Not Stoked on Constitution 

Not Stoked on Constitution 
Posted by FoM on June 15, 2000 at 13:19:02 PT
E-Mail Letters To The Editor
Source: WorldNetDaily
 When the prohibitionists wanted to outlaw alcohol, it was recognized that the federal government did not have the authority to impose any such law upon the nation. Therefore, it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to achieve prohibition. Obviously, they have changed their minds about federal authority in the meantime. The citizenry is not consulted about the ever-expanding list of proscribed molecules. 
The states are ignored when they attempt to bypass the fed for the sake of medical usage. The so-called War on Drugs offers perhaps the most glaring example of how much heavier our government has gotten during the past century.  Michael McAvoy More Questions Than Answers:  I have been reading the on-going controversy about legalizing drugs and have some questions about the legalization of drugs: 1. How would they be sold? Would each state set up a system of "drug" stores to market these drugs? 2. Which drugs would be acceptable? Would heroin be ok, but crack cocaine not because of its highly addictive nature? 3. Would drug paraphernalia be marketed along with the drug for the customers' convenience? 4. Would there be a legal age limit to purchase? Is 18 years too young or should the limit be 21 as with alcohol? 5. And lastly, who would control and police the smuggling, distribution and usage of these "legal" drugs by the underage users? I think creating another problem to supposedly solve another, is not the answer.  Michael R. Beck Free To Buzz:  With his continued support for the war against drug users, Ted Wegener is not being honest. He said that legalization would destroy a society and asked for a counter example. When he is provided with an example such as the U.S. before 1914, he does not respond but repeats his doomsday prediction. Conveniently, he ignores the fact that drugs have been legal throughout history and he ignores the fact that opiates, cannabis, and cocaine, are valuable medicines which have been safely used for centuries. He also ignores the fact that alcohol is a popular, legal drug. Ted, putting a person in prison against their will is a violent act. Advocating violence against hundreds of millions of honest, peaceful people is not Christian behavior. And, it is not the same as putting murderers and thieves in prison because they are NOT honest, peaceful people who mind their own business. Your statement, "Taking recreational drugs is not a harmless activity: the continued use of drugs opens a person to demonic possession, and the dark forces then guide a person in all his ways," is voodoo nonsense. Billions of people have benefited from taking drugs (medicine). Furthermore, billions of people -- including presidents, vice presidents, lawmakers, judges, and prosecutors -- have benefited from the use of intoxicants or drugs for recreational use. I have associated with drug and alcohol users all my life and none of them fit your description. In fact, they are the finest people whom I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. There is no morality without freedom. Suppose you are standing at the fork of a road and thinking about going right or left. Someone points a gun at your head and tells you to go right or you will be punished. As a result, you decide to go right. That decision is not a moral decision. You cannot be or become a moral person unless you are free to choose.  Rich Eramian Christians and Drug War:   Ted Wegener, in a desperate attempt to take principled Christian libertarians and call us fools, has instead demonstrated his own folly. In fact, the failure of drug prohibition dwarfs that of violent crime. Drug prohibition is the direct cause of most violent crime. Peaceful non-governmental public-service organizations -- churches, inner-city missionaries, drug intervention programs -- could accomplish 10 times over what the government can, if only we Christians were permitted to give our money to them instead of to the DEA. But none of this really matters. Because the strongest case against drug prohibition is simply that it is anti-Christian and immoral. Tell me, if you discovered that your own son or daughter were involved with drugs, what would you do? Would you turn her in, so she could spend years imprisoned under mandatory-minimum sentencing laws? Or maybe you would willingly forfeit your belongings under our nation's anti-racketeering laws. Or you could make an anonymous tip and inspire a SWAT team to kick in your door in the middle of the night. Or perhaps, as a last resort, you could leave your daughter's life in the hands of the pushers and black-market thugs. The politicians in Washington know the correct answer. Whenever one of their sons or daughters is caught with drugs, they treat it as a private family matter. They even pull strings to get the DEA off their backs. But, in their arrogance, they refuse to let America's parents take responsibility for their own families. There is nothing godly about using the force of the police power to quell consent. Is it good when government social workers intrude into the homes of Christian homeschoolers? Is it right to force people to associate with homosexuals? Should we rejoice that our tax dollars are being used to fund smut and anti-Christian schools? Yet this coercion flows from the same idiocy that Wegener promotes. When will we ever learn? As Christians, the first thing we need to do -- before anyone is ever going to take us seriously -- is to acknowledge that every human being has a God-given right to be a sinner. Each of us is responsible to God for his own behavior. And to intrude into that sacred relationship is simply wrong. It was wrong when men took up swords to civilize, as they said, the heathen. It is still wrong today. The only moral course is to end drug prohibition, and to return responsibility for righteousness to America's families and churches.  Tim K.June 15, 2000 1999 Related Article:Cease-Fire on Drug War? - WorldNetDaily
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #7 posted by FoM on June 15, 2000 at 20:03:50 PT:
Hi Dan B.
