CALIFORNIA, HERE"S AN EASIER SOLUTION TO DRUG/DDL: ZERO TOLERANCE

California has enacted Drug Dealer Liability and now several complicated issue have arisen, which must be attended to. I started my DRUG CHART CHALLENGE in 1992/QCDC and to now realize that this state seriously thinks DDL is effective, is wrong. First the following article is detailing if Californians want to put dealers through the legal system, what about doctors who do the same DISTRIBUTION???? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-californias-drug-dealer-liability-act-apply-doctors-collins

What is most disturbing in this article is the following "...The effect on a community is the same – destruction of life, economic and emotional distress for the user’s loved ones, and an economic drain on insurance companies and government programs that fund addiction treatment.  Shouldn't the liability, therefore, be the same?" If the effect on the community of this state is that serious of an issue, then lets stop pretending and just enact: ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES. Therefore, there'll be no more need to be concerned of a safe/secure future. And the REAL COST that TAX payers pay in this state can be accounted for in Strength based community empowerment-with alternative ways of altered states of consciousness.

It pisses me off, that this state seriously think that DDL is effective when it put the state at some risk. How can the state term, the dealers who can sale (to deter future career choices of some citizens, and deter new user from start usage) from those who can't? Is it going to be an issue that "THE STATE DRUG DEALER" is out there selling dope for the state. Just to turn around and put the citizen through the justice system (an additional cost to TAX PAYERS) to result in what. They non-involvement in the very same system they should be opposing.

DDL CA, states that there should be any determinate MARKERS by which the "STATE DOPE" is different that the street dope. I am lose at this point. I keep thinking this is good to protect the health of citizens. But then let just pretend, "State Dope" adds SODIUM to meth. At that point isn't the state putting itself at liability as it trys to enact substance control within our state?  What is the MARKER clause for then? And serious, doesn't the term, "STATE DOPE" registers with anyone.

So now California has state dope,and state drug dealers, who's job is to secure and enforce the streets of Cali on tax payers money. Why are we going in circles. Just zero tolerance it out. This DDL is so much like death row executions. Whereby the state seriously has to consider that it will be responsible for putting human/citizens to death. Now we have jumped to drugging some citizens.

Here is a personal testimonial by me, when another state/county/city attempt to charge me with 3 counts of murder for distribution, possession with intent to sale, only to find out the dope was from the evidence room. Back then I was just beginning my DRUG CHART CHALLENGE, but now I think drugs/Placebos  from the evidence room, equal what California should consider, "STATE DOPE"! http://paulgoree.blogspot.com/2018/03/co-operative.html

Here is the entire California DDL https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=10.2.&title=&part=&chapter=&article=

SENSORY RECEPTIONS, DRUGS, and PSYCHIC ABILITIES

SENSORY RECEPTIONS, DRUGS and  PSYCHIC ABILITIES
by: Paul Goree

The question comes to mind, do certain drugs heighten sensory abilities and sub-conscious awareness. The following links provide some basic understanding of the 6 sensory receptors: EYES, EARS, NOSE, TOUCH, TASTE, INTUITIONS. Intuition is defines as -- 'a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning. the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. '

 http://worldclassadvisors.com/pdf/napoleon_hill_principle_9.pdf


http://www.interactive-biology.com/3629/7-senses-and-an-introduction-to-sensory-receptors/


https://www.sophia.org/tutorials/sensory-receptors


http://susanbuckmorss.info/text/aesthetics-and-anaesthetics-part-ii/



http://psychic.bitwine.com/forums/5-featured-advisors/topics/29601

Observation of Substance Based Collective 1992-2015

From the year 1992, I have been observing many factors of drugs usage. At the time I was working towards a Q.C.D.C, in Washington state: yet felt that the training and rehabilitation at the time was insufficient.  Some of the leading theories of the era included, Psychotherapeutic and Coping Skills-Training Techniques (Washton M. Arnold, 1989) Motivational Counseling Techniques (Miller and Rollnick,1991), Relapse Prevention (RP) Strategies (Marlatt and Gordon,1985), and Psychodynamic Techniques (Brehm and Khantzian, 1992). Although these techniques were and still have significant function in modern drug counseling. They may fail to provide efficient abstinence. 

