In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Why the NRA should support Cannabis Reform
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Why the NRA should support Cannabis Reform
"Suspending cannabis prohibition would save lives, free up tremendous law enforcement resources, and help defend the American Way".
xxdr_zombiexx
July 4,2002
Part I
People who feel strongly about protecting the 2nd amendment, especially those concerned about the implications of the USA PATRIOT act, need to take notice of what is happening in the War on Cannabis.
More than take notice, actually. I suggest they might want to "get up to speed" on what is happening, the history of it, and what is at stake. What is at stake is the integrity of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Cannabis Prohibition is a giant iceberg that is blacked out from commercial media. You never see or hear the term used on TV or in the Newspapers. What YOU hear is "war on drugs, war on drugs, war on drugs". 95% of the money and effort and law enforcement resources expended in the war on some drugs is spent on cannabis prohibition. The "War on Drugs" is a veil for the war against cannabis, which, in turn, is a veil for the Federal Government to disassemble the Bill of Rights so they can have more power than is granted to them by "The Rules".
The world is not getting any bigger and this "iceberg" makes waves that affect people who have nothing to do with, or know anything about, "cannabis culture" (a term meaning all people who express some sort of identification or relationship with the cannabis plant, except for the DEA: the KKK of cannabis culture.). It's goal is to suspend the Bill of Rights, which is the focus of this article.
Is Cannabis a bigger threat than "Terrorism"?
Several times since 9/11/01, the FBI and the DEA have raided - assaulted, stormed, attacked - medical cannabis "clubs" which operate within the boundaries of the Law 215 in the State of California.
On February 12th, 2002, a day we were all supposed to be on a Terrorism High Alert, they attacked the Harm Reduction Center in San Francisco, blowing up it's front door with dynamite. (see: Press Release) This event was coordinated with 2 other raids, staged for as a show of force for an appearence at the Commonwealth Club, just a few blocks away, by the DEA's head, Asa Hutchinson. No other terrorist activities were ever reported on that day.
Cannabis must be a pretty big threat to America, huh?
The medical marijuana crowd is largely composed of seriously disabled or terminally ill people, not well-trained healthy terrorists. They cannot, with a straight face, be presented as a "menace" to the USA, though thats exactly what the Government intends to do.
Assault on the Bill of Rights
This is a State's Rights issue, involving violations of the 9th and 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights linked below). The People of California and Oregon, and elsewhere, have voted for certain persons to have access to cannabis for medical reasons. The War on Cannabis provides a mechanism to encourage Federal Agencies to Disassemble Every Amendment, along with encouraging rigging of the election processes in States that have yet to pass such laws.( See:Governor's plot to subvert election in Ohio) The Federal Government must establish Supremacy in a court of law before California's medical cannabis law can be said to be invalid.
Towards that end, the first Federal "No Such Thing as Medical Marijuana" trial has begun in San Francisco. The Federal Government has already succeeded in preventing any mention of "medical use of marijuana" in the court case. The defendant may not use the State Law as a defense. The Judge has gone to the point of bussing jurors so they wont see and hear cannabist activists telling them about it.(story and links: Jurors in Medical Marijuana Case To Be Shielded Excercise - search for "Epis Trial" to see what you find. The case, typically, is not reported in mainstream press despite its massive importance. All very sneaky-like, ya know.)
What happens in court with the War on Cannabis bleeds over into non-cannabis issues in the form of interpreted legal precedents, which more and more are specifically sought and crafted to provide boxcar-sized loopholes around the Constitution. (See: ASHCROFT V. OREGON)
As drugs are the shoehorn used to get numerous rulings that allow Law Enforcement to cut corners in terms of Constitutional Safeguards, so have The Attacks been used quickly "pass" (ramrod through the established political process) the USA PATRIOT Act. This Act more than merely gives law enforcement what it has wanted for years while labling any dissenter as "unpatriotic". (I dissent: Do I seem unpatriotic?) It frees the FBI and law enforcement to do things they were specifically prevented from doing in the 1970's because much of their effort was aimed at peaceful Americans and subverting the Democratic Process, not bringing down organized criminals or thwarting terrorist networks.
It brings the "average American" closer to the "constant target of police intervention" mentality experience that partly defines Cannabis Culture. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.
Catch a Wave:
"Guns and Terror: How Terrorists Exploit Our Weak Gun Laws," was released at a news conference on Capitol Hill, at which Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called for stronger U.S. gun laws as a critical component of homeland security.
"This report makes one thing crystal clear: terrorists and guns go together," said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Center. "Firearms are part of the essential tool kit of domestic and foreign terrorists alike.
(see: Brady Center Press Release 12/19/2001)
See? .... told you. Guns = Terrorism.
Welcome Aboard, fellow terrorists!
Consider the Brady Center statement in context with this report from a recent Reason Magazine issue:
[A] freshly invigorated gun control movement is preparing to act. Armed with a few questionable studies, some acid-tongued rhetoric, and vague allusions to the War on Terrorism, the anti-gun lobby is expected to hammer away relentlessly at the capital's most prominent Second Amendment stalwart, Attorney General John Ashcroft. The former Missouri senator should find their tactics familiar: He developed a similar strategy in his own quest for expanded powers against terrorism last fall, and it appears that his very success in that campaign will serve as a road map for gun control.
[skipped one paragraph.]
For decades federal law enforcement officials had been clamoring -- unsuccessfully -- for more surveillance, interrogation, and incarceration powers. Enter Osama bin Laden. Now, call it the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001," and you're in business.
