Friday, March 23, 2012

And a Little Child..., the Re-Mix

This, only better. New tools, new voice.

Anastasia McNeil delivers some lyrical "home-grown" wisdom -- which as it happens (could there have been method to Chair Jeb Bradley's madness?) stands in stark temporal and philosophical contrast to the continued insanity championed by your "servant," Chief Crate -- to the NH Senate Health and Human Services Committee regarding SB409, "relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes," 3/8/2012. With a hat tip to Ted Geisel...

Would you like pain
Here or there?

I would not like pain here or there.
I would not like pain anywhere.

Would you like pain in your house?
Would you like to watch your dying spouse?

I do not like pain in a house.
I do not like to watch my dying spouse.
I do not like pain
here or there.
I'd like to stop it
I do not like suff'ring and pain.
I do not like them, but they remain.
Would you solve them with a plant?
Why sit there and say you can't?

Do you want to say:
Not with a note.
From the man in white coat.
Not if you're sick.
I don't care one lick.
You may not use it here or there.
You may not use it anywhere.
You may not use a plant for pain.
I prefer more suffering.

Would you? Could you?
take that pain?
Then Suffer! Suffer!
You'll remain.

But I would not ,
could not,
give you pain.
That a plant could solve
Grown with dirt and rain

You may like choice.
You will see.
You may like choice
just like me.

I do not like pain in a house
I do not like to watch a dying spouse.
When a little plant grown with dirt and rain.
Can take away that suffering.

Hope Springs Eternal

Two weeks ago, the NH Senate Health and Human Services Committee held the public hearing for SB409, "relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes." It went well for most. Not so much for others.

March 22, the committee held their "Executive Session" on the bill, where they vote on what they'll recommend to the entire body. Committee recommendations are overwhelmingly accepted (with some remarkably notable exceptions), so they're important. Herewith, that session.

I'll save you some suspense. Four Republicans (including former Congressman, Senate Majority Leader and Chair Jeb Bradley) and one Democrat recommended unanimously that this bill -- sponsored by 3 GOP Senators, just btw -- ought to pass. Of course, we shouldn't have to be here at all if one particular Democrat -- the one sitting in the governor's office -- hadn't vetoed a similar bill in 2009 -- one, in fact, he essentially wrote. But he's not running again, so he no longer feels compelled to pander to his ostensible "non-base," right? We'll see...

This, too, is on the heels of the super-majority GOP House killing the gay-marriage repeal bill on Wednesday. And earlier this term, they passed marijuana decriminalization and hemp legalization. However much I still disagree with swathes of their agenda, Republicans really are a different, better breed in NH. Better, in fact, than the Democrats on some of the Dems' own traditional issues...

And lest we forget, 40 Years Ago Today: Congress Was Told To Tell The Truth About Marijuana; They Didn’t

Senate panel OKs medical pot bill

Friday, March 9, 2012

NH Chiefs of Police Representative Appears a Little Stunned

By special request, Richard Crate, Enfield Police Chief, addresses the NH Senate Health and Human Services Committee on behalf of the NH Chiefs of Police, regarding SB409, "relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes," 3/8/2012. Delivering legislative testimony on a regular basis for that organization, this is the first time on any marijuana bill, to my knowledge, that he doesn't receive, at worst, polite silence.

Barbarians Feeling Some Resistance

Finally! Some pushback from our ostensible "representatives"! Seriously, I can't recall anything like this kind of pressure put on the forces of evil by a NH legislative committee in the years I've been following this issue. Or any statist-friendly issue, for that matter. Wow...

Once again, medical marijuana rears its fearsomely compassionate head in the NH legislature. This time, starting in the Senate's Health and Human Services Committee. Perhaps needless to say, SB409, "relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes," yet again exposes the barbaric tendencies of the vicious autocrats of the state (can you believe Chief Crate's professed faith in D.C. ...?!?) for what they are. Doesn't seem to deter 'em, though, does it? No self-awareness...

