In the world we want, the organization of economic life mimics healthy ecosystems that are locally rooted, highly adaptive, and self-reliant in food and energy. Information and technology are shared freely, and trade between neighbors is fair and balanced. Each community, region and nation strives to live within its own means in balance with its own environmental resources. Conflicts are resolved peacefully and no group seeks to expropriate the resources of its neighbors. Competition is for excellence, not domination.

David Korten | CommonDreams.org

However, with images of Katrina and other unplanned-for disasters in mind, the consequences of not planning for a disaster that actually occurs are grave, in every sense of the word.

So, the neighbors and I have been pondering this conundrum and what we’ve come up with is Rule #1: make sure that you are able to feed yourself, family and neighbors, without resorting to food that requires any oil-inputs (for fertilizers, factory farming, packaging, processing, or transportation) and without engaging in any survivalist hoarding.

I should mention here that I live on an island, population around 4500, an hour ferry’s ride from America. The Washington State ferry system has been suffering from anti-government, anti-tax attacks since the early ’90s and was already showing alarming signs of breakdown before the price of oil started rising. Now we consider it a given that ferry service will continue to seriously decline, and a high probability that at some point it will stop altogether, or be reserved to the very few who can pay super-sized ticket prices.

So, even if the world manages to avoid world-wide economic collapse, our little world will change and either food shipped from the mainland will become way too expensive or will just stop coming altogether, or, the best case scenario, we will be limited to buying one or two staples that we just can’t give up but can’t produce on our own (such as rice).

We’re rejecting hoarding for several reasons. Practically-speaking, we have neither the money nor the storage space for setting aside large stocks of provisions. Yet even if we did, you can only store so much for so long — sooner or later, if you can’t produce your own food, you’re dead. Lastly, if you’re all stocked up, but you’re surrounded by people who aren’t, you’re going to need weapons also, and you’ll need to be able to let children starve to death without intervening.

Yuck on that.

So, A lot of soil being turned over this spring, seeds going in the ground, more chickens being added to roosts, a lot of thinking about the water supply. Back to basics.

The best thing about this approach is that even if the collapse never happens, everything we’ve done was really worth doing.

Michael Sky

But here’s my real problem: I just can’t waste another moment thinking about the powers-that-be in government, the media and big biz who are destroying this country, and with it the world; am not willing to spend one more iota of my precious consciousness on the contemplation of George W Bush and his cohort of war criminals; and, frankly, must concede that none of my writing has made an effing bit of difference.

Ouch.

Those of you who have sent emails over the years telling me I was too angry and too consumed with Bush-bashing were right, mostly. Though I don’t want to ever be the sort of person who could witness a major crime against humanity without getting angry and needing to do something to stop it, I’ve known for some time that my writing wasn’t resolving the anger or solving any problems.

So, I’m going to try to take the advice that was usually added to those emails: I will focus on the issues of personal, social, and environmental healing. I will never mention Bush again, nor will I participate in the endless, screeching noise-fest that passes for political commentary in this country.

I continue to believe that the vast majority of people are good, decent, and naturally inclined toward living in peace; that our problem is with a very small percentage of “dominists” who will do anything to retain wealth and power; and that our quandary is that we can not defeat them using their methods: force begets force, violence begets violence, domination begets domination.

This has been the doom of every right-intentioned revolution or resurrection in human history — as good as it feels to turn the tables on the dominators, any use of dominating force only results in another dominist system.

I see two ways out of this conundrum. The first requires that those who hold the power voluntarily and with full sincerity choose to share that power. No war, no fight, no struggle for dominance. Rather, the very people with the most power to effect change come to their senses and do the right thing.

Solution number two requires that global dominism suffer a total collapse, with millions dying in the ensuing chaos. If we’re lucky, out of the ashes something better emerges.

Much as I would like to believe in the first possibility, I think we all should start preparing for latter.

Michael Sky

Yearly drug mortalities: Tobacco, 340-400,000; Alcohol, 125,000; Caffeine, 1000 to 10,000; Legal drug overdoses, 14-27,000; Illicit drug overdoses, 3800 to 5200; Aspirin, 180 to 1000 Marijuana, 0. —US Surgeon General

Just writing the title for this article feels a bit criminal. The War on Drugs has gotten us to the point where saying anything positive about marijuana makes you an immoral, youth-corrupting, teasonous jerk. Yet, the first casualty in the drug war was the truth. In our national frenzy to eradicate certain (but not all) types of drug use, we have become mired in a swamp of lies that do more damage to our nation than any drug ever could.

One does not have to be a past, present or would-be marijuana user to care deeply about this issue. The criminalization of marijuana has negative consequences that affect us all. Even such arch-conservatives as William Buckley, George Shultz and Milton Friedman have called for the legalization of marijuana. Their bottom line: fighting a war against marijuana constitutes a monumental waste of resources.

Marijuana is a common plant that has grown wild around the world for thousands of years. From 1000 B.C. until the late 1800s, it was the planet’s most widely-cultivated crop. Its psycho-active properties have long been important to many cultures for medicinal, spiritual and recreational purposes. There are hundreds of productive uses for which marijuana provides an ideal source material. Yet since 1937, the US has made the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana a venal and stringently punished crime. This is great foolishness with dire consequences. It is time for a change.

Criminalization creates crime

Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. —Abraham Lincoln

An estimated 10% of prisoners currently held in federal prisons were arrested for marijuana cultivation, possession and/or use. These people were not running huge quantities of drugs across our borders, or selling drugs to children, or in any way endangering other people. They were simply growing or using marijuana, usually in the privacy of their homes.

For this so-called crime against society we now demand mandatory sentences of twenty years to life, often without parole. The marijuana user will he in jail long after the rapist, armed burglar and kidnapper have been released. Indeed, our prisons are now so overcrowded with non-violent drug users that truly dangerous criminals are often put back on the streets for lack of space. Likewise, our police are so busy arresting non-violent drug users, and our courts so burdened with hearing their cases, that genuine threats to our society are that much harder to address.

It costs about $20,000 a year to incarcerate a federal criminal. That’s a half a million dollars per marijuana user if we hold him or her for twenty-five years. And it is likely that their time in jail will only turn marijuana users into real criminals, an added bonus for society when we get around to releasing them.

Criminalization is unconstitutional

In every society, the use of one or a small number of drugs is not only tolerated, but actively encouraged and promoted. And that goes hand in hand with defining all other drugs as “bad.” —Dr. Andrew Weil

Nowhere in the US Constitution is there support for the criminalization of marijuana or for the resulting war against peaceful US citizens, The Constitution clearly protects as primary each individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Founders understood that government should intervene in its citizens lives only when someone’s actions are harming someone else’s body or property. Marijuana users generally do neither.

The Constitution does specifically ban cruel and unusual punishment. Is it not unusually cruel to seize property, to utterly ruin lives, and to incarcerate people for twenty and more years for the growing of a common plant? Or for the decision to smoke that plant in the privacy of one’s home?

Ironically, the first draft of the Constitution was written on paper made from marijuana (or “hemp” — marijuana’s blue-collar name). Hemp was such an important product in the 1700s that farmers were required to grow it. And there is evidence that some of our Founding Fathers, after long days of fostering rebellion, liked to kick back and smoke a bowl or two of Colonial Hemp.

Michael Sky

Criminalization obstructs free enterprise

The greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add a useful plant to its culture. —Thomas Jefferson

The marijuana plant provides a soft yet durable fiber that is ideal for countless purposes in the textile, papermaking, and building industries. Its seeds provide an equally versatile oil and a high source of protein. Its leaves and flower tops have been processed into powerful medicines for thousands of years. All of this comes from what should he an abundant and renewable resource.

In a culture that idolizes the free market and clamors after the need for more and better jobs, the criminalization of marijuana represents a gross contradiction and a terrible waste. What would modern inventiveness and the entrepreneurial spirit do with this plant if the government would just get out of the way? A massive new industry would he born overnight. Millions of good, decent livings would be created and the world would be better for it.

Criminalization is unecological

They’ve outlawed the number one vegetable on the planet. —Timothy Leary

Marijuana is an herbaceous annual plant and a member of the mulberry family. It makes extremely efficient use of the sun, growing ten to twenty feet in a single short season. It is capable of growing in virtually any climate or soil on Earth, including all fifty of the United States. As it has no weed or insect enemies (except the DEA), it can be grown without using fertilizers, pesticides, or other chemicals.

Thus, the cultivation of marijuana is a soil-improving boon to the environment wherever it is grown. By criminalizing marijuana, we not only lose this beneficial plant, we often compound the loss by attacking it with soil-poisoning herbicides.

In addition, the criminalization of marijuana results in a host of other environmental losses. It would be far better for the environment, for instance, if we made paper from marijuana fiber rather than trees; or replaced some of the chemically-intensive cotton industry with marijuana-based textiles; or started burning marijuana by-products instead of fossil fuels.

Criminalization is religious oppression

Lord, there’s danger in this land. You get witch-hunts and wars when church and state hold hands. —Joni Mitchell

Marijuana, when smoked, typically affects one’s body, mind, and emotions. Marijuana is, in this regard, quite like many other psycho-active substances including alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar, meat, and prescription drugs. The decision to use or engage in any such substances is a personal choice that may involve some risk, since all such substances can be harmful when overused.

There is ample evidence that the mal-effects from overusing marijuana are minuscule compared to the proven mal-effects from overusing such legal intoxicants as alcohol and tobacco. Yet alcohol and tobacco are legal while marijuana is banned. Why?

The main thrust against using marijuana is religious moralizing. Some religious people are convinced that using marijuana is bad, as in eternal-damnation-bad. Secular arguments carry little weight in such circles; God says don’t smoke it and that’s all there is to it (Though God did allow the first Gutenberg Bible to be printed on hemp paper.)