How effective was Ashcroft's strategy?
In November, The Chicago Tribune quoted an exasperated Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the only senator to vote against the new powers:
"The naming of the bill ...is the kind of cynical game played to intimidate people into not only not voting against it, but not debating it or questioning it." People who hate guns understand how powerful the anti-terrorism angle can be, and they are acting accordingly.
entire article: Reason Magazine
Enlightened Self-Interest
NRA support for reform of cannabis laws (or simply suspension of prohibiton efforts), even if in the form of a written statement, is an act of enlightened self-interest if there ever was one. Helping to defuse what the Federal Government is pursuing under the guise of cannabis prohibition preserves and strengthens the Bill of Rights for NRA members and for all us as a whole.
The NRA has the muscle, to be blunt, to make a tremendous difference with relatively little effort or financial expense. Even some open discussion of such a statement or resolution expressing the NRA's concern about the focus of Federal and State resources on cannabis clubs, especially while America is under real siege would be considerably impactful.
My vision is of the cannabis activist networks and the NRA constituency together notifying the Federal Government that they have exceeded their boundaries as authorized by the Constitution. I am unsure how many people this would be, but its a LOT of votes.
Common Ground
Towards that end I suggest there are several areas of overlapping concerns, or common ground. The 2 most relavent, to me, are the concepts of Personal Responsibility and Prohibition.
Who preaches responsibility more than, well, responsible gun owners? Responsible gun ownership is a model of personal responsibity to me. Guns are inherently dangerous: Responsibilty prevents damage and tragedy by actively following established rules of safety. Its a code taken seriously. Just because few people here and there do terrible things does not mean that you or I should be infringed upon as somehow complicit. The press release from the Brady Center cited above is insane. I really do respect all those Politicians, but they are out-to-lunch with that report. (Probably a 3-martini lunch.)
Another is the specter of prohibition, as in handgun control: the phrase that makes a whole bunch of people get all bristley. I do not own a gun, actually, but I cannot and do not support handgun bans specifically because of the dynamics of prohibition. Banning handguns would establish a precedent for further weakening of all Amendments, wouldn't it?
Gun ownership and handguns are a part of American Culture and banning them is simply not feasible... I just don't think it is. But then again, our Government declared a war against a weed, so there's no telling what they might do. Take the concept of the Iron Law of Prohibition (link below) and substitute "handguns" in place of "cannabis". Handgun values would skyrocket, prompting the development of a vicious black market, and a whole swath of Americans become instant criminals, and potential threats. You think we got trouble now? That really should be scary.
Cannabis Prohibition 101
The history of and reasons for cannabis prohibition wind on deep into the night. It is so huge. Its sufficient for purposes here to suggest a the majority of people outside cannabis culture actually know nothing about what is going on (literally right under your noses) or what is at stake, and to encourage a few of you to do some research of your own.
Whereas handguns are inherently dangerous, as defined by the sheer numbers of people injured or killed each year, cannabis is has no known lethal toxicity. A diet of fast food is far worse in terms of undesirable health consequences (like obesity and diabetes). It's a lot safer than cigarettes, alcohol, cars, stairs, pocket knives, BB guns, poison ivy, airplanes, chain saws, gasoline, oil exploration. I'll assume you get the picture.
While cannabis has demonstrated medical uses, and is environmentally very friendly for industrial applications, its prohibition has resulted in skyrocketing prices of personal use marijuana, a huge blackmarket with profit- AND enforcement-related violence (links at end of article), and squandered law enforcement resources. Millions of wasted arrests and needless prosecutions that protect nobody, billions of taxpayer dollars up in smoke each year, and financing the growth of a staggering prison population. The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, composed of perhaps 5% of the world population, has, thanks to the War on Drugs, 25% of all the imprisoned people in the world. There are people in canada right now granted refugee status specifically based on persecution by our government and its war on cannabis.
And, it also has provided a mechanism for non-stop pressure from law enforcment, particularly Federal, for ways around the Bill of Rights, Our Constitutional Safeguards, to futher "investigative abilities". These safeguards have weakened over the years because of the "war on drugs", especialy since the early 1980's. Politicians just kept making tougher and tougher laws afraid to "look soft on drugs". Thus the massive prison population.
I strongly advise and encourage you to read How the Narcs Created Crack, an excellent overview of the Iron Law of Prohibition. by Richard Cowan. It details how increased enforcement exacerbates rather than controls the problem targeted for prohibition. It was written in 1986, but it is remains dead-on accurate and absolutley essential reading to understand what is going on.
For an outstanding review of the evolution of cannabis propaganda, take a break and watch: "Grass" This is on POT-TV, an excellent canadian cannabis site. You will need Realplayer.
But do come back: we are not done.
Do not touch The Plant.
The Government Position is that legalization (or "liberalization") will cause calamity . Children will light up immediately...people will rush right out and become pot fiends....the sky will fall..., or something, but it could not possibly be good (repeat until foam seen at mouth). The essence is the "the People" cannot be responsible; which is hogwash - dangerous hogwash. At least, I think so. (Nope. No link to their any of stuff since they get all the taxpayer-supported media exposure they can hog. You already know their line, anyway. Imagine a Superbowl ad linking handgun supporters to terrorism.)
Cannabis prohibition is built upon and maintained by lies, emotionally manipulative news stories, and media censorship. It is a propaganda campaign aimed at disinforming everybody about what is an easily verifiable reality. This is specifically why a lot of people outside cannabis culture know nothing about whats going on all around them. They are getting sandbagged by their governement, plain and simple.
