Please Follow My Pursuit of Questionable Things

Hi!

Thanks for visiting. I have changed locations! Please check out my new site at: http://www.questionablethings.com/ 

Best regards,

Larry Blucher

We're over there now, at www.QuestionableThings.com!

FBI Dumpster Divers Add to Police State Concerns

police state, n
a state or country in which a repressive government maintains control through the police.
-Collins English Dictionary

While American citizens have been asleep at the wheel, our republic has been running off the road of freedom. The past few months have been nothing short of frightening for those concerned about our disappearing civil liberties.
We've seen people get roughed up and arrested for dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, of all places! No-knock raids by SWAT teams on non-violent suspects are becoming more common. "Botched" raids with tragic results are becoming more numerous, as well. Especially disturbing is the recent raid in Arizona, in which police gunned down ex-Marine war veteran Jose Guerena.

Combine this with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Kentucky v King ignoring the the Fourth Amendment, and you have a full-fledged assault on our freedom.

Now, to make matters even worse, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has granted itself some more power.

This podcast has been brought to you by Freedom. It's expensive and is difficult to maintain, but it's well worth the cost and it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.

Civic Duty- America Needs You Now!

America is in trouble. Our elected officials are ignoring their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States and severing any remaining shreds of credibility they might have. Our civil liberties are disappearing. Our country is broke, but our government is still spending money like there is no tomorrow.

There may be no tomorrow for our republic if it continue on this current downward spiral. That is why it is so important for American citizens to perform their civic duty.

Duty? That’s correct. Freedom comes at a cost. You have a responsibility to maintain your freedom. If you leave it up to your government to protect your rights, you’ll wind up losing those rights.

So, you may wonder how in the world one person can make a difference. Never fear, Larry’s here with a short video explaining how to perform your civic duties.

That is mostly what you can do as an individual. If you do find a politician who you believe will uphold our constitution and help our country, consider helping his or her campaign. Keep in mind, there is strength in numbers, which is why getting involved with an activist group can be quite beneficial. There are many from which to choose. Here is a great link to help point you in the right direction.

Patriot Act Ultimate Verbal Sparring Tournament

Let’s get ready to rumble! It is time to duke it out over the Patriot Act.

It is amazing how many people have so much to say about this controversial law, yet how little actual debate our elected officials allowed before rushing the latest extension through. It is also simply incredible how many of those entrusted with upholding the Constitution sway from one side of the argument to the other like fallen leaves in a political breeze.

But, here is an opportunity for some of the most opinionated to explain whether or not our government should sacrifice the civil liberties of its citizens for additional security from terrorists. We have paired up some of the real heavy hitters for this Patriot Act Ultimate Verbal Sparring Tournament. Some of the flip-floppers will find themselves ironically matched against their own words.

Keep your guard up at all times. There will be no biting or kicking. However, hitting below the belt is encouraged. Let’s get it on!

Patriot Act Verbal Sparring on Prezi

You have the scorecards. You be the judge. After all, as citizens, you are ultimately responsible for protecting the Constitution.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

(Photo credits:

Caricatures courtesy of DonkeyHotey

Thomas Paine courtesy of pingnews.com

John Ashcroft courtesy of Gage Skidmore

Russ Feingold courtesy of Freedom to Marry

Ron Wyden courtesy of Freedom to Marry)

Florida Physicians Silent on Medical Marijuana

Tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana are pictured on a T-shirt seen in Central Florida. The caption reads, “Ask your doctor which of these is least harmful to your health.”

That’s a timely question. On March 10, 2011, Rep. Jeff Clemens (D- Forth Worth) proposed a bill to allow medical marijuana in Florida. Given the conflicting information available on the dangers and benefits of marijuana, consulting a physician seems an excellent way to get an informed yet unbiased opinion. However, getting a public response from a physician can be a challenge.

The Florida Medical Association has had two somewhat contradictory policies in recent years regarding medical marijuana. In one, the FMA urged “governmental agencies to expedite unimpeded research into the therapeutic potential of smokeable marijuana.” Another resolution stated the FMA “vigorously opposes any attempt to legalize marijuana as a medicine…until such time as its medical efficacy is proven through long established scientific and medical testing procedure.”

