Connect with us

Cannabis News

Was the Woman Who Stabbed Her Boyfriend 100x and Blamed Weed Part of a New PsyOps Program?

Published

on


psych ops cannabis

Ganja Theory – Is the Bryn Spejcher Killing a PsyOp?

 

In a world riddled with complex narratives and covert agendas, the term “PsyOp” or Psychological Operation, has become a critical concept in understanding the manipulation of public perception. Originating from military strategy, PsyOps are operations intended to convey selected information and indicators to audiences, influencing their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately, the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose? To induce or reinforce behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives.

 

Historically, PsyOps have been used in various contexts. During World War II, for instance, false radio broadcasts and leaflets were used to mislead enemy troops. In the Cold War era, the use of media and propaganda to shape political sentiment was rampant. Even in modern times, the internet and social media have become fertile ground for such operations, blurring the lines between truth and manipulation.

 

However, what happens when the principles of PsyOps infiltrate into everyday narratives, particularly those concerning public health and safety? This brings us to a peculiar case that recently sparked a lightbulb moment in my mind – the story of Bryn Spejcher.

 

Bryn Spejcher, a woman who brutally murdered her boyfriend Chad O’Melia after allegedly taking a hit from a bong, claimed that cannabis induced a psychotic state leading to the crime. Strangely, her punishment was a mere 100 hours of community service and two years probation, a sentence that’s bewilderingly lenient for such a violent act. Furthermore, the lack of substantial psychiatric evaluation or any prison time for manslaughter raises eyebrows. Instead, Spejcher was sent out to propagate the “ills of cannabis.”

 

The light sentence and the subsequent narrative shift towards cannabis-induced psychosis seem too orchestrated, too convenient. Could this be a contemporary example of a PsyOp, specifically targeting the public’s perception of cannabis? The modus operandi fits: use a real, tragic event and spin a narrative that serves a broader agenda – in this case, painting cannabis in a negative light.

 

When one begins to peel back the layers and compare similar stories, a pattern emerges, aligning eerily with tactics previously seen in PsyOps. Are we witnessing a sophisticated and sinister ploy to sway public opinion against cannabis using Spejcher’s case as a vehicle?

 

Let’s delve deeper into this intriguing possibility and unravel whether the Bryn Spejcher killing is more than just a tragic crime, but a calculated PsyOp with far-reaching implications in the ongoing discourse around cannabis.

 

 

The Bryn Spejcher case is an extraordinary tale that not only stirs deep emotions but also invokes a sense of déjà vu for those familiar with the history of cannabis propaganda. Spejcher’s story, with its bizarrely lenient sentencing for a brutal crime, serves as a stark reminder of the power of narrative framing in shaping public perception, especially regarding cannabis.

 

Spejcher received a sentence so mild it borders on the incredulous for the murder of Chad O’Melia. Even accepting her claim of cannabis-induced psychosis at face value, the punishment stands in stark contrast to the gravity of her actions. Her role now, as a spokesperson warning about the dangers of cannabis, seems less like retribution and more like a strategic move in a broader narrative.

 

This turn of events echoes a familiar tone for those of us who have been in the trenches of cannabis journalism for over a decade. It’s reminiscent of the tactics employed by Henry Anslinger, a name synonymous with the early criminalization of cannabis and the propagation of “Reefer Madness.”

Anslinger, the first commissioner of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics, was notorious for his role in demonizing cannabis.

 

His methods were not just about law enforcement; they were a comprehensive campaign that leveraged racism and mass hysteria. Collaborating with influential figures like William Randolph Hearst and the DuPont family, Anslinger fueled a propaganda machine that churned out sensational and often wildly fabricated stories about the effects of cannabis.

 

During the height of the Reefer Madness era, the public was bombarded with tales of insanity, violence, and moral decay – all supposedly caused by cannabis. These narratives were strategically crafted to instill fear and justify the stringent regulations and harsh penalties for cannabis use. Anslinger’s racist and alarmist rhetoric painted cannabis as a scourge that needed to be eradicated, a message that was effectively disseminated through media and policy.

 

The case of Bryn Spejcher, in its handling and subsequent narrative, seems to be a modern iteration of this age-old tactic. The light sentence and the pivot to a public anti-cannabis crusade bear an uncanny resemblance to the fear-mongering techniques of the past. It’s as if the shadows of Reefer Madness loom over this case, hinting at a possible orchestrated effort to reignite old fears and biases against cannabis.

 

This striking parallel raises critical questions about the underlying motives and the potential players behind such a narrative. Are we witnessing a contemporary PsyOp, a carefully orchestrated campaign using Spejcher’s story to sway public opinion and policy on cannabis? The similarity to Anslinger’s methods cannot be overlooked, suggesting a possible resurgence of old propaganda tactics in new garb.

 

As we delve deeper into the Spejcher case, it’s crucial to maintain a critical eye and question the narratives being presented. History has shown us the power of propaganda, especially when it comes to cannabis, and the Spejcher case might just be the latest chapter in this ongoing saga.

 

 

While not venturing into the realm of outright denial of the events that transpired, there is a need to critically examine the narrative surrounding Spejcher’s claim of cannabis-induced psychosis. Is it a case of genuine mental health crisis or a convenient plot point in a larger narrative?

 

The reality of the situation is stark. The crime committed by Spejcher was real and horrific. However, the claim of psychosis induced by cannabis consumption raises doubts, especially considering the background and context. It’s plausible that Spejcher might indeed be a disturbed individual with underlying psychological issues, and the cannabis angle could be either a red herring or a trigger, not the root cause.

 

The leniency of her sentence is where the plot thickens. Such a mild punishment for a violent crime is not just unusual; it’s alarming. This judicial decision sets a dangerous precedent and fits neatly into the age-old narrative of “weed kills,” a slogan reminiscent of the Reefer Madness era. It’s a narrative that’s been debunked time and again, yet it resurfaces, repackaged for a modern audience.

 

This leniency could potentially be leveraged to weave a social narrative aligning with prohibitionist views. The case could be referenced in future legal contexts, citing the dangers of marijuana as a justification for maintaining tight control over its use and distribution. The “Spejcher defense” might become a template for similar cases, artificially inflating the instances of cannabis-induced violence.

 

This manipulation of public perception serves the interests of those advocating for continued prohibition and criminalization of cannabis. It overlooks the reality that millions consume cannabis without resorting to violence, even when using potent strains. The case of Bryn Spejcher, therefore, becomes more than a tragic crime; it transforms into a tool for those aiming to uphold a prohibitionist stance, by instilling fear and justifying stringent regulations. This careful orchestration of events and narratives raises the question: Are we witnessing a sophisticated PsyOp in play?

 

 

Label me a skeptic, or even call me crazy, but the Spejcher case echoes a disturbing trend in the history of cannabis legislation and propaganda. It’s a familiar tale, where mental illness is conveniently intertwined with cannabis use to justify stringent laws and societal paranoia.

 

Take, for instance, the infamous tale peddled by Harry Anslinger, the architect of cannabis prohibition. He once spun a yarn about a young man in Florida who, after a single puff of marijuana, gruesomely murdered his family with an axe. The truth was starkly different: the individual was suffering from severe psychotic schizophrenia, with or without cannabis. Yet, this story became a cornerstone of the Reefer Madness era, shaping public opinion and policy for decades.

 

Fast forward to the Spejcher case, and we see a hauntingly similar narrative. Spejcher claimed she had to kill her boyfriend and a dog to “come back to life” from a perceived state of death, a narrative eerily mirroring the Florida incident. It portrays Spejcher as someone who, facing an existential dilemma, chose homicide as a route to self-preservation. If true, this paints a portrait of a deeply troubled individual, far beyond the reach of mere cannabis-induced psychosis.