The facts are that several million people in this country alone smoke pot and we are very responible, productive individuals, Americans no less. Prohibition does not stop "pot smoking". It creates an artificial problem that is then blamed on the plant itself. It really is a gigantic scam. (For a lengthy discussion of this, see: Marijuana and Terrorism in America)
Cannabis Prohibition prevents industrial usage entirely in the USA, and has stifiled medical research and appliction in this country. Both of these stipulations have nothing to do with allegations the "law enforcement is saving lives". They are protecting petrochemical (Chemical/Oil/Pharmaceuticle) companies from a natural, renewable, unpatentable, and powerful competition, and killing Americans in the process.
We have a needless medical and industrial cannabis research deficit. Firms in England and Isreal are busy developing cannabis-based medications and non-smoke deliveries. Mercedes Benz uses hemp fibers in some of its auto interiors. Canada has instituted a Medical marijuana program and a developing hemp seed and fiber sector, both of which are hounded and harrassed by the US DEA. Suits have been filed against the DEA in numerous States to allow American farmers to grow hemp for industrial purposes. The USA is the only memeber of the G8 countries that doesn't have a hemp industry. Most European countries are moving towards legalization of cannabis, plain and simple.
Squandered Law Enforcement resources compromise National Security.
Cannabis Prohibition laws are based specifically on preventing people from touching the plant, not on smoking it or being "high". Its against the law to touch or share, and selling it to make a buck is right out of the question. Smoking it is not why you get arrested. If this was the case we could all go to jail for failing a pee test.
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime report, roughly 734,498 people were arrested for cannabis touching in the year 2000, 646,042 of them for just touching, not trafficking. This was neaerly twice the number of all other "real" and "white collar" crimes combined. Millions have been arrested and prosecuted since the late 1970's. M-i-l-l-i-o-n-s.(Source: Marijuana Violations for Year 2000 This is located on the NORML website, which has it broken down in many useful searchable ways.)
It would seem clear that Terror took a back seat to Cannabis and the Eternal War on Drugs, and this has to be considered in any investigation of "why" and "how" America got attacked. Law Enforcement's own statitistics show their priorities as reflected by where they spent a huge amount of their time and effort. There are internal complaints from FBI agents that some divisions in the FBI were dissing their own anti-terror squads in favor of high-profile (yes..pun intended) drug busts. Better for career advancement, it seems.
Subsequently, the FBI has reorganized and has alleged it is out of the drug enforcement business so that it can spend it's time better addressing Terrorism. (And the sky is yellow and the sun is blue.) But still, even the FBI issues a statement indicating the need to not pursue drug enforcement to focus resources. Common Ground, indeed.
Finally, before somebody makes the complaint: Nobody is asking anybody to endorse "pot smoking". My support for NOT banning handguns does not mean I endorse rushing out to get one: support for suspending enforcement of cannabis prohibition has NOTHING to do with advocating pot smoking. Thats just nutty, and it is beside the point. We can, as Americans, together, not like the government using all this as a lever to pry our rights away from us, whether one-by-one, or wholesale. It is OUR Right.
The bottom line is that it is impossible to discuss cannabis prohibition or handgun control without wading deep into constitutional law. And when you do you will always find both to be unconstitutional. This is why I think the NRA should at least consider some sort of expression of support of cannabis reform efforts as they apply to strengthening constitutional protections for all.
Getting OUR Government to protect OUR liberties is OUR common ground.
In Part II, I will discuss how the blatant disregard for the 2nd and 4th Amendments resulted in the deaths of 2 different men, decent police officers dying for nothing, how these widespread "Drug Raids" kill many, many innocent people, and why this all demonstrates that the FBI and Law Enforcement in general cannot be trusted with the Patriot Act or "Homeland Security".
xxdr_zombiexx
REFERENCE LINKS
1: Victims of the Drug War
2: Government Raid Victims
3: Rainbow Farm
4: The Oregonian
5: WWeek
6: Death Penalty News
7: Oregonlive.com
8: NORML report about Steven Dons Incident
9: Peter McWilliams Mapinc story
http://my.marijuana.com/article.php?sid=3815&mode=flat&order=0&thold=-1
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"Suspending cannabis prohibition would save lives, free up tremendous law enforcement resources, and help defend the American Way".
xxdr_zombiexx
July 4,2002
Part I
People who feel strongly about protecting the 2nd amendment, especially those concerned about the implications of the USA PATRIOT act, need to take notice of what is happening in the War on Cannabis.
More than take notice, actually. I suggest they might want to "get up to speed" on what is happening, the history of it, and what is at stake. What is at stake is the integrity of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Cannabis Prohibition is a giant iceberg that is blacked out from commercial media. You never see or hear the term used on TV or in the Newspapers. What YOU hear is "war on drugs, war on drugs, war on drugs". 95% of the money and effort and law enforcement resources expended in the war on some drugs is spent on cannabis prohibition. The "War on Drugs" is a veil for the war against cannabis, which, in turn, is a veil for the Federal Government to disassemble the Bill of Rights so they can have more power than is granted to them by "The Rules".
The world is not getting any bigger and this "iceberg" makes waves that affect people who have nothing to do with, or know anything about, "cannabis culture" (a term meaning all people who express some sort of identification or relationship with the cannabis plant, except for the DEA: the KKK of cannabis culture.). It's goal is to suspend the Bill of Rights, which is the focus of this article.
Is Cannabis a bigger threat than "Terrorism"?
