      • @Steven Feil —
        Please do say which “facts” I’ve included in my comment above are not “believable”. Please give me at least one or two of my statements above which you can rebut or disprove. Thank you.
        Salute!
        Elias Alias

  2. It sounds as though Elias and I can remember a time when there was no weed – if we’d even heard of reefer back then, it was the stuff of jazz musicians and beatniks, and was certainly unknown in the typical daydream of our towns. When it hit the streets circa 1966 or so, we certainly never let it being illegal stop us, and in fact, passing a joint came to be a ritualistic bond..The Sacrament..Need I describe how widespread MJ has become since then ? Like it or not, doobie is thoroughly embedded in our culture, and it is EVERYWHERE ! (I don’t even want any weed, and haven’t tried to score any in years, and yet I know of two places I could get some, right now)….Prohibitions against weed don’t work…they didn’t work back then, and they don’t work now. Kids will get it whether it’s illegal or not. Yes, like booze, weed can become a vice. Like Booze, weed can be damaging. It does not follow however that it should be illegal..Controlled, yes, but not illegal.As far as weed being a gateway drug, having to go to the black market puts our young people in contact with the same element who deal other, more dangerous stuff. It is unquestionable that people, and especially our young, should be informed and educated, But WEED PROHIBITION HAS FAILED..wake up and smell the coffee…

  3. From a constitutional perspective the federal government has zero authority to ban a substance, let alone a plant. I don’t see that prohibition at the state level, so Idaho appears to be on solid legal ground. The Fed Gov was smart enough to use a Constitutional Amendment to gain alcohol prohibition but has gone fully illegal with its drug laws.

  4. Kim P’s article is spot on. The best example for Not legalizing pot is look at the present Democratic progressive party and some of the moderates (RINO’s)in the Republican Party. They are prime examples of what occurs when you smoke pot. The so called “LOVE” hippy culture that began in the Sanctuary State of Kali4nia is what is happening today in DC. It is running amuck with mental illness.

  5. I would say from knowing, reading peoples stories, you are so wrong. Cannabis is already proven to cure seizures, or drop the number of them drasticly, it has cured Cancer, Co i think made something like 60 M in taxes last hr, i am 68 and have known people all my life who smoked it, from Lawyers, Bankers, Engineers, Mgr of a business, and the list can go on. NONE of them every used it when working, and are what i consider responsible people . Oh and someone said something about the progressive left well i don’t know a Democrat who does use now or in prior yrs. Not saying yu are wrong, just sayin my experience. All those who protest, destroy property may smoke but they would NOT be responsible either way in my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*