Respect Cannabis

Welcome to the informational roots of our Respect Cannabis campaign. The following content is informational for anyone seeking to understand the full depths of this campaign, but most online activity occurs at our Twitter location.

Responsibly jumping into distinguishing cannabis (the scientific term for marijuana) use from abuse to help avoid the latter would be wonderful here, and quickly allow us to help introduce cannabis education for the public to carefully exercise cannabis use as a skill for fun and better health.

That education is seriously increasingly needed, because formal recognition of cannabis legality is increasing with no sign of momentum shifting to the contrary – i.e. by any sane reasoning, Cannabis Prohibition is coming to an end for worst through best.

However, there is a deteriorating-but-still-enormous obstacle in the way that is seriously crippling that righteous educational move. Before cannabis can educationally grow properly, the public must continue to righteously press against remaining areas of that prohibition, so these informational roots of our Respect Cannabis campaign unfortunately necessarily includes information to help publicly expose that ironically devastatingly corrupt prohibition that actually demonstrates a seriously high risk and mass harm against public safety.

That devastation (harming roughly millions of non-violent people to varying degrees – including horrific ones – for several decades literally without any concretely proven and net-resulting societal benefit) unfortunately unavoidably prompts the insertion of a negative tone here. Maintaining composure is preferred, but there are some outrages that exceed a serious degree at which maintaining composure in light of such dominating outrage negates humanity.

Basically conforming to the 'think globally, act locally' meme, Respect Cannabis extends to its maximum scope of relevancy, but relies upon a national (United States of America) resonance for initial leverage.

Speaking of leverage, our campaign leverages the momentum of cannabis legality (thus the name Respect Cannabis) to maturely grow into intentional perception alteration in general, because relevant principles righteously grow beyond cannabis for public safety.

If you are uninterested in the sometimes unfortunately necessarily brutal details of our campaign, but still want to help us serve public safety (e.g. just righteously spread the simple Respect Cannabis message), then feel free to jump down to our campaign's Up programs for some recommendations, and/or (again for emphasis) simply socialize via Respect Cannabis at Twitter.

Our campaign is flexible for widespread sociality and varying degrees and styles of commitment. There are only two mandatory limits – always keep your actions and inactions legal (at least to avoid highly distracting prosecution), and always avoid annoying anyone to our campaign's detriment (i.e. never annoy anyone beyond the unavoidable annoyance naturally experienced by our opponents from our maturely righteous press). Otherwise, there are no limits. Have fun. Be serious. Share one post. Grow a unique branch. Spread the Respect Cannabis message while on tour. Go with whatever meets your style.

While the essence of these informational roots logically remains valid throughout posterity, certain details herein are subject to possible obsolescence due to scientific advancements, judicial changes, and so on. To the best of this author's knowledge, information here is accurate during the last update of these roots, which was October 10, 2017. Feel free to enlighten yours truly as possible to improve informational accuracy here.

Links are available under each sub-section title to facilitate the sharing of these informational roots.

Failed Solution

Legality (Introduction)

Before diving into our apparently and sadly fresh and unique angle involving legality (powerful leverage for our campaign when obscurity is remedied), there is a need to share our campaign's view on current judicial progress.

The mantra of 'regulate and tax' is very popular and persuasively effective in today's society (especially within cannabis culture). Hard work conducted within traditional drug policy reform is appreciated, and our campaign supports that effort on the reasonable basis that some legality (i.e. textured prohibition) is better than outright prohibition.

You can fittingly support our Respect Cannabis campaign, while supporting traditional regulatory and taxing efforts in terms of drug policy reform.

Legality (Scientific Constitutionalism)

You can also adapt your mind upon understanding the following facts that expose the true legality of this issue within the actual highest court of the land – the court of public opinion.

Our Fed Up program is the scientific constitutional area of our campaign – one that logically greatly expedites basically the salvation of the aforementioned millions of non-violent victims harmed by clearly abusive law (that abuse confirmed by the public record and ultimately pure truth).

Law is a critical (if not the most critical) part of our campaign. Law also has a serious impact on health, so remains a serious issue around these Stress Health parts – as boring and lame as the subject tends to be (a key tendency towards bypassing enough public scrutiny to avoid the serious mass pain from abusive law).

While the following contains just the relevant scientific constitutional conclusions that are necessary for these informational roots, the full depths of scientific constitutionalism can be freely read (no registration required, or such) at the informational roots of our Liberty Shield exercise.

As fully reasoned (including absolutely grounded) in our Liberty Shield roots, sufficient to say here is justice (by its definition) requires fairness, and fairness (by its definition) requires objectivity (i.e. pure logic).

In short, the fact is justice requires clear judicial language.

Another fact is governing facets of our society do not strictly honor that just need (to put it mildly) – which is why our society amply suffers from problematic prohibitions (among too many other destructively judicially applied stressors from unethical favoritism benefiting society abusers who sometimes inclusively trick too many people via the superficial illusion of public caring).

Legality (History)

After a federal constitutional amendment formally ended Alcohol Prohibition for basically the same reasons that should have prevented Certain Drug Prohibition (a.k.a. the war on [some] drugs), the highest level of our judicial branch of government instead decided to exemplify the serious judicial (and highly nationally controversial) problem involving the vague term commerce by applying the federal constitutional Commerce Clause (i.e. the 16 words stating "To regulate Commerce, with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes") to at least send the right message to children.

The result of that questionable (actually logically outright corrupt) judicial action is a major vaguely-defined war (fought for decades and counting with no significant sign of just remedy) over certain drugs, and as with any war, the resulting damage is widespread and deep to varying degrees (including horrific ones).

Cannabis is our prime example here, which makes sense for many reasons – one of them being that plant forms almost 75% of illicit drug intake (consistently according to relevant government statistics cited even by prohibitionists) – so largely is the target of the war on some drugs.

One side of that war claims that plant is evil upon interacting with humanity, so that interaction must be prohibited. Demonizing that interaction (mainly by unethically swapping use and abuse as needed merely for demonizing convenience) is their primary combat method, which has been dominantly successfully wielded by many people appointed to positions of community leadership throughout the past several decades (basically since the 1937 U.S. Marihuana Tax Act) to pursuade the masses to firmly support their cause.

The other side of that war claims cannabis is good upon responsibly interacting with humanity, so that interaction must not be prohibited, but encouraged in fitting cases. Publicizing an honestly devastating "slam dunk" case against the war on some drugs is one major combat method. The other is in effect prominently expressing the scientific fact that use and abuse are not only clearly distinct (as even ironically verified by the Controlled Substances Act itself – i.e. the fundamental national law prohibiting activities surrounding cannabis use by claiming such use "has a high potential for abuse"), but use is overwhelmingly dominant by literally any conclusive (not suggestive) publicity.

As the internet pressed upon the public, 'certain drug' prohibitionists started (and increasingly are) losing the war to sustain the war on some drugs, because the internet allowedly undermines their ability to dominate the public-facing 'podium', and those prohibitionists literally cannot sustain a single point in their favor. That claim is not immorally biased. Logically speaking, the war on some drugs is unconstitutional, ineffective, expensive, destructive, and unwarranted – despite the nearly complete absence of mainstream media reporting of those demonstrable conclusions (i.e. the mainstream media is unethically seriously biased regarding this publicly important issue).

The reason for that terrible and longstanding media bias is obvious upon scrutiny. Anyone tapping into the mainstream news instantly understands the overwhelmingly dominant source of newsworthy information is our government (especially law enforcement), because superficially impressive tragedy and government affairs dominate the mainstream news, so a serious (and journalistically unethically undisclosed) conflict of interest against the people's right to know too-often forms in effect state-run media in the land of the free press.

The general government consensus is the war on some drugs is valid, so the mainstream media refuses to ethically challenge that validity, because they refuse to bite the informational hand that feeds them (i.e. competitive journalistic access to government sources is deemed professionally critical).

Importantly note that a necessary part of our campaign is encouraging ethical journalists to take a stand with us to correct this serious demonstration (of reason abuse fueling law abuse) by challenging prohibition legitimacy in this serious (inter)national case.

Legality (Commerce Clause)

To firmly express the judicially key 'commerce can mean anything' point, most of the definition of the word commerce (i.e. those definitions potentially applicable for proper use within these informational roots) needs to be visible here for your reading convenience.

Commerce (dictionary.com): 1. an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce) trade; business. 2. social relations, especially the exchange of views, attitudes, etc. 3. sexual intercourse. 4. intellectual or spiritual interchange; communion.

Nobody needs a law degree to credibly logically conclude that the Commerce Clause cannot possibly justify this 'bigger and badder' sequel to Alcohol Prohibition by any rational judicial measure, and that remains a serious "elephant in the room" being essentially publicly ignored to the literally terribly serious expense of at least everyone nationally.

As the word commerce is obviously terribly vague against the need for clearly defined (i.e. fair, so just) law, judicial interpretation of the Commerce Clause (including entrenchment in the form of legal precedence) and consequent legislation 'roughs up' constitutional protection necessary for public safety.

That vagueness is also leveraged for more oligarchical power against the supposedly unalienable right to liberty – a self-evident and fundamental right supposedly clearly established, according to the United States Declaration of Independence, to prevent law abuse.