Several times since 9/11/01, the FBI and the DEA have raided - assaulted, stormed, attacked - medical cannabis "clubs" which operate within the boundaries of the Law 215 in the State of California.
On February 12th, 2002, a day we were all supposed to be on a Terrorism High Alert, they attacked the Harm Reduction Center in San Francisco, blowing up it's front door with dynamite. (see: Press Release) This event was coordinated with 2 other raids, staged for as a show of force for an appearence at the Commonwealth Club, just a few blocks away, by the DEA's head, Asa Hutchinson. No other terrorist activities were ever reported on that day.
Cannabis must be a pretty big threat to America, huh?
The medical marijuana crowd is largely composed of seriously disabled or terminally ill people, not well-trained healthy terrorists. They cannot, with a straight face, be presented as a "menace" to the USA, though thats exactly what the Government intends to do.
Assault on the Bill of Rights
This is a State's Rights issue, involving violations of the 9th and 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights linked below). The People of California and Oregon, and elsewhere, have voted for certain persons to have access to cannabis for medical reasons. The War on Cannabis provides a mechanism to encourage Federal Agencies to Disassemble Every Amendment, along with encouraging rigging of the election processes in States that have yet to pass such laws.( See:Governor's plot to subvert election in Ohio) The Federal Government must establish Supremacy in a court of law before California's medical cannabis law can be said to be invalid.
Towards that end, the first Federal "No Such Thing as Medical Marijuana" trial has begun in San Francisco. The Federal Government has already succeeded in preventing any mention of "medical use of marijuana" in the court case. The defendant may not use the State Law as a defense. The Judge has gone to the point of bussing jurors so they wont see and hear cannabist activists telling them about it.(story and links: Jurors in Medical Marijuana Case To Be Shielded Excercise - search for "Epis Trial" to see what you find. The case, typically, is not reported in mainstream press despite its massive importance. All very sneaky-like, ya know.)
What happens in court with the War on Cannabis bleeds over into non-cannabis issues in the form of interpreted legal precedents, which more and more are specifically sought and crafted to provide boxcar-sized loopholes around the Constitution. (See: ASHCROFT V. OREGON)
As drugs are the shoehorn used to get numerous rulings that allow Law Enforcement to cut corners in terms of Constitutional Safeguards, so have The Attacks been used quickly "pass" (ramrod through the established political process) the USA PATRIOT Act. This Act more than merely gives law enforcement what it has wanted for years while labling any dissenter as "unpatriotic". (I dissent: Do I seem unpatriotic?) It frees the FBI and law enforcement to do things they were specifically prevented from doing in the 1970's because much of their effort was aimed at peaceful Americans and subverting the Democratic Process, not bringing down organized criminals or thwarting terrorist networks.
It brings the "average American" closer to the "constant target of police intervention" mentality experience that partly defines Cannabis Culture. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.
Catch a Wave:
"Guns and Terror: How Terrorists Exploit Our Weak Gun Laws," was released at a news conference on Capitol Hill, at which Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called for stronger U.S. gun laws as a critical component of homeland security.
"This report makes one thing crystal clear: terrorists and guns go together," said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Center. "Firearms are part of the essential tool kit of domestic and foreign terrorists alike.
(see: Brady Center Press Release 12/19/2001)
See? .... told you. Guns = Terrorism.
Welcome Aboard, fellow terrorists!
Consider the Brady Center statement in context with this report from a recent Reason Magazine issue:
[A] freshly invigorated gun control movement is preparing to act. Armed with a few questionable studies, some acid-tongued rhetoric, and vague allusions to the War on Terrorism, the anti-gun lobby is expected to hammer away relentlessly at the capital's most prominent Second Amendment stalwart, Attorney General John Ashcroft. The former Missouri senator should find their tactics familiar: He developed a similar strategy in his own quest for expanded powers against terrorism last fall, and it appears that his very success in that campaign will serve as a road map for gun control.
[skipped one paragraph.]
For decades federal law enforcement officials had been clamoring -- unsuccessfully -- for more surveillance, interrogation, and incarceration powers. Enter Osama bin Laden. Now, call it the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001," and you're in business.
How effective was Ashcroft's strategy?
In November, The Chicago Tribune quoted an exasperated Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the only senator to vote against the new powers:
"The naming of the bill ...is the kind of cynical game played to intimidate people into not only not voting against it, but not debating it or questioning it." People who hate guns understand how powerful the anti-terrorism angle can be, and they are acting accordingly.
entire article: Reason Magazine
Enlightened Self-Interest
NRA support for reform of cannabis laws (or simply suspension of prohibiton efforts), even if in the form of a written statement, is an act of enlightened self-interest if there ever was one. Helping to defuse what the Federal Government is pursuing under the guise of cannabis prohibition preserves and strengthens the Bill of Rights for NRA members and for all us as a whole.
The NRA has the muscle, to be blunt, to make a tremendous difference with relatively little effort or financial expense. Even some open discussion of such a statement or resolution expressing the NRA's concern about the focus of Federal and State resources on cannabis clubs, especially while America is under real siege would be considerably impactful.
My vision is of the cannabis activist networks and the NRA constituency together notifying the Federal Government that they have exceeded their boundaries as authorized by the Constitution. I am unsure how many people this would be, but its a LOT of votes.
Common Ground
Towards that end I suggest there are several areas of overlapping concerns, or common ground. The 2 most relavent, to me, are the concepts of Personal Responsibility and Prohibition.
