Showing posts with label property rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property rights. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

It's Not About Getting High

by Texas State Representative David P. Simpson

There is nothing like filing a bill where both sides of an issue have strongly held positions, and I have the opportunity to interact with all. I appreciate and respect those who have called, emailed, or posted on my Facebook page with their opinions on HB 2165 which would repeal all marijuana offenses in Texas statutes.
 I do not advocate the irresponsible use of marijuana or any substance, but those are choices that should be made by individuals, not the state. We have plenty of laws to deal with those who harm their neighbor and these will remain in force if this law is passed.

Some of those in opposition to the concept have inferred that my comment in the op-ed that “as a Christian I see the innate goodness in all that God created” as approval of marijuana’s recreational use. That was not my point.

My point is that
government has gotten it wrong when it comes to marijuana.  Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it is defined by the government as a drug with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. However, since that classification, at least 23 states have legalized the plant for medical use. Marijuana, used irresponsibly, can have some bad side effects. But many pharmaceuticals, used as intended, have even worse side effects. Compare the side effects of prescription painkillers, antidepressants, or chemotherapy drugs to the side effects of marijuana. Should people be allowed to make a choice between the two? Also, compare the side effects of marijuana to the countless substances and activities, which may not be the best choice for the individual, but which we tolerate and do not prohibit.

When marijuana was originally outlawed most scholars agree that the laws were motivated by hype, racism, and perhaps an industry or two seeking to control competition from hemp in some commodities markets. Hemp, coming from the same plant as marijuana (but from a strain with extremely low THC), is the strongest and most durable of all natural fibers. It produces four times as much fiber per acre as pine trees and could be an ideal source of biomass for fuel. To this day, cultivation of industrial hemp requires a permit from the Drug Enforcement Agency (rarely given out) with conditions that the crop be surrounded by security measures such as fences, razor wire, security guards, or dogs.

Thus,
we are missing out on both the medicinal and economic value of a plant God has given us that, coincidentally, can also be abused. Comments in emails and Facebook posts have focused on the fact that God also made poisonous snakes and hemlock, but that does not mean we should use them recreationally. That is so true, and I no more suggest that people should use marijuana recreationally than I suggest that people play with rattlesnakes. The difference is, the state does not prohibit playing with rattlesnakes, and some people actually bring them to the Capitol and let other people play with them.

Of course, another difference is that no one has ever died from the use of marijuana. It is nontoxic. This fact does not mean it’s a good idea for a person to use it recreationally, but it does underscore the fact that it does not need intense government regulation.

Meanwhile, I do not think it is right that we punish citizens who are not harming their neighbor. We may disagree with their use of the plant, but when should the state step in? We have 70,000 people incarcerated in Texas simply for possession of marijuana.

I understand the desire to send the right messages to our children. However, prohibition does more than send a message. It creates many problems. We may not want a teenager to experiment with marijuana, but would we rather that discussion be between parents and the child or the child and the police?
 
What motivated me to file the bill at this time is a desire to help constituents who desire access to the natural plant for treatment of seizures, PTSD, cancer, etc. I want to expand liberty and restore personal responsibility without creating another bureaucracy like the ATF on the state level to regulate it, nor a registry that a future federal administration might use as evidence of breaking federal law.

Getting back to the basics on this issue will put parents in charge of their children’s lives and adults in charge of their own.
It is time to reject nanny state policies and restore limited civil government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

HB 2165 Frequently Asked Questions


Is marijuana a gateway drug? Perhaps, but is it a gateway because of the chemical influence or because of the criminal element that a person is involved with in obtaining the plant?
 
What can I do to help get the bill passed? Contact your elected officials and express your support for the bill. Pray for me.
 
Why do you encourage recreational use of marijuana by saying all things created by God are for good? What I said in my op-ed is that “As a Christian, I recognize the innate goodness of everything God made and humanity’s charge to be stewards of the same.” I do not encourage the irresponsible use of any plant, chemical, or other substance. I do not allow my children to consume caffeine until they are in their teenage years and then only in moderation. I instruct them on its addictive nature and potential abuse. Anything can be used for evil, but that does not make it evil. Cannabis can be used for much good.
 
Why do you want to legalize the plant that can harm you just because God made it? Many plants aren’t good for human consumption. Some of them can even kill you. However, we do not need to outlaw them to avoid their irresponsible use. To my knowledge there are no confirmed reports of dying from marijuana, unlike synthetic marijuana.
 
Won’t this increase impaired driving accidents? The research on driving accidents does not support any special fear about marijuana. While most studies will agree that the number of people who test positive for marijuana use in driving accidents has increased, there is less evidence to indicate that the drug use was directly related to the accident.  Colorado accident rates were at a near historic low in 2013The federal government recently conducted a study and concluded that marijuana potential contribution to accidents was not statistically significant.
 Have you researched what legalization has done in Colorado? Yes. It is mixed. I encourage you to do your own research of the issue and look at the information from both sides of the argument.
 
Do you believe that there should be some regulatory scheme to protect children from getting marijuana? My favorite regulatory scheme for minors is parents. They have the greatest opportunity of preventing bad behavior. Prohibiting the sale of tobacco and alcohol for minors has not stopped the use and abuse of those products, though education has.
 
Why are you bringing this bill up now? I filed the bill to help constituents who desire access to the natural plant for treatment of seizures, PTSD, cancer, etc. I want to expand liberty and restore personal responsibility without creating more bureaucracy. There are other bills promoting the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, but they create a regulatory scheme that would be counter productive and create more government. They also create a registry of all medical users. Should the federal government choose to come into the state and enforce federal statutes, we would be giving them the information needed to prosecute.
 
What happens if someone smokes marijuana and has a car crash killing someone? Driving impaired is illegal, whether it be under the influence of cough medicine, alcohol, or marijuana. This bill would not change any penalties for harming another person currently in statute.
 
Why do you keep saying there are medical benefits when there are so many studies saying there aren’t? There are studies on both sides of this issue. To date, 23 states have legalized marijuana for medical use. I am not a medical expert, but I have heard numerous first hand accounts from people in Texas and across the country that have said it has helped them, including veterans. I believe people should be given the freedom to make responsible decisions about their health without being criminals, and I trust them more than I do government to keep them safe from themselves.
 
Were you smoking marijuana when you came up with this idea? No, and I never have.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Hunt County - Rails to Trails

Letter to the Greenville Herald Banner:

Why should I care about the Rails to Trails issue?
It doesn’t come through my property. I live on the other end of the county.  Well, if we don’t stand up for our neighbor’s freedom and God given rights who will stand up for ours when it’s our turn?


 I’ve heard people extolling the benefits of public access trails, but I wonder if those people have considered some of these issues.

1.      The land was deeded to the Railroad companies for a specific purpose.  When no longer needed by the railroad company the rights, ownership and control was supposed to revert BACK to the landowner whose property the rail line came through.  This is written in the original deeds.

2.      Rail Banking Act of 1983.  Just because the Federal government creates a scheme to give others the use of property taken by fraud doesn’t mean it’s lawful or legitimate.  Theft is still theft no matter who does it or how a “law” or “act” gets passed.  The railroad companies got to “write off” the “donation” of the land to the non-profit organizations to “use” until maybe the railroad companies wanted it back for future projects….

3.      Funding for projects such as these comes from our gasoline/hwy tax money.  10% is diverted for projects like this.  I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have my gas tax burden lowered by 10% to use to pay for my gasoline and other necessities.  Or the money should be used for the highways, the original intent of the tax.

4.      The money is divvied out through agencies such as Texas Parks and Wildlife and TXDOT.  One stipulation is that if the project is opposed by the local political subdivision (the county commissioners’ court in this case, or a city council) the project will be denied funding.  So, there is something the county commissioners CAN do.  They like to say this is a federal issue and there is nothing they can do.  That just isn’t so.   

5.      Stopping this funding is the necessary first step to protecting the property of Hunt Co. residents and saving ALL of us money. 

6.      This is a cash cow for some powerfully connected folks and they will not be happy about the county opposing the project.

7.      So, let’s see which side our county commissioners take – will they protect the little guys or the powerfully connected who stand to lose millions? 

8.      Are the commissioners prepared to be personally liable if they do nothing to stop this and the property owners sue to regain proper control and ownership of their land? 


Don’t be swayed by the “possible economic benefits”, enriching our lives, promoting healthy lifestyles, etc.  This is land that BELONGS to your neighbors.  What right do you or anyone else have to hike, bike, or anything else on it without their permission?  What would you want your neighbor to do if you were in their position?  Come to your aid?  Stand up for your rights?  I hope so.  Let’s look out for each other. 