Ultimately and factually (nonetheless blatantly illegally), dominating oligarchical preferences (not your fundamental and unalienable right to liberty) defines your liberty.

Logically speaking, law abuse is the worst form of abuse due at least to its mainly broad scope of destruction, and is the form of abuse too often grossly publicly ignored to still unethically condone outrageous mass oligarchical harm against civility.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opened his dissent in the case of Gonzales v. Raich by basically making the same point:

"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

According to our Supreme Court, the Commerce Clause now allows (not always allowed) Congress to regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce. Critically note the absence of a constitutional amendment needed to judicially condone that shift towards that novel allowance.

Our highest national court also concluded (and repeatedly maintains) that merely holding a certain relevant plant in your hand has that effect, and therefore (long story short, and a wave of the magical judicial wand) ultimately we have Certain Drug Prohibition without a similar constitutional amendment needed for Alcohol Prohibition.

Returning to the aforementioned logically nationally unacceptable "elephant", your thought activity literally (so justly undeniably) forms all of your buying and selling decisions, so always has a substantial effect on commerce by any rational measure.

That completely sanely raises the urgently needed public question of whether or not Congress can regulate your thought activity in the "land of the free", while critically noting that externally controlling thought activity is a relatively quickly approaching technological ability, at least based upon current progress demonstrated along this front.

Due to the vagueness of the word commerce, logic dictates that a prompt constitutional amendment to literally restore and defend the integrity of our Constitution is inevitably needed to clearly (i.e. fairly, so justly) define actual harm (e.g. not merely holding a relevant plant in your hand) and allow government power to be solely applied against anyone actually crossing that threshold.

That negates the historically entrenched idea that civility in effect demands legislation based solely upon the risk of harm (at best with the understandable intention to prevent harm).

While harm can be measured due to physical factors, the risk of harm cannot be, so any definition of risk remains subjective, and therefore unfair – so unjust.

Legislation based solely upon risk also ironically raises the most serious risk from the "slippery slope" expansion of law abuse requiring generations of unethically victimized citizens to uproot (if not inclusively outright revolt against, as was the American revolutionary case) as too often historically demonstrated – e.g. "lawful" discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, and so tragically on.

The bottom legal line with unavoidable disrespect to Certain Drug Prohibition is "Reefer Madness" has demonstrably been "Law Madness" (ignited from "Reason Madness") the entire time, so prompts a very serious (and ironic) alert for American society to ensure actual public safety.

Ineffectiveness

For the horribly destructive price of law madness spanning several decades, society does not even have an illicit-drug-free prison system. That fact leaves the notion of an illicit-drug-free America at least arguably a powerfully insane one.

Illicit drug use statistics (including those outside of our national scope) empirically confirm that prohibition is not a factor in determining that usage.

On the supply side, even the prohibitionist United States National Drug Threat Assessment ironically confirms ineffectiveness by annually concluding that the interruption against illicit drug supply only leaves a tiny and temporary dent in that supply.

After several decades and counting, there is literally no conclusive evidence proving the goal sold to the public in the form of increasing public safety by way of prohibition is even being slightly achieved – obviously pathetically spun and insufficiently journalistically challenged statistical citations (and such) to the contrary be finally justly addressed by a righteously caring public.

Taxpayer Waste

What is conclusively proven towards "achievement" is American taxpayers finance beneficiaries from the war on some drugs to the tune of billions of dollars spent annually.

By the most conservative assessment (i.e. the United States National Drug Control Budget), that amount is roughly twenty billion dollars annually. Swinging the pendulum to the other assessment extreme, basically at least factoring in relevant prison costs, that amount is then estimated to be roughly 150 billion taxpayer dollars annually.

Our campaign is being fairly crude about 'drug war' costs, because regardless of which financial figure ultimately matches accuracy, and (by the way) whether you prefer that money remain private or allocated to other public sector programming, the bold point here is that enormous wealth of resources is being utterly wasted against public safety.

Black Market Success

Without Alcohol Prohibition, there is no longer a black market for alcohol supply.

Addressing the reasonably common prohibitionist claim that illicit drug users are to blame for black market violence (including innocent people outrageously forming collateral damage) associated with illicit drug supply, precedence by repealing Alcohol Prohibition clearly leads the way to refute that claim to the ironic contrary – i.e. people use alcohol without black market violence from the supply of alcohol, so 'certain drug' prohibitionists are clearly guilty against public safety in this regard.

While criminal organizations of all sizes will continue to operate even upon repealing Certain Drug Prohibition, cutting the massive financial supply line forming the uniquely massive profit margin from cheaply manufacturing ample illicit drugs and continuously selling them at seriously high prices compelled solely by black market forces would logically naturally provide similar benefit to public safety. That includes much-less resources to support other much-less profitable criminal exercises (e.g. human and weapons trafficking), and more law enforcement availability to sharply focus upon actually harmful crimes (including defending the many public targets vulnerable to immoral attacks).

Violently irrational religious extremists are also among those criminal organizations financially fueling themselves via Certain Drug Prohibition, so ending the war on some drugs inclusively instantly becomes a serious finanical blow against that horribly obscene group that involves the hypocritically immoral (as concluded via civilized and sane reasoning) and horribly violent lust for their religious dominance.

Even small gangs can (and do) leverage that relatively powerful illicit drug revenue stream to buy military grade weaponry and other forms of leverage against good governance (e.g. corrupting public officials, including members of law enforcement) and public safety.

Whatever number of uncorrupted members of law enforcement avoiding serious temptation (and condemnation by a relevant United States Government Accountability Office report) by the enormous amount of relatively easily attained financial resources involving the illicit drug trade – not to mention gang members wielding those powerful weapons devastatingly against each other at the serious expense of their own and their communities' safety – would greatly benefit by generally facing much less threatening capabilities. Facing a knife or even pistol is generally better than facing a machine gun at least in terms of survival odds.

Border patrols would also logically righteously negate the serious (if not deadly) danger of experiencing violence during any of the frequent illicit drug imports that prohibition ironically unintentionally exacerbates. Anyone believing that a great border wall is the right solution instead should understand those imports come underground, on land (e.g. through border crossings), flying over the border (e.g. by small drones), via fast boats obviously on water, and even under water via submarines (all increasingly relying upon robotics nonetheless), so that belief is demonstrably absurd.

Destruction

Over the span of decades and counting, millions (if not billions) of non-directly-harming (so actually sanely innocent) lives have been ironically actually harmed to varying degrees by what can only be sanely defined as sanctioned thuggery and persecution of yet another minority in the "land of the free".

Those degrees include unethically imposing criminal records (even for merely being caught smoking a joint) adversely affecting the achievement of critical financial resources (including those from being gainfully employed, and those in the form of financial aid towards formal education), through harm from inaccurate police raids (e.g. a baby being horribly burned, family pets being shot, major psychological scarring for innocent people of any age, and so on), through jail/prison/"treatment" time (obviously applying varying degrees, including severe ones, of unhealthy stress – which is well-known to ironically be the true cause of any form of abuse), through deadly ones (e.g. a terribly sick individual finding relief from medical cannabis dying behind bars from gross judicial negligence).

Destruction by Certain Drug Prohibition ripples uncontrollably outwards by applying varying degrees (including severe ones) of unhealthy stress upon loved ones, and consequently our community at large.

By any sane (and broadly unethically unreported) measure, the war on some drugs is actually a horribly pitifully selfish and perpetual war on liberty (and inextricably people) – grossly hypocritically in the "land of the free" to supposedly send the right message to children.

Prohibition proponents often present anecdotes of certain severe cases of drug abuse as a justification for their Certain Drug Prohibition cause ("alltheless" deceive the public into believing that severe abuse equals all use), but even those anecdotes equally confirm that prohibition failed in those cases.

Those proponents are accountable for destruction from drug abuse, because they brutally tie the hands of logically (not questionably) qualified experts to deal with what sanity clearly demonstrates is fundamentally a health – not criminal – issue.

Such experts include:

  • scientists working to better understand the complexities of perception alteration by drug intake (not leveraged by grant money to "scientifically" find harm to justify Certain Drug Prohibition).
  • people familiar with the distinction between use and abuse by way of serious experience without being able to leverage that necessary credibility to properly educate that distinction for public safety (due to possible legal liability).
  • actual drug abuse treatment experts understanding that absolute sobriety is not necessarily the healthiest solution in all cases – not to mention understanding that alcohol is a drug, scientifically speaking, so saying "alcohol and drugs" or such (as too many self-proclaimed drug abuse treatment experts and other questionable individuals state) is ultimately ridiculous.

Dominance

There is no valid reason to oppose a healthy preference for sobriety, or even the slight deviation from pure sobriety by reasonable consumption of caffeine, alcohol, and/or any other popular drug (e.g. over-the-counter pain reliever) – all to best sustain the critical individual balance necessary for survival and "thrival".

However, the notion that absolute sobriety equals superiority is undeniably wrong as ironically proven by the war on some drugs.

Absolute sobriety proponents spanning several decades have challenged cannabis culture by leveraging vastly superior financial resources, weaponry, government support, public support, and mainstream media support (all on an international level).

The undeniable result is cannabis culture (actually psychedelic culture in general) is not only surviving that continuous onslaught, but thriving against it with no sign of shifting momentum to the contrary (based upon the whole truth and nothing but) – epitomizing their (our) hard-earned respect at least within the "home of the brave".