 

Yet, it’s the sentencing that raises the most significant red flags. In a scenario where the psychotic break was real, one would expect rigorous psychiatric intervention and long-term observation. Instead, Spejcher’s story becomes a platform for anti-cannabis rhetoric, her sentence a mere slap on the wrist. This leniency is perplexing, especially considering the severity of the crime.

 

There’s also another point we haven’t even touched on… “If the roles were reversed” would a man receive the same lenient treatment for murdering his girlfriend while under the influence of cannabis? Are we truly equal under law or is it a system of control like religion? It’s a rhetorical question that highlights the gender biases and double standards in our legal system.

 

The Spejcher case, in essence, could be seen as a modern-day PsyOp, echoing the tactics used by Anslinger. It utilizes a blend of mental health issues and cannabis consumption to perpetuate fear and justify continued prohibition. This narrative not only shapes public opinion but also influences future legal proceedings, potentially setting dangerous precedents in the adjudication of cannabis-related crimes.

 

 

As we wrap up this deep dive into the Spejcher case, the lingering question remains: Is it a carefully orchestrated PsyOp or not? From my vantage point, justice seems to have taken a backseat here. The leniency of the sentence, the narrative spun around cannabis-induced psychosis, and the historical echoes of similar cases all point towards a potential PsyOp.

 

Let’s face it, the ruling class has a track record that can often be questioned. Just take a cursory glance at the number of lawmakers with legal troubles – it’s an eye-opener. This case could very well be another instance where those in power manipulate narratives to serve their ends, especially in matters concerning cannabis.

 

So, what’s your take on this Ganja Theory? Is it a plausible scenario, or am I just high on my own supply? Chime in with your thoughts and let’s keep unraveling these tangled narratives together.

 

THE MURDER BLAMED ON CANNABIS PSYCHOSIS, READ ON…

CANNABIS PSYCHOSIS MURDER CASE

COMMIT MUDER, BLAME THE WEED, GET 100 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE?



Source link

Cannabis News

Latest Trump Weed Rumor – Trump Will Federally Deschedule and Decriminalize Cannabis, but Not Legalize It

Published

on

By


trump on marijuana reform

In a recent interview, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made headlines by asserting that President-elect Donald Trump will pursue significant reforms in federal policies regarding marijuana and cryptocurrency. As the nation grapples with evolving attitudes toward cannabis and the burgeoning digital currency market, Christie’s predictions have ignited discussions about the potential implications of such changes on both industries. This article delves into Christie’s insights, the current state of marijuana and cryptocurrency regulations, and the broader implications of these anticipated reforms.

 

The Current Landscape of Marijuana Legislation

 

Federal vs. State Laws

Marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which places it in the same category as heroin and LSD. This classification has created a complex legal landscape where states have moved to legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, while federal law continues to impose strict prohibitions. As of now, over 30 states have legalized marijuana in some form, leading to a burgeoning industry that generates billions in revenue.

 

Challenges Faced by the Cannabis Industry

 

Despite its legality in many states, the cannabis industry faces significant hurdles due to federal restrictions. These challenges include:

  • Banking Access: Many banks are hesitant to work with cannabis businesses due to fear of federal repercussions, forcing these businesses to operate largely in cash.

  • Taxation Issues: The IRS enforces Section 280E of the tax code, which prohibits businesses engaged in illegal activities from deducting normal business expenses, leading to disproportionately high tax burdens for cannabis companies.

  • Interstate Commerce: The lack of federal legalization prevents cannabis businesses from operating across state lines, limiting their growth potential.

 

Chris Christie’s Perspective on Marijuana Reform

 

Christie, a former presidential candidate known for his tough stance on drugs during his tenure as governor, has evolved his views on marijuana over the years. In his recent statements, he emphasized that Trump is likely to pursue descheduling cannabis, which would remove it from the Schedule I classification. This move would not only provide clarity for businesses operating in legal markets but also open avenues for banking and investment.

 

Christie highlighted that descheduling would allow for a more regulated market where safety standards could be established, thus protecting consumers. He believes that this approach aligns with a growing consensus among Americans who support legalization and recognize the potential benefits of cannabis use for both medical and recreational purposes.

 

The Future of Cryptocurrency Regulation = The Rise of Cryptocurrencies

 

Cryptocurrencies have surged in popularity over the past decade, with Bitcoin leading the charge as the first decentralized digital currency. The market has expanded to include thousands of alternative coins (altcoins), each with unique features and use cases. As cryptocurrencies gain traction among investors and consumers alike, regulatory scrutiny has intensified.

 

Current Regulatory Challenges

 

The cryptocurrency market faces several regulatory challenges that hinder its growth and adoption:

 

  • Lack of Clarity: Regulatory frameworks vary significantly across states and countries, creating confusion for investors and businesses.

  • Fraud and Scams: The rapid growth of cryptocurrencies has led to an increase in fraudulent schemes targeting unsuspecting investors.

  • Consumer Protection: Without clear regulations, consumers are often left vulnerable to risks associated with volatile markets.

 

Christie’s Vision for Crypto Regulation

 

Christie believes that under Trump’s leadership, there will be an effort to find a “sweet spot” for cryptocurrency regulation balancing innovation with consumer protection. He argues that overly stringent regulations could stifle growth in this emerging sector while too little oversight could expose consumers to significant risks.

 

In his view, a balanced regulatory framework would include:

 

1. Clear Definitions: Establishing clear definitions for different types of cryptocurrencies and tokens to differentiate between securities and utility tokens.

2. Consumer Protections: Implementing measures to protect investors from fraud while promoting transparency within the market.

3. Encouraging Innovation: Creating an environment conducive to innovation by allowing startups to thrive without excessive regulatory burdens.

 

Christie’s insights reflect a growing recognition among policymakers that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and that appropriate regulations are necessary to foster growth while safeguarding consumers.

 

Implications of Proposed Reforms

 

Economic Impact

 

The potential reforms proposed by Christie could have far-reaching economic implications:

 

  • Job Creation: Legalizing marijuana at the federal level could lead to significant job creation within the cannabis industry—from cultivation and production to retail sales.

  • Investment Opportunities: Descheduling cannabis would open up investment opportunities for institutional investors who have been hesitant due to federal restrictions.

  • Boosting Local Economies: Legal cannabis markets have proven beneficial for local economies through increased tax revenues and job creation.

 

Similarly, clear regulations around cryptocurrencies could stimulate investment in blockchain technology and related industries, fostering innovation and economic growth.

 

Social Justice Considerations

 

Both marijuana legalization and sensible cryptocurrency regulations have social justice implications:

 

  • Addressing Past Injustices: Legalizing marijuana could help rectify past injustices related to drug enforcement policies that disproportionately affected marginalized communities.

  • Financial Inclusion: Cryptocurrencies offer opportunities for financial inclusion for those underserved by traditional banking systems, particularly in low-income communities.

 

Political Landscape

 

The political landscape surrounding these issues is complex. While there is bipartisan support for marijuana reform among certain lawmakers, challenges remain in overcoming entrenched opposition. Similarly, cryptocurrency regulation has garnered attention from both sides of the aisle but requires collaboration to establish effective frameworks.

 

Conclusion

 

Chris Christie’s predictions about President-elect Donald Trump’s approach to federal marijuana descheduling and cryptocurrency regulation suggest a potential shift in U.S. policy that could significantly reshape both industries. As public opinion evolves on these issues, lawmakers have an opportunity to enact meaningful reforms that promote economic growth while ensuring consumer protection. The anticipated changes could foster a more robust cannabis industry that contributes positively to the economy and addresses social justice concerns, while clear regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies could encourage innovation and protect consumers in the digital economy. Stakeholders in both sectors are closely watching these developments, eager to see how potential reforms might impact their futures. While the realization of Christie’s predictions remains uncertain, it’s clear that the conversation around marijuana and cryptocurrency regulation is ongoing and far from settled.

 

TRUMP 2.0 ON CANNABIS REFORM, READ ON…

TRUMP ON MARIJUANA REFORM

TRUMP 2.0 ON FEDERAL CANNABIS REFORM – WHAT DO WE KNOW?

 



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Webinar Replay: Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em

Published

on

By


On Thursday, November 7th, Vince Sliwoski, Aaron Pelley and Fred Rocafort held a post election discussion “Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em”. Watch the replay!

Key Takeaways from the “Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em – 2024 Post Election Cannabis Wrap” Webinar:

  1. Panelists:
    • Vince Sliwoski: Oregon Business lawyer specializing in cannabis and commercial real estate.
    • Aaron Pelley: Experienced in cannabis law since Washington’s legalization in 2012.
    • Fred Rocafort: Trademark attorney working closely with the cannabis team.
  2. Election Results Overview:
    • Most 2024 cannabis ballot measures did not pass.
    • Florida, South Dakota, and North Dakota saw failures.
    • Nebraska became the 39th state to legalize cannabis for medical use when it passed two cannabis initiatives, Initiatives 437 and 438.
  3. Federal and State-Level Developments:
    • Medical use is currently legal in 38 states, and 24 states allow recreational use.
    • Republican support for marijuana legalization is growing.
  4. Federal Policy Implications:
    • Schedule III Rescheduling: The process to move cannabis to Schedule III is ongoing, which could significantly impact the industry.
    • Importance of Federal Appointments: The future of cannabis policy depends heavily on who is appointed to key positions in the administration.
  5. International and Domestic Trade:
    • Schedule III status could ease import/export restrictions on cannabis.
    • Unified control of House, Senate, and presidency might expedite legislative progress.
  6. Economic and Industry Impact:
    • Cannabis stocks experienced volatility post-election, reflecting investor uncertainty.
    • Federal legalization and banking reforms are crucial for industry stability and growth.
  7. Future Outlook:
    • The potential for federal rescheduling remains strong, with hearings scheduled for early 2025.
    • State-level initiatives and regulatory developments will continue to shape the industry.

Watch the replay!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

I Had Just One Puff

Published

on

By


one puff of a joint a drug test

“How Long Does One Puff of Weed Stay in Your System?”… This topic can be difficult to answer since it is dependent on elements such as the size of the hit and what constitutes a “one hit.” If you take a large bong pull then cough, it might linger in your system for 5-7 days. A moderate dose from a joint can last 3-5 days, whereas a few hits from a vaporizer may last 1-3 days.

 

The length of time that marijuana stays in the body varies based on a number of factors, including metabolism, THC levels, frequency of use, and hydration.

 

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis. THC and its metabolites, which remain in your body long after the effects have subsided, are detected by drug tests.

 

Since these metabolites are fat-soluble, they cling to bodily fat molecules. They could thus take a while to fully pass through your system, particularly if your body fat percentage is higher.

 

THC is absorbed by tissues and organs (including the brain, heart, and fat) and converted by the liver into chemicals such as 11-hydroxy-THC and carboxy-THC. Cannabis is eliminated in feces at a rate of around 65%, while urine accounts for 20%. The leftover amount might be kept within the body.

 

THC deposited in bodily tissues ultimately re-enters the circulation and is processed by the liver. For frequent users, THC accumulates in fatty tissues quicker than it can be removed, thus it may be detectable in drug tests for days or weeks following consumption.

 

The detection time varies according to the amount and frequency of cannabis usage. Higher dosages and regular usage result in longer detection times.

 

The type of drug test also affects detection windows. Blood and saliva tests typically detect cannabis metabolites for shorter periods, while urine and hair samples can reveal use for weeks or even months. In some cases, hair tests have detected cannabis use over 90 days after consumption.

 

Detection Windows for Various Cannabis Drug Tests

 

Urine Tests

Among all drug tests, urine testing is the most commonly used method for screening for drug use in an individual.

