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

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Au contraire, I really do disagree with you about the concept of 
constitutionality being based solely in the Supreme Court.

Although the Supreme Court can determine constitutionality and it is 
temporally the decision of the court that
establishes ultimate decisions in controversial cases, the Supreme Court 
is by no means the sole determinate
of constitutionality provided that people are indeed able to read.

It becomes an issue of money political winds and willingness to pursue 
that actually brings an unconstitutional law to the courts,
sometimes nobody seems to care nobody wants to bother asking the question.

Absolutely you are correct on the concept of amendments being 
constitutional, which was my point.
If interstate commerce was sufficient authority to the Feds for 
Prohibition, why then did the government
find it necessary to make an indisputable amendment? 

Since the constitutional amendment was necessary
for the prohibition of alcohol consumption, why not for THC?

Why did  the Californians play dead on their law and allow themselves to 
be coerced? 
Did they lack the resources and fortitude to make the challenge?


John W. wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:34 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag 
> <mailto: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/20080923/7e00904a/attachment.htm