Who preaches responsibility more than, well, responsible gun owners? Responsible gun ownership is a model of personal responsibity to me. Guns are inherently dangerous: Responsibilty prevents damage and tragedy by actively following established rules of safety. Its a code taken seriously. Just because few people here and there do terrible things does not mean that you or I should be infringed upon as somehow complicit. The press release from the Brady Center cited above is insane. I really do respect all those Politicians, but they are out-to-lunch with that report. (Probably a 3-martini lunch.)
Another is the specter of prohibition, as in handgun control: the phrase that makes a whole bunch of people get all bristley. I do not own a gun, actually, but I cannot and do not support handgun bans specifically because of the dynamics of prohibition. Banning handguns would establish a precedent for further weakening of all Amendments, wouldn't it?
Gun ownership and handguns are a part of American Culture and banning them is simply not feasible... I just don't think it is. But then again, our Government declared a war against a weed, so there's no telling what they might do. Take the concept of the Iron Law of Prohibition (link below) and substitute "handguns" in place of "cannabis". Handgun values would skyrocket, prompting the development of a vicious black market, and a whole swath of Americans become instant criminals, and potential threats. You think we got trouble now? That really should be scary.
Cannabis Prohibition 101
The history of and reasons for cannabis prohibition wind on deep into the night. It is so huge. Its sufficient for purposes here to suggest a the majority of people outside cannabis culture actually know nothing about what is going on (literally right under your noses) or what is at stake, and to encourage a few of you to do some research of your own.
Whereas handguns are inherently dangerous, as defined by the sheer numbers of people injured or killed each year, cannabis is has no known lethal toxicity. A diet of fast food is far worse in terms of undesirable health consequences (like obesity and diabetes). It's a lot safer than cigarettes, alcohol, cars, stairs, pocket knives, BB guns, poison ivy, airplanes, chain saws, gasoline, oil exploration. I'll assume you get the picture.
While cannabis has demonstrated medical uses, and is environmentally very friendly for industrial applications, its prohibition has resulted in skyrocketing prices of personal use marijuana, a huge blackmarket with profit- AND enforcement-related violence (links at end of article), and squandered law enforcement resources. Millions of wasted arrests and needless prosecutions that protect nobody, billions of taxpayer dollars up in smoke each year, and financing the growth of a staggering prison population. The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, composed of perhaps 5% of the world population, has, thanks to the War on Drugs, 25% of all the imprisoned people in the world. There are people in canada right now granted refugee status specifically based on persecution by our government and its war on cannabis.
And, it also has provided a mechanism for non-stop pressure from law enforcment, particularly Federal, for ways around the Bill of Rights, Our Constitutional Safeguards, to futher "investigative abilities". These safeguards have weakened over the years because of the "war on drugs", especialy since the early 1980's. Politicians just kept making tougher and tougher laws afraid to "look soft on drugs". Thus the massive prison population.
I strongly advise and encourage you to read How the Narcs Created Crack, an excellent overview of the Iron Law of Prohibition. by Richard Cowan. It details how increased enforcement exacerbates rather than controls the problem targeted for prohibition. It was written in 1986, but it is remains dead-on accurate and absolutley essential reading to understand what is going on.
For an outstanding review of the evolution of cannabis propaganda, take a break and watch: "Grass" This is on POT-TV, an excellent canadian cannabis site. You will need Realplayer.
But do come back: we are not done.
Do not touch The Plant.
The Government Position is that legalization (or "liberalization") will cause calamity . Children will light up immediately...people will rush right out and become pot fiends....the sky will fall..., or something, but it could not possibly be good (repeat until foam seen at mouth). The essence is the "the People" cannot be responsible; which is hogwash - dangerous hogwash. At least, I think so. (Nope. No link to their any of stuff since they get all the taxpayer-supported media exposure they can hog. You already know their line, anyway. Imagine a Superbowl ad linking handgun supporters to terrorism.)
Cannabis prohibition is built upon and maintained by lies, emotionally manipulative news stories, and media censorship. It is a propaganda campaign aimed at disinforming everybody about what is an easily verifiable reality. This is specifically why a lot of people outside cannabis culture know nothing about whats going on all around them. They are getting sandbagged by their governement, plain and simple.
The facts are that several million people in this country alone smoke pot and we are very responible, productive individuals, Americans no less. Prohibition does not stop "pot smoking". It creates an artificial problem that is then blamed on the plant itself. It really is a gigantic scam. (For a lengthy discussion of this, see: Marijuana and Terrorism in America)
Cannabis Prohibition prevents industrial usage entirely in the USA, and has stifiled medical research and appliction in this country. Both of these stipulations have nothing to do with allegations the "law enforcement is saving lives". They are protecting petrochemical (Chemical/Oil/Pharmaceuticle) companies from a natural, renewable, unpatentable, and powerful competition, and killing Americans in the process.
We have a needless medical and industrial cannabis research deficit. Firms in England and Isreal are busy developing cannabis-based medications and non-smoke deliveries. Mercedes Benz uses hemp fibers in some of its auto interiors. Canada has instituted a Medical marijuana program and a developing hemp seed and fiber sector, both of which are hounded and harrassed by the US DEA. Suits have been filed against the DEA in numerous States to allow American farmers to grow hemp for industrial purposes. The USA is the only memeber of the G8 countries that doesn't have a hemp industry. Most European countries are moving towards legalization of cannabis, plain and simple.
Squandered Law Enforcement resources compromise National Security.
Cannabis Prohibition laws are based specifically on preventing people from touching the plant, not on smoking it or being "high". Its against the law to touch or share, and selling it to make a buck is right out of the question. Smoking it is not why you get arrested. If this was the case we could all go to jail for failing a pee test.
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime report, roughly 734,498 people were arrested for cannabis touching in the year 2000, 646,042 of them for just touching, not trafficking. This was neaerly twice the number of all other "real" and "white collar" crimes combined. Millions have been arrested and prosecuted since the late 1970's. M-i-l-l-i-o-n-s.(Source: Marijuana Violations for Year 2000 This is located on the NORML website, which has it broken down in many useful searchable ways.)
It would seem clear that Terror took a back seat to Cannabis and the Eternal War on Drugs, and this has to be considered in any investigation of "why" and "how" America got attacked. Law Enforcement's own statitistics show their priorities as reflected by where they spent a huge amount of their time and effort. There are internal complaints from FBI agents that some divisions in the FBI were dissing their own anti-terror squads in favor of high-profile (yes..pun intended) drug busts. Better for career advancement, it seems.
Subsequently, the FBI has reorganized and has alleged it is out of the drug enforcement business so that it can spend it's time better addressing Terrorism. (And the sky is yellow and the sun is blue.) But still, even the FBI issues a statement indicating the need to not pursue drug enforcement to focus resources. Common Ground, indeed.
Finally, before somebody makes the complaint: Nobody is asking anybody to endorse "pot smoking". My support for NOT banning handguns does not mean I endorse rushing out to get one: support for suspending enforcement of cannabis prohibition has NOTHING to do with advocating pot smoking. Thats just nutty, and it is beside the point. We can, as Americans, together, not like the government using all this as a lever to pry our rights away from us, whether one-by-one, or wholesale. It is OUR Right.
The bottom line is that it is impossible to discuss cannabis prohibition or handgun control without wading deep into constitutional law. And when you do you will always find both to be unconstitutional. This is why I think the NRA should at least consider some sort of expression of support of cannabis reform efforts as they apply to strengthening constitutional protections for all.
Getting OUR Government to protect OUR liberties is OUR common ground.
In Part II, I will discuss how the blatant disregard for the 2nd and 4th Amendments resulted in the deaths of 2 different men, decent police officers dying for nothing, how these widespread "Drug Raids" kill many, many innocent people, and why this all demonstrates that the FBI and Law Enforcement in general cannot be trusted with the Patriot Act or "Homeland Security".
xxdr_zombiexx
REFERENCE LINKS
1: Victims of the Drug War
2: Government Raid Victims
3: Rainbow Farm
4: The Oregonian
5: WWeek
6: Death Penalty News
7: Oregonlive.com
8: NORML report about Steven Dons Incident
9: Peter McWilliams Mapinc story
http://my.marijuana.com/article.php?sid=3815&mode=flat&order=0&thold=-1
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Lets be consistent pot heads! If you think the Feds do not have the authority to make pot legal, via tenth amendment, lets recognize the fact that the STATES have the rights to limit so called freedoms, and the Federal government has no authority to control the states and the people with many of the unconstitutional policies, laws and regulations that many on the left(pot heads included)support.
I say, lets have the states decide the pot issue. And when states like CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NY, MASS, NJ, or any other state that wants free and unlimited rights to do whatever they want, fall into chaos, then dont cry to the federal government to bail your * out with Federal interference in area where constitutionally the Federal government doesnt belong. You guys can make your bed, but make sure you and you alone lay in it. Dont go bringing the Federal government in to fix the mess you create with your "right to do whatever you want."
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Eric S. Williams
PS - No, I don't use pot and I don't want my kids using it.
Those of you that claim it doesn't hurt anyone but themselves are full of crap.
"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
There are a lot more Americans in favor of the Second Amendment applying to individuals than there are those in favor of legalizing another drug that causes traffic accidents when misused and makes a percentage of users into addicts and bums.
Most people would probably say that we have enough problems with legal liquor, thank you, and there's no point in adding what many consider to be a "gateway" drug to the mix in bars, nightclubs, or the home. By the way, some drunks can drive home in a "blackout," but have you ever tried to drive drunk AND high? Man oh man.
Sorry, Charlie.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - offeror on 07/05/2002 12:01:14
where. It does not sound like a bad idea. There is the believe that it will make things better. When finally put into practice, the effect is not what is expected.
I do not believe liberization of our current drug laws, including
cannibis will be in our best interest in the long run. I see it as just one more step down the ladder to the end of this great country.
I think most of the resources saved by making pot legal will be burnt up in setting up more rehab centers....
JMHO....Flame away if you feel the need.....
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Liberals....
You are pretty clueless about pot, if I may say so.
Here is the bottom line about any drug:
If people want to get high, THEY WILL, and it doesn't matter if it is legal or not.
Just like gun people are always saying "Don't outlaw guns, because criminals will STILL HAVE THEM." Same thing.
If people want to have guns illegally, they will. If they want to get high illegally, they will.
Merc
NO! You may not have my guns! Now go crawl back into your hole!
****************************************
"Tolerating things you may not necessarily like is part of being free" - Larry Flynt
I'll take my chances with chaos.....
Fully 50% of the citizens of our great country smoke or smoked pot.....
Maybe if they were not so stoned they might get out and vote....
Think this through.... ever wonder how many of the guys who signed the Declaration of Independance smoked pot. I would guess we would be surprised to know the truth......
I support the
Right to keep and bear arms, and smoke pot too....
Just not at the same time.....
Until we have a test that can determine whether or not you are currently under the influence of pot, it can't be legalized.....