An iconic example of cannabis culture strength is Tommy Chong. Playing the quintessential stereotypical "loser" pothead in the classic "Cheech & Chong" comedy duo, among his popular experiences, Mr. Chong survived prostate cancer ("On July 15, 2012 Chong tweeted that the hemp oil treatment he'd been using to cure his cancer was effective and that he is '99% cancer free.'") and nine months of prison time (abhorrently sent there merely for his family connection to selling glass pipes – "Chong agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute drug paraphernalia in exchange for non-prosecution of his wife, Shelby, and his son, Paris.") to eventually end up on the American mainstream program "Dancing with the Stars", where he impressively reached the semi-final round at the age of 76 (crushing the age record in the process, despite – if not logically due in part to – his proudly confessed "stoner" status).

Abuse

Cannabis can be (and sometimes is) abused to varying degrees (including seriously crippling ones), so there is a justification for better understanding this complex psychedelic plant and accurately publicly communicating the risk of cannabis use to oppose abuse.

Moreover, to address the 'What about heroin?' folks likely working against our Respect Cannabis campaign, the heroin abuse problem needs proper perspective.

As already basically stated above, even 'certain drug' prohibitionists sometimes cite the annual United States National Survey on Drug Use and Health as a credible conclusion regarding illicit drug use nationally.

Years ago (circa 2007), several years of data from that survey was scrutinized by yours truly. The relevant table was (and apparently still is) titled "Illicit drug use in the past month among individuals aged 12 or older", because that logically presses maximally close to current illicit drug use (the only necessary focal point in this case).

Back then, the data was consistent each year. About 8% of Americans use illicit drugs, according to that steadiness. That percentage has slightly moved up to about 9% in the latest examined survey in this case (2013), and suffice it to say, there is no reason to believe that steadiness instead fluctuated during that nudge. That means about 91% of Americans do not use illicit drugs at all, so when we hear about the serious problem (a.k.a. "scourge" and "epidemic", too often according to the mainstream media) of illicit drug abuse (and the constant demand for many billions of taxpayer dollars spent annually to support proponents of that demand), we are hearing a highly questionable demand that is never even close to sufficiently publicly scrutinized – that monstrously abusive reasoning by the mainstream media is ironically the true scourge and epidemic against public safety in this (inter)nationally serious case.

About 73% of that mere 8-9% of all illicit drug use is cannabis use (according to that steadiness), so in addition to the war on some drugs mainly being a war on cannabis (at least based upon those statistics), heroin use falls within about 2% of the American population.

Thankfully for the sake of statistical reporting convenience here, that survey explicitly sets that heroin use percentage at 0.1%.

Finally, unlike deceptive prohibitionist posturing, science (and even the law itself) distinguishes between use and abuse (even in the case of heroin – an opioid painkiller invented by Bayer – yes, that Bayer), so logically abuse constitutes an even lower percentage, because our focus is upon a "Use" survey here.

If we factor in the dependency rate of heroin, as reported by the prestigious Institute of Medicine in their report titled "Marijuana and medicine: assessing the science base" and commissioned by the obviously prohibitionist White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (i.e. 23% in their dependency rate comparison table), then heroin abuse falls well below even 0.1% of the American population, because if there is no dependency that disrupts righteous individual balance, then there logically is no harm (so no abuse).

Importantly note, by the way, that same report concluded that cannabis dependency is "generally mild" with a low dependency rate of only 9% (compared to 15% for alcohol, and 32% for tobacco). That report also debunked the cannabis is a "gateway drug" theory (while common sense concludes that alcohol is a gateway drug, and milk is a gateway drink to alcohol).

Never to be lazy about it, but you get the point. Heroin (and other illicit drug) abuse occurs from the overwhelmingly minority of drug intake instances, so not the 'society-destroying virus' that people seriously financially benefiting from its prohibition need to unethically scare you into believing.

As they also believe that use is automatically harmful, despite the absence of conclusive science verifying that belief (at least for most illicit drugs – certainly cannabis), they consequently believe an increase in use is automatically publicly dangerous.

They act as if illicit drugs somehow convert even happily sober people into contagious drug zombies (or such), blatantly despite the respectable combination of survival instinct, common sense, and the scientific method to the contrary.

Factually speaking, the whole Certain Drug Prohibition industry is abusively purely lies and fear-driven to in effect steal money from taxpayers – ironically the macrocosm of the stereotypical heroin abuser lying and stealing to get a fix.

Supporters of that disgustingly hypocritical industry exemplify the mass harm from reason abuse, so grossly powerfully demonstrate why improving language towards clear (so just) law is undeniably necessary to prevent law abuse – the form of abuse genuinely warranting literally the most serious public concern.

Market Saturation Theory

Adult alcohol use in the past month is reportedly about 60% (according to the "Alcohol Facts and Statistics" by the United States National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism), so relatively much lower usage rates for illicit drugs during that same period are considered by prohibitionists to be sufficient proof that prohibition works.

However, drug law intensity (which has lightened in certain places over the past few decades) does not match usage statistics, so there is no concrete evidence proving prohibition sustains low usage rates.

The logical hypothesis explaining the consistent and low illicit drug use rate is market saturation has been achieved.

People demanding illicit drugs – logically a minority of people basically stressed out from an ironically excessively rigid mainstream insistence in a medicinal and recreational sense (including the understandable preference to avoid the unfairly legal and usually destructive drug known as alcohol) – have found risky-but-reasonably-acceptable black market channels to supply their fitting demand.

Also hypothetically speaking, alcohol sustains higher usage rates due to serious educational problems. Alcohol education is seriously lacking (e.g. this author cannot remember any formal education regarding the risks and dangers of alcohol consumption), especially when compared to the often-expressed validation of alcohol use (and even abuse) by protagonists within mainstream entertainment. In other words, combine that severely lacking education with that constant entertaining promotion (nonetheless with ample alcohol advertising – e.g. often during televised athletic events), along with the relative ease in obtaining alcohol (even for many teenagers unaffected by age-based prohibition), and that logically explains the higher usage rate for alcohol (including its continuously sustaining popularity among the "cool" people at least in high school and college).

With better education and entertainment involving tobacco risks and dangers (including the nearly national lawsuit against the tobacco industry that was broadly and constantly reported within mainstream news channels in the 1990s), tobacco rates have declined – without a prohibition (beyond the age-based one that still too often fails to this day as it does with alcohol).

Dominant Supply

"Law" enforcement (the kind who use similar quotes when saying "medical marijuana", albeit without truth being on their side) accomplishes their occasional "big drug bust".

To fittingly repeat here, even they in effect confess (inappropriately in tough-talking and 'need even more money' form) within the annual United States National Drug Threat Assessment that such hindrance is tiny and temporary, so calling a bust "big" is terribly misleading against the public's right to know.

That critical point is apparently always missing within any mainstream media report involving the "journalistically ethical" expression of those "big drug busts".

Moreover, the intentionally anonymous part of the internet often allows a drug dealer to even reach out globally, so busting such a dealer leads to a prompt replacement for sustaining that global reach – due to a high and sustained demand (despite prohibition) for drug dealers.

There is no concrete evidence to conclude that drug supply is anything but unaffected by Certain Drug Prohibition.

Repeating for fitting emphasis, our society does not even have an illicit-drug-free prison system.

Drug Alternatives

As prohibition compels black market need, users too often turn to questionable (if not dangerous) alterations of the drugs that they demand.

That includes the conflict of interest involving purity issues, because black market suppliers successfully defying prohibition suffer no legal liability from selling a harmful product (as legal businesses do – albeit only when our judicial system defies corruption), so they can unhealthily alter their product merely to increase demand, supply, and/or their profit margin.

Those alterations sometimes even include entire changes of a popular illicit drug (while unethically keeping the same name).

For solid example, "Hoffman grade" LSD (i.e. the original formula discovered and synthesized by Dr. Albert Hoffman) requires advanced chemistry, and prohibitionists can trace the purchase of everything needed to match that brilliant purity.

Instead of a reduction in drug use, a shift in demand and/or supply happened (and that shift logically still happens, because the ultimate demand is not necessarily tied to a specific drug). Some people simply switch to another drug altogether, while others consume LSD alternatives (even several decades after that original discovery eventually combined with prohibition).

While the original LSD result is non-toxic, one cannot always say the same for the alternatives, which can be rougher (naturally riskier) in terms of psychological impact, but also actually toxic (e.g. 25I – too often being called LSD – being a serious, and too often deadly, concern these days).

Moreover, instead of righteously valuing employees based upon (past and current) work performance, a coincidentally negative alternative to evaluating that performance is relying upon 'certain drug' testing. As such, instead of using cannabis (a safe product upon proper use, at least based upon the application of conclusive science to date – including millions of users spanning thousands of years without demonstrating any conclusively proven harm), employees understandably desiring to bypass negative test results sometimes turn to novel cannabis synthetics (i.e. non-cannabis products producing cannabis-like effects – e.g. Spice/K2) capable of having a dangerous health impact.

Those dangerously poor alternatives only exist due to the demonstrably dangerously poor prohibition mindset.