Debbie McKee

     Campbell, Texas

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Property rights battle! Stand with the landowner in Paris, Texas this Friday!


Should a privately owned foreign company be allowed to seize land from Texas landowners to use for their private profit?

This is a landmark case, it could decide whether or not companies such as TransCanada can exercise the "right of eminent domain" in Texas.

Join us Friday at noon if you can (hearing starts at 1:30 pm) at the Lamar county courthouse 119 North Main to stand with the landowner. We MUST NOT be outnumbered by union workers hired by TransCanada to show up in force! They did that in Houston and Austin for the hearings. Bused in lots of them to try to shut us out...... This hearing concerns the temporary restraining order the landowner filed against TransCanada. It was standing room only last Friday, so come early to get a seat!

Do you own land? Or know others who do? Take a stand for ALL of us and our children....

Debbie McKee (a notice below with link to sign a petition and an article from the Star-Telegram at the bottom of the email)

from IndyTexans:
Thanks to many of you who moved so quickly to support Julia Trigg Crawford and family. Their efforts to maintain a temporary restraining order on TransCanada's trenching of their property in NE Texas for the Keystone XL pipeline, without any federal nor state approval, is still in place. BUT the hearing continues this Friday in Paris.

CONTINUATION HEARING on Temporary Restraining Order: THIS coming Friday, Feb. 24, Paris, Texas, 1:30 pm. There will be no protest, but we hope some of you can help fill the courtroom of Lamar County Courthouse, 119 North Main- Paris, Texas. We will listen and hope that the court does the right thing.

No matter where you live in Texas, please click on this link to sign the petition calling for state of Texas public hearings on eminent domain abuse and then Facebook it to your Texas friends and family -- or just forward this entire email to them with a note asking them to sign.

Note: A legal defense fund is getting established for the Crawford family. Watch for those details as their full case comes to trial in April.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
February 17th post:
http://netxconnect.blogspot.com/2012/02/protesting-transcanadakeystone-pipeline.html

Friday, February 17, 2012

Protesting the TransCanada/Keystone Pipeline & Eminent Domain in Paris, Texas

A group of us were in Paris, Texas to protest the fraudulent use of eminent domain to take privately owned land for the profit of a private company. TransCanada and the Keystone pipeline. Come with us on April 19th for the pre-trial hearing!!! We are going to court folks!!!! WOOO HOOO!!!! We had a great mix of Independents, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Occupy Dallas, Tea Party, etc. etc.... We MUST come together to fight these things!!! (Sorry about the wind noise in the video. It was cold and windy!)

Part one: link
embedded:


Part two: link
embedded:


Texas becomes a battleground in Keystone XL pipeline controversy
Posted: 02/22/2012 1:37 PM

AUSTIN -- The politically volatile Keystone XL pipeline is becoming embroiled in a widening controversy in Texas as supporters tout the promise of jobs and other economic benefits while increasingly vocal opponents say the project would trample property rights and endanger water supplies in East Texas.

Although President Barack Obama rejected the application by TransCanada, the pipeline company says it plans to resubmit its proposal to transport heavy crude oil from Canada to refineries in Texas. The project holds $2 billion of economic potential for Texas, more than for any other state, according to a survey commissioned by TransCanada.

Its high-profile supporters include Gov. Rick Perry and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, all Republicans. Perry made the pipeline an element of his failed presidential bid by blasting Obama's rejection of the application, accusing the president of squandering the chance to create jobs.

"There is not a politician in Texas in their right mind -- I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican -- that doesn't know the importance of this to all of Texas," said Bill McCoy, president of the Greater Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce. At least two Port Arthur refineries, Motiva Enterprises and Valero, would be on the receiving end of the 1,661-mile pipeline.

Opposition campaign

But landowners, environmentalists and property rights advocates have begun stepping forward in an impassioned campaign against the 376 miles of pipeline that would stretch through 18 counties in East Texas.

Opponents accuse TransCanada of using bullying tactics to seize land rights for the project and say a spill could pollute vital water resources in drought-ridden Texas.

Sign-wielding protesters gathered outside a court hearing in Paris on Friday to support Julia Trigg Crawford in her efforts to block TransCanada from digging on a 600-acre farm that has been in her family since 1948.

Crawford, who manages the farm, says the pipeline threatens Bois d'Arc Creek, which flows through the Northeast Texas property, as well as Native American archaeological remains.

