Tag: police state

There’s Plenty Of Evidence Medical Marijuana Can Treat Female Orgasm Difficulty, So Why Are Some States Saying No?

While numerous studies have consistently shown that cannabis can treat female orgasm difficulty/disorder, also known as FOD, so far only a few states have recognized it as a qualifying condition for medical marijuana. Others appear to be holding it to a higher standard than other conditions, revealing a potential bias against women.

This bias may be the result of misinformation or lack of education about FOD, a serious public health condition that affects the health of up to 41 percent of women worldwide. The bias may also reflect an unwillingness to acknowledge FOD, despite testimony from women who successfully treated the condition with cannabis, letters of support from doctors who recommend cannabis for it, evidence of its serious health impacts and scientific studies showing cannabis can treat it.

In 2024, advocates—myself included—petitioned 11 U.S. states to add FOD as a qualifying condition. While some petitions are still pending, so far two states have officially approved the requests: Connecticut and Illinois.

Illinois Director of Public Health Dr. Sameer Vodra stated the following in his order approving FOD as a qualifying condition:

“After fully considering the matters raised in the petition, as well as reviewing research pertinent to the condition termed Female Orgasmic Disorder, a condition where a (natal) female has difficulty reaching orgasm. There are multiple types and causes,) there is sufficient evidence to confidently evaluate the effect of cannabis as a treatment for Female Orgasmic Disorder. Literature review and survey data support that cannabis can offer benefits to women who have “female orgasm difficulties or dysfunction.”

In New Mexico, the state’s Medical Cannabis Advisory Board approved adding FOD as a qualifying condition last fall, with the reform set to take effect upon official approval from the secretary of health.

The states of Colorado, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, meanwhile, have acknowledged receipt of the petitions to add FOD as a qualifying condition, and public hearing dates are now pending.

Yet despite scientific evidence and approvals in some jurisdictions, five states denied adding FOD as a qualifying condition with medical cannabis: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio and Oregon.

Keep reading

Human Rights Commission stands up against COVID abuses … Five years late!

The Australian Human Rights Commission’s much-anticipated report on the COVID-19 disaster has finally arrived — five years after the fact — and it’s a real eye-opener. Apparently, the commission’s big takeaway is that our governments trampled on human rights during the pandemic. Big surprise.

The report, titled Collateral Damage, lays out the fallout from the government’s lockdowns, vaccine mandates, border closures and quarantine measures. It states the obvious — Disadvantaged Aussies, not the inner-city elite, bore the brunt of these policies — all left to suffer as governments made decisions with no regard for basic freedoms.

Meanwhile, the ‘laptop class’ sipped lattes in their home offices, blissfully unaware of how lockdowns were crushing the livelihoods of hardworking Aussies who couldn’t just ride out the pandemic from the comfort of their loungerooms.

But here’s the kicker: this report comes out in 2025, long after the worst of the damage has been done. Where was the Human Rights Commission when we were crying out for help in 2020?

They were nowhere to be seen when it was crystal clear what was happening. While we were forced to crowdsource legal funds to defend our rights, the so-called watchdogs were asleep at the wheel.

Now, the commission wants us to believe they’ve had a change of heart, with seven recommendations on human rights protections. Sure, it’s a little too late, but at least they’re finally saying what was obvious from the start: the way we responded to the pandemic should never happen again.

If anything, this report just highlights how out of touch these bureaucrats were when we needed them most. They picked a side only after the war was over — and even then, it’s a half-hearted attempt to save face.

Keep reading

The Take It Down Act: A Censorship Weapon Disguised As Protection

President Trump has thrown his support behind the Take It Down Act, a bill designed to combat the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including AI-generated deepfakes. The legislation has gained momentum, particularly with First Lady Melania Trump backing the effort, and Trump himself endorsing it during his March 4 address to Congress.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

“The Senate just passed the Take It Down Act…. Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”

While this comment was likely tongue-in-cheek, it highlights an important question: how will this law be enforced, and who will benefit the most from it?