Drug Prohibition Addiction

Winning the war on some drugs to prohibitionists' proclaimed satisfaction (e.g. a "drug free" America, or reasonably close alternative) would directly instantly put relevant professional prohibitionists out of business (or would produce dramatic financial cuts – including job loss – otherwise).

There is a terribly powerful incentive for prohibitionists to sustain (by merely presenting the public illusion of opposing) the black market for illicit drugs and all of the mass suffering accompanying that sustainment.

Critically note that sustainment is factually happening during Certain Drug Prohibition with no concrete evidence proving that sustainment is unintentional.

The terribly tragic irony severely against public safety (i.e. the actual drug-related scourge) is relevant prohibitionists hypocritically and pitifully need their prohibition fix (regardless of their intentions) to temporarily satisfy their undeniable drug prohibition addiction.

To achieve their prohibition fix, they continuously lie to the public by proclaiming disaster will strike upon "weakening" drug laws.

Those drug laws have been "weakened" many times (even up to a few decades ago), but there is literally no concrete evidence confirming that disaster. Even those proclaimers in effect agree by refusing to ignite their highly visible 'See?! We told you so!' campaign.

In short, the intuitive and popular idea that drug use and abuse increases upon repealing Certain Drug Prohibition necessarily includes the assumption that prohibition works. However, there is no concrete evidence proving literally any effectiveness from that prohibition (precisely the contrary).

Forming that assumption throughout the mainstream public has been a powerful (inter)national ruse usually achieved by monstrously abusing the credibility that usually publicly is granted to our judicial community without question.

Civility in effect demands that a caring public maturely form an immediate and proper intervention to help those prohibitionists clean up their lives (and naturally help everyone else victimized by that insidious prohibition addiction).

To stay the hideous course is to grossly enable those law abusers, so they can broadly and too often deeply and terribly ruinously penetrate society for selfish "gain".

Actual Solution

Education and Entertainment

The still excessively popular idea that current policy exemplifies the best approach against certain drug abuse is seriously publicly tragic, but the facts (i.e. the whole truth and nothing but) firmly demand an actual solution – so not a literally horrible problem popularly and expensively disguised as a solution.

Justly repealing Certain Drug Prohibition is not the same as actively promoting painkiller (or other) abuse, despite the sadly popular and logically wrong conclusion to the contrary.

Similar to the cannabis abuse problem, the heroin (and other drug) abuse problem is obviously worth addressing for victims of such abuse (including loved ones and communities negatively affected by that abuse), but proper perspective is needed in terms of the national application of resources and liberty-infringing law to avoid any solution that ironically is more destructive than the problem.

As the too-often-violent prohibition grounded in deceiving the public by demonizing 'certain drug' users is obviously wrong by any civilized measure, society obviously needs an actual solution to address abuse in this case.

Reasonably prominent, continuous, and effective education (formal and otherwise) is one main part of the right and non-liberty-infringing solution to minimize abuse.

Responsible entertainment is needed for interest towards learning (i.e. for effective education).

Respectfully putting aside the logical assumption that you would never try a risky painkiller even upon legality (because you have probably been reasonably educated about the risks, and you do not need a recreational euphoriant and its inevitable and horrifying balancing cost that may compel you towards the vicious circle by returning to the abused drug – perhaps until death do you part), ending prohibition within civility means continuously finding proper opportunities to insert simple educational warnings by way of credibility (i.e. by people actually familiar with the subject matter without relying upon deceptive fear tactics) and avoiding lameness (i.e. be entertaining).

We have apparently witnessed the educational approach basically work already.

High school student rates of tobacco smoking were rising from 1991 (the first year of data collection involving that age group by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to 1998 when the trend reversed mirrorlike – a strong reversal coinciding with the major set of news stories then involving a major lawsuit victoriously against the tobacco companies.

In the adult population, tobacco smoking rates have continued to decline since 1965 (and also noticeably declined at a slightly stronger rate around 1998 after a softer rate of decline from around 1990), according to that same analysis.

The adult decline coincidentally occurred after the United States Surgeon General's 1964 Report on Smoking and Health, which consequently led Congress to require health warning labels on tobacco products – without a prohibition – for the adult population.

Meanwhile, the prohibition based upon age limits against high school student tobacco (and, by the way, alcohol) access obviously remains questionable at best due to how often those students clearly access tobacco (and alcohol).

Now consider the results from actively leveraging education that is entertainingly and fully honestly accurate instead of annoyingly preachy and/or relatively loosely connected with the precisely needed educational content for maximum psychological effect.

Probably no single entertainment effort can function alone in sufficiently educating the public. The inconceivably vast variety of lifestyles necessitates an educational insertion within all styles of entertainment.

That basically continuously expressed education would have been terribly expensive (if even feasible and effective) prior to the existence of the internet, but the ever-improving availability of global communications increasingly offers the most fitting remedy against that limit – i.e. the Information Age logically gives way to the Education/Entertainment Age.

Moreover, the same psychology commanding a powerful marketing industry (importantly noting that marketing is intended to be a form of entertainment) can be righteously (i.e. non-deceptively against unethical marketing tactics) wielded to educate risk management by conclusively proven facts without applying the 'partial truth = whole truth' scam.

Sometimes that positivity already thankfully occurs (some brilliantly valuable information exists in traditional entertainment) – albeit among a continuous bombardment of selfishly dominating junk information, which is like being essentially forced to eat a lot of junk food to receive minimal nutrition.

For prime example, product placement includes situations involving the protagonist using a certain product (the ad is indirect), but that effect can be applied to fully factually grounded risk education.

Apparently the same can be said for subliminal messages (that link goes directly to the results of an anti-smoking study described in the Wikipedia entry for subliminal stimuli), which are righteously condemned in the case of selfish manipulation, but may serve a healthy purpose in terms of purely educational nutrients that are relevant to the audience.

Critically note that forcing entertainers by law to inject that education only creates a nasty environment. As the Entertainment Age logically includes the growth of responsible entertainment (basically entertainers leveraging entertainment to honestly strengthen society), that naturally leads to scrupulous entertainers dutifully volunteering to add relevant educational material that is conducive to their audiences' appreciation (i.e. without sacrificing entertainment quality) as they deem fit to help society.

There sensibly may even be dedicated professionals (perhaps with an expert understanding in one subject area, or capable of coordinating a team of similar experts covering many subjects) providing consulting services for entertainers to help ensure the best educational insertion without sacrificing entertainment quality (i.e. without poor education).

Stress Management

The other main part of the actual solution against (inclusively drug) abuse is optimally achieving and sustaining individual balance via proper stress management.

"Researchers have long recognized the strong correlation between stress and substance abuse" – United States National Institute on Drug Abuse (1995 stress bulletin)

At least hypothetically speaking (and certainly fitting common sense), cannabis (like any form of) abuse is all about unhealthy stress (as opposed to healthy stress in the form of a proper workout or other strengthening challenge).

Abusive behavior is the process of compensating against unhealthy stress (basically imperfection) in effect mandated by reality.

In other words, balance is needed for stability/composure (which is required for survival), and imperfection negates flawless balance throughout any entire lifetime (i.e. no one can remain perfectly balanced throughout their entire life, scientifically speaking). Inevitably less-than-perfect effort (i.e. the inability to choose the ideal option) forms abusive results at some point within any lifetime.

A 'war' (actually an effective educational approach) against unhealthy stress makes societal and liberty-embracing sense, but unfortunately seriously remains too often ironcially abusively absent in mainstream circles.

That approach critically requires the promptest public understanding that a healthy rest ethic is equally important to the more commonly promoted healthy work ethic – i.e. people are too often encouraged to work more than rest, which creates a powerfully stressful imbalance creating all sorts of stress-related (including violent and other forms of – inclusively drug – abusive) problems widely and deeply against public safety.

Perception Alteration Basics

Cannabis is one perception alteration tool. Not limited to an impact by drugs, perception alteration can also be impacted by technology, spirituality, and logically any other experience shaping perception.

While ways to alter perception by drug intake are becoming more numerous (and we can logically assume that nanotechnology and biocomputing will introduce a vast new set of drug [or drug-like] effects that crushingly overwhelm any sense in applying the already-demonstrably-failed prohibition mindset), the basics of use and abuse remain the same throughout posterity, regardless of the method of perception alteration.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense for an intelligent and civilized society to focus solely upon continuously educating those basics:

1. Stay sober (i.e. avoid intentional perception alteration) upon feeling success during that state of being.

2. Apply understood remedies against unhealthy stress (i.e. apply work or rest as needed to strengthen individual balance) to avoid abusing any intentional perception alteration as a destructive crutch.

3. Understand at least the synopsis (especially relevant risks) of any method of intentional perception alteration prior to exercising that alteration.

4. Enter the "shallow end" of intentional perception alteration, and increase intensity of that alteration responsibly and only as fittingly needed.

5. Avoid activities that conflict with intentional perception alteration.

Science

Upon scrutiny of the prohibitionist claims against cannabis use (including following their rare citations to the actually unsupportive and supposed science behind their tough-talking affirmations), the fact is no experimental science proves any harm due to moderate cannabis use.

Moderate in this case simply means any use without reasonably conclusively proven harm – as opposed to the suggestively possible harm from what appears to be science, but (at least historically for decades) demonstrably fails to meet all of the key factors obviously required by the scientific method – that includes strain differential, precise intake amount, and intake method differential.

