Medical Marijuana Laws New Stimulus For States, Tech Industries?

As another example of what appears to be a good idea and Constitutional, and yet approached and legislated in the "wrong" manner, the perfect example it now appears is the "legalization" of medical marijuana in quite a few states throughout the nation.

How so?

In an article published by the AP, it appears the State of Colorado is formulating legislation in order to "track" users and purchasers, using high tech gadgetry and video surveillance at the "points of purchase" in the state requiring these rather small businesses and clinics eventually to be mandated to purchsae, I'm sure, these gadgets and the software to hook them up to state databases.

It is being announced and publicized as in the interests of preventing large scale "black market" distribution of medical grade marijuana, although at the prices that most of these clinics are charging for these prescriptions, I'm sure the street variety will still have a much larger share of the market than the "purer" grade.

Until, of course, the companies manufacturing those joints decides to increase their profit margins, and starts using additives in those joints also to perhaps make a "drug" that is questionably addictive even more so.

Instead of merely rescinding and readdressing the laws which have banned the sale of marijuana for recreational or medicinal purposes and left it at that, and focused on increasing the penalties for large scale distribution on the street, this also appears aimed toward eventually another national or global entity cornering the market on distribution "rights" in many of the states, edging out the small businesses once again mostly owned by holistic physicians or solo MDs.

And there is already in place in most states throughout the nation tracking on prescriptions written by doctors for Class III drugs, and medical marijuana does take a prescription and is classified, to my knowledge, as a Class III drug.

So why isn't there a move to put such cameras in all pharmacies also throughout the nation? Or perhaps that is also already in the works, since there does seem to be more illegal activity regarding some of those "advertised" Class III drugs, anti-depressants, pain killers and the like by those large pharma companies and those inhibitors in those three minute ads on mainstream television every night during prime time.

Increasing penalties on pot in sales to juveniles and large scale operations which are moving imported and exported drugs globally and nationally appears again what may be needed here, but then I am only a mere citizen who can see where this all is eventually leading, and soon that marijuana needed for those whom are deriving health benefits will be $100.00 a joint, plus tax.

And consist of street quality pot, with three minute disclosure commercials "disclosing" all the chemical addictives that most likely will result in a major lawsuit for some patient that has an allergic reaction or develops lung cancer due to the additives in the paper or something else less than 20 years down the road.

Colorado is not the only state, it appears, that is jumping on the commercial marijuana bandwagon for the "jobs and the economies" of those that see bucks in the misfortune of others, however.

And as the prices begin to soar into the stratosphere due to such an agenda, the major drug traffickers, street vendors and black market cross borders importers are licking their lips.

Since such an attempt by the states to micromanage and monitor sales, by feeding another industry and the state itself off those whose numerous medical conditions and its symptoms truly are alleviated by medicinal or recreational use, or the small businesses who are now able to operate in many areas of local communities where such clinics are needed, will end up making them a bundle and increase the demand.

Those in poor health may not be working and already collecting social service benefits, and do need to cut costs whereever they can on prescriptions and extraneous expenses, and $100 joint will make the street value all the more attractive once again, unless the Medicaid supplements also will be increasing accordingly.

I'm sure those rolling paper manufacturers are also delighted.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20100929/539e95cc-2d90-4667-be4a-fcb7f550d820

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Gets Stimulus: Now "Educational" Institution?

Buried in the news due to the brouhaha and continuing sensationalism in reporting which has occurred due to the shooting earlier this week at the Holocaust Museum and the liberal spins on the story now being expanded and repeated without much "hard" evidence and proof on the true motivations and actions of this 89 year old apparently demented man and World War II enlistee, who has yet to be questioned himself it appears (and who knew enough about computers to have and maintain his own website at 89, and was on one source a "Nazi officer," although American enlistee?), there have been several other stories not as widely covered.

One of which is the recent announcement by the United States Chamber of Commerce that they have decided to undertake a mission at the tune of over 10 million dollars in order to "educate" the public on the economic benefits of "capitalism and free markets," over what many are labeling Mr. Obama's socialistic moves this past several months in taking over and bailing out several of our major private industries.