In Anne M. Flectcher's work titled, "Inside Rehab".  Mrs. Flectcher concludes that many treatment programs fail because they lack a modern Evidence Based Care. “There are exceptions, but of the many thousands of treatment programs out there, most use exactly the same kind of treatment you would have received in 1950, not modern scientific approaches...". Ms. Flectcher stated that she advocates "science based practices that should form the basis of addiction treatment." These treatment practices seek to remove myths about treatment and the user. For example, Ms. Flecther stated, "...One such myth is the belief that most addicts need to go to a rehab center. The truth is that most people recover (1) completely on their own, (2) by attending self-help groups, and/or (3) by seeing a counselor or therapist individually,”( Brody, E. Jane, 2013)

Another factor contributing to insufficient substance treatment, are the characteristics of the counselor and the education requirements. In 1992, to obtain a Q.C.D.C. in the state of Washington, all a person needed was an A.A. and one year of experience as a Social and Health Program Clerk/Assistant. For selected positions in an alcohol and substance abuse program, status as a Qualified Chemical Dependency Counselor (QCDC) or equivalent is required.  The equivalency will be determined in accordance with WAC 275-19-145(1). However today, the following requirements are necessary.

• Have a Bachelor's degree in social work, a health or social science, public administration or a related field; and three years of professional experience in planning, administering, developing, or delivering social, financial, health, or chemical dependency treatment services programs.
• Pass the Washington State Certified Adviser Examination in risk assessment, ethics and appropriate screening using the global assessment of functioning scale, client referral and Washington State law
• Have a written supervisory agreement
• Additional qualifying experience will substitute, year for year, for the required education, except for a QCDC requirement. (Washington State Board of Health, Chapter 18.19 RCW)

In 1994 while attending the University of New Mexico, I came across the term "sub-cultural substance based collectives". This term is meant to detail the social consequences of drug usage that were not socially penal in nature-but socially assemblage.  Such collectives (especially with the distortion of sensory reception) easily manipulate social symbolic processes, which incite cohesion. The term Self-fulfilling prophecy, suggest how we as a society affect how others view themselves. Yet when Sub-cultural substance based collectives, utilize social processes of expectations:they collective make truth of actions the possibilities of probability of the unconscious and conscious actions. (Walden, Chris, 2011)

Sub-cultural substance based collectives, create a collective identity.  In  Dr. Clairissa D. Breen's work, titled "The Case for Collective Hate: Simulating the Formation of Hate Groups", Breen stateds that, "One key factor in human group formation is an overt or developed collective identity that draws the individuals together and maintains the group‟s cohesiveness (Jasper and Poulsen, 1995: Polletta and Jasper, 2001: Jacobs and Potter, 1998; Hamm, 2004: McVeigh, 2006: Berbrier, 1998) ...Part of the formation of such groups is the call for membership based on this identity or identifying characteristics (Useem, 1972: Jasper and Poulsen, 1995: Langman, 2005: Jasper and Polletta, 2001: Berbrier, 1998).

As a converse method of sub-cultural substance based collectives agenda, to either ridicule users or to internal reward within a functioning usage mechanism. I have observed dramalogical expressive like performances. For example last week while coming down, I observed a unknown to me young man-who sat next to me in the courtyard of a DRC/NG and began to dramatically present the pain and butchery nature of a junkie meth user. His performance was isolated and directed towards me as I sat quietly recalling similar performances from  Angel Thurman in Phoenix, Arizona.  I recorded one of Angels actions and posted it on Youtube "Sneaking Out Da Window-paul goree". https://youtu.be/-O--G-fAnAA

I have observed from 1999-2015 similar actions in the state of Nevada (Las Vegas), Arizona (Phoenix) and California (San Diego). These collective dramalogical performances seems to have not been observable from 1992-1998 in Ohio, Washington, Missouri, or New Mexico. These collective expressions suggest that there does seem to be a sub-cultural meth collective-which seeks to annoy users with guilt, humiliation, paranoia, primarily for the purpose of  cessation of substance usage. Their method is unethical and violates user civil rights without correct enforcement.