A dramatically wide variety of different cannabis strains (i.e. different perception-altering effects) are available by cannabis growers, so choosing a strain (or combination – i.e. "salad" – of them for more texture and depth) is basically on par with choosing music from the enormous ocean of musical possibilities.

To briefly return to the aforementioned scientific failing (actually a serious scientific challenge to be fair), given the possibly enormous psychological impact of cannabis intake, failing to scientifically differentiate between that enormous array of strains is scientifically reckless (intentionally or not) when psychological factors matter (which they obviously usually do).

To sufficiently understand the problematic and supposedly scientific environment involving cannabis' psychological impact, feel free to imagine a study suggesting that music may be harmful (or beneficial, if you prefer).

Emphasis on the words "suggesting" and "may" (not to mention "can") reflect that cannabis-use science only reaches that weak degree of results, while (apparently always) including disclaimers that state more research is needed to scientifically solidify those results.

Metaphorical study participants listened to whatever music they wanted (or had access to), so the effects of classical and death metal are equal (for prime example) in accordance with research logistics.

Obviously the psychological impact from classical through death metal is different, at least according to common sense, so condemning that research as junk science is already fitting.

However, also fitting is considering the remaining scientific factors in our music study metaphor, so you can truly understand the extent that cannabis research involving psychological impact remains distant from worthy scientific credibility towards proper public utility.

In our music study metaphor, that psychological impact not only depends upon sonic variations, but also listener uniqueness. Also note that one person's harmony can be another person's dissonance (e.g. classical music is not always more pleasing). Moreover, volume differences matter, as does differences between not only speaker systems, but also between listening environments.

As cannabis intake amounts are never precisely measured, but instead too often measured in "joints" (or such), which is highly inaccurate (e.g. joint size is not a scientific standard of measurement), even the amount of metaphorical music listening is similarly unscientifically assessed.

Note that a scientific measurement for a joint has been estimated (according to an apparently rigorous statistical analysis) to be 0.32 grams, but establishing that estimate occurred in 2016 (many decades after the supposed scientific analysis of cannabis use began), and repeating for emphasis that such measurement is merely an estimate (not a rigorous scientific measurement of this key health factor).

Our music study metaphor is terribly accurate when compared to the state of cannabis research pertaining to psychological impact.

In other words, cannabis science (like brain science in general) is within its very early stages. Therefore, empirical data in the form of millions (if not billions) of people using cannabis (apparently for even thousands of years) overwhelmingly (if not completely) without that use causing (not just questionably associated with) direct rights infringement – i.e. basically conclusively proven harm – should justly prevail to sanely prevent cannabis illegality and the ironically experimentally proven mass harm from reason madness horrendously expanding into law madness.

Although prohibition has demonstrated no conclusively proven decline (even slightly) of cannabis use/abuse over the past several decades of enforcement, prohibition grossly hinders scientific pursuit to better understand this complex plant for better societal health.

Wonderful people involved in actual science, but not junk/pseudo science inevitably skewed by abusing grant money (or such) to serve a selfish agenda, are not to blame for the aforementioned serious lacking of key scientific factors involving cannabis' psychological impact.

For actual public safety, prohibition must immediately end at least for this scientific reason alone.

Cannabis Compounds

There are 483 known chemical compounds in cannabis that can be separated into two categories; cannabinoids and terpenes.

THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is usually the dominant and psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

CBD (cannabidiol) is sometimes grown to be the dominant cannabinoid within a strain (usually for medical purposes), but has no psychoactive property. This major cannabinoid is usually far less present than THC.

Cannabinoids interact with specific receptors that are located within different parts of the central nervous system. Two kinds of cannabinoid receptors have been found to date: CB1 and CB2.

Anandamide is a substance that occurs naturally within the brain and binds to CB1 receptors. More naturally occurring substances that bind to CB1 have been discovered, and altogether with the receptors are called the Endogenous Cannabinoid System (ECS).

Cannabinoid effects reflect their interacted areas of the brain. Interactions tend to occur in our limbic system (the part of the brain that affects memory, cognition and psychomotor performance) and mesolimbic pathway (activity in this region is associated with feelings of reward) and are also widely distributed in areas of pain perception.

Scientists are still working to fully understand the ECS.

Terpenes provide the aromatic nature of cannabis, but also offer a huge variety of ways to shape strain effects.

By smelling cannabis properly, one apparently can get a good sense of what the effects of that cannabis strain will be like.

Reading descriptions of how a strain tastes also apparently offers key purchasing information regarding the effects of that strain (and generally serve the user better than vague terms such as uplifting, euphoric, and so on – which do not always line up with the user's experience of the described strain).

Strain Effects

There are unfriendly, neutral, and friendly feeling strains/salads (strains have character), so proper strain selection (i.e. carefully selecting a strain compatible with the user combined with the psychological impact of the user's environment) is critical for a positive alteration of the cannabis user's stress signature.

Therapeutic value is fairly easy to achieve for users discovering strain compatibility.

Importantly note such therapy can be properly combined with music therapy, aromatherapy, and/or more kinds of therapy for healthier (if not euphorically healthy) impact, so can tremendously help society better manage unhealthy stress (much to the dismay of anyone still believing that cannabis is just "dope").

One analogy that may help explain that healthy psychological boost to those of you unfamiliar with cannabis' effects involves the comparison with orthodontic procedures (i.e. using braces to straighten teeth).

The brain is a set of energy currents (at least according to mainstream physics), and those currents can become misaligned in (at least) one of an overwhelming number of ways (at least considering there are a scientifically estimated 100 billion brain cells communicating with each other to form thoughts, and so on).

As cannabis effects can be steady, those effects basically function like braces for teeth. Of course, braces can be abusively adjusted to worsen teeth alignment, and the same remains true for cannabis (by misfitting intake), so skilled care makes sense in this case.

Unlike orthodontics, cannabis' effects are not permanently set in place until the desired alignment occurs. Healthy cannabis use occurs in waves basically spanning a few hours each. Timing, intensity, and styling of the cannabis waves needs to be (at least reasonably) accurate (including possibly varying those cannabis usage parameters) for healthier mental alignment.

For example, a healthy person experiencing some unhealthy stress (basically the feeling of being a bit too tense and irritated) can mildly use some simply psychologically textured and harmonious form of Kush – i.e. a psychologically simple style of cannabis strain for a soft mental filter to (at least help) gently and enjoyably encourage (not coerce) a healthy calmness.

Importantly note such positive effect is better when the stressor is no longer active (e.g. an employment-related stressor, such as the unfortunately reasonably common tough day at work). Moreover, any responsible cannabis user could never rely upon cannabis as a permanent remedy for any stressor, if that stressor can be eliminated by a proper adaptation in life (e.g. favorably adjusting situations involving employment, relationships, and so on).

Also importantly note that some people may not have a positive reaction to calming strains (similar to saying classical music is not always more calming than more raucous sonic hits).

Another analogy may help, so healthy cannabis effects inclusively basically function like the Earth's magnetic field when it protects us from dangerous solar radiation. On the flip side, cannabis abuse basically functions as harmful solar radiation.

Cannabis effects can be aged by storing a strain for a longer duration prior to use. One can feel that age in a way similar to human age. Older strains can have a powerful elderly wisdom about them, while also feeling relaxedly mature. Older than that, however, and the effects become undesirably weak.

Cannabis effects are capable of forming a comfortable (if not also interesting, fantastic, and/or euphoric) mental harbor to protect the mind from some degree of hostile spikes against healthy mentality (basically clothing for the mind) at least for some people.

Naming Convention

There is no strict discipline when it comes to naming strains. As such, two strains of the same name can vary significantly in effects, which is obviously undesirable.

Naming a strain should focus upon one outcome – establish a name (perhaps via crowdsourcing) that allows the user to best understand the effects of that strain prior to using it.

Moreover, a strain should be identified by two factors. In addition to the well-established strain name, the grower's name (or brand) should be prepended to the purchasable strain (basically similar to buying alcohol).

Like wine, results may (if not likely, or even certainly, will) vary between strains of the same name – perhaps even by the same grower.

Storage

Cannabis should be stored in a cool, dry place.

Cognition

As temporary memory loss, learning, and other applicable cognitive challenges associated with cannabis use likely resonates against the sanity in supporting our Respect Cannabis campaign, sharing the understanding that a valid hypothesis exists to the contrary is paramount.

The brain (by all scientific measures) is a physical system, so (like any system) has parts that wear down over time.

For prime example, if you access your memory excessively (i.e. abuse memory, perhaps by "living in the past"), then you excessively wear down the brain parts pertaining to memory (that same wearing down problem obviously applies to brain parts associated with other cognitive functioning – including those applicable in abusively "living in the future"), so increase the odds of breaking those parts (e.g. losing your memory).

Cannabis provides a perception filter (or symphonic neurological lens, if you prefer) for worst through best (i.e. for best when used properly).

Cannabis indeed temporarily causes certain cognitive challenges – but largely, if not completely, fails to affect survival.

That is largely due to cannabis having no impact against wisdom – albeit a likely unfamiliar sense of timing does increase the risk of poor reactions due to timing problems. Therefore (as basically advised during any distracting activity) avoid the need for quick-thinking solutions during sufficiently heavy usage, unless familiarity with the effects of that usage forms a healthy correction of timing.