A Necessary Law with Potential Pitfalls

The rise of AI-generated explicit content and the increasing problem of revenge porn are serious concerns. Victims of NCII have long struggled to get harmful content removed, often facing bureaucratic roadblocks while the damage continues to spread. The Take It Down Act aims to give individuals more power to protect themselves online.

However, as with many internet regulations, the challenge is in the details. Laws designed to curb harmful content often run the risk of being too broad, potentially leading to overreach. Critics warn that, without clear safeguards, the legislation could be used beyond its intended purpose.

Keep reading

Digital Deception: How Social Media Helps Corrupt Politicians Stay in Power

In today’s world, social media is everywhere. It’s how we connect, share, and get our news. But what if I told you it’s also one of the most powerful tools corrupt politicians use to stay in power? That’s right. Behind the memes, the viral videos, and the endless streams of posts, there’s a darker game being played. It’s a game of misinformation, fake support, and online manipulation. And it’s working better than ever.

Let’s break it down. How do they do it? And why should you care?

The Misinformation Machine

Misinformation is the fuel that keeps the engine running. Politicians, especially those in power, know that controlling the narrative is everything. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are perfect for spreading half-truths and outright lies. Why? Because these platforms are designed to keep you scrolling. They reward sensationalism, not accuracy.

Here’s how it works: A politician or their team plants a story. Maybe it’s about a rival. Maybe it’s about a policy that sounds great but is actually terrible. The story gets picked up by bots—fake accounts programmed to share content. These bots make the story look popular, so real people start sharing it too. Before you know it, the story is everywhere. And once it’s out there, it’s hard to stop.

The goal? To confuse you. To make you doubt what’s real and what’s not. And when you’re confused, you’re easier to control.

Astroturfing: Fake Grassroots Support

Ever heard of astroturfing? It’s when politicians create the illusion of widespread public support for something. They make it look like regular people are rallying behind an idea, when in reality, it’s all staged.

Here’s an example: Let’s say a politician wants to pass a law that benefits big corporations. They know regular people won’t like it. So, they hire a PR firm to create fake social media accounts. These accounts post messages like, “This law will create jobs!” or “This is good for the economy!” They might even organize fake protests or rallies, complete with paid actors holding signs.

The result? It looks like there’s a groundswell of support. News outlets pick up the story, and suddenly, the law seems popular. But it’s all a lie. And social media makes it easy to pull off.

Keep reading

Ohio Bill Seeks To Regulate Intoxicating Hemp And Limit Sales To Marijuana Dispensaries

A pair of Ohio Republican state senators want intoxicating hemp products to be sold only at adult-use dispensaries—not convenience stores, smoke shops or gas stations.

Ohio state Sens. Steve Huffman (R-Tipp City) and Shane Wilkin (R-Hillsboro) introduced Senate Bill 86, which would also impose a 15 percent tax on intoxicating hemp products sold at dispensaries and ban the sale of intoxicating hemp products to anyone under 21.

“Currently, intoxicating hemp products are untested, unregulated psychoactive products that can be just as intoxicating, if not more intoxicating, than marijuana,” Wilkin said in his sponsor testimony to the Senate General Government Committee on Tuesday.

The 2018 U.S. Farm Bill says hemp can be grown legally if it contains less than 0.3 percent THC.

Ohio is one of about 20 states that does not have any regulations around intoxicating hemp products, according to an Ohio State University Drug Enforcement and Policy Center study from November 2024. Fifteen states ban these products. Seven states, including Michigan, regulate it like cannabis, while seven other states regulate it like consumer goods, according to the study.

“Given the lack of regulations, the intoxicating hemp industry has been able to confuse Ohio consumers and law enforcement by marketing themselves as ‘dispensaries’ with ‘recreational marijuana,’” Huffman said in his testimony.

Under the bill, intoxicating hemp products would only be sold at dispensaries if the products have been tested and comply with standards for packaging, labeling and advertising. The bill would only apply to products that can be ingested or inhaled.

