the very fact that they lie (cannabis)

 .. proves their guilt ...

   .. democracy? ...

     .. what eff'n democracy?


It's easy to tell the truth; one needs invent nothing, and the truth 'hangs together' because it is by its nature already a seamless whole. Lies[1], on the hand, require (criminal) effort, and the more and more complicated the tissue of lies, the harder it is to make them 'mesh' - (therefore, be sure their sins will find them out! And so it comes to pass...)


Try this one:

Drug adviser rolled over cannabis claims
By Europe correspondent Philip Williams for AM
Posted November 2, 2009 10:14:00
  «A row has broken out in Britain, after the chief drugs adviser to the government was sacked when he said alcohol and cigarettes were more dangerous than cannabis.
Other scientists on the drugs advisory council have resigned in protest, complaining the government is ignoring science in favour of popular myths.
When Professor David Nutt made his statements on marijuana, he thought he was simply telling the truth.
He said the drug was reclassified from class C to the more dangerous category B against scientific evidence, simply on the whim of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The reaction from the government was swift and unforgiving. Home Secretary Alan Johnson sacked him by email.»


Now, this is a bit more than just a bit serious. Drug offences can get people into gaol, if not ruin whole lives, and not even mentioning the associated, real criminality, namely those who purposely set out to profit from crime.

Enjoying marijuana in moderation and privacy is, as the scientists point out, less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes - both so-called 'legal' drugs. Also, there is *NO* basis for accusing marijuana as being a 'gateway' to heroin - etc. etc. & blah, blah. All this is known and accepted by rational actors almost everywhere. Most 'people out in the streets' (sheople) know this, as does almost everyone who has tried 'inhaling' marijuana.

So, the question must be asked (over and over) Q: Why does the government pursue and persecute marijuana use? It simply makes no sense whatsoever, and criminalizes people who just want to have a bit of at least relatively harmless fun.


PS Democracy = government of, by & for the people. Any government doing what the so-called 'democratic' UK, US & Aus governments do, here namely criminalizing relatively harmless marijuana use, is setting out to unjustly persecute their own electors - a clear violation of democratic fundamentals, and more specifically, violating the democratic covenant.

Only just law can be respected; as the UK, US & Aus governments go about so violating the rights of their citizenry, they bring all of democratic government, the law and themselves into disrepute.

These governments, the UK, US & Aus (and even more so, Israel) perform criminal acts like invading countries in order to steal (Palestine for people's land, water - and lives), Afghanistan (pipelines), and Iraq (oil). But they don't stop there, they stick their filthy, busy-body noses into people's sex-lives (anti-gay, say) - and into relatively harmless recreational pursuits.

Q1: Why? Q2: Who benefits?

A: To both, certainly not us, we the sheople.

Boo! Hiss!



[1] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]


  1. Sacked by the government for saying what he, as a scientist studying the issue closely, considers to be true! That's outrageous. It's dangerous. It's anti-democratic.

  2. The big issue here isn't about people using cannabis, it's about our governments not using science to inform policy. That a scientist should be sacked by a government for simply asking that policy in an area be based on science and fact rather than prejudice and politics is most disturbing. What next? Governments dismissing the science that suggests we better act fast to save our planet?

  3. I just read Professor Nutt's report, the one that so offended the British government. This passage sums up why MPs make such stupid decisions:

    MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’
    Professor Nutt: ‘Why not?’
    MP: ‘Because one’s illegal.’
    Professor Nutt: ‘Why is it illegal?’
    MP: ‘Because it’s harmful.’
    Professor Nutt: ‘Don’t we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?’
    MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’
    repeats …

  4. arbitrary law ...

     .. seen as 'ass' ...

       .. only just law ...

         .. can be respected


    G'day orana gelar,

    the banning of alcohol was tried - called 'prohibition;' all that did was to drive drinking 'underground,' creating two new classes of 'criminals,' those who drank 'on the sly' and those who supplied, with the latter creating/enabling a 3rd class of criminals, namely corrupt officials.

    Not a 'good look,' as the utterly detested Ameri-speak has it (spit, spit!) - so prohibition was 'rolled back,' and most reasonable people could have a relax. The criminal suppliers and the corrupt officials largely 'moved on' to new fields of criminal endeavour.

    The fact that marijuana is openly traded in the Netherlands shows that the concept of 'harm minimisation' can work; any nexus between cannabis and truly dangerous drugs (MDMA (Ecstasy), Rohypnol, ketamine, methamphetamine? Who knows what?) is made 'non-operative,' since the dealers in properly illegal substances lose the cannabis 'market connection.' At least in the Netherlands, most reasonable people can have a relax - and some do, by quietly enjoying a non-illegal joint, say. The economy does *NOT* have a collapse, and life goes on in a 'free-er and fairer' atmosphere.

    The fact that the scientists say that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes means that cannabis is *arbitrarily* declared illegal, and so by extension, any 'enforcement' is similarly arbitrary - which means under 'normal' human-rights law, not 'merely' arbitrary but illegal, not to mention undemocratic, unethical, immoral etc., etc..

    See, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Any and all victims of anti-marijuana laws should be instantly freed and well and fairly recompensed. Both creators and enforcers of anti-marijuana laws are breaching human rights - and they themselves should be brought to justice. Lock 'em up, and throw away the keys!

    Another boo! Hiss!