In other words, cannabis dampens certain cognitive functioning somewhat (from essentially no dampening during very mild cannabis intake through barely being able to do anything but remain seated – sometimes called "couch lock" – during seriously high cannabis effects intensity).

Even a minimally skilled cannabis user can function reasonably normally with minimal risk (even during a comfortably heavily intense session of cannabis intake – i.e. the maximum intensity that still logically easily satisfies the overwhelming majority of users).

The basic reason is skilled cannabis users can fairly easily adapt to cannabis' effects (i.e. perception alteration), especially when using a strain familiar to them – experience is an excellent teacher in this case.

Consumed cannabis temporarily prevents the user from accessing affected cognitive parts in full, so (at least helps in) preventing that excessive wear and tear against that cognition.

As already basically stated in the strain effects section (but worthy of emphasis via repetition here), proper cannabis use produces a symphonic psychological sensation basically capable of functioning like a healthy mental lubricant and stress harbor (like metaphorical clothing protecting your mind from 'within-skull' stressors) at least for some people. When fitting, that use is excellent for many mental applications during the healthy rest ethic when sharpest memory, learning, and other relevant congnitive processes are logically unhelpful (if not destructive).

Intake Methods

Smoking is still apparently the most popular intake method.

While there is no conclusive evidence proving the cons of cannabis smoking outweigh the pros (or the cons are unreasonable), smoking anything taxes the body to some degree.

One hypothesis is the act of smoking is a major cause of antimotivational qualities too often irrationally associated with all cannabis use. Logically speaking, the body allocates energy to recover from the more stressful (albeit still temporary) impact of smoking, so (temporarily) prevents that energy from being allocated to other productive tasks.

Edibles delay cannabis effect onset, and sometimes conflicts with a healthy diet, but they are convenient to consume and fitting at careful times.

The intensity of cannabis effects can vary dramatically between edible products, so great care is needed to avoid (perhaps obscenely) excessive intensity and whatever risks accompany that excess.

A major concern with delayed onset (and this applies to other relevant psychedelics, by the way) is anxiety over the absence of results during that delay, which sometimes seduces the user into (perhaps obscenely) excessive consumption.

Critically understand that being familiar with the consumed psychedelic product prior to any high intake intensity is wise.

Vaporization (especially electronic vaporization with accurate temperature settings that allow consistent, optionally including very mild, intake) is the primary logical recommendation as a healthy cannabis intake method, especially because it (at least) minimizes the intake of carcinogens.

To clarify, significant amounts (actually the amount is apparently unknown, but literally any amount is considered significant) of the carcinogenic benzene is involved in vaporization temperatures above 391°F. Users usually exceed that temperature for a more "whole plant" cannabis experience (basically an intake experience on par with the effects of smoking cannabis, but cleaner).

Benzene is already ubiquitous in gasoline and hydrocarbon fuels in use everywhere, so benzene exposure is already a global health problem (at least as expressed in the Health Effects section of the Benzene entry at Wikipedia). As THC's boiling point is around 350°F, and CBD has a boiling point of 320-356°F, users can avoid benzene and feel cannabis' primary effects by vaporizing at a temperature below benzene's boiling point.

Considering at least the anecdotal history of cannabis use spanning thousands of years without clearly defined (if any) harm, and the latest science confirming that (even smoked) cannabis use does not cause cancer (but apparently helps remedy it), benzene is not necessarily a serious concern in this case, so remains a mystery in terms of actual health impact.

With a significantly higher efficiency than smoking, so saving the user a lot of money (nonetheless much less costly than all other intake methods), vaporization will logically expand greatly during legality and perhaps even become the dominant intake method (especially as vaporizers sufficiently and inexpensively supply the "whole plant" experience).

Vaporization is the recommended choice for new users due to the minimal intake amount needed (thanks to a minimal tolerance of cannabis' effects) for a reasonably (and probably surprisingly) powerfully and responsibly satisfying experience.

Vaporization is also recommended due to user control possibilities that allow maximally precise and relatively complex shaping of perception alteration – e.g. carefully combining two or more compatible strains in a fitting ratio, and setting a fitting temperature to likely continue the era of entertainingly complex cannabis compositions as encouraged by cannabis jockeys (CJs) and other positive social pressures within cannabis culture.

Apparently the only relevant pill form is Marinol, which is 100% THC, so can produce a rougher experience (and possibly death) due at least to the absence of the other cannibinoids and terpenes necessary for a smooth experience.

Cannabis tinctures are for some people who prefer liquid dosage with longer duration (albeit at least usually not as long as edibles), but without onset delay.

Cannabis topicals have health benefits (e.g. localized relief of pain), but usually are not psychoactive, because THC usually does not reach the bloodstream.

Concentrates

Psychoactive cannabis concentrates basically provide advanced psychoactive experiences by default.

In its flower/leafy (unconcentrated) form, cannabis can be reasonably conveniently consumed to a degree producing serious psychoactive power, so concentrates should be reserved for people experienced with cannabis use to a degree at which they can tolerate (and obviously benefit from) that more serious psychoactive power.

Most people (even fairly advanced users) logically will never need to try concentrates.

People who build up a tolerance from cannabis intake (or desire a seriously strong psychoactive experience for medical or recreational purposes) will logically turn to concentrates.

Tolerance

Tolerance for cannabis effects builds upon a sufficiently high and frequent intake, so more cannabis is needed to achieve that same degree of impact (severe degrees of abuse requires the abuser to abuse cannabis simply to feel normal).

However, there is a usage threshold where that tolerance buildup remains thankfully absent (and based upon medical usage literature, even a healthy reverse tolerance occurs upon an even lower usage threshold, so even less cannabis is needed for consequent usage sessions of equal effects).

Staying below that wonderful threshold still allows for powerfully positive cannabis experiences (easily logically within the preference of most people).

Cannabis users feel when they are pushing beyond that threshold, and can simply abstain for a few days (or such) for restoration, because cannabis dependency is generally mild.

Alcohol

Despite conventional wisdom publicly entrenching the contrary, cannabis is not 'alcohol plus' (or such), so comparison with that latter drug can be terribly misleading.

Basically stated, alcohol kills brain cells, while cannabis does not – and cannabis apparently produces a contrary mental protection and perhaps even (i.e. scientifically suggested) healing effect upon proper use.

Alcohol causes disorienting and all-encompassing effects. Even one drink basically starts discouraging exercise – i.e. alcohol and exercise basically rarely, if ever, simultaneously fit together.

Although some cannabis strains combined with a sufficiently loud intake intensity can basically replicate the disorienting alcohol effect, comfortably respectably stable effects are easy to achieve with correct strain selection.

Even a reasonably loud vaporized cannabis effect volume (e.g. 70/30% AU ratio – i.e. altered to unaltered perception ratio) allows a reasonably skilled cannabis user to responsibly engage in (even fairly, if not outright, heavy) exercise with reasonably low risk.

Alcohol brings stupidity to even the wise, while cannabis never affects the 'wisdom' part of the brain. If a cannabis user remains wise while sober, that wisdom remains unaffected by even heavily intense cannabis effects comfortably fitting for the user.

Too many organizations within the alcohol industry oppose cannabis legality due to competition concerns. Wise alcohol companies understand the futility of that approach, and immediately leverage their brand recognition to expand into cannabis (by partnering with the best available cannabis experts to ensure optimal entry into the cannabis marketplace) and other legal recreational drugs.

Food

Any cannabis user is wise to understand that cannabis often compels people to consume (perhaps too much) food towards the end of a cannabis session (commonly called the munchies).

Cannabis is used successfully to control wasting syndrome in patients with AIDS and cancer.

Early science suggests a positive association between cannabis and body mass index, so an indirectly positive impact involving obesity, diabetes, and so appetizingly on.

Sex

Cannabis can sometimes feel like an aphrodisiac.

However, other people find cannabis to be a libido depressant.

Common sense concludes that maximum healthy stress is needed for optimal birth. While science is inconclusive regarding pregnancy effects from cannabis consumption, if that healthy stress is achieved without cannabis intake, then logically cannabis should be avoided during pregnancy.

Psychedelics

Cannabis is a psychedelic, and like all psychedelics (MDMA apparently being an exception due to its effects distinction), cannabis does not produce automatic-feel-good results (like certain other painkillers do).

Psychedelic dependency is generally mild (psychedelics are not physically addictive), and some people logically prefer to avoid (perhaps another) fairly to extremely intense psychedelic experience for the same reason that some people prefer to avoid riding a roller coaster and/or skydiving.

While applicable to any psychedelic (details withheld for brevity here), critically understand that cannabis can produce profoundly powerful psychedelic experiences (including horrific ones due to horrific strain selection, horribly overwhelming altered-to-unaltered [AU] perception ratio, terribly risky environment, and horrible mindset). Recklessly experimenting with cannabis (or any other psychedelic) is extremely discouraged.

Skill

"Stepping into the shallow end" of cannabis use (friendly/compatible and high-quality strain selection, electronically vaporized intake method, comfortably working up from the lowest temperature setting, low-risk environment such as staying home during healthy rest time, and having access to positive entertainment) is right for beginners – importantly noting that the same can basically be said for at least certain other psychedelics (although intake method may vary).

Too many people fail to understand that cannabis (or any other psychedelic) use is a skill.

Like any athletic activity, for example, there are risks.

Healthy stress rewards (perhaps including inspiration leading to creative solutions against societal problems) are certainly worth those risks for skilled users of any positive psychedelic experience.

Because psychedelic doses can controllably be extremely mild (producing effects that are literally even one tiniest step from sobriety), risk upon proper psychedelic use is basically on par with any activity commonly accepted by society.

The key is understanding that the dosage of basically any psychedelic is (perhaps a counterintuitive) small. For solid example, the original LSD (so not some questionable, if not dangerous, derivative or alternative) is measured in micrograms (not the common measurement of milligrams), so while one microgram of LSD produces no perceivable effect, it only takes basically 250 micrograms to send the user on an intense psychedelic ride. That has led to a rise in the popularity of microdosing (basically 10-20 micrograms), which allows the user to function well within the societal norm, while experiencing positive effects to a nicely mild degree.

Perception Discrimination

By logical necessity, our Respect Cannabis campaign cannot be righteously limited to cannabis, but also the growth of relevant principles beyond that plant to encompass perception alteration itself.

That extra growth includes exposing the publicly unhealthy hypocrisy in tolerating one potentially overwhelmingly powerful psychedelic plant, while users of remaining psychedelics (which can also be responsibly used upon high-quality consumption – e.g. DMT, LSD, MDMA, Psilocybin, and so on) remain unfairly (so irrefutably unjustly) demonized.

Importantly note that psychedelic legality would wonderfully facilitate the availability of only the highest quality of psychedelics, so no more rough variants in effect forced by prohibition against public safety.

Not only is cannabis already providing therapeutic value in many ways, but other psychedelics are too, according to researchers at prominent universities (e.g. Harvard, John Hopkins, Yale, and so on).

That includes professionally supplying MDMA (more commonly known as Ecstasy) to help people deal with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and/or domestic abuse, and Psilocybin (the active ingredient in Magic Mushrooms) is being used to help terminally ill cancer patients deal with death-related anxiety.

Psychedelics no longer strictly subjectively exist within the realm of human failure (as too often believed due to the constantly unethically broadcasted demonization against psychedelic use for decades), but help contribute to areas of culture and health (negative upon abuse, and positive upon proper use).

Psychedelic discrimination is part of the general hypocrisy (destructive against the credibility of the rule-of-law, so naturally destabilizing society) from allowing even the outrageously risky consumption of alcohol (even to the deadly degree called alcohol poisoning) without fear of prosecution.

Moreover, that discrimination logically grows beyond to encompass the obviously serious danger against the public from allowing community leaders (potentially having a conflict of interest pitting desire for power against the public need against that power) to determine which forms of perception alteration abuse are lawfully acceptable (and all of the historically proven suffering against the masses due to that too-often-selfish and ironically abusive determination).

That determination is even too often applied without sufficiently strong scientific support to justify infringing upon (the nationally unalienable right to) liberty that is logically equal to the societal flexibility necessary for the same reason that an athlete needs to remain maximally flexible – to optimally adapt to reality's possibly extremely dynamic quality by way of the liberty needed to experiment, explore, and consequently innovate for societal benefit (and the unavoidable risks that righteously accompany that liberty) – freedom is not free.

Respect Life

Respect Cannabis grows beyond humanity to actually respect cannabis (and any other relevant perception alteration source) as another living species.

Positive value from cannabis intake, for prime example, should promote gratitude in the user towards that plant, and encourage intake efficiency (use only the amount of cannabis needed and apply best effort to avoid waste).

A very small pinch of leafy material in a vaporizor with a fittingly small chamber is solely needed for anyone introduced to cannabis (and can even remain the sole amount necessary to satisfy many, if not most, continuing users).

Growers, without corrupting their growing results, should do everything in their power to minimize the suffering of any living species.

Poverty

Capable of a sufficiently strong impact by a mere pinch of leafy cannabis material leaves vaporized cannabis as an amazingly affordable stress management solution for people dealing with the harsh stressors involving poverty.

Instead of turning to the nastily crude (excessive risk of stupidity-enhancing, and even reckless-violence-inducing) drug alcohol (or other dangerously addictive such) to "manage" unhealthy stress due to poverty, financially challenged folks can find their favorite strain(s) and leverage the vastly superior stress-managing properties of cannabis.

That includes the apparently beneficial mental health effect from the early-scientifically suggested and anecdotal neuroprotecting and neurogenerating properties of cannabinoids – so naturally encouraging stronger communities better able to remedy the poverty stressor (e.g. sufficiently opposing whatever form of thuggery that prevents communities from achieving their desired civility).

Cannabis supply is easily capable of greatly outstripping demand (especially if vaporization becomes the dominant intake method), so excess cannabis can often be freely shared by reputable sources to even offset the financial cost of cannabis acquisition.

Law Support

Stress Health respects the rule-of-just-law and righteous folks (i.e. those actually serving and protecting the public) enforcing that law.

At least upon considering that unhealthy stress seriously threatens members of law enforcement due to the horrible brutality they may (often) encounter while on duty, Stress Health logically inclusively serves their healthy stress needs, and serves those similar needs of the other honorable judicial members who face tough challenges throughout the judicial system.

Our Respect Cannabis campaign is never about demonizing our judicial community.

Our campaign is about properly (including legally) applying enough public pressure to support the demonstrably uncorrupted judicial folks who understand their own terrible risk from internal corruption (e.g. lacking community trust and therefore support for police and even the rule-of-law itself, and facing far more powerfully dangerous criminals due to the massive financial infusion of illicit-drug-based wealth), so they justly promptly (and, likely necessarily with powerful public support, capably) remove that corruption.

Stress Health never encourages or condones any violation of just law.

Despite the blatant illegality of Certain Drug Prohibition (at least nationally), to prevent unjust prosecution/persecution, any information erroneously believed to pertain to illegal activity (e.g. illicit drug use) in our Respect Cannabis campaign (or anywhere else involving All Sines – the entertainment ecosystem containing Stress Health) is strictly expressed solely for the sake of individuals capable of lawfully using that information.

Actual Solution Conclusion

The full range of medical and recreational cannabis effectiveness has not been inserted into these informational roots, but all validations of such effectiveness warrant inclusion within our Respect Cannabis campaign that ultimately simply serves as a publicly expressed informational framework to ensure that cannabis (and other perception altering) use is optimized and abuse is discouraged (if impossible to outright prevent) for positive health.

Once cannabis becomes dominantly publicly familiar due to complete legality recognition, and remaining areas of Certain Perception Alteration Prohibition forever disappear in favor of effective (including entertaining) education, our Respect Cannabis campaign can be fittingly renamed to Respect Perception.

Precise Focus

Introduction

Our campaign is all about responsibly expediting the complete fall (like the Berlin Wall) of Certain Drug Prohibition into judicial sensibility to save millions (if not billions) of non-rights-infringing (so innocent) lives.

Before progressing here, critically note that our responses (actions, and so on) must always be mature, respectable, purely honest, and lawful.

Any international treaty upholding Certain Drug Prohibition requires national constitutionality.

Repealing Certain Drug Prohibition nationally immediately and necessarily (on constitutional grounds) in effect terminates our national obligation to uphold those treaties, and consequently removes the apparently most powerful driver of international pressures upholding that prohibition, so logically forms a reasonably prompt global collapse of that prohibition throughout (and for) civility.

Here are a couple of examples (with this author's emphasis) regarding that requirement:

Page 38 of the International Drug Control Conventions Ebook (PDF) states, "The Parties shall furnish to the Secretary-General such information as the Commission may request as being necessary for the performance of its functions, and in particular...The text of all laws and regulations from time to time promulgated in order to give effect to this Convention;"

Under Article 36 titled "Penal provisions" of that same United Nations document, "Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall adopt such measures as will ensure that cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and any other action which in the opinion of such Party may be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, shall be punishable offences when committed intentionally, and that serious offences shall be liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty."

To achieve our firm goal, a sharply strong response against relevant prohibitionists is needed – one completely undermining their deceptive position as credible law supporters.

In other words, logically righteously turn law to our side in the court of public opinion to instantly publicly take away the prohibitionists' illusion of credibility, so exposing them for whom they really are – unconstitutional thugs and reason abusers selfishly benefiting themselves against society (intentionally or not), so ironically criminals by any uncorrupted judicial measure.

That includes taking our topnotch case to their turf to righteously pursuade the wise and embarrass otherwise.

The following angles form the sharp and sole thrust of our campaign in terms of relevantly ending corruption.

Prove Effectiveness

As the mainstream media (inclusively journalistically) unethically refuses to properly challenge the effectiveness of Certain Drug Prohibition, our Respect Cannabis campaign must entertainingly fill that serious gap.

Ensure the public understands the fact that no concrete (so credible) evidence proves literally any effectiveness from Certain Drug Prohibition.

That is best achieved by constantly challenging prohibitionists to provide that concrete proof (knowing full well that they cannot), and then following up their response by immediately going on the firm logical offensive against their inevitable consequent turn towards sleazy statistical manipulation, outright dodging to avoid that prohibition-crushing challenge, and/or any other logical fallacy.

