cannabisnews.com: WND Readers Want Pot Legalized










  WND Readers Want Pot Legalized

Posted by CN Staff on September 18, 2002 at 13:09:25 PT
By Joel Miller 
Source: WorldNetDaily 

WorldNetDaily's poll last Saturday concerned whether pot should be legalized. The final tally of respondents was 56 percent pro and 43 percent con with variation among those answers. An unqualified yes hit the charts at 32 percent. One percent answered "other." While not scientific and prone to problems, the response didn't surprise me much. There has always seemed a receptive attitude regarding changes to our current drug policies among WND readers.
Since my first column on the subject, I've received overwhelmingly positive feedback to criticism of current policies and recommendations for change. But it's not all whistles and roses. Reader Joel I. Hunt, for instance, fired off this missive to WND when he saw the results of the poll: I was shocked when I voted on the poll then saw that most people voted in favor of legalization. What really shocked me was the fact that the readers of WND voted this way. I thought that WND readers for the most part are Christian, conservative, reasonably intelligent people.This may not mellow Hunt's shock, but there is nothing incongruous with wishing drugs legalized and one's Christian confession, being conservative or reasonably intelligent. In fact, I think the opposite is closer to true – a fact about which a majority of WND readers seem savvy. Christianity  There is nothing in Scripture, for instance, that particularly plugs prohibition. While it says nothing specific about narcotics, Holy Writ is adamantly against drunkenness and dissipative abuse of alcohol. If we want a biblical approach to drugs, we must apply Scripture's cautions about booze to other brain-meddlers, as alcohol is but one of many psychoactive substances around. If we do this, we will see that the Bible distinguishes between sin and crime here. While strongly condemning drunkenness and dissipation, God doesn't provide a lot of support in Scripture for criminalizing them. Like lying, jealousy, refusing to help widows and orphans, these are sins, yes, but not crimes. If the concern is about some of the ill effects stemming from some drug abuse (property theft, abusive behavior, etc.), legislation actually sanctioned by Scripture already has those bases covered. If not supporting draconian drug laws is the mark of a non-Christian, then the Bible isn't very Christian. Conservative  The American right seems very confused on this one at times. Conservatives are opposed to big government, are in favor of states' rights, and laud the Constitution. But perhaps no single set of policies since the New Deal have so totally undermined these things as the drug war. Antidrug legislation has drastically inflated federal police powers. Federal drug laws – for which there is no provision in the Constitution – have run roughshod over the rights of states to set their own policies regarding matters left unspecified in the Constitution. And drug-war tactics have brutalized the Bill of Rights' protections of life, home and property. Further, by its constant escalation, the drug war has pushed drug traffickers to trump police in firepower, the resultant gun crime providing ammunition in the ongoing liberal war on the Second Amendment. Intelligence  Besides being a low blow, any charge that holding a position unfriendly to drug prohibition is a sign of unintelligence is simply stupid. Thomas Sowell, Charles Murray, Milton Friedman, Walter Williams – these men aren't "reasonably intelligent"? Ponder instead how support of the drug war measures a man's intelligence:  * Drug prohibition hasn't eliminated drug use. It's pretty hard to measure if it's had much effect at all on curbing use. I think it has, but I don't consider all use damaging to society, so I'm not wetting myself over the prospect of slightly higher drug intake if dope were legalized. Regardless of the law, millions of Americans regularly use drugs, especially pot. * Drug prohibition hasn't helped stem crime. By pushing the market underground, it has in fact helped encourage crime – and more violent crime, to boot. * Drug prohibition hasn't boosted the nation's morals. The opposite might be true, since instead of promoting and persuading correct moral decisions in people we use the wrench of the state to force it. This is just bandaging cancer. Using government as the main inculcator of virtue instead of churches, families and communities is a monstrous mistake. On the other hand:  * Drug prohibition has given the U.S. the free world's biggest prison population – many of those behind bars being nonviolent drug offenders. Spending on prisons is up, up, up. * Drug prohibition has provided terrorists with the necessary economic conditions to pad their purses with aims of attacking American citizens. * Drug prohibition has led to obscene corruption of law enforcement. * Drug prohibition has – and this is perhaps more damaging to the country than much of the above – harmed the legal and constitutional system in the country, as it has permitted police tactics that spit in the founders' faces. The Bill of Rights has become void where prohibited by drug laws, which means the constitutional shield used to shelter the assumed innocent has become a battering ram to assault the assumed guilty. Supporting such a policy seems a much better mark of the lack of reasonable intelligence, rather than vice versa. Unless, of course, all those things are the actual intent of drug warriors. If so, they're not unintelligent – just evil. Contra Mr. Hunt, the fact that WND readers so strongly oppose this terrible policy shouldn't be shocking. It should be encouraging, if not outright refreshing. Special offer: American Christians are often told booze is bad – but is it? "God Gave Wine" by Kenneth Gentry argues from Scripture that alcohol is a blessing from God and should be enjoyed. Get your copy today at: http://www.godgavewine.com/Joel Miller is the book editor for WorldNetDaily. Additionally, his own publishing company, Oakdown, recently published "God Gave Wine" by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web)Author: Joel MillerPublished: Wednesday, September 18, 2002Copyright: 2002 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.Contact: letters worldnetdaily.comWebsite: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/CannabisNews - Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #69 posted by Hope on September 20, 2002 at 17:35:03 PT
DANA and BGreen
I do thank BGreen for the thought...I have to thank you for being so generous as to suggest it might apply to me. So, Thank you, DANA, again.So, I'd like to say to all you guys...that means women, too...(we just may have our own special "points of light")SPARKLE ON!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #68 posted by DANA on September 20, 2002 at 07:11:14 PT
Gotta Thank BGreen
 He mentioned the word "sparkle",and the more I think of it,the more I like it,because it fits.___I imagine it sounds sort of silly,and stupid to alot of people,but there is a definite "thing",and from now on,I'm going to call it sparkle.____________Sparkle!; truly an esoteric term!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #67 posted by Hope on September 20, 2002 at 06:31:46 PT
"Sparkle"
That's so cool, DANA! That lifts me up. I do feel a bit "sparkly" now...maybe I'll feel sparkly all day. Sparkle sounds like some sort of energy. You're sparkling yourself man!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #66 posted by Hope on September 20, 2002 at 06:26:16 PT
perhaps I should have proof read!
"I know you are in this spiritual "kingdom"...where God rules...with me." I mean that I know you are in this place with me...not that God rules, heaven forbid, "with me". I can't even "rule" my own hair! Gotta go try to "rule", or at least keep safe a couple of grandchildren this morning. See you guys later.Got to have my CannabisNews fix. I must be addicted! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #65 posted by Hope on September 20, 2002 at 06:20:49 PT
DANA
Cool ramble, DANA,Excellent, in fact. About that realizing each other. I can tell you, FoM, BGreen, GCW and many others who post here what a man told me once, "The Spirit in me identifies with the Spirit in you." I know you are in this spiritual "kingdom"...where God rules...with me. We may not all be on exactly the same page, but we all have the same Spirit...that Comforter we were promised. That very alive thing...that intelligent and powerful Spirit...knows exactly whats happening with you and the rest of us all at the same time, cause it's big...like bigger than the universe, yet small, relating to any who will relate to it...and some who try to ignore it, too. My dear wannabe athiest nephew says it's really just the cumulative power of our minds. Ok...I won't argue with him Call it what you choose. I sense something more. A lot more! Yahoo! (that's a hillbilly halleleujah, I think.)I also stopped proof reading somewhere in this thread. I think we understand each other though.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #64 posted by DANA on September 20, 2002 at 05:00:00 PT
yup.Thanx BGreen
 Sometimes you dont even need to see a visual sparkle,you can sense it.I think Hope is a person who has a sparkle that we can see in our minds by just reading what she says.She probably doesnt even know she sparkles.
 