 

Detection times vary, but a 2017 review suggests the following windows for cannabis in urine after last use:

 

– Single-use (e.g., one joint): up to 3 days

– Moderate use (around 4 times a week): 5–7 days

– Chronic use (daily): 10–15 days

– Chronic heavy use (multiple times daily): over 30 days

 

Blood Tests

Blood tests generally detect recent cannabis use, typically within 2–12 hours after consumption. However, in cases of heavy use, cannabis has been detected up to 30 days later. Chronic heavy use can extend the detection period in the bloodstream.

 

Saliva Tests

THC can enter saliva through secondhand cannabis smoke, but THC metabolites are only present if you’ve personally smoked or ingested cannabis.

 

Saliva testing has a short detection window and can sometimes identify cannabis use on the same day. A 2020 review found that THC was detectable in the saliva of frequent users for up to 72 hours after use, and it may remain in saliva longer than in blood following recent use.

 

In areas where cannabis is illegal, saliva testing is often used for roadside screenings.

 

Hair Tests

Hair follicle tests can detect cannabis use for up to 90 days. After use, cannabinoids reach the hair follicles through small blood vessels and from sebum and sweat surrounding the hair.

 

Hair grows at approximately 0.5 inches per month, so a 1.5-inch segment of hair close to the scalp can reveal cannabis use over the past three months.

 

Factors Affecting THC and Metabolite Retention

 

The length of time THC and its metabolites stay in your system depends on various factors. Some, like body mass index (BMI) and metabolic rate, relate to individual body processing, not the drug itself.

 

Other factors are specific to cannabis use, including:

 

– Dosage: How much you consume

– Frequency: How often you use cannabis

– Method of consumption: Smoking, dabbing, edibles, or sublingual

– THC potency: Higher potency can extend detection time

 

Higher doses and more frequent use generally extend THC retention. Cannabis consumed orally may remain in the system slightly longer than smoked cannabis, and stronger cannabis strains, higher in THC, may also stay detectable for a longer period.

 

How Quickly Do the Effects of Cannabis Set In?

 

When smoking cannabis, effects appear almost immediately, while ingested cannabis may take 1–3 hours to peak.

 

The psychoactive component THC produces a “high” with common effects such as:

 

– Altered senses, including perception of time

– Mood changes

– Difficulty with thinking and problem-solving

– Impaired memory

 

Other short-term effects can include:

– Anxiety and confusion

– Decreased coordination

– Dry mouth and eyes

– Nausea or lightheadedness

– Trouble focusing

– Increased appetite

– Rapid heart rate

– Restlessness and sleepiness

 

In rare cases, high doses may lead to hallucinations, delusions, or acute psychosis.

 

Regular cannabis use may have additional mental and physical effects. While research is ongoing, cannabis use may increase the risk of:

 

– Cognitive issues like memory loss

– Cardiovascular problems including heart disease and stroke

– Respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis or lung infections

– Mood disorders like depression and anxiety

 

Cannabis use during pregnancy can negatively impact fetal growth and development.

 

Duration of Effects

Short-term effects generally taper off within 1–3 hours, but for chronic users, some long-term effects may last days, weeks, or even months. Certain effects may even be permanent.

 

Bottom Line

The amount of time that cannabis remains in your system following a single use varies greatly depending on individual characteristics such as body fat, metabolism, frequency of use, and mode of intake. Frequent users may maintain traces of THC for weeks, whereas infrequent users may test positive for as little as a few days. Hair tests can disclose usage for up to 90 days, while blood and saliva tests identify more recent use. Urine tests are the most popular and have varying detection durations. The duration that THC and its metabolites are detectable will ultimately depend on a number of factors, including dose, strength, and individual body chemistry.

 

PEE IN A CUP COMING UP, READ ON..

how long does weed stay in your urine

HOW LONG DOES WEED STAY IN YOUR URINE FOR A DRUG TEST?



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media