In Phoenix Margret Finn heads a project which is for categorical HUD grants (HOPWA).  A separate fraction of the program (for deemed clients) servers as an substance treatment for extreme out of control user at South West Behavioral Service (per Johnny Garcia). Margret Finn and Johnny Garcia carelessly place individuals together as roommate, thus providing a hostile environment for those who were not users or sought cessation.  Also Community Bridges has a substance abuse program that hires prior users of method etc. Offering them quasi case manager positions as navigators. One such navigator was assigned to me Dec 2014-May 2015. She was fired May 2015 and was a mal factor to me seeming she violated several codes of case management and was associated with Margret Finn (conflict of interest) seeming I have posted blogs of Mrs. Finn and her neglect and civil liberties violations from 11/2012-7/2013 when she and J. Garcia were my case managers navigator from SWBS.

It has been suggested that characters like the two person mention above. Intentionally seek to create a hostile environment, while sub-culturally using intimidation factors of guilt to modify behavior. These persons themselves were once users, and or subjectively identify with sub-cultural animosity towards user. 

R.E.D.U. Drug Testimonial 1992-2015 and Drug Dealer Liability Act

https://paulgoree.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/r-e-d-u-reverse-the-environment-of-drugs-and-you-work-in-progress/

R.E.D.U is the acronym for Reverse Environment Drugs and You. It in part is a testimonial of my life of drug usage, which awkwardly began in 1992. Ambitious and unknowledgeable, I was attending Seattle Community College. My goal was to obtain my A.A. and a Q.C.D.C which today are titled CAADAC & NAADAC. Having never used drugs, I found it difficult to counsel others on the matter. However I quickly learned that counseling was not an personal advice effort. But was depended and structured around a practical formula. I unwittingly asked the instructor, “How can I counsel someone on marijuana use, when I have never used marijuana?” I was immediately reminded of the technique we were reviewing in another class on counseling. Well that explanation was enough for me, and so I decided, that we live and learn. And from that day forward, I set out to try all the drugs on the National Institute of Drug, drug chart. The chart consist of the following categories: Prescription Medication, Other Compounds (ex: anabolic steroids), Hallucinogens, Dissociative Drugs (ex: Ketamine), Club Drugs (ex: MDMA), Stimulants, Opioids, Cannabinoids, Alcohol and Tobacco.

From 1992 till 2011, I accomplished my imprudent goal. Today I look back at that self-challenge and am thankful to faith (Yes, I always prayed to GOD to see me through the madness I had positioned myself). I am also thankful to the various instructors, users, and theories regarding drug usage. When I was 18 I sign petition and later voted for ballot measure Assigned Number 692- Sponsors Karen Pehoushek and Mr. Robert Killian- The petition secured 260,335 signatures. The petition was found to have sufficient valid signatures, and appeared on the Nov. 3, 1998, General Election Ballot in the state of Washington. (WOW look at Washington State today 2015-Liberty does work and the people have spoken!! update: 3/23/2015)

NOW from another prospective, I have been interested in Drug Dealer Liability since 2002, here is some interesting facts and explanation of the program...

DRUG DEALER LIABILITY ACT

http://www.modelddla.com/Overview_of_the_Model_Drug-Dealer_Liability_Act.htm

Overview of the Model Drug Dealer Liability Act:

Legislatures across the nation are passing a unique new statute that provides redress for those injured by illegal drugs. This new law, known as the Model Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA), makes drug dealers civilly liable to those injured by a driver under the influence of drugs, families who lose a child to illegal drugs and others injured by illegal drugs. It is essentially a products liability act for illegal drugs.

Michigan, Oklahoma, Illinois, Hawaii, Arkansas, California, South Dakota, Utah, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Colorado, South Carolina, the U.S. Virgin Islands, New Hampshire, Tennessee and New York have passed the Model Drug Dealer Liability Act. Existing law in the remaining states does not clearly establish a means by which drug dealers can be made to pay damages for the injuries they cause. The Drug Dealer Liability Act fills that void. The first lawsuit brought under the Act resulted in a judgment on July 21, 1995 of $1 million in favor of a drug baby and more than $7 million to the city of Detroit’s expenses for providing drug treatment to inmates in Detroit jails. Two Detroit dealers were ordered to pay the damages to the drug baby’s siblings because the baby was born addicted to cocaine and was later bludgeoned to death by her mother while high on drugs. In Utah, the wife of a drug-using professional brought a Drug Dealer Liability Act case against her husband’s dealer of six years. The defendant in that case settled after losing his pretrial challenges to the Drug Dealer Liability Act. In South Dakota in April 2000 a jury returned a verdict under South Dakota’s Drug Dealer Liability Act in the amount of $268 Million in favor of a woman whose husband was killed in a head on collision with a driver under the influence of drugs. The defendant was not the driver of the car but the dealer who supplied drugs to the driver.