Neither resolution is still on the FMA books. A spokesperson says the organization no longer has any official policy on medical marijuana and will offer no quotes on the subject.

Photo courtesy ezioman

Individual physicians also appear content to remain silent. Several who declined to give their educated opinions for this story claimed, off the record, they were concerned about possible reprisal and intimidation from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The DEA says it has no policy of retribution and practices no intimidation tactics against physicians who speak out publicly. Chris Jakim, DEA Staff Coordinator of Public Affairs, said in a telephone interview, “Absolutely not. No one here is going after individual doctors…we have too many big fish to keep us busy.”

Jakim says the DEA does “conduct criminal investigations against doctors who are breaking the law,” but says, due to lack of staff, they are unable to “debate each and every one with whom we disagree.”

Mary Lynn Mathre counters, “Clearly the DEA intimidates, there is no doubt about that. If a doctor says something openly, they will be looked at.”

With more than thirty-five years nursing experience, Mathre has been deeply involved in the cannabis debate. She's the president of “Patients Out of Time,” a non-profit group educating health care professionals and the public about medical cannabis.”

“There is more and more science available,” she stated in a phone interview. “Doctors know in their hearts it is medicine, but are reluctant to say so. There is the threat of being investigated, so the intimidation is real.”

During her interview, Mathre insisted on using the term “cannabis” rather than “marijuana,” which she considers a slang term with a historically negative and racist origin.

A look into the history of cannabis reveals it was legal in this country for many years. America’s first cannabis law was in 1619, and it actually required farmers in Jamestown to grow hemp to be used for such products as rope, sails, tarpaulins, flags and paper.

Photo courtesy Squeezeomatic

In his book, “Reefer Madness,” author Eric Schlosser wrote, “In the latter half of the nineteenth century marijuana became a popular ingredient in patent medicines and was sold openly at pharmacies…as a cure for migraines, rheumatism, and insomnia.”

According to AllMedicalInfo.com, “the name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant's psychoactive use. The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s, which deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the populace against the idea that it should be legal, playing upon attitudes towards race. Those who demonized the drug by calling it marihuana omitted the fact that the 'deadly marihuana' was identical to cannabis indica, which had at the time a reputation for pharmaceutical safety."

The late Charles Whitebread, who was a law professor at the University of Southern California, studied the legal history of marijuana. He said one of the biggest reasons many states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana between 1915 and 1937 was hostility towards Mexican migrant workers, who sometimes used the drug.

The first federal law against marijuana was the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Whitebread says there were three bodies of testimony. Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger, speaking for the government, said, “Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." Next came testimony from spokespeople representing industries that were financially threatened by hemp. Finally, two pieces of medical testimony were introduced.

According to Whitebread, “The first came from a pharmacologist…who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died." The other testimony came from Dr. William Woodward, Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association, who testified, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug, “ to which a Congressman replied, “Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

Photo courtesy SMercury98

Scientists and doctors continued to study the drug. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia reported THC slowed the growth of cancer in laboratory mice. Shortly thereafter, President Gerald Ford banned public cannabis research. Major pharmaceutical companies were given exclusive research rights, but that research is very expensive and there is little incentive for the drug companies.

Dr. Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, has studied cannabis since 1967 and is not bashful about answering the question posed at the beginning of this story. Grinspoon says, “While it’s certainly not harmless, it’s much less harmless than alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is remarkably non toxic. In all the years that marijuana has been used, there's not been one single documented death from it. I don't know that you can say the same thing about any other drug.”

The federal government’s studies on marijuana have focused on possible harmful effects of marijuana rather than potential medical benefits, not always getting the expected results. It still classifies cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug with no medicinal value and has ignored requests challenging that classification.

Photo courtesy Melloveschallah

Mathre isn’t buying the government’s argument that it needs more time to study cannabis. She says, “Watch the medical ads on TV for legal drugs. Listen to all the disclaimers about potential dangers. But, they want cannabis to be perfect. Everyone should be able to make that choice for themselves.”

Mathre was one of the featured speakers when Clemens introduced his bill at the state capitol in Tallahassee.

At the podium, she argued, “We don’t need more research. We welcome more research, but the patients need this medicine now.”

Despite increasing support for medical cannabis, the bill is still expected to face a tough uphill battle. Jodi James, Executive Director of Florida Cannabis Action Network, said in a telephone interview that the bill, “simply puts it on the ballot. Considerable amounts of money would have to be raised. But, this resolution is great for starting the debate.”

Given the conflicting messages from advocates and the government, it sure would be beneficial if doctors would get more involved in the debate.

Is America Ready for Libertarian Change?

Ron Paul photo courtesy Gage Skidmore

Rep. Ron Paul (R- Texas) and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson are running for president in 2012, both hoping to represent the Republican Party. Their political beliefs, however, differ in many ways from those of the others seeking the Republican nomination. That was evident in the first Republican presidential debate earlier this month, when both Paul and Johnson expressed their Libertarian viewpoints. 

The question is whether American voters will support those views, which include ending the War on Drugs, bringing the troops home from the Middle East, not extending the Patriot Act, supporting civil liberties and downsizing the government. An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times recently presented several reasons why his own party will not support Ron Paul’s views.   

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party will be choosing its own presidential candidate. It has built an impressive war chest for 2012, reporting more than $284-thousand in cash with no debt, and looks in better shape to promote its platform than in any previous election.

The Libertarians have been specific on how they would fix the current problems our country is facing, and those fixes not only conflict with some Republican views, but also clashes head-on with many of the changes promised by President Obama.

Those wishing to follow Libertarian presidential candidates and the latest political news may find the link below helpful. This Google Reader, which bundles together a collection of media outlet web pages, a Google Alert for “Libertarian President 2012,” and an advanced Twitter Search for “Libertarian” gathers a lot of valuable information together and makes it easily accessible.

http://www.google.com/reader/bundle/user%2F01032395600033427656%2Fbundle%2FLibertarian%20Presidential%20Candidates

Bin Laden’s Greatest Damage- Economy or Civil Liberties?

There is no doubt Osama bin Laden accomplished his goal of hurting the United States financially. Just look at the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Using inflation adjusted “constant dollars” the Congressional Research Center provided these estimated war costs:

While falling far short of World War II, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined have exceeded the combined costs of Vietnam and Korea. And those numbers reflect only the amounts appropriated to cover war-related expenses.

Some reports place the overall cost on the War on Terror in excess of $3 trillion dollars. So, yes, the quantitative data tells that story very well. Painfully well.

What is more difficult to gauge is the extent of the damage to our civil liberties. One can’t build a similar graph depicting such controversial issues as the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless search and seizure, eavesdropping and spying on American citizens, interrogation techniques which many consider torture, detaining suspects indefinitely without trial, airport pat-downs, and expansion of Executive Branch powers.

Benjamin Franklin advised, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Furthermore, as John Adams so wisely explained, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” Despite the advice of our founding fathers, a McClatchy-Ipsos poll last year found 51 percent of Americans thought, “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism."

George Bush claims his actions in battling terrorism were not a threat to civil liberties. In an interview on C-Span’s Q&A, Bush said, “I worked assiduously to make sure that civil liberties were not undermined.”




Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional expert, differs. He described on his website how a woman was declared a terrorist under the Patriot Act after spanking her children on an airplane.

Turley claims in a USA Today article that “President Obama has continued, and even expanded, many of the controversial Bush programs. His administration moved to quash dozens of public interest lawsuits fighting warrantless surveillance. Both Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have refused to investigate, let alone prosecute, officials for torture under the "water-boarding" program — despite clear obligations under treaties for such action. The Obama administration has continued military tribunals and the Caesar-like authority of the president to send some defendants to real courts and some to makeshift tribunals. The administration recently instructed investigators that they can ignore constitutional protections such as Miranda rights to combat terror.”

This is certainly not the America that existed prior to 9/11. As Turley points out, the greatest tragedy is not what bin Laden did to us, “but what we have done to ourselves.” Without a precise means of measuring that damage, the question of whether bin Laden's greatest damage was to our economy or our civil rights may not soon be answered.