That includes always promptly challenging their claim of disaster striking upon "weakening" drug laws by insisting they launch their 'See? We told you so!' campaign after multiple demonstrations of that "weakening". They may play the 'too early to tell' card (if not turn to other reason abuse tactics), but maturely press back via the logical grounds that over a decade has passed in certain cases (e.g. Portugal decriminalizing all drugs in 2001, medical – and many prohibitionists believe in effect recreational – cannabis legality in California in 1995, and so on), so usage rates rising from that "weakening" would most certainly have already occurred (that proclaimed disaster would have certainly happened by now) if that claim was/is just.

Without that proof, Certain Drug Prohibition literally has no legitimacy, so this is a very simple and critical pressure point that must be immediately publicly applied.

Senior Citizens

Senior citizens have a lot to benefit from recognizing the constitutional nature of legal psychedelics.

They also form one of the (if not the) most powerful voting groups, so have tremendous political influence.

They are being (sometimes horribly) abused by a medical (pharmaceutical, and so on) industry that too often leverages this era's professional equivalent of prescribing bloodletting by leeches, or prescribing beneficial (albeit expensive) drugs with varying degrees of harsh side effects. Meanwhile in many cases, psychedelics can be responsibly used to negate that harshness with similar (if not better) health results at a relatively minimal expense (ideal for the many senior citizens living on a tight budget).

In addition to heavy unhealthy stress against senior citizen living, there is the corresponding heavy resource burden upon our already severely overwhelmed healthcare system, so this is no small issue.

Quality of life is significantly improved upon responsible psychedelic consumption (at least based upon ample anecdotal and scientifically suggestive evidence), and this message must be shared wide and deep throughout the court of public opinion.

That especially includes the generation on the verge of reaching senior citizenship, because they have not yet been poisoned by hideous pharmaceutical side effects in effect ruled unnecessary by legitimate psychedelic dominance.

The ironic tragedy is senior citizens demonizing cannabis users (and supporting the imprisonment, and/or other harsh treatment, of those users) are now being in effect imprisoned by an insufficient health press via harsh pharmaceuticals and other medical impositions (due to varying degrees of excessive tension and inflammation) that could have been avoided by lifelong responsible cannabis use.

Address Abuse

Improving abuse reduction without criminality logically presses against prohibition legitimacy and wonderfully serves public safety.

This section of our Respect Cannabis campaign focuses upon educating everyone about reponsible use versus abuse to oppose the latter.

Responsible entertainers (i.e. educators understanding the need to entertain for learning interest) are critical in this regard.

Due to the internet, the entertainment industry involving broad public reach is no longer terribly limited to cheap and easy content focused upon popular (lowest common dominator) embrace to reduce financial risk.

Educational nutrients can be commonly expressed in any of many styles via the enormous publication flexibility of the modern enterainment era (what apparently becomes the Education/Entertainment Age logically following the Information Age).

This focus also includes the promoted need to simply publicly establish a reasonably conclusive distinction between use and abuse for much healthier communication.

Use is always a harmless act, while abuse is always a harmful act. Substance use disorder (as opposed to substance abuse), using someone (as opposed to abusing someone), stating misuse (a pointless redundancy of abuse), or any equivalent would no longer be considered properly clear language.

For optimally civilized liberty, law, education, science, and health, a maximally objective (not subjective, or scientifically suggested) definition of harm is publicly needed as soon as possible, so society can stop trampling upon the rights of (i.e. ironically harming) users, and instead focus sharply upon actual harm (abuse).

At least according to mainstream physics, everything and everyone is purely energetic with science only dictating (via a law of physics) that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore harm will always be subjective, but that subjectivity can be purely honestly universal within humanity, and only that universal definition of harm (a result of purely conclusive science – e.g. murder, assault, theft, slander, and so on) can be a fair (so just) definition of harm with respect to legitimate (human progressing) law.

Up Programs

Introduction

The following offers suggested Up programs for organizing convenience upon promoting Respect Cannabis™, though fittingly creative adaptation is appreciated.

Note the aforementioned "TM" means Respect Cannabis is a trademark necessary to protect against any potentially opposing trademark by somebody else negating our lawful use of that word combination (and/or logo as displayed at the top of these informational roots fittingly btw), and as proper leverage against poor quality results against our righteous cause. Feel free to use – not abuse – Respect Cannabis trademarks and spirit in tune with these informational roots.

Stir Up

A campaign without any public support is a bad joke, so (in responsibly flexible conjunction with the following Up programs) the first need is to stir up that support for positive momentum.

Stress Health has limited resources these early days, so only reaches minimally into social networking. Feel free to raise Respect Cannabis support in your social travels.

Fed Up

Our Respect Cannabis campaign cannot thrive until federal constitutional law is restored to respect that drug use (and any other non-rights-infringing form of intentional perception alteration) is protected by the nationally obligatory unalienable right to liberty (which is judicially enforceable via a restored ninth amendment) by logical necessity to prevent the ratification of abusive law.

That restoration of the self-proclaimed "supreme law of the land" (i.e. United States Constitution) with powers trumping state and local law (via the Supremacy Clause) is necessary to expeditiously bring actual justice to all levels of our government.

This program is all about scientific constitutionalism, which is a new political movement meticulously logically (so fairly, so justly) crafted for genuine liberals, progressives, American (not pre-American) conservatives, and libertarians utterly sick of the rampant hypocrisy and other forms of discriminatory corruption in the name of selfishly securing power against public safety throughout our national history.

Supporters of this program are strongly encouraged to understand our Liberty Shield informational roots that provides a fully logical explanation (no reason abuse) to help the masses secure extremely powerful leverage on this sadly missing front in popular drug policy reform and beyond.

If there is any program that fully logically most likely leads to an extremely powerful 'Berlin Wall falling' effect (i.e. thankfully and maturely abrupt end to Certain Drug Prohibition), this program is most certainly it.

Dress Up

Buy our Respect Cannabis shirt at the Stress Health store at Zazzle.

If our community desires it (and we have the resources to do it), a yearly shirt design contest will become part of this Up program.

Zazzle products are generally relatively pricey (i.e. they are high-quality one-offs made on-demand with only a couple of dollars in profit for our Stress Health community), so in consideration of economic stress that you may be experiencing, I echo any fitting Zazzle sales notice to anyone tuning in with Stress Health.

Drink Up

Alcohol (nonetheless coffee or any other relevant drink) is a form of perception alteration that needs better public addressing to oppose abuse, so this program serves that serious purpose.

Step Up

Under consideration is the annual Walk to Respect Cannabis. If you are interested in this program, please convey your interest in any of the Respect Cannabis channels forming our team tuning, so we can generate enough support to realize this valuable event at least demonstrating that cannabis users are not useless couch potatoes (or such).

Listen Up

Psychedelics and audio can be powerfully compatible. For frankly biased example, cannabis users can combine that use with listening to Stress Health's audio sculptures, such as...

Because using a different cannabis strain can dramatically change the aural sensation, a serious (and assumptively fun) social component emerges.

One can listen to audio upon feeling the effects of the popular strain called Blue Dream, for prime example. Upon next listening (e.g. next day), one could then try that same listening experience upon using Thin Mints (or Grandaddy Purple, Sour Diesel, and so on) for a different ride.

One can even compose cannabis effects by "salading" multiple strains (e.g. Blue Dream, Grapefruit, and Purple Kush in a 50/40/10 percent ratio respectively). That opens the cosmic door for any fannabis of cannabis to often socialize about different strains (or combinations of them) for any given sonic experience.

Cannabis jockeys (CJs) could recommend cannabis experiences (optionally with other activities inclusively beyond listening to audio) – whether or not they are budtending.

Light Up

This program blends with the well-established four-twenty celebration (i.e. April 20) to enhance cannabis respect.

Considering that Bicycle Day occurs on April 19, this program extends back to honor and fittingly illuminate tha healthy bike-riding event that reflects the first time Dr. Albert Hoffman (who passed away after respectably exceeding the century mark in age, despite his LSD experiences) discovered the positivity of his first intentional LSD experience (actually, the first intentional LSD experience period, because the brilliant doctor unintentionally first synthesized non-toxic and brilliantly pure LSD as part of legitimate pharmaceutical research).

Moreover, and as exemplified in the Listen Up program description above, Stress Health audio sculptures usually have corresponding videos to bring colorful light to your psychedelic mind at YouTube (specifically, my Spirit Wave channel) – and along with other posted psychedelic content, Stress Health is playlisted at our Playful Skull's Videoverse channel of our Playful Skull entertainment ecosystem.

Smarten Up

Respect Cannabis has no impact without promoting a healthy mentality – what respectful and respectable perception alteration is all about.

Buck Up

In addition to your appreciatingly wonderful emotional and public-awareness-raising support, equally appreciated is financially contributing to Stress Health thankyouness.

Conclusion

Entertainment is needed to effectively promote any cause. Stress Health entertainment is responsibly applied to publicly inform the pros and cons of cannabis (and other psychedelic) intake and perception alteration in general to help work against abuse (the result of unhealthy stress).

If you believe in cannabis legality and use (nonetheless better educating the public about perception alteration itself), you logically must also believe in properly supporting the entertainment layer supporting that belief (responsible entertainment is required for effective education).

Thank you for your attention to (and preferably participation within) our Respect Cannabis campaign.

You are always welcome to join our Stress Health team to remain tuned in.