Willie's Right
Cowboy
Law enforcement must have a way to tell if you are impaired, while driving a car.
When first a job has begun, see it through till' it's done. Whether the labor is great or small, do it right, or not at all! gshutes@aol.com What I d
I know people that want to get high will do so and not everyone that uses is a worthless human being. But you have to draw the line somewhere. I guess my line is at a different place than yours.
So son, before you call someone clueless, try walking in their shoes, they just might have a different experience than you.
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Liberals....
Edited by - william81 on 07/05/2002 13:20:13
Eric S. Williams
Little people talk about people,regular people talk about things,and big people talk about ideas.
Well if we see it from a freedom point all drug laws are unsconstitutional depriving of citisens to medicate themselves as they like , but how can the CIA get all the money for their Unlawfull
experiments like in http://www.ou-research.com and the other goodies to keep our democracy running....
Anyway we are bein drugged by TV subliminals RF religion and politics
and is under the law ....
JD
Good...? , Bad...? Who cares ? as long I am the one with the the gun.....
just roll a big ol` number,
and check out www.Ganja.com
.218
Will say I smoked my first cigarette, now I smoke, did bridge over from cigarettes to cigars, but still smoke. Drank my first beer, still drink beer, as well as hard liquor. Purchased my first firearm, still get satisfaction from purchasing guns.
Guess you could say I have an addictive personally, and do not need any more addictions, ie. smoking pot.
B - BreatheR - RelaxA - AimS - SightS - Squeeze
Just like gun people are always saying "Don't outlaw guns, because criminals will STILL HAVE THEM." Same thing.
If people want to have guns illegally, they will. If they want to get high illegally, they will.
Absolutely right, Merc.
This is what I was saying earlier. Deterrance can take a number of forms, and outright banning is the biggest of all. For some it will work. But for many, especially kids these days, nothing will deter them in finding a way to get what they want.
I used to know a kid who would suck all of the nitrous oxide out of whipped cream cans and get high as a kite (also occasionally pass out and bleed from the nose).
His rationale? "I could get weed if I wanted, but damned if it isnt easier to buy the whipped cream"
I've heard of kids huffing gasoline, dipping cigarettes in body embalming fluid, even inhaling burning plastic fumes.
To be honest, I'd rather have them smoking marijuana who's production, purity, and potency is Federally-controlled and taxed.
Bottom line: Kids do stupid things, some more than others. Kids are very persistant in getting what they want, even if it's bad for them. Keeping those two immovable points in mind, I think we should take the lesser of two evils and legalize.
Oh, and by the way, the gateway drug argument is early-80's era reefer madness garbage. It has since been disproven by every major marijuana study done since then.
Drug-oriented addictive personalities (i.e- compulsive thrill seeking combined with immaturity combined with bad judgement) will smoke, inject, snort, or drink anything they can.
Do any of you have a problem with the fact that the federal government does not have the power(under the constitution)to tax the stuff. Maybe if it was imported, I guess they could put a tarriff on it-but in the case of home grown stuff, the federal government has no constitutional authority to tax weed.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Eric S. Williams
rodney colson
Taking a stand on abortion, gay rights, speed limits on highways,
alien quotas, profiling, proper dress codes and the likes?? They
have enough problems with just our gun rights, for now. Potheads
have their own associations. Dont try to screw up the NRA with
such dingbat ideas.
AlleninAlaska
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free
we should be standing for all the bill of rights , lest we become as inconsistent as our advisaries. respt. submitted dads-freehold
rodney colson
Could you show me where the right to smoke pot is located in the bill of rights? Just curious.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Now, as for legalization, looking at history, we'd probably be better off if pot were legal INSTEAD OF alcohol, but alcohol got there first. So that's our legal buzz. Period. I don't know if it's ever been studied, as to who are the worse drivers, the stoned or the drunk. My guess? It may be about even. But drunks might be worse. Still, this is just my personal view. Since pot is viewed by the big organizations concerned with drug use as a "gateway" drug, they are not going to go for legal pot. I do think it's a bit nutty to break down people's doors and pull their private crop up by the roots and cart them off to jail, even if they're sharing once in a while. But I think this country has settled that hash. We are a beer-guzzling, bar hopping nation. Red-blooded Americans and potheads are not images that mesh -- in fact, pot was very "counter-culture" in an "in your face" way in the 60s, so it has an unAmericanness about it even today. Never mind the boys in Viet Nam did it. However, I still say the only time I was ever thoroughly a danger on the highway -- and knew it because I literally COULD NOT DRIVE -- was when I was both drunk and high. So I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. Maybe we should license people to pick one or the other only. How's that for thinking outside the box?
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
gun rights and gun information. Seems like a Harley Davidson group
approving a tennis match rule. To begin with, many ranges have a sign
showing, "no drugs or alcahol allowed" . Going into the rights and
wrongs of drugs does not enter into. The NRA was formed for only one reason. AND IT WAS NOT TO LEGALIZE DRUGS. Sorry, druggies. Put
your sad tales on NORML or what ever its called. And leave the NRA
alone with your drug tales of woe.
rodney colson
The fifth amendment deals with the rights of the accused-Again, the government has violated the fifth amendment with illegal seizures, without due process, because of their drug war-but again-it does not give you a right to smoke pot.
The ninth amendment is in no way a restraint on the states-or at least, that was not the intentions of the founders.