Such as the banks and auto manufacturers, and redistributing the wealth according to Congress and the Executive Office's priorities for global policy reasons most of all.

Global socialism, in other words.

The problem that I have with that is first the question of just where, in this struggling economy with industries across the spectrum pleading poverty, the Chamber is getting this 10 million in order to undertake their "educational focus and program?"

Since such a declaration of intent falls within the parameters of "education" and a major focus of the stimulus sums were earmarked for "educational purposes," could the U.S. Chamber now be one of those recipients of stimulus monies, another payback by both the Democrats and Republicans to their big business supporters for their 2008 election coffers?

Doesn't this simply mean that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a social welfare recipient itself now of the U.S. taxpayers? And their agenda merely is more propaganda for their member corporate interests, i.e., convincing the public that their lobbying efforts have the American citizens and consumers in mind with their "free market" theories?

Since the U.S. Chamber does not support any "buy American" clauses in most of the Congressional legislation that has come out of the Hill for literally decades, and is a big supporter of "free trade" global agreements, open borders and global tourism is one of their primary focuses especially between the United States, Canada and Mexico, is not their idea of "free market" and "capitalism," simply "global corporate socialism," under the much rumored North American Union banner of one world government under U.N. dictates, rather than America's own Constitution?

"Corporatism" is entirely different than "free market" capitalism, an economic theory that the founders found actually compromised U.S. industry and labor. The United States Chamber of Commerce is similar in agenda to the East India Tea Company which existed prior to America's Revolutionary War in its public/private partnership with the sovereign, and dominating and monopolizing European imports and exports and the marketplace.

A "monopoly," as it were, squeezing out the independent, small business entrepreneurs, and compromising U.S. domestic production and labor in the process. While getting "tax breaks" and "privileges and immunities" at the colonialists expense for inferior products and unfair trade practices.

The U.S. Chamber may be "U.S. owned," but its agenda is clearly globally, not domestically, focused for its member corporations in supporting and promoting many U.S. interests which have moved offshore, or employment of foreigners at the cost of American labor in order to increase profits and production and skirt around U.S. minimum wage and labor laws for these multi-national corporations, while promoting and supporting a "hands off" policy with respect to regulation of executive level pay.

Although corporations, by their very nature, are the "property" of the disinterested shareholders once those corporations go public.

In my opinion the entire argument with respect to executive pay levels and government involvement could be cured by recognizing these U.S. corporations for what they are. Property. And as "public" corporations, owned by the shareholders who should have final and absolute authority with respect to compensation levels for their top level management with the caveat that all such matters as public corporations be determined by "one vote per ownership" no matter how many shares are held by an individual or corporate investor, or based on a 2/3rds majority vote in order to protect those minority shareholders from majority "block" voting.

This isn't baseball cards we are dealing with here, it is multi-billion dollar corporations, and yet our Congress and government have now even given "corporate person-hoods" privileges and immunities far greater than the American people and citizens individually.

Governmental protection, and now the American people are enforced shareholders in these major corporations, again without any voice in the huge "socialization" of these debts but left holding the bag but without any beneficial interest for their now investment, which corporations are now being brokered and sold piecemeal to foreign and global interests primarily, and giving foreign governments and industries more and more influence in the American political process, again, over and above the lawful American citizens in addition to their jobs and homes.

But with this announcement of the new nationwide "Campaign for Free Enterprise," and its education branch funded with over 10 million in stimulus monies, is it not the epitome of hypocrisy to fund a purported "free market and free enterprise" campaign with sums gained through public welfare and "socialism" at its core?

It seems that returning to our Constitution and intended form of government, if Congress was actually performing the functions for which it was lawfully charged to do, would guarantee that the larger would not snuff out the weaker in this "global corporatism" the American people are now subjected to on each and every level.

It appears the "Campaign for Free Enterprise," is simply another "job creation," and stimulus of the Bush/Obama administrations and our treasonous federal legislators for big business and global corporate interests which is now being funded by the American taxpayers - with "freedom" and "liberty" which formerly were "principles," and Constitutional directives now only to have morphed into an industry all its own and simply another government funded new job stimulus and "industry" for the Fortune 500's additional financial gain most of all, and it appears selected "freedom and liberty" focused citizens organizations and groups.