People certainly have the right to such beliefs and should be free to practice according to those beliefs. However, this is a country founded upon a clear separation of church and state. Everyone is free to practice according their own beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, as long as such practices do not harm others.

The criminalization of marijuana is the turning of one group’s religious morals into secular laws that everyone else must obey. This is unconstitutional and unamerican. Moreover, millions of Americans are prevented from freely following their own spiritual paths which, as with numerous indigenous cultures, may well involve some use of marijuana or other psycho-active plants.

Criminallzation does not protect children

If there is anything more destructive to reason and common sense than drugs, it must be anti-drug frenzy. Early signs include memory loss, an inability to process simple facts, and a belligerent narrowing of the eyes. —Barbara Ehrenreich

The most compelling argument for the criminalization of marijuana is that we must protect our children from being unduly influenced toward serious drug overuse. While it is certainly preferable that children not be exposed to marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, and other potent drugs until they are old enough to make wise, informed choices, the fact remains that the criminalization of such substances has not worked. Indeed, a trip through many of today’s schools proves just the opposite: the more desperately we’ve fought the War on Drugs, the more that drugs have proliferated among our nation’s children.

The only thing that works with kids is the truth. They have highly-attuned antennae for hypocrisy; they cannot be expected to take seriously the demonizing of marijuana while tobacco kills 400,000 people per year, alcohol kills another 125,000, and the advertising industry tells them that those drugs are cool.

We need to honestly inform children about the nature of human consciousness and the common attraction toward various intoxicants. We need to explain how different intoxicants work, including their positive and negative aspects. Then we need to provide healthy environments with compelling options for play and learning, so that children naturally wait until they’re old enough to decide for themselves whether or not to try drugs.

Criminalization is bad public policy

The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS — or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them. And it can do so with remarkable safety. Indeed, marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day. —Joycelyn Elders, M.D.

Finally, consider that cancer and AIDS patients are prohibited from using the only substance that consistently improves their appetites; that glaucoma sufferers are not allowed to smoke away their pain; or that MS patients are prevented from trying marijuana, despite anecdotal reports of its effectiveness in treating their condition.

What are we doing? What gives anybody the right to stop such people from medicating themselves?

Even if you have no desire to use marijuana, in any of its forms, as a citizen you are involved in the choice to keep it illegal and thus bear responsibility for the consequences of that choice. For all the above reasons, the continued criminalization of marijuana is a bad choice leading to bad public consequences.

Good public policy regarding marijuana would remove all criminal sanctions against it, would oversee its cultivation, would regulate its many uses, and would collect appropriate taxes from its consumers. Let’s move on to real problems. Let’s legalize marijuana.

The one theme that I return to over and over is the abysmal lack of empathy that afflicts so many Americans and ultimately drives our war-mad foreign policy. Though I’d been writing about this in the ’90s, it was 9/11 that brought it into sharp focus.

According to most Americans: the fact that we were violently assaulted and 3,000 civilians murdered perfectly and righteously justified that thousands of young Americans would join the military, train in the ways of violence, and then fly off to foreign lands to violently assault and kill thousands of people, most of whom were civilians who had nothing to do with the attacks on us. We see these young men and women as fulfilling a sacred, even holy trust, engaged in the noblest of actions, giving their lives in defense of their country.

We certainly wouldn’t call them terrorists or evil-doers.

So they fly off to Afghanistan and Iraq and bomb whole towns to rubble; invade homes in the middle of the night and drag often innocent family members off to torture prisons, killing anyone who gets in the way; riddle cars with bullets when drivers fail to comprehend English directives; drop tens of thousands of bombs that are never “smart” enough to avoid murdering the innocent along with possibly-guilty; and, ultimately kill or displace more than a million people.

Surely, the Afghanis and Iraqis have suffered through far, far, far, far, far worse anguish and pain then Americans did on 9/11. Yet when their young men and women take up arms and attack their attackers we call them evil-doing terrorists.

And so it goes, each attack “justifying” the next, each act of vengeance assuring a new cell of “terrorists” bent on getting their just revenge.

The only way out of this ancient cycle is for some one to be big enough, bold enough, and courageous enough to say: It stops with me. I will not seek revenge. Instead, I will stand for peace and reconciliation.

To turn the other cheek: if America is really a Christian nation, it’s past time to start acting like one.

Michael Sky

There’s a problem. It’s called Net Neutrality. Well, frankly, we say to hell with that. We’re gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission.

In Thinking Peace I make the case that the Internet is the best hope that we have as a planet for getting through the hard times ahead. Nothing matters more than keeping a free flow of information to all people, regardless of income. If the Whitacre’s of the world — the rich elites — get their way, information will be parcelled out on an ability-to-pay basis only.

We need to keep the Internet as free and open as possible. For more, go to Save the Internet.

Michael Sky