“To suppress the illicit market, this bill prohibits hemp products that are not sold in dispensaries from marketing the products as marijuana, using any terms associated with the sale of the product that would cause a consumer to infer the product is marijuana or that the entity selling the product is a marijuana dispensary,” Huffman said in his testimony.

He had a bill in the last General Assembly that would have banned the sale of all intoxicating hemp products, but it wasn’t able to make it out of committee. Hemp business owners testified against the bill since it would end their livelihood, but they spoke in favor of regulations.

SB 86 would also regulate drinkable cannabinoid products.

Keep reading

Democracy Dies In Romania… After ‘Winning’ In December, Georgescu Now Banned From May Presidential Election

Is Romania the canary in the ‘death of democracy’ coalmine?

After today’s news, that canary – along with ‘democracy’ – is well and truly dead.

In a stunning turn of events – that we have a feeling could backfire disastrously on the elite establishment – Romania has barred far-right frontrunner Calin Georgescu from running in May’s presidential election, in a move that could worsen the country’s political turmoil.

The Bucharest-based electoral bureau invalidated Georgescu’s candidacy, a spokesman from the bureau said on Sunday. 

It received more than 1,000 challenges to Georgescu’s candidacy mostly related to his so-called anti-democratic and extremist stances. 

The decision can still be appealed at the Constitutional Court.

The decision to eliminate Georgescu from the May 4 presidential race will likely deepen Romania’s anti-establishment mood and benefit the far-right. 

Polls showed that had Georgescu run, he would’ve garnered between 40% and 45% of the vote in the first round, giving him a real chance of becoming Romania’s president.

Georgescu submitted his candidacy for May’s election – as an independent – reminding voters of the utter farce he has been through over the last coupel of months:

“Everyone is watching Romania and how the corrupt system acted,” said Georgescu on Friday, adding that he thought it’s impossible for his name not to be on the ballot’s list of candidates.

“They can’t afford to repeat the mistake.”

Well, they did!

As a reminder, after emerging victorious from the first round of voting in November’s presidential election, Romania’s top court in December to annul the outcome of last year’s presidential vote, which cited suspicions of Russian meddling (via TikTok!?) in his campaign.

Following their decision, the Black Sea bordering nation tumbled into its biggest political crisis since the collapse of communism. 

The decision has also buoyed the success of Romania’s extremist parties, in a country already disillusioned with the political mainstream, prompting massive protests nationwide…

Keep reading

Maine Court Rules Against Family Of Child Vaccinated Without Parents’ Consent At School

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has upheld a lower court ruling that school medical staff who gave a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without obtaining parental consent cannot be held liable.

On March 4, the court ruled that school medical staff were protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).

The PREP Act provides a liability shield to “covered persons” — including those who administer COVID-19 or other countermeasures — during a public health emergency. COVID-19 vaccines are covered under the PREP Act because they were rolled out under emergency use authorization (EUA).

In November 2021, J.H., a minor, was given a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at Miller School in Waldoboro, Maine.

In May 2023, J.H.’s parents Siara Harrington and Jeremiah Hogan, who said they did not consent to the vaccination, sued Lincoln Medical Partners, MaineHealth and pediatrician Dr. Andrew Russ.

The lawsuit, originally filed in Lincoln County Superior Court, challenged the PREP Act’s liability shield. The complaint alleged battery, negligence, false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with parental rights.

Keep reading

Veiled Threat: Possessing Pics of Muslim Women Without Hijabs Should Be Made a Crime, UK Lawmakers Say

Leftist lawmakers in Britain have argued that being in possession of pictures of Muslim women without their hijab headscarves should be a crime akin to child pornography.

Impending legislation originally intended to crack down on revenge porn should include the prohibition against having images of Muslim women’s faces without their hijab if the photos were taken without their express permission.

The Women and Equalities Committee in the House of Commons argued that such pictures should be considered “non-consensual intimate images” and, therefore, come with similar penalties as possessing child pornography, including lengthy prison sentences, the Daily Mail reported.

If government ministers sign off the committee’s proposal, it could become a crime in Britain as early as this year.