Since such groups have sprung up in abundance since the Bush years, and now "freedom" and "liberty" are being used as industries all their own in trinkets, ad revenues for websites, and fees and costs for traveling to and from freedom and liberty based paid speaker "seminars."

The "free market" global capitalist corporatists version of the opposing global social corporatists "global warming" scam.

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2009/june/090610_enterprise.htm

The Sky Rocketing Costs of Higher Education

Now that graduation season is upon us, higher education has been in the news quite a bit in the United States this past month.

Due to the economic conditions now claimed by most states in the United States due to the mortgage meltdown, bank bailouts, continuing conflict in the Middle East, automakers bailouts, health care crisis, and Wall Street's bear market (many of these situations, of course, are due to governmental negligence and precipitated crises) many of the major universities throughout the nation are now announcing increases for tuition rates for most of the public and private college universities.

Interestingly, these increases are now being announced even after there was considerable funding in the form of grants to a great many of these universities for infrastructure needs, and increases in federal grant monies for tuition costs included within that enormous simulus packaged passed by the Obama Administration several months ago.

As an example, the tuition rate increase announced for one of the major universities in my former home state, Arizona, will be the second increase within the past two years, and will place the average in-state resident tuition now at over $6,275 per semester for incoming new freshman for the 2009-2010 academic year at Arizona State University. Included will be new fees in the form of "surcharges" also tacked on to those tuition rates.

Although there is a provision within Arizona's own Constitution that provides the parameters for university tuition which can be charged state residents:

Admission of students of both sexes to state educational institutions; tuition; common school system

Section 6. The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible.

The problem there as in most states is priority of expenditures, and using public funds for private and extra-Constitutional contracts in public/private partnerships and functions most of all.

This amount may sound reasonable when compared to the rate charged at most private universities, or even some of the public East or West coast universities; however, most tuition rates are set by Boards of Regents which are unaccountable to the taxpayers for those tuition rate increases, and simply apply to the state legislature through approvals given by these Board of Regents for their requests. And would dispute with respect to Arizona's clear Constitutional provisions, that $6,250 per semester is "as nearly free as possible."

As someone who grew up in that state, I compared the rates charged when I graduated from high school, to the new rates in comparison factoring in inflation according to the tables provided by an online inflation calculator source.

Since I also am aware of a recent backdoor tax levied and was subject to in the form of an added property tax prior to moving from that state for the expansion of that university and the construction costs for same at the municipal level (thus triple taxation at the municipal, state and federal levels in support of that university), and also aware of the sums in grant monies provided under the stimulus, I did not factor in any added "construction" costs which might also be included in the university's budgets.

Besides, more than 2/3rds the building within the Arizona State University campus are less than 20 years old.

In 1970 the rate for tuition for in state residents was $320.00 for 16 credit hours each semester. As referenced above, the rate for the 2009-2010 academic year will be $12,550.

What cost $320.00 in 1970 would cost $1755.48 in 2008.

Rate charged at ASU 2009-2010: $12,550 - more than eight times the amount of inflation.

And the standard of living (not to mention quality of life) was higher in 1970 even during that recessionary period, than it actually is today.

Also interesting and as a side note, the President of the University was also recently granted a salary increase bringing his salary as a public employee to over $750,000 not including state benefits such as health care, expense accounts, dental insurance and pension plan. That salary of three quarter of a million dollars exceeds the salary of the President of the United States.

His wife is also employed by the university at a salary of over $160,000 per year.

A transplant to that state from Colombia University, Michael Crow also thumbed has also thumbed his nose at the Arizona residents paying his lofty salary by setting aside sums for what he calls "special class international students" receive financial aid from his cache of private benefactors, enabling them to obtain in-state tuition adverse to the restrictions imposed by the citizens by voter approval of a proposition denying in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

Earlier this year, in the midst of a descending economy, Crow unveiled his ambitious plans for a massive construction project-a $185 million, seven-story science and technology building, scheduled to open in fall 2010. This after he somehow justified expanding ASU into the City of Phoenix with the Chamber of Commerce members and mayor thus triple taxing Phoenix residents in the process for the costs of this massive project. While ASU cannot keep its campuses full as it is, unless it is with illegal immigrants, foreigners and out-state residents while the state residents subsidize those true added costs.