 
 One thing about the "sparkle",is that it is not something that can be faked,or learned.It is a reflection from within.
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #63 posted by BGreen on September 20, 2002 at 04:03:46 PT
Right on, DANA
Look into the eyes of Ashcroft, Hutchinson, Bennett. McCaffrey, the Bush family, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Dole, Gore, Walters or any number of other evil cagers of humans, and you DON'T SEE THE LOVE! That's it, baby. There's something about the sparkle in the eyes and the genuine smile of a true Christian that gives us away.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #62 posted by DANA on September 20, 2002 at 03:44:00 PT
Too Many Good Points In This Thread,(rope?)
 First off.Phasetheory my friend,I am glad you speak your mind here.Your bold style is inspirational,and invigorating!As I've said before,I respect your viewpoints,but you got alot of explaining to do,if you want to convince me of some of your theories.(maybe they are "phase theories",and they are too advanced for common folk to recognize the coherence involved.
 
 
"DANA, you stated, " I dont mean to sound too confrontational or abnormally intollerant,or inquisitive,but what are you
      trying to say?__Let's see here.Would you say Asa Hutchinson is a "conservative"?,or how about Ashcroft?,or what
      about Walters?___Do you really think that the "media",has somehow suppressed the "conservative" point of view?"      YES!!!!!!!! The conservative point of view that IS for legalization!      I stated you don't see conservatives arguing FOR legalization! The last time I check Asa and Walters were against it!
      You WOULD hear from Christians and conserivatives for legalization, if, the media allowed them to. If you would take
      the time to look you will find there is an organization called, "Christians for cannabis", there isn't a single other religion
      that does. At least a credible religion."
 
 
 Awesome! "credible religion".I guess those would be the religions that were based on true "gods",or perhaps accepted systems of belief.(??).
 
 This leads me to the next nugget that appeared in this thread.
 
 I would like to offer my two cents worth ,concerning the ;" who gets to say who is and who is not a Christian?"..etc.
 
 
 Good question.Kinda like asking who gets to decide who is,or is not a terrorist!.(.kinda!).
 
 I think,that when you meet a person who assumes to know that another person is not really a "Christian",then it is wise to beware of that person.Throughout history,religious ferver has been the cause of mayhem,and oppression all around the world!,and it still exsists today!
 
 
 Consider this;If some Eskimo,or Muslim,or Catholic,Budhist;envisions the entity/deity,that they believe is "GOD",and they have a true inner spiritual relationship with their "God",then that is the main thing...[obviously,this immediatly becomes much too complex,and contraversial to discuss here.]___But; to put it another way; consider the following;
 
 Let's say,that you are a person who considers themself a "Christian".You try and follow all the ways of "Christianity",and you try to not be bad,and keep the "sinning",to a minimum.You do all the stuff that you think "Christians" are supposed to do,and should do.You get involved with fellowship amongst other "Christians",and you feel OK about yourself,because you believe that you are doing the thing that you should do.You believe that the group of believers that you hang out with,are on the right path.They are the "Real Christians",and you begin to become aware of scriptures,and Bible verses,that seem to strongly suggest,that those who do not believe in a certain,and correct way,are not going to do too well,when they finally get to the end of their lives,and must meet that final requirement that is mandatory for all those who have enjoyed the priveledge of LIFE.___It's really rather simple.If you are going to "LIVE",on this earth,then you also must DIE!__________Anyway,so now you are a "Christian",and you are convinced that the "Christian",that you are,is the correct type of "Christian".__yup,you were fortunate enough to get in with the proper "Christian" group,and fortunately,it looks like you are going to be OK,after the grim reaper visits,or the earth ends,etc..
 
 So,at this point,as a "Christian",you must deal with the nagging question of;What is going to happen to all the other people on the planet,who are not"Christians".__you know,all those other people who have not been so lucky as yourself,and have not had the good fortune to be part of the "Real Christian" group that makes it so when you die,everything will be OK!??__
 
Well,I guess after you realize this,you must face the facts.__Because;at this point,you either go on an evangelistic crusade,and attempt to try and save all the humans on earth that you possibly can,because after all,if all the 'others',who havn't found the "real Christian" way that you have,then evidently,they are DOOMED!__OR! ,you realize that the reality of GOD,occurs between you,and GOD!It does not occur between you,and somebody else who says they know who "God" is!
 
 
 Please forgive me for this excessive,and akward rambling fillibuster.I guess I could sum it up,by saying that;__The answer to the question of;"who decides who is a "Christian",would be that No one,except perhaps yourself, has the right to make this judgement!.Beware of the person who would claim to "know".In my opinion,Christians recognize other Christians.You can see it in their eyes,and faces,and by the way they talk and act,,BUT,no one can say if anyone is a "Christian",or not! When you meet people who do claim to have this certain insight into the soul of others,then you have met someone who is dissillusioned,and insecure in their own spiritual relationship.
 
 
 The main thing about God,is between YOU and GOD!
 
 
 once again,sorry for the long sermonesque blab.I realize that alot of what I wrote will be seen as flawed,and contraversial.......I havnt been myself ever since that tragic and dreadful spaceship accident in whichh dddd crashed,and was utterly incinerated...I dont even know where to send flowers,so,in memorial,I'm not even going to proofread this.....I'll probably regret it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #61 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 22:20:00 PT
Thanks, john wayne and BGreen
John Wayne...your cyber hug brought tears...good tears, to my eyes. Thanks. It means a lot to me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #60 posted by BGreen on September 19, 2002 at 22:12:36 PT
Thanks Hope and good writing
john wayne, it bothers us more than you that violent, evil scum identify with the kind, gentle and radical caregiver named Jesus that we write about. Let's just look at the "fruits" or "actions" of the individuals and stop categorizing based on other things.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by john wayne on September 19, 2002 at 22:12:00 PT
Cyberhug to a cyberfriend
mmmmmmmMMMMMMM to you Hope!  Keep posting those LTE's to inspire the rest of us.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 22:02:44 PT
Thanks so much, FoM
When I got in to this, I never realized how much I would get back. I'm a pure junkie for these reform people.And BGreen...Your post...you are so right about all of it. Cept maybe the part about me not being crazy. Not completely maybe, but we all have to be just a little bit crazy to think we can push for reform and see it happen. But hey...crazy like a fox...looks like we are!:-)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:55:38 PT
Thanks again, JohnWayne
I really do appreciate the encouragement. This battle we are in has been very discouraging a great deal of the time. Every bit of encouragement helps. Thanks.And while I'm thinking about it...we must not forget that most people are so intimidated by the way our government has been behaving towards it's citizens. I'm intimidated, too. My six ft. three, three hundred pound brother was semi-joking with my husband recently. His wife speaks out against injustices she perceives in many of our government's actions, too. He laughingly, but a little bit seriously too, told my husband that when the feds break into our houses in the middle of the night that he and my husband will have to wake up pointing at their wives saying, "It's not me! It's not me! Whatever it is! She did it!":-)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:47:11 PT
Thank you, JohnWayne
Your post is very touching. I have and do have all those same feelings. The Reagans, Bushes, Nixons, Bennets...all of them have done so much harm to so many in their hatred of drugs and drug users. It's really hard not to be bitter and hate them. It really is. I agree with everything you said, almost completely. We can take heart though, over the work of people like Joel Miller. We are doing what was once impossible. We are moving political and social mountains. Have you noticed that you don't hear that old "Yeah, you're right, but we will never see it in our lifetimes." as much as you used to. Those people are beginning to see that we are indeed going to do it and do it much sooner than they thought. Take heart, please, John Wayne.Cyberfriends?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by john wayne on September 19, 2002 at 21:36:12 PT
Hope, you're aptly named.
All those LTE's you posted went up as I was composing my thingie. Excellent work!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by john wayne on September 19, 2002 at 21:22:24 PT
Sorry Hope,
Don't take it as directed so much at you and BGreen.If christianity seemed to be well represented by you guys' style of belief, I wouldn't have much issue with it.  But that's not the christianity I know from the part that shows where it counts: in the public theater.Maybe it all started with Ronald Reagan in the early eighties, the first modern patron of the religious right who revived the (then) moribund war on drugs much to the religious right's approval.Fast forward a few years and we have Bill Bennett saying that "drugs are the devil".  Bill Bennett is now seen as some kind of national moral philosopher, by that same religious right that loved ronnie.Bush I?  Said that atheists shouldn't be citizens. Made the war on drugs a centerpiece of his forgettable administration.Bill Clinton is a southern baptist. And, in 1992, a fervent convert to the war on drugs.Then there is the back sections of such big name papers as the LA Times, any day, any year since Reagan was elected.  Clearly, the LA Times editorial staff believes that good is represented by religion and that bad is, obviously, illegal drugs.Today, the situation is ever worse. The president says his "favorite philosopher" is jesus christ as he pumps up the war on medical cannabis patients.  Ashcroft, his dark henchman, sings funny songs about jesus being king while he sends black-suited, jack-booted, machine-gun toting thugs to roust terminally-ill grandmas and grandpas. Juxstapose all this history against such posts as CN reader Phasetheory's, who saw a web poll in which "legalize pot" edged out "bring on more drug war". He claims that christian conservatives are behind legalization, it just doesn't look that way because of that ever-luvvin' media.
The same media, by the way, through which the religious right has backed the drug war ever since ronnie raygun was prez.   When I see stuff like PT's I snap. Maybe I shouldn't. Maybe, if young people today who see themselves as "christian conservatives" are ever going to join the legalization movement in any numbers, recent history has to be wiped clean for them. If so, then let's wipe!I want you to know that I welcome the christian reformers.  I simpy want your voice to at least be heard in public along with Ashcrofts!  (What I'd really like is for you to drown that obscenity out, but I'll settle for just being able to hear you in the public arena.)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by FoM on September 19, 2002 at 21:18:58 PT
Hope
You don't need to apologize for anything. You are one of the few that have been invited into Mapinc. Staff Talk. I get Staff Talk but you know me I don't talk much but I read. Thank you for the compliment but I have the time to do what I do because I don't have children or grandchildren and I know the time they require. You DO A GREAT JOB LADY!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:16:18 PT
and
I cleaned my house. Did laundry and cooked a good supper for my husband and I.I fed two dogs and the cat, too.:-)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:12:44 PT
and
that's a pretty average day for me. Seven days a week. Every week of the year, except for the few days I take each year to visit my son and his family who live in a distant state.No. I'm not doing as much as FoM or Richard Lake or Kevin Zeese or a lot of other people...but I'm doing what I can.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:09:09 PT
and
I posted a poll to three reform lists today and sent it and various articles to friends, family, and acquaintances.I still haven't done enough...but I don't think it's fair to say I'm doing nothing but waiting for "God to clear it all up."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:06:35 PT
Letter to an Alabama paper...today
To the Editor,Concerning Diana Summerford's letter, published Wednesday, September 18,
2002, I'd like her to know that that are many people who agree with her.
Many concerned citizens are devoting much time and effort to changing our
fatuous drug policy.I sympathize with her about what happened to her son and her family.
Addicts, although they should be responsible for any real crime they commit,
such as theft, murder, assault, etc., need help, not punishment for their
addiction.Prohibition isn't helping anyone but dealers and the prison/industrial
complex and everyone connected with it. Which brings me to another problem
that's been on my mind lately. We should be paying our prisoners who work,
at least a minimum wage. As it stands, our prisons are slave pits. Slavery
is wrong, even if the slaves are prisoners. It's wrong in China or anywhere
else. It's wrong here.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:05:16 PT
To a Canadian Paper today.
To the Editor,
Re: Leo Knight's "Dopey Senators Should Leave Pot Alone"Shuuweeee! I smell a Canadian rat all the way down here in Texas.For all intents and purposes, Mr. Knight comes off as an anachronistic,
prevaricating, benighted (pun intended), fatuous, asinine drunkard...excuse
me...I mean, experienced connoisseur of good scotch.As far as the circumspect, perspicacious, sagacious, and provident "Report
of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs", Mr. Knight's opinion of
the Senate's SOBER tome, in his own words, "is marked by what appears to be
misinformation, lack of analytical thought and a distinct parochial
viewpoint."Sincerely,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:04:11 PT
letter to San Antonio paper today
To the editor,In your Monday, September 16, 2002 Editorial: Colombia leader goes too far,
you say, "The administration would look hypocritical for supporting Uribe's
repression while condemning Hugo Chávez of neighboring Venezuela, another
dictatorial president."It's become pretty obvious, especially since September 11, 2001 that an
alarmingly large segment of our present administration would probably like
to adopt Uribe's methods in this country. As far as "The administration
would look hypocritical" is concerned, they don't just "look hypocritical".
They ARE hypocritical!Those who comprise the present administration, just like many before them,
say one thing while they do another. That makes them hypocrites. Colombia,
and every other aspect of our nation's misconceived War on Drugs, is a
seething monument to moral and political hypocrisy.Sincerely,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by VitaminT on September 19, 2002 at 21:04:08 PT
oh come on john wayne?
we're winning this war!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:02:27 PT
another one of today's, sent to same paper
(I had to send another after reading the following quote that Ddc posted in one of his extraordinarily education comments.)To the Editor,Regarding your loathsome Editorial, "Medical Marijuana is All Right, If...":I would like to employ the powerful words of the late Kurt Huber, a German
citizen who dared to defy the Nazi government of his era, in regard to the
activities that took place in Santa Cruz, Tuesday, September 17."There is a point at which the law becomes immoral and unethical. That point
is reached when it becomes a cloak for the cowardice that dares not stand up
against blatant violations of justice. A state that suppresses all freedom
of speech, and which by imposing the most terrible punishments, treats each
and every attempt at criticism, however morally justified, and every
suggestion for improvement as plotting to high treason, is a state that
breaks an unwritten law."Sincerely,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 21:00:13 PT
composed and sent today
To the Editor,In regard to Thursday's Editorial, "Medical Marijuana is All Right, If..."The nauseatingly sycophantic tone of your editorial, "Medical Marijuana is
All Right, If...", is testimony to the greatest failure of the American
patriot to date.You say, "the general public contains more than a few wackos, and if you
doubt it, look no farther than Santa Cruz." The people in Santa Cruz, who
staged the little rebellion Tuesday against the Federal Government, can
easily be compared to the "wackos" that dressed up like Indians and stole
and dumped a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor.Grow up. Heed the warnings of the founding fathers. You sound as though you
believe that just because the organizations that you cite are the
authorities in power they are right without question. Do some research.
Don't follow blindly. I suspect your paper would have been a proud Loyalist
to the British Empire back in the late 1700's.Question your own deepest sense of right and wrong...assuming that your
sense of right and wrong doesn't mean blind loyalty to misguided leadership
or authority. It must be noted here that I am not anti-authoritarian. I am
anti misguided authoritarian.We must never let our guard down or we will lose what our extraordinarily
wise founders fought, suffered, and died to give us. That is, if we haven't
already.The "wackos" is Santa Cruz did the right thing, just like the "wackos" in
Boston Harbor did, not so terribly many years ago.Sincerely,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 20:58:30 PT
some evidence
To Santa Cruz Editor yesterday:Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Richard Meyer said,"If I were a
teenager in Santa Cruz, I would be confused."Teenager or not, Meyer is obviously very confused. He doesn't even seem to
know the difference between right and wrong.Meyer is an agent of the government that, before the War on Drugs, I never
thought would exist, much less thrive in the United States. If he has any
ability to discern, he's not using it. He's shamelessly "just following
orders".Where have I heard that before?Sincerely
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 20:54:29 PT
Also John...
While I was pointing out to you what BGreen and I have been doing today, I failed to mention the one who has devoted the most of herself today than any of us! Look at our FoM! Look at how much of herself and her time she has dedicated to this cause. We really are trying to do something. FoM is doing an amazing lot. We, although we might be silly "dreamers" to you, are about as devoted to this battle as anyone can possibly be and we aren't just sitting back waiting on a miracle. We're trying to make it happen! Give us a break!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 20:48:35 PT
and John,
I don't think you've read any of our posts, at least not with any effort to understand what we've been saying. I answered every single question you asked. The least you could do is read my answers. I don't think you could "sum it up" as you did. I don't think any of us have implied that we think we can just sit back and "wait for God to clear it all up." We're on the same mission you are. Can't you spare us, your fellow warriors in the war against the war on some drugs, a little bit of tolerance, if not respect?It wouldn't be all that painful and degrading. Sometimes it does seem like we are all just treading water, but,dang it, John, we're swimming as fast and furiously as we can. Don't make it that much slower by laying unnecessary burdens on us. We're on your side! Don't you recognize us?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by FoM on September 19, 2002 at 20:47:04 PT
Peeks In For One Question
I know when not to get into a hot topic discussion but I have one question. John were you raised in any particular faith? I'm just curious. I was raised Catholic.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 20:36:58 PT
Dear John,
You said, "Large parts of CN posters' rhetoric 
can be summed up, then, as:
"Don't worry about all busts performed by those saying they're doing "god's will." God's gonna clear it all up. Someday."Know what I think? Mighty clear sailing ahead for the Bushes, the Ashcrofts, the Hutchinsons, the Waters of the world."Why do you want to say things like that? What is happening that we get to be the dog your kickin cause you can't kick what's buggin you?I'm working. I'm talking. I write letters to Editors. I've written five letters today. All different. All researched. All "bonafide". I know BGreen has sent money today to the Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement...the guys working like bees there. I newshawk for the Media Awareness Project every day and have for years. I support medical marijuana work when and where I can. I've protested at my state capital. I was shouting outside when Eddie Smith was smoking that joint in the Democrats headquarters in Austin. I learn, learn, learn...DdC as posted so much good information today that will be handy in making sure my letters are "bonafide". So, no. We aren't just sitting back and hoping God will clear it all up. We're hoping God is using us. I like to think of myself as God's love with skin on. I'm sure you've done a lot for the cause today, this week, and for many years. Fess up. What did you do today to try and undo the injustices of the war on drugs?Maybe BGreen or I didn't accomplish as much as you did today, but aren't we all in this together. Why do you need to put us and our beliefs down so badly? Why not encourage us? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by john wayne on September 19, 2002 at 20:10:01 PT
Large parts of CN posters' rhetoric
can be summed up, then, as:"Don't worry about all busts performed by those saying they're doing "god's will."  God's gonna clear it all up. Someday."Know what I think? Mighty clear sailing ahead for the Bushes, the Ashcrofts, the Hutchinsons, the Waters of the world.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by BGreen on September 19, 2002 at 19:32:06 PT
You're not crazy, Hope!
The reason that most people are confused about what a Christian life is like is that they've only heard sound bytes and other people telling them what the Bible says. When you read for yourself what was written you'd be amazed about how the whole picture becomes clear. People have lied to me and everybody else about what the Bible says, but I wouldn't have known it if I wouldn't have read it for myself.Jesus NEVER preached against cannabis or supported the caging of people. NEVER! Jesus helped the sick and oppressed, even when He was accused of breaking the law to do it. Just because people have done bad things in the name of Jesus doesn't negate the fact that those actions are COMPLETELY contradictory to the recorded actions of Jesus.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 19:13:31 PT
Nasarius
Sorry! I goofed and gave someone else the praise for your fine definitions! I should have said, "Nasarius, I like your definitions. They are precise and clarifying. Thanks."I'm saying it now, though. Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 18:56:18 PT
sobbing
Sorry, guys. That's my second "sobbing" story this month! I'm 54 years old. I've had lots of experiences and have lots of stories I can relate. And...sadly...in all that time, I've done quite a bit of "sobbing". Guess that makes them "sob stories". Oh well. That's life. Sometimes.Am I one of those "weak individuals that need religion" that our friend Gov. Ventura spoke of once? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not really "religious"...in the true sense of that word. I'm too lazy to be religious about anything. Well maybe I religiously check in on CannabisNews. I don't think I'm religious. I think I'm spiritually minded. I could be psychotic. I accept that. But if I am crazy because of what I believe...well, I like it a lot and feel no need to seek a cure and all in all, I'm in pretty good company.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 18:33:18 PT
JohnWayne
John Wayne, you said, "the second quote discriminates people destined for heaven from those who are not by saying that the heaven bound do jesus' father's will." in reference to B. Green's, " "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." I believe, based on much study and prayer, that the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now. It's a place of the spirit. BGreen, FoM, myself, and apparently many others already "dwell" in it. Right now. Right here.The "away from me" of the non believers or hypocrites is just that they live in the "hell" of not knowing their loving God and having a relationship with him. Did I say it was all golden light and fairy dust? No, it's not. Sometimes it's even unpleasant. But it's cool and there is joy in it even when it's unpleasant."with the combination of the old and new testaments providing support for almost any action from the most authoritative to the most tolerant, who gets to say who is doing jesus' fathers will?" Jesus. Of course, I realize that you can't accept that because it's just too "fantastic" to believe. That's fine. I don't hate you for it...and I don't think you are going to hell. If I did, I would be "prayin like a Roman, with my eyes on fire" for you. Really."Wonder how many guys are sitting in prison right now saying "But the book of genesis SAYS.....""A bunch.Sad, but true.Let me tell you something even more fantastic and foolish that any thing I've said before. Once I was sobbing...as I drove down the road...not safe... but I was, anyway. I heard that "still small voice" say, "Life is hard, but you can do it."I hear voices or top of everything else.It doesn't offend me that you think me a nutcase.:-)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 18:12:53 PT
JohnWayne
"Is it really true? 
That people are not what they proudly and loudly proclaim themselves to be?"Yes...it is true, sometimes. The posts I've made previously are not "right" or "wrong", "truth" or "falsehood" or even "dreaming". They are merely my opinion. Being a Christian isn't like being a citizen of a country. You aren't born into this world as one. You have to accept it and make an effort to know what it's about, and in this case adopt a philosophy of sorts. In the case of Christianity, the teachings of Jesus Christ should be of utmost importance to you. You may proudly and loudly proclaim to me that you are a dancer. If you haven't trained or have no natural talent, just your word doesn't make it so. Your actions prove whether you are a dancer or not. You can be a bad dancer, of course, and still be a dancer. Perhaps I was wrong to use the term "pseudo Christian"...perhaps they are just not such good Christians, and not pseudonym Christians at all. My anger seems to have pushed me to judgment. Maybe it's just discernment. Perhaps they don't know they aren't compassionate, but, if they are, they certainly appear to pick and choose who to be compassionate to. Christians are warned against even "the appearance of evil". We all fall short. I certainly do. I'm even guilty of some of the so called "deadly" sins. "That you can say that people who proudly and loudly run for political office on political platforms labelled "christian conservative" are indeed not that very animal?"Yes...I can say it. It may not be right or true, but I can say it and believe that appearances seem to indicate that it is indeed true."That seems to be the attitude of certain Christian dreamers in this forum." I'm not sure about what you mean by "certain Christian dreamers"...but I have a gut feeling you are talking about me, for sure. You may be right about the attitude. Appearances seem to indicate you are correct in your opinion of the "attitude"."That Bush, Ashcroft, Hutchinson, Bill Bennett, ad nauseum right on down the list to the "rapture ready" sheriff who carts people off to jail for toking are not actually christians.Just who gets to say who is and who is not a christian? Do you actually believe that it is you, dear dreamer?"I can say they aren't "walkin the walk". The angels, if my beliefs are based on the big truth, will get to decide. They will "separate the wheat from the tares" and "bundle them"...and burn the tares. Tares are an obnoxious weed that sprout among wheat. When they are young, they look the same. According to what I've read, if you rip them out when they are young...you might rip out some wheat. So the experienced farmer lets them grow together and separates them on the threshing floor. Here, I must interject, that I believe there will be no one bundled up and burned. This is a warning that there are those among us that are not what they appear to be. Why do I believe souls, not tares, won't be burnt? First Timothy 4:9-11 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things. ((you notice it says "all", not "a select few", and it clearly says "especially"...not "exclusively". Thank God. Anyway...that's why I believe that, in fact, "all" men (and that means women and children, too, are "saved" whether they know it, believe it, or accept it or not. I think (right or wrong)that "hell" for the human soul is right here on earth.))"If so, I'll keep the fact of your fantastic beliefs firmly in mind when I feel compelled to follow up one of your posts."They are "fantastic" aren't they? Only a child or a fool could believe them. "Bonus questions: were the priests who ran the inquisition for 300 years christians? How about the church which stood firmly behind their actions?"If they were, and here again, this is only my opinion, they were sadly misled. I don't rag on the Catholic church, like some people do, but, it's possible.Thank you for responding to my posts. I'd much rather you disagree with me than ignore me. Thanks.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by BGreen on September 19, 2002 at 17:49:37 PT
Read the Bible for yourself
before you argue the facts and validity of what I'm saying.The answers are obvious except to those who don't want to know.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by john wayne on September 19, 2002 at 17:37:36 PT
BGreen, more qestions:
the first quote advises rejecting false prophets.Who gets to say who is a false prophet?the second quote discriminates people destined for heaven from those who are not by saying that the heaven bound do jesus' father's will.  with the combination of the old and new testaments providing support for almost any action from the most authoritative to the most tolerant, who gets to say who is doing jesus' fathers will?BGreen, if you wanna quote more bible at me, consider this:
the drug warriors and you can quote all the bible you folks want to at each other as they haul you off to jail for using the herb.Wonder how many guys are sitting in prison right now saying "But the book of genesis SAYS....."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by BGreen on September 19, 2002 at 17:19:59 PT
Your answer, john wayne
 MT 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. [16] By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? [17] Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.  MT 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' [23] Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by FoM on September 19, 2002 at 17:09:05 PT
john wayne
No one should tell anyone who is or who is not a Christian because no one knows the heart of another.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by john wayne on September 19, 2002 at 17:06:09 PT
questions distilled down to one
right, FoM, there were too many questions in my post.I'd be glad to get some opinion on just one of my questions:who gets to say who is and who is not a christian?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by FoM on September 19, 2002 at 17:00:21 PT
john wayne
I would like to answer you but I'm not sure what it is you are asking. I have no idea who you are trying to address either. Going to Church and being a Christian can be two different things. Many people are raised in Church but that doesn't mean much. Church can be purely social or political to many. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by john wayne on September 19, 2002 at 16:44:47 PT
Is it really true?
That people are not what they proudly and loudly proclaim themselves to be? That you can say that people who proudly and loudly run for political office on political platforms labelled "christian conservative" are indeed not that very animal?That seems to be the attitude of certain christian dreamers in this forum.  That Bush, Ashcroft, Hutchinson, Bill Bennett, ad nauseum right on down the list to the "rapture ready" sheriff who carts people off to jail for toking are not actually christians.Just who gets to say who is and who is not a christian?  Do you actually believe that it is you, dear dreamer?If so, I'll keep the fact of your fantastic beliefs firmly in mind when I feel compelled to follow up one of your posts.Bonus questions: were the priests who ran the inquisition for 300 years christians?  How about the church which stood firmly behind their actions? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 14:50:05 PT
Phasetheory and malleus
Phasetheory, you said, "You WOULD hear from Christians and conservatives for legalization, if, the media allowed them to." I think you may be right. Surely some consciences will begin to burn enough that some will eventually prevail on the media to be heard.Malleus, I like your definitions. They are precise and clarifying. Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by FoM on September 19, 2002 at 13:05:08 PT
Confuses My Poor Little Brain
I don't understand labels. I will take a guess at what I am. I think I would be labeled a conservative liberal.It sounds good to me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Nasarius on September 19, 2002 at 13:01:25 PT
Definitions
Too many people are looking at politics as one-dimensional. It's not. There are two dimensions: social and economic.Some crude definitions:----Social Left - Lowercase-L libertarian. Civil liberties are very important and should only be infringed upon if someone is getting hurt.Social Right - Authoritarian. Think religious right; these people want to tell you how to live your life.Economic Left - Regulated capitalism, welfare, socialism, communism, and anything in between. Economic Right - Laissez-faire. As little regulation as possible, or perhaps as many Libertarians suggest, none at all.---As for an "atheist left", it just doesn't exist. Atheists aren't organized. Most I've met (excepting myself) tend towards liberal social policies and conservative economic policies.And as someone else mentioned, the whole American political system is skewed towards conservativism; to call Democrats "liberal" is to insult true liberals.Just some things to keep in mind when discussing politics ;-)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by VitaminT on September 19, 2002 at 12:36:19 PT
a few small matters
" Domination by a central government is their aim and they have the proverbial "strange bedfellow" in the "Religous" right that wouldn't mind if all 80,000,000 pot smokers were either in prison or in forced re-education! "Do you really believe this? This is almost funny. Ok, in fact it is. The fact is, most Christians were lied to like everyone else. And the fact that they tend to trust the few Christians leaders is obvious. Which is another example of my point. There are "Christians" who support ending the drug laws. But the media doesn't give them the time of day!Phasetheory, I'll acknowledge that my remark is hyperbolic but not at all funny given the dramatic expansion of prison populations in service to the War on Drugs - conducted by both Liberal idealogues and religous fanatics.Your point about the media not airing the views of Christian reformers is well taken. If an outside observer were to draw all his conclusions from what appears on the idiot box I doubt he'd get even half of the picture.My use of the term "Religous" right is distinct from the "Religous Right" about which you complain. I'm talking about the holier than thou, judgemental fanatics that you (and I suppose the media) call lunatics. I certainly have nothing to gain by insulting Christians or conservatives and while my statement was certainly perjorative it was clearly directed toward those fanatic lunatics - like Ashcroft or perhaps Osama bin Laden.As for an "Athiest Left" no I've never heard of them, but if they were trying to legislate what, where, how or with whom I could smoke, drink, eat, wear, have sex etc. etc. you can bet they'd move straight to the top of my shit list!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Phasetheory on September 19, 2002 at 10:42:05 PT
Objection in mind
To begin with the Phrase "Religious Right" is one of the most insulting terms. The media uses it to refer to lunatics. The New York Times for example. Besides how can the "religious right" exist without a athiest left. If your search for both terms in any news article search you'll find hundreds of matches for "religious right" and NONE with "Athiest Left".I think it's obviously a term to insult both Christians and conservatives.My point behind my previous statement? Let me clarify it. The media has a bias. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, all are biased. I wasn't refering to government officals. Besides, LOOK WHAT I SAID!DANA, you stated, "
I dont mean to sound too confrontational or abnormally intollerant,or inquisitive,but what are you trying to say?__Let's see here.Would you say Asa Hutchinson is a "conservative"?,or how about Ashcroft?,or what about Walters?___Do you really think that the "media",has somehow suppressed the "conservative" point of view?"YES!!!!!!!! The conservative point of view that IS for legalization! I stated you don't see conservatives arguing FOR legalization! The last time I check Asa and Walters were against it! You WOULD hear from Christians and conserivatives for legalization, if, the media allowed them to. If you would take the time to look you will find there is an organization called, "Christians for cannabis", there isn't a single other religion that does. At least a credible religion." Domination by a central government is their aim and they have the proverbial "strange bedfellow" in the "Religous" right that wouldn't mind if all 80,000,000 pot smokers were either in prison or in forced re-education!
"Do you really believe this? This is almost funny. Ok, in fact it is. The fact is, most Christians were lied to like everyone else. And the fact that they tend to trust the few Christians leaders is obvious. Which is another example of my point. There are "Christians" who support ending the drug laws. But the media doesn't give them the time of day!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 09:55:15 PT
VitaminT
You got it, Brother! Roll on! Spread the good word!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by VitaminT on September 19, 2002 at 09:45:43 PT
Hope, Thank You
for your thought-filled response. I guess what is called for is an evangelism of a different sort. Instead of fire, brimstone, fear, loathing and judgement we could find our way back to "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "judge not lest ye be judged." I think that Jesus came to wreck the Temple and overturn the tables of the money-changers - to wake up the people and say to them, YOU are the church!goneposthole:
Achieving justice in this country is largely dependent on Christians seeing the light - and for them the place that they are most likely to find that light is in the Bible. So it is important no matter what our personal faith may be.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #18 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 07:17:03 PT

malleus and VitaminT
Malleus, thank you for such an adept definition of conservative, Conservative, and liberal, Liberal. I guess I'm a pre-1980's conservative. I vote Libertarian at every opportunity.VitaminT, "So why don't we hear more from Christians? Why are so many of them willing to stand by and watch 750,000 people arrested each year for growing and smoking a God given plant?" Some of us are doing the best we can, as you know. Some of us. It's just that many of us are way too timid...instead of just humble. Many are fearful of "rocking the boat". And the fact is, because of pseudo Christians like Bush, Ashcroft, Hutchinson, Walters, and others being so loud and outspoken and carrying such big sticks, many people won't "hear" us even though we are shouting at the top of our lungs...and we are. They hear the word "Christian" and immediately lump us in with the loud bullies who like to say they are "Christians", and then don't want to hear what we have to say or cast us in the same light as the "bad guys" and dismiss or discount everything we say."How do we get more Christians to stand up in their churches and carry the reform message there?" Most "standing up" in church seldom has anything to do with drug policy. Although considering the relevance to true Christian living...trying to follow the teachings of Christ...it probably should come up more than it does. And, with those of us who are trying to do something, once you've said your piece, anything more is like "pearls before swine." The preacher preaches love, forgiveness, and kindness. The people semi-listen, and walk out the doors ignorant of anything they've been taught, and merely satisfied that they've had their "dose" of "holiness" for the week. As they say in the old time "revivals"...we need to have a "spiritual awakening". The Lord himself needs to stir us up to do the right thing. We are lazy and recalcitrant children. Complacency, timidity, laziness, and lack of understanding ("my people perish from lack of knowledge"), leading to stiff necks and hard heads, all conspire to make the majority of many who dare to call themselves, "Christians", quite impotent as far as standing up to the bullies among us. The bullies claim to "know" and the average man or woman just doesn't care enough, or perhaps finds confrontation with the bullies so distasteful...that they just "let it go". They fail to realize that people are suffering because of the policies the bullies put forth. They don't even want to be bothered with giving it much thought, except fearfully, unless it's affecting them or one of theirs.It's sad, and it's a shortcoming...but it's the way it is for the most part. I believe God "stirred" me in this matter and I am sure he is trying to do the same with others of my brothers and sisters. I think a lot of people ignore gentle "stirrings" and sometimes even not so gentle "stirrings". It takes courage to speak out against the "machine" we are up against. You know that, VitaminT...and the fact is, courage is woefully lacking...especially sometimes in folks that feel like they can barely survive in this world, much less, be courageous.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #16 posted by goneposthole on September 19, 2002 at 07:14:16 PT

Bilble schmible
I don't care if it is in the Bible or not,A person should be able to smoke pot.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by malleus on September 19, 2002 at 06:25:06 PT

Seems to me this has been gone over before
Pre-1980 definition of conservative: someone who believes that Big Government (created by decades of liberal policies) is too intrusive in personal lives, and needs to have any powers given to it the last 30 years returned to local levels. Fiscal responsibility at all levels of government, and that means starving government and weaning it off taking so much of our income as taxes.Pre-1980 definition of liberal: someone who believes that the private sector cannot be trusted to not abscond with people's life savings in corporate sleight-of-hand (like ENRON) so government must be able to take on and trounce the private sector when it gets too big for it's britches. That means it must have the monopoly on both force and the national pursestrings, hence heavy taxation.Post-1980 definition of Conservative (notice the upper case change) someone who believes that the private sector should be left alone to handle itself via 'market corrections' (like ENRON), and make lots of money for the Investing Class but that individual rights must be sacrificed on the corporate altar to ensure the proper degree of piety and frugality is observed by the great unwashed Working Class. Taxes must remain high to finance the nation's defense. Which is symbiontically linked to the Investing Class's well being.Post-1980 definition of Liberal (again, notice the case change) someone who believes that government action is still necessary to prevent 'market corrections' (like ENRON) from causing massive economic disloactions and derail income transfer (problem is, the income transfer that they favor never happens; it always flows to the wealthier members of society, as does the power.) Taxes have to remain high to make sure that social programs - which never seem to benefit those most needing them - are maintained.Used to be a conservative wanted government out of your wallet, your job, and your bedroom. Now Conservatives want your whole wallet (through taxes for defense spending aimed at feeding their contractors) and are trying to run your life through their company rules like piss-testing, and telling you what sexual positions are illegal and immoral.As to Liberals, I haven't seen any real liberals in a long time; today's Liberals are but pale, fun-house mirror distortions of Conservatives, anymore.The only groups that have maintained their true form all these years have been the Libbers and the Greens.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by VitaminT on September 19, 2002 at 06:06:36 PT

Thank You Phasetheory!
Which shows that conservatives are behind legalization as much as their liberal counter-parts.So why don't we hear more from Christians? Why are so many of them willing to stand by and watch 750,000 people arrested each year for growing and smoking a God given plant?There are numerous Christians posting on this site so I know that Christian reformers are not unusual, but how do we get more Christians to stand up in their churches and carry the reform message there? I don't doubt that Jesus would do that!BTW, Liberal philosophy is Statist at it's core! Domination by a central government is their aim and they have the proverbial "strange bedfellow" in the "Religous" right that wouldn't mind if all 80,000,000 pot smokers were either in prison or in forced re-education!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by Hope on September 19, 2002 at 05:36:46 PT

I see Phasetheory's point...I think.
Ashcroft, Hutchinson, and Walters don't even qualify as conservatives, or Christians, as I understand it. No matter what they call themselves. It's ludicrous, to say the least, when they refer to themselves as "compassionate". It's easier to believe that Bill Clinton is the "first black president", then to believe that Bush is "compassionate". What they really are is raging fascist lunatics. They aren't going to call themselves that. "Hello citizens! I want to be your next president. I'm a raging fascist lunatic. I'm here to tell you that I support big business because they support me. I want to keep you working as hard as possible for the lowest possible wage. I want to be your "slave master". I want to be your new "tax and spend", warmongering, president.Vote for me to keep things just like they are." But my next thought is, have we really seen any government type dems speak out publicly for serious change in drug policy. Remind me of some of the dems that are speaking out in public...not even thinking of the media. Let's see...Governor Johnson...Republican, Ron Paul, Republican. Duh...let me think...think...think...think...
Remind me, please. Charles Rangel...maybe, sorta, kinda, nearly?Now, if we are talking Nadleman, Zeese, or Richard Lake for that matter...to my mind...I don't even think of them as dems, or Reps. The only "party" people that seem to run the risk of negative attacks by speaking out boldly are Libertarians or Greens. I know Gov. Johnson and Ron Paul consider themselves conservative and they really are. I consider my self a conservative because I want as small a government as possible. Ashcroft, Walters, Hutchinson, and Bush, even if they are members of the Republican party and members of a denomination don't know hell from a hole in the ground when it comes to true Christianity or true conservatism.They make a big show of their religion ("sewing borders on the hems of their robes"), but they are like "white washed sepulchers", all pretty and white on the outside, but inside..."full of dead men's bones" and all sorts of vile and unsavory things. Most pols, whether they call themselves dems or reps or liberal or conservative are simply cowardly,afraid to do the right thing cause they might be spurned somehow. That's what they ought to describe themselves as, "cowardly". Most of them are as blind as the sheeple they purport to lead.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by DANA on September 19, 2002 at 01:41:31 PT

C'mon Phase!
 I'm not trying to be mean,or unreasonable.I just want to know if you are willing to defend your position.(?).I'm thinking that you may have labeled me as some sort of "liberal" loudmouth crackpot,that does not even deserve to be taken seriously?I hope you're not afraid to discuss things with me.I am more curious,than I am mean,and I will never use profanities.
 
 If you would rather not discuss these matters,then just shine it,I wont bug you again..Your points of view are valid,and valuable,and I have a big mouth that has been known to say way too much......I dont wanna get in trouble again.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by john wayne on September 19, 2002 at 01:37:05 PT

Submitted for your approval
christian conservatives who want legalization but are portrayed as drug warriors by that HNNNNGYOD-DAY-UM liberal media.Hooo-wee-oooo, I think we've entered the twilight zone.Next we'll be hearing how much bill bennet pays for an eighth.See what too much limbaugh will do to your brain?

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by DANA on September 19, 2002 at 00:03:21 PT

OK.  Let's Talk!
Phasetheory.I didnt see your previous comment before I posted.I have some questions concerning the views you expressed in comment #8.
 
 
 "The idea that conservatives are against legalization comes from the media. You never (or almost never) hear a
      conservative speak out against the drug war on television. The media, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX all use
      democrats for the legalization side. There are many reasons why this might be the case... my guess would be that it
      prevents conservatives from picking up the issue, so less people would be in support of legalization. "
 
 
 Are you serious?If I understand what you are trying to say;You believe that the "media",is somehow involved in an obscure plot to make "conservatives",appear more intollerant than "liberals"?,And,that the media,"use democrats for the legalization side."?__,and that this;"..prevents conservatives from picking up the issue, so less people would be in support of legalization."?
 
 
 I dont mean to sound too confrontational or abnormally intollerant,or inquisitive,but what are you trying to say?__Let's see here.Would you say Asa Hutchinson is a "conservative"?,or how about Ashcroft?,or what about Walters?___Do you really think that the "media",has somehow suppressed the "conservative" point of view?
 
 
 Do you think my questions are unreasonable,or irrelevant?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by DANA on September 18, 2002 at 23:30:09 PT

Good Article,Good Comments
"
      I was shocked when I voted on the poll then saw that most people voted in favor of legalization. What really shocked
      me was the fact that the readers of WND voted this way. I thought that WND readers for the most part are Christian,
      conservative, reasonably intelligent people."
 
