Uruguay has became the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana, a pioneering social experiment that will be closely watched by other nations debating drug liberalisation.
A government-sponsored bill approved by 16-13 votes in the Senate late Tuesday (local time) provides for regulation of the cultivation, distribution and consumption of marijuana …
More …
This is great news. 🙂
Cui bono.
Follow the money.
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (KJV)
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (KJV)
“Prohibition doesn’t work.” You’ve heard it before. I’ve said it before. (See here and here, e.g.) You’ve probably said it before, too. It’s any libertarian and/or drug law reformer’s mantra.
Prohibition doesn’t work. If it did, there wouldn’t be 400,000 New Zealanders who currently use cannabis, and people like Smith to supply. Prohibition has not reduced demand or illegal supply of cannabis. Only a sensible drug policy, such as that promoted by the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, can do that.
Vote ALCP – End the War on Drugs™.
But I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the claim that Prohibition doesn’t work.
Prohibition doesn’t work. Now think for a moment about that. Prohibition doesn’t work… OK. So, what would it be like if Prohibition did work? What’s Prohibition supposed to achieve? What’s Prohibition for? Prohibition is supposed to stop people taking drugs. Now, ask yourself, why on earth would you want to do that? Is it any of your business if people are taking drugs? How are you going to stop them?
What’s Prohibition for? The official line is that prohibition is supposed to stop people taking drugs. Prohibition manifestly doesn’t do that! That’s why I’m sticking to the official line when I give election speeches. Prohibition doesn’t work!
But what is Prohibition really for? We can find the answer to that by asking what an adaptationist evolutionary biologist would ask when trying to determine the biological function of a phenotypic trait. What has Prohibition done in the past that best explains why we still have it?
Prohibition is for protecting vested interests. Prohibition works.
Prohibition’s time is up. It’s throw a spanner o’clock.
“People that are Christians now, but were satanists, recognized President Clinton’s signal at his inauguration as a sign of Satan. That seems fairly cut and dried, and it is. Clinton communicated what he wanted to the people to whom he wanted to communicate. The whole affair with him flashing the satanic hand signal took only a couple of seconds.”
– Fritz Springmeier, Blood of the Illuminati
This is the first of four (maybe more) blog posts.
Manuela’s mother says she was, however, increasingly disturbed over her daughter’s lifestyle. Especially when Manuela had two teeth removed and had metal vampire fangs implanted. She was also taken aback by her daughter’s tattoo—an upside down cross on her scalp.
But the hand sign? “Well,” she said, “I thought it was like the sign the deaf give, meaning, I love you.”
“I often heard Manuela say she was not of this world and was a satanic vampire,” recounted her mother, “but I figured it was just so much silly talk. Just another way of living. After all, not every Goth vampire ends up sacrificing victims to Satan.”
My hypothesis is that Satan leaves his calling card hidden in plain sight.
Keep it metal! \m/
This post concerns the sign of the horns. Apparently, it was popularised by the late Ronnie James Dio.
Ronnie James Dio was known for popularizing the sign of the horns in heavy metal. He claimed his Italian grandmother used it to ward off the evil eye (which is known in the Italian culture as malocchio). Dio began using the sign soon after joining the metal band Black Sabbath in 1979. The previous singer in the band, Ozzy Osbourne, was rather well known at using the “peace” sign at concerts, raising the index and middle finger in the form of a V. Dio, in an attempt to connect with the fans, wanted to similarly use a hand gesture. However, not wanting to copy Osbourne, he chose to use the sign his grandmother always made. The horns became famous in metal concerts very soon after Black Sabbath’s first tour with Dio. The sign would later be appropriated by heavy metal fans under the name “maloik”, a corruption of the original malocchio.
Terry “Geezer” Butler of Black Sabbath can be seen “raising the horns” in a photograph taken in 1971. This would indicate that the “horns” and their association with metal occurred much earlier than Ronnie James Dio suggests. The photograph is included in the CD booklet of the Symptom of the Universe: The Original Black Sabbath 1970–1978 compilation album.
I can’t find the photo.
The “El Diablo” hand sign often is confused with the deaf’s signing of the phrase, “I love you.” While at first this appears an odd resemblance, we register an “ahh, I get it!” emotion when we discover that the person who invented, or created, the hand sign system for the deaf, Helen Keller, was herself an occultist and Theosophist. Did Keller purposely design the deaf’s “I love you” sign to be such a remarkable imitation of the classic sign of Satan? Was Keller saying, basically, “I love you, Devil?”
Frato Metallo uses it. (The sign language version.) But is it metal? Is it of God?
Even Pastor Bob defends the use of the “devil horns”.
Personally, I don’t feel comfortable with the use of the devil’s horns symbol.
I think the devil’s horns symbol symbolises the devils’s horns. Call me old-fashioned.
If I’m at a metal concert – or anywhere else that I mean business – what’s wrong with a fist thrown in the air?
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.
This post is a tribute to fellow cannabis law reform activist, “the Big G.”
He’s “been trying to get the funkin’ job done.” One of the few. Respect.
There is a famous anecdote about a conversation Winston Churchill once had with a woman at a party.