States that have adopted the Model Drug Dealer Liability Act:

The following states have adopted the Model Drug Dealer Liability Act:

Arkansas - Drug Dealer Liability Act, 1995 Ark. Acts No. 896 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. '' 16-124-101 to -112 (Michie Supp. 1997)).

California - Drug Dealer Liability Act, 1996 Cal. Legis. Serv. 3792 (West) (codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code '' 11700 to 11717 (West Supp. 1998)).

Colorado - Colo. Rev. Stat. 13-21-801 to 813.

Georgia - Drug Dealer Liability Act, 1997 Ga. Laws 387 (codified at O.C.G.A. ' 51-1-46 (Supp. 1998)).

Hawaii - Drug Dealer Liability Act, 1995 Haw. Sess. Laws ch. 203 (codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. ' 663D (Michie Supp. 1997)).

Illinois - Drug Dealer Liability Act, 1995 Ill. Leg. Serv. 89-293 (West) (codified at 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 57/1-25 (West Supp. 1997)).

Indiana - Drug Dealer Liability Act, 1997 Ind. Acts 2924 (codified at Ind. Code Ann. ' 34-1-70 (Michie Supp. 1998) (repealed by 1998 Ind. Acts. 8 (effective July 1, 1998)); Reenacted by by P.L.1-1998, SEC.19 (codified at Ind. Code Ann. 34-24-4-1 to 14).

Louisiana - Louisiana Drug Dealer Liability Act, 1997 La. Sess. Law Serv. 719 (West) (codified at La. Rev. Stat. Ann. '' 9:2800.61-.76 (West Supp. 1998)).

Michigan - Drug Dealer Liability Act, 1994 Mich. Legis. Serv. 27 (West) (codified at Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. '' 691.1601-.1619 (West Supp. 1998)).

New Hampshire - Chapter 318-C:1, et seq. (2005).

New Jersey - Drug Dealer Liability Act, 2001, N.J.S.A. Title 2C. Chapter 35B §§1-15.

New York - Drug Dealer Liability Act, Gen. Oblig. Sec. 12-101 et seq.

Oklahoma - Drug Dealer Liability Act, 1994 Okla. Sess. Law Serv. ch. 179 (West) (codified at Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, '' 2-421 to -435 (West 1997)).

South Carolina - S. Carolina Stat. 44-54-10 to 140.

South Dakota - South Dakota Codified Laws Sec. 34-20 C-1 et seq.

Tennessee - TCA 29-38-101 et seq. [2005, ch. 77].

Utah - Drug Dealer's Liability Act, 1997 Utah Laws 1991 (codified at Utah Code Ann. 58-37e-1 to -14 (Supp. 1998)).

U.S. Virgin Islands - 19 V.I.C. 641 to 658

Copyright © 2010 Daniel Bent. All rights reserved.

Entrapment

Entrapment

Prosecuting so-called "victimless crimes" (such as narcotics offenses, prostitution, and pornography distribution) relies heavily on sting operations in which undercover officers posing as fellow criminals gain the confidence of suspects and catch them dirty. Other kinds of crimes can also involve a suspect's misplaced trust in an undercover agent, including bribery, fencing, auto theft, sale of alcohol to minors, and even solicitation for murder.

When working these kinds of cases, you're allowed to go to certain lengths to create opportunities for crimes or to fool suspects into thinking you're a lawbreaker yourself so as to induce them to attempt or commit a crime, for which you can then arrest them. But there's a limit. If you exceed it, you allow the suspect to raise a defense of entrapment.

Read More At: http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2008/10/entrapment.aspx#.VDhE7WlviwU.blogger

My Thoughts:
Common sense...anyone ACCUSING another of being an officer or under
cover or co-operative is probably not who they say they are! And maybe
trying to create confusion of a mask for themselves!!!