At present, the law defines “intimate” images as those in which a person is seen fully or partially nude, is engaging in a sexual act, or is seen using the bathroom.

Responding to the call to criminalise some pictures of Muslim women without hijabs, David Spencer of the Policy Exchange think tank said: “Tackling the problem of ‘revenge porn’ is clearly important – but expanding this to so-called ‘culturally intimate’ images risks extending the criminal law too far.

“The police cannot be expected to wade into so-called ‘cultural’ issues when officers are already struggling to deal with the volume of stabbings, sexual assaults and thefts that occur every day. The Government should be cautious about creating yet more criminal offences.”

Keep reading

Taking Rights Seriously

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion,
and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
Mankind would be no more justified
In silencing that one person,
Than he, if he had the power,
Would be justified in silencing mankind.”

— John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

The world is filled with self-evident truths — truisms — that philosophers, lawyers and judges know need not be proven. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Two plus two equals four. A cup of boiling hot coffee sitting on a table in a room, the temperature of which is 70 degrees Fahrenheit, will eventually cool down.

These examples, of which there are legion, are not true because we believe they are true. They are true essentially and substantially. They are true whether we accept their truthfulness or not. Of course, recognizing a universal truth acknowledges the existence of an order of things higher than human laws, certainly higher than government.

The generation of Americans that fought the war of secession against England — according to Professor Murray Rothbard, the last moral war Americans waged — understood the existence of truisms and recognized their origin in nature.

The most famous of these recognitions was Thomas Jefferson’s iconic line in the Declaration of Independence that self-evident truths come not from persons but from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Thus, “All Men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is a truism.

Jefferson’s neighbor and colleague, James Madison, understood this as well when he wrote the Bill of Rights so as to reflect that human rights do not come from the government. They come from our individual humanity.

Natural Rights

Thus, your right to be alive, to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to worship or not, to associate or not, to shake your fist in the tyrant’s face by petitioning the government, your right to defend yourself and repel tyrants using and carrying the same weapons as the government does, your right to be left alone, to own property, to travel or to stay put — these natural aspects of human existence are natural rights that come from our humanity and for the exercise of which all rational persons yearn.

This is the natural rights understanding of Jefferson’s Declaration and Madison’s Bill of Rights, to the latter of which all in government have sworn allegiance and deference.

A right is not a privilege. A right is an indefeasible personal claim against the whole world. It does not require a government permission slip. It does not require preconditions except the ability to reason. It does not require the approval of family or neighbors.

Keep reading

Kentucky Senate Panel Votes To Ban Sale Of Hemp-Derived Beverages On A Temporary Basis

Kentucky lawmakers advanced a “shell” bill Wednesday evening to ban the sale of hemp-derived beverages in the state until summer of 2026, a move supporters say will allow time to understand how intoxicating versions of the beverages are impacting consumers.

But those involved in the hemp industry decried the proposed moratorium on the sale of hemp-derived beverages as hampering, or even crippling, small businesses trying to market, distribute or sell the canned beverages that are gaining popularity across the country and popping up in places including convenience stores.

Senate Bill 202 sponsor Sen. Julie Raque Adams (R-Louisville) said the goal of her bill is to better understand and regulate intoxicating hemp-derived beverages similar to how the state regulates other intoxicating beverages such as beer or liquor.

She spoke to lawmakers alongside Rep. Matthew Koch (R- Paris) with a line of cans on a desk featuring various flavors and amounts of infused non-intoxicating cannabidiol, known as CBD, and other cannabinoids, which can include intoxicating tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

“We are simply placing a moratorium on their sale until such time as we can establish robust regulations that protect Kentucky consumers and, most importantly, Kentucky children,” Adams said. “We have a real, I think, consumer protection issue going on right now. We need to make sure that Kentucky gets this right.”

Legislative concerns about regulating hemp-derived beverages sprang into public view on the 22nd day of this year’s 30-day session. The deadline for filing bills in the Senate was February 18.

Keep reading