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill … Well, I suppose … we would have to discuss terms, of course …
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
The moral of the story is obvious. If you sleep with someone for money—any amount of money—then you are a prostitute. Even if that someone is Winston Churchill.
Even though it was Winston Churchill, it was rather a cruel trick he played. But not as cruel as testing recreational drugs on animals. And that brings me to the point of this post.
The government has played a cruel trick on those in the drug law reform movement who give the thumbs up to the Psychoactive Substances Bill.
Government minister: Activist, would you accept significant drug law reform if it meant some limited amount of animal testing?
DLR activist: My goodness, Mr. Dunne … Well, I suppose … we would have to make submissions to the Select Committee, of course …
Government minister: Would you accept significant drug law reform if it meant that thousands of the nation’s beloved family pets are made to suffer slow, agonising deaths?
DLR activist: Mr. Dunne, what kind of drug law reform activist do you think I am?!
Government minister: Activist, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the depth of your depravity.
Five pounds or five million pounds? If you accept animal testing—any amount of animal testing—as the price of drug law reform, then you are a sadist. Even if the drugs are really, really good.
Now, I’m not suggesting that any of my friends in the drug law reform movement are sadists. But I am suggesting that they’ve been cruelly tricked. And I am suggesting that they think carefully about how far down this particular slippery slope they’re prepared to slide. And I’m suggesting that after they’ve thought about it they claw their way back up to the moral high ground.
A long, long time ago, before the Internet, we had Loompanics Unlimited. 🙂
I still have several of their titles, including books on how to grow magic mushrooms, how to start my own country, how to build a nuke in my parents’ basement, etc. … and Jerry Mander’s classic Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
Here’s One Argument for the Elimination of State Television. (There are many, many more.)
Maori TV Censorship of ALCP Candidate Slammed
The Libertarianz Party today condemned the state-owned Maori TV channel for blocking participation by ALCP leader Michael Appleby in a panel interview of candidates in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti.by-election.
“A television channel that belongs to taxpayers has no business telling a candidate they do not have ‘Maori credibility’. That is for voters to decide on election day,” said Libertarianz leader Richard McGrath.
“We believe all candidates should be given equal exposure in order to ensure that voters are fully informed.”
“This situation reflects very poorly on the people who run Maori TV. Clearly, they are hopelessly biased in favour of the left wing candidates, who want to further entrench soul-destroying welfare dependency on their prospective constituents.”
Of course, it would be an entirely different story if Maori Television were privately owned. Then, they’d be quite within their rights to exclude Michael Appleby from their interview panel, or to have only Michael Appleby on their interview panel, or to ignore the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election altogether.
But Maori Television is government owned and taxpayer funded. It’s obscene that the NZ government is allowing one of its media arms to rig the election.
It’s all good. 🙂
Libz Endorse ALCP Candidate in Ikaroa Rawhiti
Friday, 14 June 2013, 12:43 pm
Press Release: Libertarianz PartyLibz Endorse ALCP Candidate in Ikaroa Rawhiti
The Libertarianz Party today endorsed the candidacy of Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party leader Michael Appleby in the Ikaroa Rawhiti by-election, but labelled the continuing existence of Maori seats in Parliament as insulting and demeaning to New Zealanders of Maori descent.
Spokesman Richard McGrath, who works as medical officer at a drug and alcohol treatment clinic, said the ALCP and Libertarianz Parties share the core value of freedom of choice for adults and a policy of ending the expensive and fruitless war on people who use recreational substances.
“We are happy to endorse Michael in his efforts to stop the harrassment of peaceful New Zealanders,” said Dr McGrath.
“However, it is high time the Maori seats were consigned to the dustbin of history. There should be one law for all in New Zealand, with no room for the institutionalised racism and tokenism of Maori seats in the House of Representatives.”
“That we continue to tolerate this slight upon Maori people reflects badly on our politicians. Maori New Zealanders are just as capable as those of other ethnicities. To treat them as helpless cripples is disgraceful and a blight upon our electoral system.”
ENDS
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidates for next year’s General Election pictured (from left to right) Fred Macdonald (Otaki), Alistair Gregory (Rongotai), Richard Goode (Mana) and Michael Appleby (Wellington Central).
ALCP Leader Michael Appleby is also our candidate in the forthcoming Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election to be held on 29 June. Today Michael announced his candidacy and launched the ALCP campaign.
Labour slammed for terror campaign comment
David Shearer’s comment that the Labour Party will “terrorise our political opponents” during its Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election campaign is “reprehensible”, a candidate for the seat says.
In a press release announcing Labour’s candidate Meka Whaitiri’s official campaign launch, the Labour leader said: “Labour will campaign relentlessly to once again earn the trust of the people of Ikaroa-Rawhiti.
“We will organise, mobilise and terrorise our political opponents.”
The leader of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, Michael Appleby, who was at Parliament today to launch his by-election campaign, said Labour should apologise over the comment.
“Threatening terrorism against opponents is offensive and unacceptable in a democratic by-election and the comments are extremely insensitive to the Tuhoe settlement which occurred today at Parliament,” he said.
He said Shearer’s comments were “outrageous, offensive and unacceptable”.
“I do not want to be terrorised just for standing up for my political beliefs,” Appleby said.
Thanks, Michael, for standing up for Truth, Freedom and Justice! 🙂