None of the sums received in direct federal grant monies are included in the budgetary requests made at the state level in most states throughout the nation.

And in 1970, free tuition waivers and costs were given to the top 10% of all graduating seniors from Arizona state high schools in recognition of the "public" support of the Arizona citizens to that university.

Now the criteria for any and all tuition fee waivers requires graduating in the top 5%, and exceeding a state mandated AIMS (Arizona Instructional Measurement System) test which a good percentage of the high school faculty themselves had difficulty passing prior to its being given to the high school students. And which cost the Arizona taxpayers over 10 million to prepare, since the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the SAT's themselves were not sufficient as testing methods for measuring instructional goals for outgoing seniors.

And did I mention that the revenue from the sales of tickets and memorabilia, network contracts, and local radio and television broadcast revenues received by the Arizona State University football program, and private alumni grant monies also go unreported in those budgetary requests?

While the selection committee focuses on primarily out state national merit scholars for name recognition, and illegal immigrant and foreigners for federal grant monies in order to also profit at the Arizona and American citizen's expenses.

If you would like to do a historic comparison for inflationary purposes on your state universities tuition increases throughout the past three decades, you can find the relevant table at:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

FBI Hiring Candidates To Fight Right Wing "Extremism"

An announcement appeared in the local Phoenix, Arizona newspapers that announced that although the FBI has significantly increased the number of agents since 9/11, they are now on a push to hire more under monies gained from the stimulus. It appears that since now over 3/4's the citizens are on the "watch list," the number of agents isn't equal to the task.

As one of those identified potential terrorists on the list as a 45 year former resident of Arizona and three time victim of illegal immigrant crimes, who has been actively involved in addressing through the state and federal levels the open borders situation still existing now seven years post 9/11 with decades of border state resident victims preceding even that tragedy at the hands of foreigners, I wrote another "Letter To The Editor" and plan on sending a copy to the local Phoenix FBI office, and state and federal officials:

"It definitely seems that 9/11 has been the greatest "economic stimulus" for increasing government and the surveillance industries ever - not to mention the military budgets.

It does seem that the only real new jobs being created are in the surveillance and gadget industries. And spying on Americans and those dreaded right wing extremists.

I do wonder how they train agents to scope out and identify a potential Catholic anti-abortion extremist? Or an illegal immigrant victim/extremist?

What physical descriptions and profile do they use?

Someone wearing a crucifix?

Someone who avoids Mexican restaurants, and puts a May Day sign out the week of Cinco de Mayo?

Those that watch their state college football game rather than the Army/Navy game?

Those that don't stand up with their hands over their hearts for the Pledge of Allegiance for which the words "liberty" and "justice" have not been their experiences as of late or fly their flags upside down?

Those that write "letters to the editor" on the political corruption and broken promises?

Those that speak out or confront the hypocricy of politicians who arrange for photo ops at local soup kitchens or when speaking to disabled veterans groups putting in their two or three hours in order to assauge some of their guilt against their fellow countrymen?"

Just how many agents has the Department of Homeland Security budgeted for this now monumental task?
http://faddaeart.blogspot.com/

James Madison on Stimulus, War, Property Rights

Since the founding fathers quotes with respect to their views on our country, and reasons for many of the provisions in our Constitution can be ascertained from historical records which are in the public domain for all to see, publish or expound on at will, below are some of James Madison's comments with respect to Congressional legislation (such as the recent stimulus), war and citizen's property rights.

Mr. Madison is credited with being the father of the Constitution actually, so felt his thoughts in light of the challenges America is now facing might be of interest to those of you who believe still in the America of the founders rather than the America it has become:

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

"The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right."

"The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted."

"War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits."

"Wherever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done."

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."

Source: George Mason University
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/govt.html