"My hope is that our state leaders will see that their landowners are being bullied," Crawford told the Star-Telegram earlier in the week.

The opposition campaign has also re-energized a property rights coalition that flexed its muscle during the last decade to upend one of Perry's most ambitious projects, the Trans-Texas Corridor.

The project was originally envisioned as a $145 billion-plus supernetwork of tollways, rails and utility lines. It dissolved after it was attacked as a land grab that would encroach on thousands of private acres. The involvement of a foreign contractor, Spain-based Cintra, further angered opponents.

"We certainly have shades of the corridor fight resurrecting themselves," said Wharton businesswoman Debra Medina, who ran against Perry in the 2010 gubernatorial race and is a leading opponent of the Keystone project.

"You've got a foreign company. You've got a private property battle. If I know Texans like I think I do, I think the landowners will win," Medina said.

The project would complement an existing TransCanada pipeline in the United States, doubling the system's total capacity to 1.1 million barrels of crude a day into U.S. markets, the company said. The 1,661-mile, 36-inch, $7 billion pipeline would start in Alberta, Canada, and stretch through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

Obama turned down the application over concerns about the route's potential impact on the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sandhills, but he left the door open for a new application. Republicans accused the president of turning his back on a project that supporters say would create more than 100,000 jobs.

Shawn Howard, a TransCanada spokesman, said the company plans to resubmit the application to reroute the pipeline away from the sand hills, but the rest of the route, including the Texas portion, would remain the same.

Waco economist Ray Perryman, in a TransCanada-sponsored study that critics dispute, says the pipeline would create at least 50,000 jobs in Texas, by far the most of any pipeline state. Perryman also predicts $41 million in state government revenue and $7.6 million for local governments during construction.

Water worries

But many of those in or near the proposed route say the uncertainties and potential hazards outweigh the positives. In Reklaw, population 266, Mayor Harlan Crawford says fighting the pipeline has become his principal mission in a job otherwise filled with the predictable litany of small-town complaints, such as stray dogs and water problems.

The community, which Crawford, 77, describes as "just a blink in the road," was founded in 1890. Settlers wanted the name Walker but, learning that it was taken, opted for the backward spelling. Many current inhabitants are aging retirees.

After learning that the pipeline would run near the town, residents joined forces with Gallatin, another small farming community, to form the equivalent of a regional compact that would give them more power to challenge the pipeline. One big concern for the alliance is the potential contamination of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer, which lies underneath 60 counties.

"This is some nasty stuff, and we look to get it stopped," Crawford said.

Others say TransCanada representatives also applied not-so-subtle pressure when they began acquiring access to property to build the pipeline.

"They were pushy and would intimidate you and said you had to sign this thing," said Eleanor Fairchild, who lives near Winnsboro in Wood County. Like others, she said, she "got into the fight" out of concern over possible water contamination.

"We can live without oil," she said, "but we cannot live without water."

Michael Bishop, a retired Marine who owns 20 acres in Nacogdoches County, hired an attorney to fight the project after learning that the route would cut through his orchard and garden.

"It's going to totally disrupt my life as I know it," he said. "Is it fair for a foreign-owned company to come over here and take land for their private use and their personal gain?"

Eminent domain

As with the Trans-Texas Corridor, the pipeline dispute seems certain to reopen a legislative debate over eminent domain powers, which governmental entities and so-called common carriers such as utilities and pipelines use to acquire land for public projects after compensating the owner.

TransCanada has used eminent domain to acquire a number of tracts, but critics of the company are challenging that authority, citing a 2011 Texas Supreme Court decision that makes it harder for pipelines to meet the definition of a common carrier.

Entities with eminent domain powers typically first seek to negotiate with a landowner. If they can't agree, the entity sues to take the land. The courts also appoint a three-member commission to set a price.

Howard, the TransCanada spokesman, called eminent domain proceedings "an absolute last resort" for the company and said "we do everything we can" to reach a voluntary agreement instead of going to court. He also said the company uses the property as a right of way for the pipeline and does not take ownership.

The company has obtained 99 percent of the easements needed to build the pipeline in Texas, with only 19 tracts outstanding, he said.

Medina, who now heads We Texans, a conservative advocacy group, says she has documented at least 89 lawsuits in which property owners were taken to court. She also said others have been forced to negotiate because they couldn't afford a legal battle.

Dave Montgomery,

512-476-4294

Twitter: @daveymontgomery