The ninth amendment basically says "even though we have listed the above rights, that does not imply that these are the only rights we have. Therefore, the federal government cannot in any way restrict ANY rights, notwithstanding the fact that we listed only a few above.(the 9th amendment is probably the best chance towards forcing the states rto accept a Federal law that says pot is legal. This was the amendment that was used to defend a womans right to kill babies).
Now that does not in any way mean that these other rights cannot be limited by any government, only the Federal government(and like it or not, the states were not in any way prohibited by the constitution from limiting the rights mentioned in the billof rights).
And the tenth amendment guarantees the rights of the states the power to delegate anything that they are not prohibited by the constitution from doing so.
Since the constitution in no way says that a state cannot make a law that weed is illegal, the states have every authority to do so. There is no guaranteed constitutional right to smoke weed, therefore the states are protected by the tenth amendment.
"that each state in the union, shall retain every power, jurisdiction and right which which is not by this constitution delegated to the congress of the united states or to the departments of the federal government... That those clauses(BOR) which declare that CONGRESS shall not exercise certain powers be not interpeted IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER to extend the powers of congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution"
-Excerpt from Virginia ratification of the constitution.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
manage to turn the computer on.
Yes, you're right, smoking pot is not specifially
mentioned in the Constitution. If you stop and
think about it--and "think" is the important word
here, salzo--lots and lots of things aren't mentioned
in the Constitution. The guys who wrote it realized
they couldn't cover everything, so they laid out some
very broad rules. And the important foundation of those
rules, the big important idea, is that by and large
the government should leave people alone. There should
be enough of it to protect us from those who would do
us wrong and to provide some basic services, but that's
about it.
The point all these people are making is that a fellow
sitting there is his home puffing away on a joint is
not doing anyone any harm and the government should leave
him alone.
You can argue perhaps that he is doing someone wrong, that
the second hand smoke is hurting somebody else or that
the cultivation of pot takes away valuable crop land or
whatever, but pull your nose back four inches from the
tree you're staring at and try to look at the forest.
You can argue perhaps that he is doing someone wrong, that
the second hand smoke is hurting somebody else or that
the cultivation of pot takes away valuable crop land or
whatever, but pull your nose back four inches from the
tree you're staring at and try to look at the forest.
223 Beleiever-Actually, STUPID, I would never use the above arguments to say that pot smoking should be illegal. If you remember the article that this discussion focused on, it dealt with whether or not the states had a tenth amendment right to legalize marijuana(probably cant remember that due to your short term memory loss). My position once again, is that I do in fact think that the states can legalize marijuana, and that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to prohibit pot smoking, or legalization of pot
But on the same token, the states have every right to make it illegal, and nothing in the constitution prevents them from doing so, and the constitution actually protects their right to do so..
You do not have a constitutionalk right to smoke pot-you can talk about your pursuit of happiness, and all of that, but that does not mean you have a guaranteed constitutional right to smoke weed.
Your lack of understanding with respect to the constitution is astounding nit wit, and I suggest you consider actually reading it before spewing such nonsense. Your explanation to their intentions of "not being able to cover everything" is laughable. Really shows your ignorance with respect to history.
Read the constitution, and then read the Declaration of independence. See if you can concentrate long enough to get beyond the "pursuit of happiness" part. Might clear some things up for you-probably not.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
rodney colson
I do not think that your primer can be correct, in its statement that the 9th was inserted to keep the states in check. All of the rights outlined in the bill of rights was written to prohibit the federal government from interfering in not only those "inumerated" rights, but also any rights. It seems to me, when considering the text of the 9th, in plain english it reads
"even though we have listed certain rights in the constitution that the federal government cannot interfere with, that does not mean that the Federal government can interfere with rights that are not listed." And I think it is not an accident that the 9th was followed by an amendment stating that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
Here is a problem. Assuming that the 9th prohibits states from denying rights to its citizens, then who is the arbiter who will decide what rights "the people" have.
It seems to me inconsistent with the intent of the founders who were apprehensive about creating a centralized government. ZThe states were apprehensive, because they felt that a federal government might usurp the rights of "the states" to self governing. Who did the states think should be the judge of what rights could be restricted? The states thought they should be the judge. "the people"(the sovreign states" should decide.
If we were to beleieve that the states put the 9th amendment in the constitution to limit themselves, then we are left with needing another entity to decide what rights would be "retained" by the people. Do you really think, with all the apprehension the states had about creating a federal government, fear of losing their power to govern, concern that the very limited federal government that they were creating might become overbearing and interfere with a states sovereignty,they would place in that powers hands the ability to decide what rights the people of the states could enjoy?
It is very hard to beleive that the states would just delegate to the federal government the power to decide what rights would be exercised by the people.
NO civilization has ever had a policy where a citizen was free to do whatever they wanted. There has t be limitations placed on society. Who decides what those limitations will be? The people do. The people are free to decide how their community will deal with the issues of rights. If the people, through their elected officials, decide that a right has to be limited, or prohibited alltogether, the people have the right to make that decision. If the people, decide that the rights they have should face zero limitations, than the people have the right to decide that for themselves. The people of CaLIFORNIA MIGHT LIKE THE IDEA OF NO LIMITATIONS ON THEIR RIGHTS, while the people in Utah might find it necessary for society to restrict those rights. The last thing the founders would have wanted, was for the federal government to decide whats good for the people of Uthah is good for the people of California. The people of Utah know whats good for them, and the people of california think they know what is good for them. They dont need the Federal government telling them whats good for them.
If you have not rea this already, check out ELLIOTS DEBATES- it is a text of the debates that took place in the individual states ratification conventions.
Thanks for a good discussion.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
rodney colson