CITIZENS ABDICATE THE RULE OF LAW TO THE POLICE STATE
Several years ago, one of my grad students and myself designed and executed an experiment for one of my cases. Medicall marijuana had just become legalized and the police, greedy administrators, and of course, privatization zealots, with either greedy or stupid [politicians, bewailed the legalization; not because of public harm, but because of the loss of income potential from enforcing drug laws. There would be no funds to bribe police with toys and other goodies. Conditioned by drug war propaganda, the ignorant believed death destruction and deflowering would follow the advent of medical marijuana. So, the lobbyists went to work, the mentally disabled battled the physically disabled for the right to medicate with the evil weed. Youth must be saved, and virginity preserved, at all costs. Better a person get sexually molested in a jail than by a hippie or freak.
The police state pulled out all the stops. MADD organized a fear campaign about drugged driving, speaking louder than scientists who researched the problem. Fear sells better than logic any day, particularly to an ignorant population that is indoctrinated against science, facts and logic. In fact, the State is so sure of its propaganda machine, it blatantly ignores science when they are busted with evidence and ignore change with public exposure. They are so sure of the dogmatic following of false information and their psychological scare tactics; it ignores exposure and proceeds to rob the public.
When I investigated the source of testimony of police testimony about dopers having “green tongues,” I commissioned a study. We recruited some medical marijuana patients and had them medicate themselves on camera. Every so often, they would stick out their tongues for the camera to record evidence of any green tongues. After several repetitive hours, not a single green tongue showed up in the sample. Curious, I had my ex-student, now a professor of criminology, follow up with the published research and other materials about the phenomenon. The source, of course, was the government. The various governmental agencies publish all kinds of things to train experts in drug recognition and enforcement. The materials aren’t based upon reality, but upon what the police state can assert to increase convictions and revenues by the use of “Drug Recognition Experts,” who sell convictions like the old snake oil salesmen of the old west. To make sure the scheme works, credentials are manufactured, seminars are given to Judges and prosecutors who are too invested in convictions and revenue generating to care, or smart enough to realize that reality won’t keep a person in office. The teachers are given fictitious credentials who pass credentials on to others. Other agencies put the imprimatur of authenticity of the products, and the courts shake down offenders in the name of public safety, saving the public from imaginary boogeymen, conjured up by front organizations such as MADD, twelve step programs, and other P.R. programs calculated to aid in the shake down of citizens.
The following is a synopsis of research by Dr. J. Watterworth and me. It shows correspondence regarding green tongue research and validity in training manuals and materials used to educate drug recognition experts to convict defendants accused of driving a car while imbibing in weed. Since little research exists correlating ability with marijuana use, and there are no objective tests to show a driver, green tongue was invented as a reason to test a driver, when under the heavy hand of traffic enforcement. There may not have been any bad driving, but the existence of a green tongue is used to require a sobriety test, which may or may not be correlated with driving ability. Since the tests can’t be duplicated and videos generally don’t exist, the word of the officer becomes the only evidence, backed up by a urine, saliva or blood test, extracted because of the “Green tongue.” From My files: Fax exchange with officials.
—– Original Message —–
From: Logan, Barry
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 1:12 PM
Subject: FW: NHTSA study question
Dr. Watterworth; I passed your question on to the individual who edited that portion of the monograph. Below is their response. At best I would say the information appears to be anecdotal. I have some other feelers out as to the source of this “sign” and if I learn anything I’ll pass it on. When the monographs are updated that will be removed if there is no better substantiation. In my experience, the changes on the tongue in marijuana smokers, when they appear, are related to irritation from the heat of the smoke and is white or grey, with raised papillae, but it is not a consistent sign.
Barry K Logan PhD, DABFT
Fredric Rieders Family Renaissance Foundation
2300 Stratford Avenue
Willow Grove PA 19090
Ph: (800) 522 6671
(215) 657 4900
Fx: (215) 657 2972
From: Chuck Hayes [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:03 PM
To: Logan, Barry; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: NHTSA study question
Hello Barry. The green coating on the tongue is one of those things that has been passed down through the years by various DRE instructors as a possible indicator of cannabis use. We addressed this in the DRE instructor manual by the listing following information in the Cannabis session: “Possible green coating on the tongue” under the list of possible indicators and added an instructor note that reads, “Point out that there are no known studies that confirm Marijuana causing a green coating on the tongue.”
I am sure Tom would agree with me in that we have to be very careful about using this as an indicator. That’s why we have listed this under “possible indicators” with an explanation for the instructors to clarify that there is no documented study to confirm this observation.
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:37 AM
To: Logan, Barry
Subject: FW: NHTSA study question
This came into the generic mailbox that Marketing monitors.
Senior Marketing Analyst
3701 Welsh Road
Willow Grove, PA 19090
From: Jay Watterworth [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:44 PM
Subject: NHTSA study question
Dear Dr Logan:
I am involved in a research project dealing with marijuana detection. A paper that lists you as a lead author, “Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheets,” published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration contains a statement that interests us.
Today I spoke with the National Center for Statistics and Analysis of the NHTSA who suggested that I contact you as the lead author of the report.
In the section Cannabis/Marijuana, it is stated under “DEC Profile” that other characteristic indicators of marijuana use include a “green coating of tongue.” I have searched the literature and have not had any success finding any studies or research that discuss or mention this observation. I wonder if you could provide the source material that supports it?
If you are unable to provide me with such a reference, could you tell me who could provide it?
Thank you in advance for your time.
Jay Watterworth, PhD
Department of Sociology
University of Colorado at Boulder
THE Atlantic, in an article of April 2015, stated that
“…2012 coverage of problems with FBI forensic analysis, but the existence of shoddy forensics has been so clear for so long in so many different state and local jurisdictions that the following conclusion is difficult to avoid: Neither police agencies nor prosecutors are willing to call for the sorts of reforms that would prevent many innocents from being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, and neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party will force their hands.
Ignorance of the problem is no longer an acceptable excuse
But despite the fact that egregious problems have occurred in hundreds of crime labs throughout the U.S., affecting tens of thousands of cases or more, and perhaps even sending innocent men to their deaths, most police officials and prosecutors remain unwilling to acknowledge what we should now see clearly: They’re incapable of running crime labs that reliably protect the innocent and identify the guilty, in large part because their conflicts of interest and biases are insurmountable
In Colorado, the Office of the Attorney General documented inadequate training and alarming lapses at a lab that measured the amount of alcohol in blood.
How does this happen? It happens because most people don’t care about others as long as they feel safe, not only from real threats, but imaginary ones also. The public is so against taxation, that they would rather wreck a judicial system than to pay for a fair and righteous one. That is, until they are trapped or victimized. So, when medical marijuana became legal, the reve3nue stream had to be augmented. This was done by fraud. Experts were manufactured, using voodoo science.
What should one think? First, politicians aren’t stupid. They have education. Why, do they allow. They care more about themselves and careers than they do about the people. They have contempt for the people. They are afraid of public opinion. They are not leaders. Poor people don’t contribute to campaigns. The majority of the people know crimes are committed by the poor, whom God punishes. Therefore, they can punish also. Someone has to pay for government. Better the peasantry than the rest of us. Ignorance is bliss, don’t spoil it for me. Well, the people get what they don’t pay for.
Sooner or later the people will catch on. When that happens, officials beware. The demand that we defund the police state, will overpower the propaganda slogan of defund the police, and the rich will have to start being fair.
As demonstrated above, the authorities, even when busted continued their crusade against marijuana smokers driving cars. For 12 years, drug recognition experts are being produced and used by police and prosecutors, resulting in revenue generation. The myth is furthered by in house PR people within police and prosecutors. Judges, drawn from the prosecutorial pool, continue this injustice on the bases of expediency and the fact it is easier to go along with the program.
Mask the evidence. A 2006 U.K. study by researchers at the University of Southampton found that the error rate of fingerprint analysts doubled when they were first told the circumstances of the case they were working on. Crime lab technicians and medical examiners should never be permitted to consult with police or prosecutors before performing their analysis. A dramatic child-murder case, for example, may induce a greater subconscious bias to find a match than a burglary case. To the extent that it’s possible, evidence should be stripped of all context before being sent to the lab. Ideally, state or city officials might hire a neutral “evidence shepherd,” whose job would be to deliver crime-scene evidence to the labs and oversee the process of periodically sending evidence to secondary labs for verification. (Atlantic)
We have to decide. Ego we want efficiency and freedom from discomfort, or do we want justice. Are we a society or a collective of selfish Darwinists? Do we want a future, or are we hedonists? Do we stand up for justice and right, or let the elite continue to deceive us? Decide now.
- Posted in: 2d Amendment