No. 105: Concerning Narcotics and Carbon Offsets - 2.22.2025

As of today, I need an audit of all the narcotics that have been consumed in the U.S. since the implementation of the PARIS climate accords. This will go back AT LEAST until the Davos Conference of 2017 and the attack on the refugee camp in Kenya. Recall that by that time it was discussed that “President Barack Obama” had met only one-quarter of what he pledged to the Climate Accords by the time he left office ($500 million of $2 billion). They “black taxed” Kenya and it resulted in a number of refugees being killed in what at the time was identified as a “drone strike.” This was before the attack at the military base in Kenya by what was in early 2020 identified as a lone “El-Shabab” operative. The implications of both were clear at the time.

I need “carbon credit defrauding” assessed for every ounce of narcotics that were allowed to be personally consumed as opposed to publicly burned. This does NOT mean “smoking in public” (including “kush”) and the attendant psyops and “behavioral conditioning” of society that came with public smoking of kush for over a year before the alterations to the Farm Bill of 2018 regarding “hemp” and what was supposed to be acknowledged as condoning legalization of marijuana. As I have said before, marijuana is not only a “gateway in” drug – it is also a “gateway out” drug, including when it comes to use of cocaine/crack and methamphetamine, as well as psychedelics and LSD, whether on the street or indoors. Does one ONLY “get in the gate” if they use narcotics as the entrance fee? 

I am personally now more than three years and 154 days on the streets with the understanding that I have not “paid” my entrance fee to my own home and that I am supposed to also pay “taxes” for other people who have gained entry, not to mention allow for my mortgage to be “liened” on to pay for someone else’s lien or “home loan.” That includes “construction loans” that are not actually for “new construction” but would be more appropriately accounted for as “renovations” or “improvements” to existing structures, if not accounted for as “maintenance” that would be considered in an appropriate evaluation of depreciation and valuation of a long-term use of a facility or structure. These are the sorts of issues that my proposed bill on “Decommissioning of Gas and Oil Facilities Act of 2022” was supposed to cover before the final draft outline was stolen prior to completion for final presentation along with my “Counter Sex Terrorism Act of 2022.”

Every ounce of consumed narcotic needs to be evaluated and an appropriate correction for the economic record needs to be accounted. Did Obama yet “deliver” on his “commitment?” Please recall that since early 2017 – including after the inauguration of Donald Trump as his successor – that regardless of whatever practical resistance there was to allowing for the commitment at the level of $2 billion to be pledged under Obama, there was no formal legislative repudiation of the President’s authority to pledge such. That the “cost” of difference was born out in Kenya was not acknowledged at the time, at least not publicly and not in the United States. 

This accounting is distinct from the accounting for carbon produced in the course of the wildfires, specifically since 2017, that have impacted at least California, New York and Northern Texas. The contexts for considering arson is one matter but for several years alarms have been sounded that “cuts to state budgets” regarding preventative or other containment measures were allowed to be neglected, or taken up in substantially lesser effective form by private individuals, that would have provided a means by which to assure that proliferation of the damage potential was mitigated or able to be stopped altogether. The costs of the lack of these measures needs to be evaluated relative to the cost of the liability regarding carbon offset market activity associated with reporting or misreporting of what would constitute carbon production. 

The context within which narcotics are seized and then publicly burned is about more than a deterrent. Public elimination of the actual materiel to consume narcotics also provides us all with a demonstrable measure of understanding the volume of our production or demand for others in the course of production of narcotics. The costs of the carbon that is emitted in burning it provides a demonstrable measure of the cost of the waste we demand or permit. The “burning” of narcotics is not about creation of “energy” for productive purposes. The context within which rights to consumption are based upon “personal” rights or consumer rights needs to be evaluated in an overall context of sustainability and economic value and encroachment upon OTHER rights. This is a necessary step to prevent against the burning of fields that would be otherwise available as arable land for food or other legal crop cultivation, or for restoration and possible redress better accomplished in accordance with our commitments to climate justice. This also aids the processes of reparations and restitutions to people of the Americas and those who have come to the Americas from other parts of the world who have a just and necessary need to be so reparated and restituted. 

Once this is performed we will need to follow through on already engaged auditing processes regarding the representation or misrepresentation of “economic development” or “market activity” and its benefits and detriments in terms of commerce or business development, including its actual contributions to federal and state tax bases and how the effects of those taxes are applied to and through the budgeting processes. Consideration of private revenue to the state will then be evaluated. Recall, as was stated in both the 2023 and 2024 White House Budget Priorities (Biden) that the context for considering the actual budgetary implications of the changes to the Farm Bill of 2018 regarding “hemp” and the resultant considerations for marijuana were limited to two areas; the laws themselves were not changed regarding status of “controlled substance” but rather implementation of existing law was allowed to be “excepted out” for a five-year period. I contend that what has been allowed to persist since the cessation of that five-year period does not meet a legal standard for continuing the legal marijuana or the “derivative” CBD market for many reasons, including economic reasons, on the federal level and that states need to hold themselves individually accountable for their decisions, including in consideration of possible interstate matters, such as access to water systems or other resources shared between multiple states. 

This will also entail a comprehensive audit of the Crop Insurance Program to assure there has been no abuse, including insofar as “crop insurance” was allowed to be misallocated and/or engaged in illegal loan arrangements that have impacted other agricultural production. This is not yet to be considered at this level from an antitrust perspective for the purposes of legislative activities or possible civil or criminal action before the courts UNTIL the audit is completed and an accurate analysis can be provided of the costs. There is, however, an urgent “civil rights” matter concerning the rights of persons who have been employed or utilized in the agricultural sector and the impact that the aforementioned policies have had on the safety, welfare and capacity to be accorded other rights as necessary and due. At this time, that there may be international considerations, it behooves us to act prudently and responsibly and with haste. These audits are to be completed in no more than 30 days from today, which will be March 20, 2025. 

9:49 am CST

Feb. 22, 2025

President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse

Posted 9:53 am CST

Feb. 22, 2025

President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse