Cannabis News The November Coalition
  Applaud Souder's Efforts To Fight Illegal Drug Use
Posted by FoM on March 22, 2002 at 19:24:13 PT
By Joyce Nalepka 
Source: Journal Gazette 

cannabisnews.com The recent verbal attack on Rep. Mark Souder by the so-called Students for Sensible Drug Policy who traveled from Indiana, Illinois and Washington, D.C., to Fort Wayne was as senseless as is illegal drug use.

As a 24-year veteran in the effort to educate parents, students, teachers and voters about the damage done by marijuana and other drugs, I have encountered pro-drug legalization organizations all across America. Legalization groups operate under names like the Drug Policy Foundation, Drug Policy Alliance, Lindesmith Center, Marijuana Policy Project and The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

Two former congressmen, one Republican and one Democrat, after an investigation called NORML the militant organizational arm of the drug culture supported by the drug culture magazines, the drug paraphernalia industry and, to a certain extent, even the traffickers.

We have watched the evolution of Students for Sensible Drug Policy from groups that promote legalization and that operate under various titles but share many of the same members. Students are invited to conferences at various universities to "discuss legislation prohibiting student loans to those convicted of drug offenses." It appears that the young people are then recruited into the legalization movement.

As far as continuing to shadow the congressman, Carolyn Lunman, an SSDP member from George Washington University, Washington, D.C. said, "He'd better watch his back."

At its Web site -- http://www.drcnet.org/wol/226.html -- SSDP threatens to "keep an eye on Souder's events calendar and will be developing a strategy to have a greater presence in Souder's district." This fringe group claims only 2,000 votes can defeat Souder. His defeat would be a tremendous loss to the drug fight.

If you wonder how students finance their participation and air travel to these various conferences or meetings to harass elected officials who, in Souder's case, have the interest of both the kids and his constituents at heart, visit their pro-drug Web site.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy is a militant fringe of the drug legalization movement. As parents, we would treat membership in SSDP as firmly as we would treat drug use. Stop the behavior and resign from the group or pay your own tuition.

Souder has been targeted by the legalizers specifically because he has been doing the right thing - making every effort to curb drug use in America. He is highly respected by those of us who have been in the trenches for years. He is highly respected by those congressmen and women on both sides of the political aisle who have banded together to target drugs at the national level. Souder was selected by his peers to co-chair the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America.

The very bill that these "Sensible Students" are complaining about prohibits any student with an illegal drug conviction from receiving a federally subsidized student loan, unless the student passes two drug tests and undergoes drug treatment. If the student tests clean and goes through a drug rehabilitation program, the student could re- qualify for federal student aid.

It is shocking that anyone would object to this common-sense legislation, which serves two purposes - to keep drug dealers and drug addicts off our campuses, where they are known to contribute to crime and the drop-out rate, and ensure that federal dollars for student aid go only to the deserving, not to those who break the law.

Moreover, it gives families leverage to prevent or stop their children's drug use. At a recent meeting with parents whose sons and daughters died of overdose while at college, the most frequently heard statement was, "If your child is already involved in illegal drugs, don't send him off to college. It's like an open-air drug market and there is no supervision."

We urge Souder's constituents to applaud his efforts and keep sending him back to Congress. He is one of the select few who is unafraid to stand up to the drug pushers.

Would you want your child or grandchild to end up in a dorm room with a non-rehabilitated drug criminal? Thanks, Congressman Souder, for making our colleges safer, and for protecting our campuses against the scourge of drugs.

Note: Joyce Nalepka is president of Drug-Free Kids: America's Challenge and was president of the national drug prevention organization that former first lady Nancy Reagan chaired, the National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth.

Newshawk: sledhead & irok247
Source: Journal Gazette, The (IN)
Author: Joyce Nalepka
Published: March 21, 2002
Copyright: 2002 The Journal Gazette
Contact: letters@jg.net
Website: http://web.journalgazette.net/

Related Articles & Web Sites:

SSDP: http://www.ssdp.org/
NORML: http://www.norml.org/
Marijuana Policy Project: http://www.mpp.org/
Drug Policy Alliance: http://www.drugpolicyalliance.org/

Students To Protest Souder's Drug Policy
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12078.shtml

Law Meant To Hold Students Accountable
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11733.shtml

Anti-Drug Law Hurts Some Students
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11647.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #61 posted by Jose Melendez on April 05, 2002 at 06:09:31 PT:

want conspiracy? research cannabis law
I'm going to stick to stuff I can prove, like cannabinoids are safe, effective and non-toxic.

Also, I can't find the pictures right now, but I seem to recall seeing part of a tail at the Pentagon on TV.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #60 posted by FoM on April 04, 2002 at 16:38:00 PT
DdC
I know this is off topic but I heard that too. I am not a person who believes in conspiracy theories but will listen if someone has proof that one is happening. Is it true we've never seen the plane or maybe missed it or did it blow up into so many pieces we didn't recognize it? Didn't they have a Memorial Service like they did in PA for the people who died at the Pentagon too? I stopped watching the news after 9-11 after a few weeks and might have missed a Memorial Service. I did see one at the Pentagon for people who worked there that were killed but not the people who were on the plane when it crashed if I remember correctly? Have they interview family members who lost a person at the Pentagon that was on the plane? Just a few questions?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #59 posted by DdC on April 04, 2002 at 16:27:18 PT
Hey Jose Melendez
I saw an interview with Brock and he claims it actually was a not so vast right wing conspiracy but rather one wealthy conservative paying for most of the Klintoon bashing and investigations knowing Jones and Whitewater was all bolderdash from the gitgo. Also interesting that Barbara Olson, Ted's wife, was killed in the plane that hit the Pentagon...Some are claiming that never happened. No plane wreckage found or shown on camera.??????????
Got Conspiracy?
DdC


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #58 posted by DdC on April 04, 2002 at 16:15:13 PT
el_toonces: Nalapdog is a wannabe lawyer's all
A wod junkie volunteer frothing over that 15 minutes of fame she hopes for. That was an Adolph Hitler quote I signed her name too. Although it applies to many DEAth mongers. She has no power outside of what she claims for herself. probably will make a name someday though, since Bushit ain't particular what lies he uses. My contacts in Maryland are doing research on her and I'll be sure too post what I find...Vested ignorance has her in it, either as a lawyer or a DARE mom getting funding...
cya
DdC


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #57 posted by Jose Melendez on March 26, 2002 at 05:03:11 PT
the rest of the story...
Source for comment #56: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/David_Brock_031802.html

Also from this interview with David Brock:

BUZZFLASH: What does the right-wing want? Now it's in power, in essence, in the Bush administration.

DAVID BROCK: I've been here for 16 years. I came in the middle of the Reagan administration. And there's no question that, from what I can see, that the conservative movement is happier with this administration than they ever have been. And I think that includes the Reagan administration.

Now what do they hope to achieve? I think that the issue of the judiciary is an interesting one that you raised, because I think that what they hope to achieve are things that go on often below the media radar screen. There are battles, you know, every day about funding AIDS, who gets on the Court, in the environmental area, certainly, who gets appointed in the agencies and in the departments at these lower levels.

A lot of these Federalist Society lawyers and conservatives are winning battles. And I have no doubt that the central area in which they hope to have an impact would be in the judiciary. The Republicans refused to confirm so many of the Clinton nominees in the later part of the Clinton administration that there are an awful lot of openings. And if you look at the background of these people, you can see the hand of the Federalist Society behind so many of these nominations. And what will be most interesting is to see when they get to a Supreme Court nominee.

People seem to think that the Anita Hill episode is ancient history, and doesn't really have actually any particular political relevance now. But I disagree. Clarence Thomas owed a small group of right-wing lawyers his confirmation to that Court.

I think if you look at the circumstances in which he came on the Court, the misleading answers he gave, and then the things that I found out later, which led me to think that Anita Hill's case actually was much stronger than I originally thought. If you look at all that, I think that the Thomas vote in 2000 couldn't have been anything but a perfectly predictable form of payback. And I think that's very disturbing, because even a Rehnquist or a Scalia, I think, is able to move more freely, more independently, than Clarence Thomas. He is really a creature of the right-wing Federalist Society. And they know exactly what they did to get him on that Court. He knows it, and they've kept that secret for, you know, ten years.

BUZZFLASH: Thank you David Brock for having the courage to write "Blinded by the Right."

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #56 posted by Jose Melendez on March 25, 2002 at 16:44:00 PT:

excerpt from interview with David Brock
"Blinded by the Right" provides an insider's account into the right-wing conspiracy that attempted to entrap and impeach a democratically elected President of the United States. The seminal book "Hunting of the President," by Jon Conason and Gene Lyons, provides the definitive account of the strategy that the right-wing used, beginning before Clinton was even elected, to stalk and entrap a President.

"Blinded by the Right" fills in and confirms the details, as Brock explains his own personal transformation from eager journalistic "hit man" to repentant confessor. In the process, we learn that even federal judges at the highest level were willing participants in the Clinton character assassination and entrapment strategy.

BuzzFlash believes Brock deserves our gratitude, not our scorn.

BuzzFlash.com recently interviewed Brock, beginning with the subject of Ted Olson. The Democrats allowed the confirmation of Ted Olson as Solicitor General, despite Brock's detailed account of Olson's role in the infamous "Arkansas Project."

BuzzFlash.com is offering "Blinded By The Right" as a BuzzFlash Premium: http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/Blinded_By_The_Right.html

BUZZFLASH: In "Blinded by the Right, you recount that you were stunned when you went to talk with Ted Olson in D.C. (early on in the efforts to bring down Clinton), when he expressed to you that it was irrelevant whether Vince Foster had committed suicide or not. To Olson, raising questions about the Foster suicide was just another way of keeping the heat on the Clinton administration until a scandal could be shaken loose, which was the mission of the infamous Arkansas Project.

How does Ted Olson, now our Solicitor General (who is going to argue the White House case against the Government Accounting Office lawsuit against Cheney), symbolize the right-wing attack machine?

DAVID BROCK: I think in Ted's case, through the nineties, he led a kind of double life. On the one hand, he was the pinnacle of the legal establishment in Washington, not only on the conservative side. I think he's generally recognized as being at the top of his profession.

What no one outside the conservative world knew was the second role he was playing, which was as a kind of a consiglieri to the extreme right. And in particular, to the Arkansas Project, which was the two-million dollar smear campaign that was ran against the Clintons through the American Spectator, funded by Richard Mellon Scaife.

I think Scaife was and is the center of the anti-Clinton movement in the nineties in terms of financing a broad range of publications and legal interest groups. These institutions surreptitiously were getting money to advance the Paula Jones case, so Scaife had his fingers in everything. And Ted became more and more involved with the Spectator and with the Arkansas Project, which was, in some ways, inexplicable in the sense that it didn't seem to jibe with his other reputation. So he's an interesting character.

I think the other thing that's important about Ted is that the qualifications for Solicitor General are normally someone who is regarded as not a political partisan. They may have various ideological pre-dispositions, but would not have been the kind of person who was actively involved in trying to bring down the prior administration. He was in concert with his wife Barbara Olson, who was, at that time, one of the lead investigators on all the anti-Clinton scandals on Capitol Hill.

So together, Ted and Barbara sort of symbolize the kind of relentless pursuit and relentless disregard for the facts. And that's where the anecdote that I told about Ted and Vince Foster comes into play. I did meet a lot of people in Arkansas over the years whom seem to have deluded themselves into believing a lot of these crazy stories. And to me, they bordered on lunacy. But Ted is a sophisticated Washington lawyer.

Nonetheless, Ted Olson exemplifies the view that whether a particular article was credible or not, the allegations put forth were simply a process. That process was throwing out more and more dirt, in the hope that some of it would stick.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #55 posted by FoM on March 25, 2002 at 16:43:20 PT
Nuevo Mexican
Thank you. That was kind. I don't believe that I can change the world but I try to make little changes that help. I try to be polite and gracious and listen to others when they don't agree with me and all I want is the same respect from anyone that I am discussing something important with. If I don't get a response I tune out and go my way. I really do appreciate your comment and I appreciate you too.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #54 posted by Nuevo Mexican on March 25, 2002 at 16:32:48 PT
My 2 cents...
FOM, for some reason, psychicly I guess, I feel you are being undermined by Joyce. Just a feeling. But I get paid well for listening to my gut, and my clients rave about my accuracy. That makes me happy, but it doesn't affect my ego, as that would stop the flow of guidance I receive from above. Now, on the other hand, if I thought your e-mailing each other would humanize you in her eyes, then the communication might be a catalyst for her changing her un-compassionate views towards human suffering. You are a healer, by birthrite, and she needs healing. Protect yourself from Joyce's energy sucking abilities, through prayer, asking for protection from your guardian angels, perhaps wearing your birth gem or cleansing your computer with a stick of sage. I'm serious! You seem to run on batteries, and are the object of C-news affections! So keeping your energy levels high is a full time job! Kap, dddd, and everyone here feel very protective of your psychic energy, and mean no disrespect. But being such a nice person as you are, the concern is Joyce has ulterior motives, as she makes clear in every article posted that stands up for hate, misunderstanding, self-condemnation, and mis-representation. I was hoping her next article would reflect a slightly more enlightened view, but she has now gone off on the deepest end yet. E-amail her articles on former right-wing journalist David Brock, giving her an example of what lies ahead for her until she realizes her pain is being used to cause even more pain for others, namely jail, and suffering for those in need of relief. Here is an interview on Buzzflash.com with Brock revealing how far the right will go to destroy those with whom the disagree, and who they use in their all out efforts to destroy America, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, everything good that has happened in the last 225 years. You could be a victim if not aware of the Rights ruthlessness. Just ask Tricky Dicky if he's smiling from the grave about the current state of affairs. Maybe Joyce is just channeling the ol' crook! This advice is from a loving, and concerned fan of yours! Peace! http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/David_Brock_031802.html

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #53 posted by FoM on March 25, 2002 at 14:23:25 PT
Thanks kapt
I couldn't sleep last night because I thought you were angry with me. Haven't had that happen in a long time. I want to explain. I never talked to Joyce on the phone only email. I wonder if we know who pays who what amount of money that are fighting us so. Is that possible? When you are tax exempt, which I'm sure these organizations are, must they say how much money they get annually? I have never received any money for what I do. I don't think people that believe in a cause should receive money if it really is what their heart believes. I really want to know the money question. We need to start following the money.

Thanks again!

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #52 posted by kaptinemo on March 25, 2002 at 13:56:29 PT:

FoM, I hope you don't take this the wrong way
Martha, you needn't worry. I was not attacking you.

My point was to illustrate something: you can talk all you like to antis on a personal level...but they will always be antis. Because they cannot seperate the personal from the professional. Not when their egos become involved.

We've never met, and may never, but I can tell that you have a good and kind heart, and mean no one any harm. But I doubt very severely whether Joyce sees you that way. I can only guess from her statements and actions what is going through her mind, but at the risk of angering you, (I do not see you in this light, but would be willing to bet a quarter of my next paycheck that she does) I'll tell you what I think I see:

I can visualize someone (you) talking with Joyce, being open-minded and open-hearted...and I see her nodding and making all manner of neutral noises...while she continues to plot the destruction of the reform movement. Your attempt to speak to her on a human level is probably seen by her to be typical wishy-washy 'liberal weakness'...which she will exploit at the first opportunity. I have been on the short, sharp, and foul end of the stick these people stab us with, and know their kind all too well.

You have sought to try to treat Joyce as one human being reaching out to another. Exemplary conduct on your part. But consider: what possible reason does she have to talk with you, otherwise? She has repeatedly stated her intents...and, as I pointed out, she is still attacking on the reform movement. She hasn't changed. Not at all. Nor will she ever. Too much is at stake now, and she would never publicly admit that what she is doing is wrong from the git-go.

I realize how this sounds. I know that it sounds like the very extremism that antis are fond of exhibiting. But the ugly truth is they do see us as the enemy. And just because she does not make any overt expressions of a threatening nature in your phone conversations doesn't meant she wouldn't use her resources to destroy you...as she has destroyed an unknown number of people's lives with her support of the WoSD. Everything she does is geared to hurt us. Hurt you.

Years ago, before my own devastating brush with the FBI, I might have thought that there was a common ground to be reached, some kind of neutral territoty where decent people might come together and reasonably stop this madness. But I have had a first-hand taste of the absolute callosness of the DrugWarriors, who think nothing of ruining your life; they give more consideration as to what they are going to have for lunch that day than the effect that they have on the lives of the people they putatively serve. The only reason such as they have in communicating to us is either to make demands...or try to sucker us into doing something not in our best interests. Conversing with such as they is a waste of good oxygen.

Things have polarized to such an extent we are in a fight, not just to keep what few freedoms we have from being tattered any further, but our lives. Do anyone here honestly believe that Joyce cares at all about all the medicinal cannabis patients who've been forced to do without their medications since the California raids? As I keep saying, they were the ones who declared war on us...not the other way around. They don't care how many of us dies; they are actually quite happy when one of us does. One less goad for their almost non-existant consciences.

If they would call a truce, and seek a rational, peaceful end to this distructive conflict, I'd be overjoyed. But they have no intention to compromise. That one word - compromise - is worse than all the dirty words in the English language put together to them. She sees us as perverts, Martha. And in her eyes, you don't compromise you don't dialogue, you don't negotiate with perverts...only destroy them.

This will only end in either our winning...or mass emigration from a police state. A police state brought about by the supposedly 'well-meaning' people like Joyce. Who 'likes' us so much she'd prefer to see sick people dead than admit she's wrong.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #51 posted by Zero_G on March 24, 2002 at 22:32:41 PT
Potato
DECRIMINALIZATION

;^)>

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #50 posted by Zero_G on March 24, 2002 at 22:28:05 PT
Dan Quayle
Souder is a raving idiot. Politics is choked with idiots like him. He comes from the same rich soil as Danny Quayle.xxdr_zombiexx

Dan Quayle has been the brunt of many jokes. I have told more than my share. He is, last I heard, for decrimilization of cannabis...

"Congress should definitely consider decriminalizing possession of marijuana... We should concentrate on prosecuting the rapists and burglars who are a menace to society."

Dan Quayle U.S. Representative and Vice president under President Bush March 1977

I recall seeing similar statements of more recent origen. Perhaps we should give him a break here...

My gut feeling is harsher towards Joyce, because I feel she wishes to do me personal harm, than towards our former hapless V.P., but, I hold no animosity towards her. I just wish she and her ilk would, in the words of old Deputy Dawg:

"Don't go away angry, just go away."

0g

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #49 posted by dddd on March 24, 2002 at 19:01:51 PT
I kinda see it like this..
...I think Joyce is probably a nice person,..If she were my mom,I wouldn't hate herbecause of her somewhat chronic obsessive crusade against drugs,and anyone who has viewpoints that conflict with her zero tolerance, blindly stubborn quest...actually,it become a bit easier to understand Joyce,when you take into account that her crusade began after a tragic incident that involved the death of one of her children(I believe?)..I think that this traumatic event caused Joyce to aim at something to blame,,set the controls on full,,,and launch into the outer space of intense ,focused purpose.
..Yes,,,It's true Kap,,her lack of any reasonable discussions is disappointing,,,not to mention,a sad reflection on the legitimacy of the position she represents....For some reason,she is one of the only represenatives from the other side,that has even bothered to reveal themselves!..No offense Joyce,but your arguments and statements are rather simplistic,and your noteably anecdotal claims are unsubstantiated,,undocumented,,and you have yet to defend yourself or your beliefs in a coherent manner...Why is it,that you are somewhat alone in your quest Joyce?..It would seem as if you have been encouraged and recruited into a career of crowing the cliches of others....You have been left in the limelite,,expected to explain things that No One can answer!I could be wrong,but is there anyone in your organization,or it's affiliates and proponents who willrespond to the questions raised by concerned citizens???Here,or anywhere else.Written or verbal...I dont think Mr Souder would come to your defense!..I find it very hard to see the glorious,and honorable Souder that you applaud...I dont think it is excusable for him to carelessly write the absurd law that denies federal funding to drug "offenders",,yet allows rapists,murderers ,and molesters the same aid...This litle oversight was made even worse,when Souder admitted that the law was flawed and unfair!...Ooops,,I guess he accidently ruined the futures of thousands of youngsters,,,yet I dont believe the good Mr Souder has managed to do anything to change his mistake...
...I know that not everyone is always polite with their comments here,,,but it sure would be astonishing if you could get Mr Souder to visit us,and explain himself.......we love you....dddd


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #48 posted by FoM on March 24, 2002 at 18:01:41 PT
kaptinemo
I don't think you understand what I mean. We talk about our families. We don't talk about issues. I'm not comfortable and neither would she be. I just want to talk. I can learn and maybe Joyce can too. It's a woman thing for me more then a drug policy issue. I hope this makes sense. I talk to people that aren't interested in changing the drug war but can find other areas that can be discussed. That's what I mean. I think we need to do our best to try to undertstand each other. Time can bring change and if change doesn't come then I can honestly say I gave it my best.

I sure hope you understand.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #47 posted by kaptinemo on March 24, 2002 at 17:53:03 PT:

FoM, do you still feel like you
are having a dialogue? Unless I am reading this incorrcetly, after she has been in communication with you for some time, she has not mollified her opinion one bit. I believe that she is fundamentally incapable of doing so. For one simple reason above all others: she is fundamantally incapable of even considering for a microsecond the idea that she is wrong...about anything. The classic authoritarian personality, obsessed with control.

I don't believe that Joyce can grasp the enormity of the damage she and her ilk have done in their literal 'Children's Crusade'. It's her work in intimidating legislators (I am sure Joyce and company have a Nixonian 'Enemies List' of legislators they feel should 'watch their backs'.) that has brought us to the unenviable position of being the nation that has the highest number of it's own people behind bars than any other. How many cannabis prisoners have her to thank for her lobbying efforts in goading legislators to create ever higher punitive laws with the threat of the hoary epithet of being 'soft on drugs'?

Yes, Joyce 'likes' us, all right. Indeed she does. And she dreams of the day when we'll all be either behind bars or fled the country...to avoid being killed. By righteous do-gooders like Joyce...who truly 'know not what they do'.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #46 posted by msheldon on March 24, 2002 at 15:14:21 PT:

Joyce, drug testing is a bad idea.
Most students have a mind of their own. If some student decides to experiment with a drug such as marijuana and gets a positive test result, it could cause the student to have to refrain from whatever activity it is that could keep the student out of trouble in the first place.

Come on! Wake up! What would you do if your kid was on the street because he was not allowed to compete in sports or join any clubs? Think about it. You act as though you think that the message Souder and others are trying to send will keep students from trying drugs.

By the way, ask yourself why the "Drug War" isn't over.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #45 posted by el_toonces on March 24, 2002 at 12:54:27 PT:

DdC - Joyce Has Written Books? Give Me More!
DdC - Very intrigued by your quoation of Joyce but I'm at a loss of how to retrieve more of her ramblings (which "sway" people into the whirlwind of her influence) with only an author and title in the cite you supplied. Have you any more info. on her writings so I might unearth some more for psychopathological examination?:) One must know the enemy:)

El

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #44 posted by qqqq on March 24, 2002 at 10:33:51 PT
..yea...
...like anyone,,Helms starts thinkin' about how pissed God will be when when St Peter turns in the evaluation of the Helms death interview in front of the golden gates....Helms thought it over,and realized that it was probably time to do some damage control with God!..

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #43 posted by Jose Melendez on March 24, 2002 at 10:13:01 PT:

Look out, Joyce:Latest to admit truth: Jesse Helms
The WP's Outlook section has an interesting op-ed: "This year more than half a million babies in the developing world will contract from their mothers the virus that causes AIDS, despite the fact that drugs and therapies exist that could virtually eliminate mother-to-child transmission of the killer disease." The writer proposes that the U.S. hand out an additional $500 million this year to fight AIDS. The author? Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.

Helms explains his newfound charitable mentality: He's still for a "very limited government." "But not all laws are of this earth. We also have a higher calling, and in the end our conscience is answerable to God. Perhaps, in my 81st year, I am too mindful of soon meeting Him."



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #42 posted by boppy on March 24, 2002 at 09:31:47 PT
Hotlips
After reading this again it occured to me that she sounds like Hotlips (Sally Kellerman) from the movie M*A*S*H*. I recall the scene where she speaks with Hawkeye in the mess hall (Donald Sutherland) and he refers to her as "a real army clown". If it weren't not so funny she would come off as a real clown. It reads like a skit from Saturday Night Live.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #41 posted by boppy on March 24, 2002 at 09:29:56 PT
Hotlips
After reading this again it occured to me that she sounds like Hotlips (Sally Kellerman) from the movie M*A*S*H*. I recall the scene where she speaks with Hawkeye in the mess hall (Donald Sutherland) and he refers to as "a real army clown". If it weren't not so funny she would come off as a real clown. It reads like a skit from Saturday Night Live.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #40 posted by Nuevo Mexican on March 23, 2002 at 21:12:51 PT
Another former 'Hoosier'.....
who left the police state immediately upon graduation. Guess who else is from the Hoosier (whose your parents,this would be asked of travelers passing thru looking for lodging) state? Rehnquist! Qualye! Nerds of the world stay and the enlightened leave. I just had this discussion with another former Hoosier yesterday. Nazi Germany thrives in Indiana and Texas. So does the kkk, booze, cop lovers and has created people like us and most outspokenly, Axl Rose from Guns and Roses, a direct effect of being raised in a police state from birth. I admit i'm a Reggie Miller fan, whose million dollar home was mysteriously burned down two years ago. Same old, same old. My high school principle was Nixon in a poor disguise. On Joyce, when she faces God, his first request for her entry thru Heaven Gates will be to smoke a Marley-sized spliff! Count on it! If she refuses, we all know where we can find her. I a hell of her own making. And yes, she needs to get laid. But orgasm is too close to getting high for her to consider. Refute that Joyce!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #39 posted by freedom fighter on March 23, 2002 at 19:32:38 PT
What if?
A man with an uniform shows up at her door,

"Mama, you are required by law to submit your piss."

Stuttering about, "But, sir, I have been working for 24 years as a prohibitionist."

"Mama, thanks to you but you are required to submit your piss."

ff

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #38 posted by DdC on March 23, 2002 at 19:31:41 PT
Anslinger-Hearst-Nixon-Hitler-Nalepka Jüs Déjå vü
"Another weapon I discovered early was the power of the printed word to sway souls to me. The newspaper was soon my gun, my flag - a thing with a soul that could mirror my own."
Joyce Nalepka
Falling in Line...

"You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists."
Richard Nixon missing tapes
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread12302.shtml

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
From Benito Mussolini contributing to the "London Sunday Express," December 8, 1935

American High Society
http://www.pdxnorml.org/7_presidents.html

American High Society, a subchapter from "Hemp: Lifeline To The Future," by Chris Conrad.
Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society and a consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, counted seven early presidents as cannabis smokers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce. Madison once remarked that hemp gave him insight to create a new and democratic nation. Cannabis was twice as popular among American soldiers in the Mexican War as in Vietnam: Pierce wrote to his family that it was "about the only good thing" about that war.

Stepping Off Hard Drugs With Cannabis
http://www.potpride.com/steppingstone.htm

“If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marihuana he would drop dead of fright.”
This is not an overstatement.
Users of the marihuana weed are committing a large percentage of the atrocious crimes blotting the daily picture of American life.
It is reducing thousands of boys to CRIMINAL INSANITY.
And ONLY TWO STATES have effective laws to protect their people against it.
The marihuana weed, according to Mr. Anslinger, is grown, sold and USED in every State in the Union.
He charges, and rightly, that this is not a responsibility of one State, but OF ALL — and of the Federal Government.
American women,
aroused to this DANGER, will GET ACTION.

A Roundup of Hearst’s/Nalepka Hysterical Headlines
http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/04/ECH04_17.HTM#headlines

I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions.

"A violently active, intrepid, brutal youth that is what I am after...
I will have no intellectual training. Knowledge is ruin for my young men."
Adolf Hitler quoted by John Gunther "The Nation"

Assassins of Youth
http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/politics/media/36/36796.gif

Anslinger read into U.S. Congressional testimony (without objection) stories about ‘coloreds’ with big lips, luring white women with jazz music and marijuana.
If he had bothered to check, showed at least 65-75% of all murders in the U.S. were then—and still are—alcohol related.

Bigotry and Aparteid
http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/04/ECH04_08.HTM#bigotry

"Marihuana Makes Fiends of Boys in 30 Days; Hasheesh Goads Users to Blood-Lust" create terror of the "killer weed from Mexico." Through his relentless disinformation campaign, Hearst is credited with bringing the word "marijuana" into the English language. In addition to fueling racist attitudes toward Hispanics, Hearst papers run articles about "marijuana-crazed negroes" raping white women and playing "voodoo-satanic" jazz music.
Driven insane by marijuana, these blacks -- according to accounts in Hearst-owned newspapers -- dared to step on white men's shadows, look white people directly in the eye for more than three seconds, and even laugh out loud at white people. For shame!

Self Perpetuating Lies
http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/04/ECH04_13.HTM#lies

Anslinger read an account of two “Negro” students at the University of Minnesota doing this to a white coed “with the result of pregnancy.” The Congressmen of 1937 gasped at this and at the fact that this drug seemingly caused white women to touch or even look at a “Negro.”

DARE the FRCn Chemical Partnerships!
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionwhyitstimetolegalize.showMessage?topicID=105.topic

Missing Nixon tapes
excerpts begin with the Nixon doctrine on why marijuana is much worse than alcohol: It is because people drink "to have fun" but they smoke marijuana "to get high." This distinction was evidently enormously significant to Nixon, because he repeats it twice.
"You're enough of a pro," Nixon tells Shafer, "to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what the Congress feels and what the country feels, and what we're planning to do, would make your commission just look bad as hell."

Klintoon thought it would "Flout" Congress too. Watch out for flouters Joycy, it sounds pretty bad...
http://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/28/28411.gif

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"... the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
http://www.bright.net/~fixit/anslingr.htm

President Ronald Reagan, at the urging of then Vice President George Bush, appointed Carlton Turner as the White House Drug (czar) Advisor in 1981.
Soon after Turner left office, Nancy Reagan recommended that no corporation be permitted to do business with the Federal government without having a urine purity policy in place to show their loyalty. Carlton Turner became a rich man in what has now become a huge growth industry: urine-testing.

ACS - Division of Analytical Chemistry - DAC Awards
John P. Walters 1980

The Elkhorn Manifesto
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/shadv3.html
Cannabis Hemp: The Invisible Prohibition Revealed
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/invpro.html


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #37 posted by FoM on March 23, 2002 at 18:55:20 PT
That's Ok Jose
They blend together for me too sometimes. It's hard for me not to post an article more then once because many of them are released in different papers. I try to remember the author and what the article was about or the lead in that's offered in a search tool and when I see that information I know I've aleady posted it and save myself extra work and readers from reading the same article. Slow connections make me think before I try to check something out since it takes a long time for the page to load. I sure can't do much of anything besides news but that's ok I'm use to it. LOL!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #36 posted by Jose Melendez on March 23, 2002 at 18:29:27 PT
oops
Sorry, FoM; I wondered why it seemed familiar!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #35 posted by FoM on March 23, 2002 at 17:47:18 PT
Jose
You must have missed when I posted the article. There are many comments. Thought you might want to check them out.

Random Indignities
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12322.shtml


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #34 posted by Jose Melendez on March 23, 2002 at 17:41:06 PT
link
link for comment#33:

Random Indignities

Drug testing for everybody!
By Jacob Sullum

http://reason.com/sullum/032202.shtml



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #33 posted by Jose Melendez on March 23, 2002 at 17:38:32 PT:

the hypocrisy, stupid
I've noticed exactly that issue: that anecdotal evidence is only acceptable if it tends to bolster the aruguments of prohibitionists, even if they are statistically insignificant, and especially if they are misleading.

Barry McCaffrey used to dismiss pain relief reports as anecdotal, yet the faces of young drug free kids was all the evidence he needed that D.A.R.E. was a program worth supporting, despite it's proven effect of increasing drug use among teens.

From:

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a drug test requirement for anyone seeking a Customs Service position in which he would have to carry a gun, handle classified material, or participate in drug interdiction. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, calling the testing program an "immolation of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use."

Scalia noted that the Customs Service policy required people to perform "an excretory function traditionally shielded by great privacy" while a monitor stood by, listening for "the normal sounds," after which "the excretion so produced [would] be turned over to the Government for chemical analysis." He deemed this "a type of search particularly destructive of privacy and offensive to personal dignity."

Six years later, Scalia considered a case* involving much the same procedure, this time imposed on randomly selected public school athletes. Writing for the majority, he said "the privacy interests compromised by the process of obtaining the urine sample are in our view negligible."

Not surprisingly, given its estimate of the stakes involved, the Court found that random drug testing of student athletes did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures." Now it seems poised to allow random testing of students who participate in any sort of competitive extracurricular activity, including debate, band, choir, cooking, and Future Farmers of America.



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #32 posted by Hope on March 23, 2002 at 14:29:53 PT
Anecdotal evidence
Have you guys ever noticed that the Prohibitionist's "anecdotal" evidence is worth something and our, so called, "anecdotal" evidence is only worthy to be scoffed at?

How hypocritical!

If we say, "There's an elephant in the living room.".....further study is needed to prove that there is, indeed, an elephant in the living room! Furthermore, any studies done will be to prove there is NOT an elephant in the living room! If they say it...it must be profoundly true.

Grievous!

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #31 posted by boppy on March 23, 2002 at 12:30:05 PT
I420...
I'm a fellow hoosier in Indy and I share your shame for having Souder in Indiana. His time will come. I think Joyce needs to get laid. But who would want to do it?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #30 posted by JHarshaw on March 23, 2002 at 11:58:03 PT
Dear Joyce,
In a perfect world no one would be stressed, no one would feel bad and no one would have any reason to seek comfort or relief in drug use. However, this is far from a perfect world.

These deaths you list are of course a terrible thing but I must ask: How many of these deaths could have been prevented if the "Slogan de Jour" had been Just Say Know instead of Just Say No! How many people would have still been alive if the drugs that they chose to use were certified uncontaminated because they had been inspected like any other drug offered for sale in a regulated and controlled marketplace?

Sooner or later even those people whose minds have been pinched shut due to mental constipation will be forced to realize that drug use has alway been with us, always will be with us, and no amount of wishing will change ever change the truth!

Dear Lady, please keep up your efforts because the more outlandish your rhetoric is the easier our job becomes.

Farewell, Jubal

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #29 posted by E_Johnson on March 23, 2002 at 11:16:38 PT
Like Naomi Judd for example
There's an advantage to the ambulance staff, in particular. A number of people who inject drugs carry blood born diseases such as Hepatitis C and because of the types of places that people overdose in, there's a risk that ambulance officers can get stuck with needles that have been contaminated and therefore are at risk of catching things like Hepatitis C.

That's what happened to Naomi Judd. She was a nurse and was accidentally stuck by an infected needle and contracted Hepatitis C.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #28 posted by Jose Melendez on March 23, 2002 at 10:20:14 PT:

Prohibition increases crime, death; drug use.

The Effect of Alcohol Prohibition on Illicit Drug Related Crimes:

An Unintended Consequence of Regulation
Michael Conlin - Syracuse University
Stacy Dickert - Conlin Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University
John Pepper - University of Virginia

June 26, 2001
Abstract

This paper evaluates the effect of alcohol access on drug-related crime using detailed information on county and state level changes in access laws in Texas between 1978 and 1996. After controlling for both county and year fixed effects, we find evidence that allowing local alcohol access decreases crimes associated with illicit drugs. We also find that prohibiting the sale of beer to persons under 21 increases the fraction of drug related arrests involving juveniles more in wet counties than in dry counties. Because access decreases the implicit price for alcohol and increasing the minimum drinking age is likely to increase the implicit price of liquor more for juveniles in wet counties relative to those in dry counties, our results suggest that alcohol and illicit-drugs are substitutes.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #27 posted by Jose Melendez on March 23, 2002 at 10:12:38 PT:

...because drug war is treason
From:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/s457684.htm
Ambulance officers in Victoria are beginning a trial that could save the lives of heroin addicts who've overdosed. In a world first, officers will today begin giving addicts the heroin antidote Narcan using a nasal spray instead of an injection. The nasal spray acts more quickly than an injection, thus potentially saving lives and it could soon be administered by drug counsellors and even family members in cases of overdose.

Rafael Epstein reports.

RAFAEL EPSTEIN: It's a scene played out on the streets of most of our major cities almost everyday. An overdosed heroin addict being treated by ambulance officers..

AMBULANCE OFFICER: I'm still concerned that he hasn't woken up adequately and his pupils are still pinpoint. His breathing effort is slowly coming back but it's not adequate to sustain life. I'll give him a little bit more Narcan and wake him up.

QUESTION: How close to death is he do you think?

AMBULANCE OFFICER: Ah, 2 to 3 minutes.

RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Narcan is an antidote to heroin cancelling out most of the ill effects of the street drug. Narcan injections often save lives but using Narcan in a nasal spray works a lot quicker, meaning an addict has a better chance of regaining consciousness.

Professor Anne-Marie Kelly from Western Hospital says there are benefits for ambulance officers as well.

ANNE-MARIE KELLY: Currently in Victoria we mostly give the antidote by getting it into the muscle, actually, and that takes usually about 5 or 8 minutes to work. Our preliminary work in the hospital suggests that by giving it into the nose it may work faster, maybe in as short a time as two minutes, which obviously decreases the amount of time that somebody's not breathing very well.

There's an advantage to the ambulance staff, in particular. A number of people who inject drugs carry blood born diseases such as Hepatitis C and because of the types of places that people overdose in, there's a risk that ambulance officers can get stuck with needles that have been contaminated and therefore are at risk of catching things like Hepatitis C. Obviously the intra-nasal route doesn't involve a needle and therefore that risk to ambulance staff is completely eliminated.

RAFAEL EPSTEIN: The trial is jointly run by the Metropolitan and Rural Ambulance Services working with researchers at the Western Hospital and St Vincent's Hospital. It'll be run at 13 ambulance stations, those who often see overdose victims, sometimes as many as 30 a day across the state.

ANNE-MARIE KELLY: The real reason to give it by the nasal spray route is that if it works, we can extend the number of people who can actually give the antidote, perhaps to community workers, other emergency workers, maybe even to peers or family members.

RAFAEL EPSTEIN: And that too could eliminate the need to wait for an ambulance. Trial results are expected in 2 to 4 months.

QUESTION: How are you?

HEROIN OVERDOSE VICTIM: I'm very well, thank you.

QUESTION: What do you remember happened?

HEROIN OVERDOSE VICTIM: Well I had some heroin.

QUESTION: Right.

HEROIN OVERDOSE VICTIM: And I don’t remember what happened to the rest of it.

QUESTION: Yeah.

HEROIN OVERDOSE VICTIM: And now I'm very depressed and I'm tripping. It feels all right.

QUESTION: Right.

HEROIN OVERDOSE VICTIM: Bit scary.

LINDA MOTTRAM: A heroin overdose victim on the streets of Melbourne. Rafael Epstein prepared that report.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #26 posted by FoM on March 23, 2002 at 09:53:52 PT
My 2 Cents
I'm sure I'm right about what I'm going to say. Those young people that died from a heroin overdose could have been saved if they had access to a particular anti-dote. I don't know the name of it but I remember reading about it. When a person overdoses from heroin they passout I was told and if given the antidote they can be brought out of it and LIVE.

I'm right aren't I?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #25 posted by Ethan Russo MD on March 23, 2002 at 09:38:43 PT:

Hypocrisy
How many young people die per year of binge drinking (ethanol toxicity), motor vehicle accidents due to alcohol, or other attributable causes?

I am not saying that abuse of drugs is a negligible medical problem, but it pales by comparison to the morbidity and mortality of the alcohol and nicotine.

Let's get our facts and priorities straight, and not lie to our children.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #24 posted by FoM on March 23, 2002 at 09:28:45 PT
Letter To The Editor: Just Say No
Source: Washington Times
Author: Joyce Nalepka
Published: March 23, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020323-8405220.htm

The 10 top reasons why the Supreme Court should vote to support student drug testing:

Adam, 18, deceased.
Mark, 24, deceased.
Garrett, 22, deceased.
David, 26, deceased.
Billy, 17, deceased.
Cooper, 22, deceased.
Ian, 21, deceased.
Angela, 18, deceased.
Michael, 22, deceased.
Stephanie, 19, deceased.

The parents of these young people believe their children might still be living had their school systems supported their parental message of "no drugs" by drug testing the students.

Seven of the 10 died of heroin overdoses, two died from cocaine, and one died in a drug-related accident. All of their parents believe the children started drug use by smoking marijuana.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), more than 16,000 young people die of drug overdoses every year. ONDCP conducted a study of more than 2 million death certificates and determined that the total number of drug-related deaths exceeds 50,000.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a school drug testing case to determine if schools are required to show drug and alcohol use before testing. We believe that public schools should not be required to show drug or alcohol use by students prior to implementing random testing. We believe the need to deter drug use by all students and protect their safety is cause enough to uphold random drug testing.

Recently, Congress included a provision (Section 4115) in the Education Bill to allow states and local jurisdictions to use Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds for student drug testing.

Other reasons for student drug testing would include: violence, dropouts, school underachievement, teen pregnancy, teacher safety, classroom disruption, keeping drug dealers off school property, and the expense of supporting "alternative schools" to educate drug-using students (Fairfax County operates more than 30 alternative schools to accommodate students with drug, alcohol and various delinquent problems).

JOYCE NALEPKA
President
Drug-Free Kids: America's Challenge
Silver Spring

Joyce Nalepka, president of Nancy Reagan's National Federation of Parents during the Reagan administration, co-sponsored the bill that closed Maryland's drug paraphernalia shops.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #23 posted by MikeEEEEE on March 23, 2002 at 09:09:40 PT
What to do
I've met a few prohibitionists, and they say things like, "Marijuana will never be legalized." When they say this they have no rational reason for it, they say it because that's the way they want it.
The only way to get rid of them is to vote them out.

Give them a ticket to Sweden or some other prohibitionist country.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #22 posted by goneposthole on March 23, 2002 at 06:43:23 PT
Select Few
This is one fine piece of propaganda, one ot the select few.

Very Orwellian, indeed, this has become. Here, her truth is exposed as a lie. The truth about cannabis is buried, not even there in the 'real' world, '1984'. The information disseminated about cannabis propagates lies.

Lies become truth and truth wills out. Here in the real world, the truth is awfully sick and tired about all of the lies it's been hearing about it.

It's schizophrenic and strange. No wonder people drink, they're driven to it. Pavlovian experience drives them to distraction. They're lost sheep wandering in the wilderness, the wolves are licking their lamb chops.

Have a nice day, Joyce. Go out and have a little fun today. If you happen to try a little marijuana, good for you.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #21 posted by The GCW on March 23, 2002 at 06:18:53 PT
observation
Let’s try to get more opinions printed in the OPED’s, while still getting them printed in the LTE’s.

That may involve talking to the paper to find out their requirements....

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #20 posted by The GCW on March 23, 2002 at 06:11:53 PT
I will gather what you have scattered.
Titus 3:9-11; the perverted and the self condemned.

"Evil is the unconscious or unintended transgression of the divine law, the Father's will. Evil is likewise the measure of the imperfectness of obedience to the Father's will.

"Sin is the conscious, knowing, and deliberate transgression of the divine law, the Father's will. Sin is the measure of unwillingness to be divinely led and spiritually directed.

"Iniquity is the willful, determined, and persistent transgression of the divine law, the Father's will. Iniquity is the measure of the continued rejection of the Father's loving plan of personality survival and the Sons' merciful ministry of salvation.

Jesus A.D.28

Perhaps Joyce runs her mouth so much that she has been given the nod to run it, to see if she gets bombarded... Then the drug (well, plant realy) war lords get a good feel for which way to attack... If she is supported... they will bombard the "militant" cannabis activist??? But what if Joyce gets bombarded,,, WHAT WILL THEY DO, next...? THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO BE READY FOR!

An exelent oppertunity for us, its only challenge is to comment on sooo much evil, instead of one or 2, perticulars.

Devil with blue dress blue dress blue dress, devil with the blue dress on.

As a 24-year veteran in the effort to educate... (actually jailate)

marijuana and other drugs,... Joyce is saying education, but her actions = jail, not education.... A deluding influence refers to a plant given to us by our Father as Drug...

...about as uncompassionate as possible including Biblically. She has no concern if cannabis has wonder drug implications or not. She wants you caged no matter...

Sir Joyce’s absent mindedness, forgot to mention, Students for Sensible Drug Policy’s ploy which is to bring credible law into focus, so that it is not ignorant to give education grant money to murderers and rapist, but not someone charged for a cannabis infraction...

She lacks any debate potential, since the debate means death to her and all the evil she stands for. (Very militant of us)

Her choice of the word militant is confusing since it is the government (wiht her evil -sinfull blessings) that has shot down Christian mercenaries and uses SWAT to arrest cannabis users, with instant death sentences delivered...to even the innocent... as opposed to the ammo of speech in the form of Truth. Maybe it is militant Truth, Joyce speaks about...and fears!!!!&!

I suggest that Joyce’ efforts have brought America more harm than good and when we set aside the notion of jailing our way out of this problem, and refer to it as educating our way... we will help America back onto it’s course of righteousness...

You will have to look hard to see a more disredited viewpoint than what Joyce is selling...

America has enough hate mongers and drug war lords...

Joyce has more backward thinking than a caboose when it thinks it is going foward.

Would you want your child or grandchild to end up in a dorm room with a non-rehabilitated drug criminal? (It is ok, though, to share with a rapist, Joyce?)

Joyce, Joyce, Joyce, You make my day easier. A Blessing I thank Our Father for. For through His guidance You are His bull-eye.

Prohibitionist are like slugs and through our Father they shall be salted with the words from the Wise.

2 Thessalonians 2 = the deluding influence, exposed (perspective). ONe of the effects of Joyce's efforts is helping seperate souls from the Holy Spirit of Truth.

The computer with out wires...The Holy Spirit of Truth.

I will help gather what you and your evil have scattered.

The Green Collar Worker

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #19 posted by Jose Melendez on March 23, 2002 at 05:13:40 PT:

Keep speaking out, Joyce: It exposes your lies.
Searching through archives at cannabisnews.com, I found this from a couple of years ago:
Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on October 16, 2000 at 08:08:20 PT:

Joyce Nalepka proves herself to be suffering from two serious diseases: rabid exaggeration with terminal misinformation. The only thing correct in her assertions are the quotations to my knowledge. I'd love to debate her on a national talk program sometime. It would be nice to ask her to prove her assertions. I can, thanks to the 800 articles and 40 books I've read on the subject of cannabis the last 4 years. All she has is a bunch of propaganda. That does not represent proof in my book.

Joyce is completely aware she is not telling the truth about marijuana. But I am glad she is writing, because by taking a position so demonstrably far from the truth, she adds proof to our contention that cannabis is safe and effective, and that objections to the contrary are consistently based on lies.

I'll take on one of her points, which is more than she has done for me, despite the fact I answered each and every objection completely, backed up by science and literature, thanks in no small part to Dr. Russo's and FoM's heroic efforts.

As parents, we would treat membership in SSDP as firmly as we would treat drug use. Stop the behavior and resign from the group or pay your own tuition.
Kids: tell any parent that suggests you should pay your own tuition that you most certainly can do just that.

Then study, use the internet to help you find more information, shop at Goodwill and get two part time jobs to support your education. Those who would knowingly suppress your knowledge and lie to do so deserve to be excluded from participating any further in your life.

In researching the truth about cannabis, I found a 1941 copy of the Popular Mechanics article that interviewed Henry Ford and showed the strength and versatility of the plant he suggested farmers could grow to supply the raw materials and fuels for his cars. I also found a 1939 issue of Nielsen's Shipping Guide, which made it clear that cannabis (and ganja) were once standard commodities, even though they never appear in my history books.

Now that Nxon's tapes are public, we know the truth about his rejection of the Shaffer commission report that recommended decriminalization. The tapes prove that marijuana has been immorally suppressed, and laws against the use of cannabis were enacted under pressure from those like Joyce who disingenuously pretend marijuana is poison while turning a blind eye to the fact that legal substances kill, while cannabis heals. They ignore science that proves them wrong, and actively avoid debate, perhaps because they know they will be proved wrong. As long as we challenge them wherever they spew their Nazi/KKK type propaganda, the public can see the difference. Even a dog knows whether it has just been kicked, or just tripped over.

Arrest Prohibition

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #18 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on March 23, 2002 at 05:09:37 PT:

The Latest Reseach
The latest research is here.

Souder is a raving idiot. Politics is choked with idiots like him. He comes from the same rich soil as Danny Quayle.

(actually, so do I,...but I had the sense to move.)

They hold government positions great and small; the screw up everything in thier reach.

They are white, mean, prejudiced,joyce:dull-witted, disingenious people who, like gameshow or talkshow hosts, have few other talents in life to fall back on. Control of others is all there is.

And I finally see who the Joyce Nalepka is that people here refer to so often. Sort of an Anita Bryant or Dear Abby sort, eh?



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #17 posted by i420 on March 23, 2002 at 04:39:54 PT
Thanks FoM for posting this!
I can't believe this moron thinks drug traffickers are helping groups like NORML... that statement alone proves she is a complete idiot. I bet Mark Souder is gloating over this article i would not doubt if one of his aids wrote it.

btw I am his constituant and he won't be able to buy my vote.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #16 posted by monvor on March 23, 2002 at 04:32:24 PT
Rapists OK
Would you want your child or grandchild to end up in a dorm room with a non-rehabilitated drug criminal?

No, but rapists are ok.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #15 posted by Hope on March 22, 2002 at 23:24:21 PT
Applauding One Another for Grants and Glory
Two former Sunday School teachers, one a Baptist, after an investigation, called Joyce Nalepka the leader of a militant organizational arm of the prohibitionist movement supported by the huge grants siphoned directly from the pockets of Americans, some who believe that prohibition of drugs is actually the cause of many completely unnecessary deaths and disasters, not of people who choose to take the risk of using drugs, but innocent bystanders, people caught in the crossfire between warring gang factions, misidentified suspects, missionaries, and children terrified, traumatized, and blown away by dynamic entry (men enjoying dangerous "games" and dangerous "toys") S.W.A.T. Teams.

The groups also cause the unnecessarily increased risk of the risk takers that they will be taking a grossly adulterated drug or one that is not what they intended to use at all.

Prohibitionists are also backed by various men's and women's clubs, so called "civic" groups, luncheon ladies, social clubs, and society matrons who need something to do while the nanny raises the children, as well as industries and groups that profit from the illegality of drugs.

Very often they are applauded by law enforcement that, trampling all over the Constitution of these great United States in the falsely hallowed name of the war on drugs, are allowed to seize property from citizens without benefit of trial or conviction and buy all the high tech toys and get to do "fun stuff" and have expense accounts that the public would never otherwise allow them, instead of "drudge work" like looking for everyday thieves, hard to find murderers, and rapists.

To an even greater extent groups like Nalepka's are backed by drug traffickers, who know that the more successful prohibitionist groups there are, the higher the profits and the more secure their illegal trade is.

These prohibitionist groups encourage citizens to spy on their neighbors and turn them over to government officials if they believe they might be using or helping anyone else to use drugs.

Prohibitionists regularly defy logic in the name of their war on drugs. It is not uncommon for them to use demonizing tactics in attacking those they perceive as their enemies.

Of course, the manufacturers of drug war paraphernalia and related industries, such as prison, forced treatment providers, drug testers, and munitions providers back the militant prohibitionist groups who are, in fact, always zealously recruiting people into their associations with either big lies and flattery about how wonderful and good and right it is to be a prohibitionist or by bullying them into believing they should be ashamed if they disagree with the prohibitionist point of view.

They share a mutual fund raising racket with politicians. They raise funds for the politician's campaigns and the politician sees that they receive hefty grants. The prohibitionist groups and their leaders spend a lot of time "toasting", "applauding", flattering, and promoting politicians who allocate them huge sums of grant money and will often give speeches at the meetings the groups have to add to their imagined glory and, hopefully, accentuate how "important" the groups are.

These groups are actually wolves parading around in sheep's clothing. The sheep's clothing has extensive deep and enlarged, yet relatively concealed, pockets for storing funds.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #14 posted by qqqq on March 22, 2002 at 22:07:06 PT
here's this,,,,
....It is interesting to note,that there is no easy way to imagine a Nalepka opposite...There are no militant,pro-drug crusaders that would stoop as low in the opposite direction...the "Anti-Nalepka" in the opposite paralell universe,,telling everyone how good and fun drugs are?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #13 posted by Toker00 on March 22, 2002 at 21:55:32 PT
Senseless?
This article, by Joyce Nalepka, is as senseless as PROHIBITION. The man (Sauder)even admitted he made a bad law. What's Joyce got to gain with this ongoing idiocy?

This woman has CLEARLY gone over the edge. Since she can't reason with adults, she's attacking the students. Sounds like she is tremendously afraid ole Sauder is on his way out. Does she realize he is not the only one threatened by their SENSELESS adhearance to the Drug*War hypocracy and destruction of Liberty in America?

"If you wonder how students finance their participation and air travel to these various conferences or meetings to harass elected officials who, in Souder's case, have the interest of both the kids and his constituents at heart, visit their pro-drug Web site." I say, neither Joyce nor Mark, have EITHER of groups interest at heart. And I am a Constituent. Just not one of his.

On election day, we need to take off work, round up as many Freedom/Liberty/Constitution loving people we can get in our cars, and Vote the change in. Won't happen any other way. Peaceful, that is.

Peace. Realize, then Legalize.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #12 posted by observer on March 22, 2002 at 21:50:40 PT
Nalepka -- background
Here's an excerpt from (prohibitionist propagandist) Peggy Mann's 1984 alarmist pro-jail manual, "Marijuana Alert!" concerning Joyce Nalepka: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7357.shtml#5 (an interesting read)

for more background see: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/5/thread5040.shtml#2 http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/5/thread5122.shtml#13 http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/5/thread5197.shtml#4 etc.

note Nalepka's "americares" aol email address: amercares@aol.com or nalepka@aol.com

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #11 posted by MikeEEEEE on March 22, 2002 at 21:11:58 PT
Joyce is as anti as they come
Even my old parents think the drug war is a waste. Open your mind Joyce, communism died too, clean the cob webs out of your head.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by E_Johnson on March 22, 2002 at 20:39:08 PT
Don't forget those Jewish psychiatrists Joyce!
Nixon at least had the discretion to keep his delusional rantings on secret tapes.

Joyce Nalepka has no shame, and waves her delusional thinking like a banner for the world to see.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #9 posted by null on March 22, 2002 at 20:31:47 PT
more news from the Brits
More research coming out of Britain. Study says that even one glass of wine may be more impairing than a joint. The wall is destined to crumble (heck, to be ripped down!!) firstly in Britain.

A little excerpt: The new study was undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory in Crowthorne, Berkshire, and confirms the results of a preliminary study more than a year ago.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #8 posted by el_toonces on March 22, 2002 at 20:28:54 PT:

Joyce........A Message of Unity & Love for You
We really do love you. We don't want your kids hurt nor do we think anybody who sells or supplies cannabis to your children should be free to do so without recrimination. We want your kids to able to achieve good educations, as do you. We have more in common than you think. We only differ because we do not want to have to fear your warriors busting down our doors and killing our children just because of a typo on a warrant, as they have done, and we do not want poor children who may have made a mistake to be unable to attend school. We are good people -- your friends and neighbors more than you realize -- and not the "evil legalizers" you want to think of us as.

If you would realize that your pain is our pain (we do feel the pain and fear when your kids use chemicals they should not use, esp. if harm results) and our pain is your pain, you would feel a lot better about yourself and the world around you.

Peace be with you, Joyce,

El

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by potpal on March 22, 2002 at 20:26:26 PT
..and futhermore...
The rich students will always survive. They will go through their youthful indiscretions unscathed...and may go on to become president someday!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #6 posted by john wayne on March 22, 2002 at 20:23:45 PT
Ooof
The recent verbal attack on Rep. Mark Souder by the so-called Students for Sensible Drug Policy who traveled from Indiana, Illinois and Washington, D.C., to Fort Wayne was as senseless as is illegal drug use.

This opening salvo was so slanted that I fell over while trying to read it. Thanks for saving my time from reading the rest of your spew, Joyce.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by Rev Bookburn on March 22, 2002 at 20:17:42 PT:

living off hysteria
Souder and Nalepka prove that some people can get out of legitimate work for a living, by perpetrating hysteria and lies. The casualties include the US Constitution and the rights of others. Neither of these people are worth a dime of funding, a single vote for any kind of office, nor two minutes of attention at public presentations. If they were in China, they would be attacking students for being in the Democracy movement. In the US, they need to manifest their abusive tendencies and disorders by abusing hemp users and the brave people who are attempting to actualize sensible drug policies. Most of their delusions about the legalization movement went out with Reagan's brain.

-Rev. Bookburn

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #4 posted by lookinside on March 22, 2002 at 20:16:23 PT:

Joyce...
She's either paid to do this or she's a nut. Either way, her opinions have no value.

I hope the folks in Souder's district do the right thing. Send him to the unemployment line.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by qqqq on March 22, 2002 at 20:09:24 PT
...out of sight!
...there's nothing quite like a thing from Nalepka ..it really gets the juices flowing...where to begin?,,,this article is lush with fertile debate grounds.....here is one of the many curious items;
"Two former congressmen, one Republican and one Democrat, after an investigation called NORML the militant organizational arm of the drug culture supported by the drug culture magazines, the drug paraphernalia industry and, to a certain extent, even the traffickers. "
I dont understand why these two former congressmen are not named?,,,,it's kinda the same as me writing;"Two really famous people investigated Joyce Nalepka,and concluded that she is a basically well intentioned loudmouth simpleton who has gone off the deep end with her mean-spirited rhetoric,and cult like allegiance to the anti-drug racket.",


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by FoM on March 22, 2002 at 19:56:17 PT
My 2 Cents
I don't know if Joyce believes all of this or not. Are campuses alcohol free too? Do students lose their financial aid if they drink? I don't think so. Denying student aid to a young person for a drug offense will only keep poor children that experiment with drugs off campus. The wealthy students just will not use any student aid. The separation of the classes grows wider. The rich students will always survive. They will go through their youthful indiscretions unscathed but the talented poor student will suffer and that is why it's wrong. I don't want students doing drugs but they will. That's a fact. It matters who gets hurt and who doesn't.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by JHarshaw on March 22, 2002 at 19:41:09 PT
I AM
puzzled as to whether this woman really believes the party rhetoric she is spewing or if she is doing a job she's paid to do?

To my regret I must conclude she is either a liar or a fool. Maybe even both.

Any reasonable person can today find their way to the truth if they're willing to make any kind of effort at all.

After all, we found this place, did'nt we?

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on March 22, 2002 at 19:24:13