Hi Dan B.If you sent it to me I must have missed it. I get alot of email and I just haven't been able to get to it all. When I look for a submission I look for the url to the news article first and then try to get to all of the email but some I just don't have enough time. I post news articles and press releases but not emails except like about Peter's Death. What you might want to do is submit it to The EZine Magazine which is on the front page of I'll post my email here which I always do at the top of an article but get lazy when I make a comment. I'll keep my eye out for it now that I know you are sending something to me.Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Dan B on June 15, 2000 at 18:47:33 PT:
Let Me Collect My Thoughts
First, I am deeply saddened by the news of Peter McWiliams' passing away. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. I did not have the pleasure of meeting this remarkable man, but I am well aware of his contributions to the medical marijuana movement. He will be deeply missed, but never forgotten.Now, I am going to respond to FoM's question, and I hope it doesn't seem disrespectful in the same post with the above comments. I sent the article I recently referred to, to submit  I am hoping that this was the correct place to send it. If you would like, FoM, I can send it directly to your e-mail address. I include a link to my e-mail with every post.Thanks for your indulgence.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by FoM on June 15, 2000 at 18:34:58 PT
A Favor Kaptinemo
kaptinemo,Would you take this comment you made about Peter and also post it on the article about Peter's Death? I would like it to be in that thread too.Thanks FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on June 15, 2000 at 17:03:59 PT:
Smug, murdering little bastards
Choked on vomit. All of all things, killed by the very thing he was taking cannabis to stop. Caused by nausea, caused by anti-AIDS drugs he was forced to take without cannabis to ameliorate the emisis.As I said in an earlier post on a different thread, they wanted to 'make an example' of McWilliams. Well, they sure did. Congratulations, narcs, you've just created another martyr. Now the fun begins.Get it through your heads, people. The antis have declared WAR upon us, we are the ENEMY, and the purpose of war is to subdue - usually by killing - as many of the enemy as possible. Whether it is through outright bullets or bureaucratic waffling and neglect combined with coercive threats, the result is the same. The antis have demonstrated this time and again. McWilliams wasn't the first; he just happened to be a well-read author. But you can bet he won't be the last.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 15, 2000 at 15:42:30 PT
Peter McWilliams has passed away!
Posted On ABC News Message Board by Ann McCormick Peter McWilliams Rest In Peace 2:43PM PDT, Jun 15, 2000 Peter McWilliams died yesterday at his home in Los Angeles. The preliminary cause of death is asphyxiation. Apparently he was alone, he vomited and was unable to clear his airway. He was found a little over 3 hours ago.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 15, 2000 at 14:55:02 PT
A Small Question
Hi Dan B. Did you submit it to for the EZine Magazine? I would like to read it. Thank you for your really good comments. I really do appreciate everyones efforts here.Thanks FoM!Cannabis.com New MeriHemp Network
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Dan B on June 15, 2000 at 14:41:31 PT:
Answers, and Send Letters
Regarding Beck's comments, I have recently submitted an article to answering these and other questions that the establishment thinks we are unable to answer. I hope the article (or one like it--it was written in about 2 1/2 hours, so I am not sure the quality is up to my usual standards) is published soon.In the mean time, concerning the government's lack of regard for the Constitution, please take some time to write your senators and representatives concerning the three bills awaiting final approval that will, in effect, squelch our right to disburse life-saving information to those who do choose to use drugs like ecstacy, and will ultimately shut down sites like these, where freedom to express concerns about the government's drug policies is central to the success not only of these sites, but of our cause in general. Contact DRCNet (linked below) to find out how to send a quick e-mail to your "representatives." And write your local newspapers. I have, and I have been told that my letter to the editor will soon be published. (Thanks to DRCNet, for their blanket permission to publish, in whole or in part, their articles. I quoted rather heavily from their article concerning the Anti-Ecstacy bill because, frankly, I could not have said it better myself.)
DRCNet Free Speech Page
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: