I Don’t Believe That Dogs Should Be Used To Authorize Searches

Not long ago, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously that signals from a dog constitutes reasonable search. Traditionally that task has been the sole responsibility of judges of law by issuing a warrant. Our Constitution says that searches are only to be conducted upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and defining the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-drug-sniffing-dog/2013/02/19/1d9f7414-7aac-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

Dogs have an amazing ability to smell things that people cannot. They can detect odors hundreds of times better than us and use that keen sense to track animals or humans, detect contraband material, and have even been known to detect cancer with surprising accuracy. But they are not human and do not have the capacity for judgement that is required, not only by our Constitution but also demanded by their task. Peoples lives hang in the balance of the decision of a dog that is mostly focused on pleasing his master. They can’t swear an oath or testify to details about what they are thinking or smelling. Molecular scanners on the other hand, exceed the potential for detection than that of dogs. They are capable of detecting similar things as good as a dog but from 50 meters away and give a printable detail of what they detected. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html  http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/11/new-homeland-security-laser-scanner-reads-people-at-molecular-level/

That brings us to the real moral dilemma. This type of technology will not go away. It will only get better and more portable. We may be able to slow the acceptance of this technology and surveillance, but we can’t uninvent it. Eventually it will be accepted as reasonable search without warrant and as evidence in court and will be as acceptable as fingerprints and DNA evidence. Its like the invention of gunpowder or nuclear weapons. You just can’t put the genie back in the bottle. These detectors can already tell what you ate for breakfast, whether your are armed or carrying drugs. The direction our government seems to be heading is for more surveillance and more control of our lives. If we are going to live with this close of surveillance and loss of privacy, do we really want a government that is so intrusive into how we live our lives? I would be a lot less concerned about this loss of privacy and protections from illegal searches if our government was actively trying to protect our rights, but they are not. Already our federal government has put all school children on a diet. It went so far that parents are being told what must be mandatory items in box lunches brought from home. Local governments have been banning all sorts of things from large sugary drinks and cloths lines and even home gardens. America is on the verge of financial collapse with millions of people out of work and they don’t even want us to be able to dry our cloths outdoors or plant a garden. If we don’t demand that our rights are honored, we may be in for some very dark times in the near future. We need to demand that our government protect our rights instead of taking them away






Marijuana prohibition is on the front lines of this assault on personal freedom. Is marijuana use so unacceptable that we as a society must use the power of the judicial system to either make users stop or remove them from society? Keep in mind this is not some form of tough love. Prohibition is a horrible and hateful thing to do to your fellow citizens. There is no kindness in using the judicial system to try to control unwanted behavior. It is designed solely to ruin people’s lives and cause suffering; physically, mentally and financially. If any of us resist this punishment, that resistance is met with force up to and including deadly force. And then there is the persecution associated with prohibition, being denied employment, legally separated and shunned by society and hated because of lies and misinformation sold to an unwitting public by our own government. Lives are destroyed for preferring a recreational drug that is safer than alcohol. There is no moral difference between alcohol use and that of marijuana, but we are demonized because of the propaganda campaign waged by our own government. There are dozens of common items we use or are exposed to every day that are more harmful or dangerous than marijuana use. Tobacco and alcohol are two good examples, but many over the counter medications such as Tylenol and aspirin kill more people than marijuana. So does salt and trans fats. Obesity kills more people than marijuana. More people die drinking water than from marijuana use and yet we demonize and punish this portion of society. A recent study citing government funded sources, determined that states that had legalized medical marijuana had a 9% reduction in traffic fatalities, but you won’t hear that from the federal government. Their agenda seems to be that of protecting favored businesses from competition or loss from legal hemp and marijuana, even if they have to stifle research and hide the truth. If you are an investor in these industries that profit from the war against marijuana, you may count this as a benefit of prohibition, but from a freedom stand point, we all loose.



Randy Johnson

Will We Ever Learn To Get Along?

