[Peace-discuss] Re: [Discuss] War on drugs

[John W.]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:34 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

Actually the term War on Drugs was coined by Richard Nixon and further
> promoted by others as you note.
> One of the most unfortunate things about the so-called Christian Right is
> that quite often is not Christian, and concerning the
> teachings of Christ, they have it mostly Wrong.  One of the main precepts
> of Christ is that you cannot create good behaviour
> by enforcement of a set of rules.


Not exactly.  Christ's precept was that, no matter how much you try to obey
a set of rules, you will fail, and will be unfit for the kingdom of heaven.
Beyond that, even if you obeyed the rules outwardly, you could still commit
sin through wrong thoughts or wrong motives or through the FAILURE to do
what is right.

In human society we still have, and need, rules against murder, rape,
kidnapping, burglary, etc., and I don't hear you objecting to them.
Presumably that's because the acts I have listed are harmful to other
people, while you perceive drug use as not being harmful to anyone but the
person using.  While I tend to agree with you, that can be argued in a
multiplicity of ways.


 Most of your so-called Christian Right are modern day Pharisees and
> Sadducees, Judaizers who
> have either not read the simple precepts of the book of Galatians, or maybe
> they did and either they just don't get it
> or maybe they chose to reject it because they can have more power and money
> that way.
>
> Much of the present background law prohibiting the use of marijuana was
> directed at the use of hemp as an industrial fiber,
> which was backed by the DuPont corporation in the 1930s because hemp fiber
> was in competition with DuPont's synthetic fibers
> such as nylon.   This information adds significantly to the bogus-ness of
> the whole matter.
>
> Of course I am in favour of a rather uncompromising repeal of the drug laws
> and a drastic reduction in the authority and scope of the
> the DEA and FDA.  That could be too much of a bite to take at once.
>
> I really am ignorant about how much authority local (city, county)
> government has to countervene on behalf of the citizenry against the
> Illinois drug laws. Any scholarly advice on this would be useful.


All I know is that the state supersedes the community (unless it's home
rule, then it gets complicated), and the feds supersede the state.  When
California passed its medical marijuana law, the feds basically ignored it
and continued to bust Californians with pot.




> I suspect that the Federal laws may be wholly unconstitutional, considering
> that constitutional amendments were deemed necessary to invoke&repeal
> alcohol prohibition.


Naw.  A law is deemed constitutional unless the Supreme Court (or a lower
federal court, absent the intervention of the Supreme Court) says its
unconstitutional.  Creating an actual constitutional amendment, with all the
procedures required to do so, guarantees the law's constitutionality.
Logically, how could a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional when
it's part of the very fabric of the constitution itself?

Think of state marriage laws.  A couple of states have passed laws
legalizing gay marriage.  The federal courts have not deemed those state
laws unconstitutional, which means that they're still constitutional.  So
the neocons were proposing a constitutional amendment specifying that a
"marriage" is a union between a man and a woman.  Had such a constitutional
amendment passed, it would have had the effect of rendering the state laws
permitting gay marriage ipso facto unconstitutional.



I would favour local action to detoxify local drug laws to the maximum
> possible extent, and cutting through as many of the intermediate
> steps as possible.  I perceive moderation  in this case to be agreement
> with the legitimacy of the present law.  I have no present information
> on the scope or degree of resolve among the opposition (those who want to
> maintain the status quo).  I do see that those who favour the status quo,
> the legal profession, law enforcement, etc., have a stake in the matter
> (dirty hands) which should be played against them to their extreme
> non-benefit.
>
> I am not on the courtwatch list (as far as I know) but they might be
> watching (who knows).
>
> Bob Illyes wrote:
>

>  Wayne Johnson writes "The war on drugs is a racket, a scam, a pretext for
>> legalized robbery in the name of the law."
>>
>> The war on drugs goes back to Reagan, who decided that drug addicts were
>> evil and should be punished, rather than people with a medical problem who
>> should be treated. He was pandering to the "Christian" right. I've heard it
>> estimated that half of the folks in prison for dealing were not dealers, but
>> were falsely convicted by testimony of actual dealers looking for a lighter
>> sentence, and I believe it. If you think tickets for marijuana use are too
>> expensive, Wayne, have a look at the cost of all of these prisoners.
>>
>> The war on drugs is more legalized idiocy than legalized robbery. As with
>> Prohibition, we need to change the law. Meanwhile, almost anything that
>> keeps folks out of prison for having at most a medical problem is a good
>> idea.
>>
>> Wayne- are you a member of the courtwatch discuss list, or are those folks
>> wondering what I am replying to?
>>
>> Bob
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080923/7857471f/attachment.htm