Simply stated (as, to be sure, I have before in these chronicles), presuming the authority to somehow deny natural pain relief to peaceful people who are suffering is barbaric. There is simply no accurate yet appropriately genteel euphemism. Deal with it. Government has no justification for making peaceful lives more difficult. Ever. The time of the authoritarian drug warrior must end. Now. He doesn't own you, he works for you. We must start with the atrocities committed daily against those who are suffering. Civil liberties, human rights and self-ownership must be restored. Government as servant, not master. Legislature as representatives of the People rather than of the vested interests of the (equally servant, just btw) Executive Branch.

If we hope to make any claim to being a civilized -- let alone free -- society, we must stop forcing our fellows to live in misery for our (well, someone's) own ostensibly yet nevertheless deeply disturbed "high ideals." "Misguided" doesn't remotely begin to cover it.

You. Mind your own goddamn business, and "allow" your neighbor to mind his. In return, he'll do the same for you. Liberty. What a concept, huh? You wanna restore some sanity? Start here.

But first, Anastasia McNeil delivers some lyrical "home-grown" wisdom (cleaned-up version here), which as it happens (could there have been method to Chair Jeb Bradley's madness?) stands in stark temporal and philosophical contrast to the continued insanity championed by your "servant," Chief Crate.

Why Can't You Smoke Pot? Because Lobbyists Are Getting Rich Off of the War on Drugs

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

NH Senate Corrects House's Homework

Usual House Suspects Still Need Remedial Tutoring...

The mystifyingly convoluted journey of the seemingly self-evident concept of HB145, "permitting the audio and video recording of a public official while in the course of his or her official duties" -- that your servants are, as NH Constitution Part 1st Article 8 makes crystal clear, "at all times accountable" -- continues. Last we left it, the NH Senate Judiciary Committee was poised -- surprisingly -- to amend it back to something approximating its original form before the House Criminal Justice Committee had finished diluting it almost beyond recognition (certainly beyond sense).

Well, the Senate did a pretty good job with it, indeed. And so here it is, back before the House CJ Committee, 3/6/2012. Let's try, yet again, to make a few things perfectly clear. Even to politicians.

Number one: "non-public meetings" are called that for a reason. A private meeting with a welfare client is not "generally accessible" to the public. That's a straw man.

Number two: there is a distinction in NH law between the aural component and the visual component. There are no current laws against the visual component. These legislative efforts, therefore, are endeavoring only to clarify the right to record audio. Visual images at, say, "a fatal crash scene" aren't prohibited now. And again, crossing a crime scene tape, interfering with an investigation, is not an area "generally accessible" to the public, now is it? Can you be there without a camera now? No. This bill doesn't change that. That there is a straw man and a red herring.

Number three: the issue is already largely resolved judicially, as the 'Glik' decision by the 1st Circuit Court made clear. That decision was subsequently the deciding factor in your humble chronicler's own criminal case against Weare PD in Goffstown District Court. As for the current law being good enough, there are at least 4 civil actions now pending against Weare PD with regard to them "interpreting" current 'wiretapping' law. Which, given the resolution of my criminal case, is going to cost Weare taxpayers. Reportedly, Weare PD's liability insurance premiums already reflect the coming carnage. The current law is an expensive violation of civil rights. The law needs to respect established rights.

Number four: lose (3) "This subparagraph shall not be construed to permit a person to audio or videotape either in a courtroom or any other place within a court facility without prior approval of the presiding justice," which continues to allow the judicial branch to place itself above the rule of law.

At this point, the House (starting with the committee's recommendation) has several options. It can simply concur with the changes the Senate made, and off it goes to the governor; it can reject the changes and drop the matter entirely; it can reject the changes and request a "Committee of Conference" where a subcommittee from the respective committee of each chamber will meet to attempt to hammer out their differences. The latter option appears to be the direction in which the CJ Committee is leaning. And to make the bill even better, to boot. Golly...