One of the problems we face on the issue of marijuana legalization is that people on both sides of the issue tend to ignore and discredit any information that does not agree with their preconceived notions about marijuana. The anti-marijuana groups, the Federal Government and several major medical organizations including the American Medical Association and the Institute of Medicine readily discount mountains of information about the efficacy of marijuana as a medicine, because as they repeat often, smoking is a crude way to administer medicine and smoking anything cannot be good for our respiratory system. This I might add is a very good argument. Many anti-marijuana groups including our government claim that almost all of the evidence supporting marijuana as medicine is anecdotal, based of the reports of people who use marijuana and that proper dosage can never be determined in a smoked product. This also is a very good argument. But as you read the DEA report titled “The DEA Position on Marijuana” you will find it also peppered with words and terms such as (may cause, could cause,  might cause and could be associated with) and lots of anecdotal information. On the other hand when people say that marijuana has never caused a death or that it is a miracle cure, it can hardly be proven and is hard to believe.  http://www.justice.gov/dea/docs/marijuana_position_2011.pdf

With literally millions of people using marijuana on a regular basis, I would be shocked to find no problems or adverse effects from marijuana use and both sides of the issue have plenty of information to present. One of the misconceptions that the Government uses is the increase in the prevalence of marijuana use, as a reason for drug dependency treatment. It is unclear how much of this is driven by people avoiding prosecution or prison by volunteering for drug rehabilitation or just to save their job. One thing is clear. The evidence presented by the government does not differentiate, but it is worth noting that marijuana dependency treatment increased as drug courts became more available.

Most things we choose to do as people come with inherent risks. When we choose our activities, we weigh those risks against the reasons we chose to participate in those activities. Sometimes we choose wisely and other times we do not. Some people have made careers out of bad decisions and prospered because of it. For example, Evel Knievel, who thrilled Americans with his dangerous dare-devil act of jumping his motorcycle and sometimes crashing spectacularly. How about the Jackass Movies where people regularly do stupid and dangerous things just for public acknowledgement or financial gain? Isn’t it odd that we will cheer someone for jumping buses with a motorcycle or riding a bicycle off a roof and then try to ruin the lives of those who choose to smoke marijuana? Isn’t it also odd that alcohol use is openly advertised and accepted and marijuana use is punished and its users shunned by society? Isn’t it also odd that we still claim to be a free people while seeking new ways to prohibit any activity we deem immoral, unhealthy, dangerous or offensive.

Ban on sack lunches. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school

Ban on cloths lines. http://www.care2.com/causes/join-the-fight-to-legalize-clotheslines.html

Ban on large sugary drinks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21201680?ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Ban on tobacco use. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/ND-measure-would-reimburse-smoking-ban-costs-4217360.php

Ban on home gardens. http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/03/feds-to-ban-backyard-gardens.html

Ban on low rider pants. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-05-16/news/0405150320_1_louisiana-house-louisiana-legislator-ban-low-riding-pants

Ban on raw milk. http://wewantorganicfood.com/2007/10/31/healthy-raw-milk-outlawed-in-california/

Ban on lemonade stands. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/23/beck-as-crackdowns-on-lemonade-stands-mount-kids-will-learn-to-acquiesce-to-government/

Seat belt and helmet laws. http://www.motorists.org/seat-belt-laws/busybodies

Ban on dietary advice. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/09/21/north-carolina-paleo-diet-blogger-locked-free-speech-fight

Challenge anyone? Type in any activity in BING or GOOGLE search followed by “ban” and see what comes up.

Only when we learn to accept people doing things that we may not like or agree with will we ever be truly free.

Randy Johnson


The First Lady has Presidential Executive Authority Too

I just read a news story at CNSNEWS.com by David James about Michelle Obama’s new school lunch mandates through the Department of Agriculture.


It is a very good article and mentions the dissatisfaction of the students where they complain that they do not like the food and they get less food for more money. The article even delves into the question of how does the Constitution give her or the Department of Agriculture the authority to mandate menus in our school cafeterias. A friend told me that the school in Stinnett, TX is only allowed to serve meat 3 times a week and not allowed to bake fresh rolls. I really don’t know if this is typical of menus around the country but if it is, Michelle Obama put all of America’s school children on a diet by Federal Mandate to control childhood obesity.

Where is the public outrage? Why should the Federal Government be in charge of setting menus for anyone? Are we not capable of deciding what to eat? Are forced diets on the rest of us in our future or will they just make food too expensive to eat? If we continue to allow our elected leaders to mandate how we live our lives we will be doomed to a life of slavery. We will have no freedoms unless granted by those in charge.

This is government excess at its worst and only we the people can change it by standing unified, demanding that the government acknowledge and honor our unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and all the rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. Never should our Government have such a control over how we live our lives, but the only people who can stop it are us. If Americans don’t start standing up for their freedom soon, it will be very difficult to get back. Remember most of the freedom we enjoy was paid for with the blood and fortunes of fine men.

Randy Johnson