 
 I used to read WND quite frequently,but after a while,I realized that it does have a sort of weird twangy twist towards aspects of what the "shocked" person wrote.I like how Joel picked apart the comment,but I want to add to the 'pickens',with my own soapbox ramble!
 
 
" I thought that WND readers for the most part are Christian,
      conservative, reasonably intelligent people."
 
 
 Seeing this statement,reminded me of a point I've been wanting to make for a long time now.;
 
 Whenever I see the term "Christian",followed by "conservative",I am reminded of how little the two terms have to do with each other.If a person has decided that they want to be known as a "Christian",that is alot to say!,and of course,at this point,we immediatly enter the complex mindbending hell,known as 'semantics',(meanings and interpretations of words).____but___for now,I want to make the point,that the term "conservative",is not a word that has anything to do with being "Christian"._____To put it another way,;For someone to be thinking that they are a "Christian conservative" ,makes about as much sense,and means about as much,as someone who would call themselves a "Christian natzi".(?).
 
 
 Put that in your pipes and smoke them?
 
.................oops
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by Phasetheory on September 18, 2002 at 23:12:00 PT

Go Conservatives!
Yes it's true, WND readers are very much conservative and christian. Which shows that conservatives are behind legalization as much as their liberal counter-parts.The idea that conservatives are against legalization comes from the media. You never (or almost never) hear a conservative speak out against the drug war on television. The media, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX all use democrats for the legalization side. There are many reasons why this might be the case... my guess would be that it prevents conservatives from picking up the issue, so less people would be in support of legalization. One thing is for use, the media is very much against legalization. They don't give people the time of day who want our drug laws ended. Plus whenever they show marijuana on the news they always show little movie clips of people smoking joints in dark rooms. Making look at EVIL as possible. I hope everyone who supports legalization however realizes that the support to change our laws must come from both sides. This issue will need democrats and republicans. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by Hope on September 18, 2002 at 20:36:55 PT

check out
http://www.razormouth.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=all&id=1032166973I hold Joel as one of my most honored and respected teachers. I am sure God is pleased with him.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by Hope on September 18, 2002 at 20:30:04 PT

Joel has a website...a "mezine" as he calls i
http://razormouth.com/Joel is a dedicated, intelligent, and educated Christian. He is dedicated, like us, to doing all he can to bring an end to the unjust war on drugs and all it's done to our Constitution and our people.He is a wonderful guy...and well... I just love him.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by Dan B on September 18, 2002 at 17:24:45 PT:

My Hero For The Week . . . Again!
Joel Miller has consistently supported ending the drug war, and I applaud his efforts here to speak to the mainly Christian, overwhelmingly conservative reading base at World Net Daily on this topic. In few words, he demolishes nearly every major argument currently made by prohibitionists and the sheep who follow them. Well done.With respect to his statement about having the largest prison population in the free world, I have been reading Joel Miller long enough to know when he is employing irony, and this is one of those times. He purposely places "biggest prison population" in the proximity of "the free world" in order to call attention to the hypocrisy of claiming that both can exist at the same time. Thanks, Joel Miller. You are, once again, my hero of the week. Dan BNote: My "Hero of the Week" award goes to a writer of exceptional talent and skill who bravely accosts hypocrisy and corruption.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by mayan on September 18, 2002 at 17:11:05 PT

Genesis...

1:29 God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.1:30 to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.What part wouldn't a Christian understand?unrelated -U.S. received warnings of 'airplanes as weapons'!!!
http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=71032Video of Bush at Booker Proves 9-11 Attack Was No Surprise:
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/vid.htmALTERNATIVE MEDIA CENSORSHIP - SPONSORED BY CIA's FORD FOUNDATION?These are the publications and entities that have waged an all-out war against FTW's Mike Ruppert:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html A War in the Planning for Four Years - HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by p4me on September 18, 2002 at 16:09:07 PT

x-ile tells of Colin Davies' trial
From the DE messageboard:DE trial days 6 & 7Yesterday saw PC Jackson's cross-examination on events around 15th September last year finish, and then him giving evidence about 20th November (when Colin was arrested again along with Steve, Phil and Roo and Colin was remanded to Strangeways) and 3rd January (when Roo and Robin were arrested). Its not fair to kick a man when he's down, but Jacko wasn't a particularly good witness and it seems to this old dog's feeble brain to have been telling porkies in the witness box!Then we had Andrew Cook and Dawn Hazledean, both of whom were arrested in the DE on 20th November and given cautions in exchange for giving prosecution statements (or so they said). Andrew Cook said he "would have probably gone along with anything" to get out of the police station. When Dawn Hazledene was asked if she would have done the same she said "not quite anything".Today, we had Anthony Lannigan, also arrested on 20/11 in the DE, and given a caution in return for a prosecution statement(he says). He said "I've smoked a lot of cannabis since I was arrested so I can't remember", but did remember he "was looking to say anything just to get me out of there" (the police station).Next up was PC Alistair Perkins, Jacko's partner in many of the events under discussion. He gave evidence about events on 20th November and 3rd January and (under cross-exam) the visit to Colin's flat on 12th September. Whilst looking less foolish than Jacko, he also seems to have a memory problem with some of his facts!Last up, witness wise, was Perkins (again) about 20/11 and we're promised we'll see him again tomorrow morning. The prosecution said they expect to finish by tomorrow lunchtime and on the current timetable the defence witnesses about facts (including the DEfendants) will start giving their evidence on Monday morning. And the result could be known by the end of next week or early the week after.........So, another 2 days completed at the office and a few steps closer to clearing their names, the DEfendants try to keep awake in the dock. Billy Barker
news'ound
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by DdC on September 18, 2002 at 13:46:55 PT

Sacramental Cannabis
And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more. (Ezekiel 34:29)In the later times, some shall speak lies in hypocrisy commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine. (Paul: 1 Timothy 4:1-6) " 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone' " (John 8:7)."My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you will be no priest to Me for I desired mercy and not sacrifice." (Hosea 4:6, 6:6) "The Lord hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound." (Isaiah 61:1)
"shall not bear false witness"Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.  Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind, And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. (Matthew 15:13-14)As troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests commit murder in the way by consent. (Hos. 6:9) 
(Ps. 119:86)
               
(Jesus:) "Blessed are the peacemakers,for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are those persecuted for righteousness' sake: For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:9-10)(Jesus:) "Beware the scribes which desire to walk in long robes and the highest seats in the synagogues and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long prayers: They shall receive greater damnation." (Luke 20:46-47)(Jesus:) 'Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethern, ye have done it unto me." (Matt. 25:40)(Jesus:) "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: And with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matt.7:1-4)Jesus:) He beheld them and said, "What is this then that is written, 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner'?" (Luke 20:17)A wise man will hear, and will increase learning: and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels. (Proverbs 1:5) If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked. (Prov. 29:12) Sacramental Cannabis 
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/Sacramental.html
JC or DC?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on September 18, 2002 at 13:28:54 PT

Uh, sorry Joel
"* Drug prohibition has given the U.S. the free world's biggest prison population – many of those behind bars being nonviolent drug offenders. Spending on prisons is up, up, up."No, we have the biggest prison population PERIOD. Does that mean we should even be considered part of the "free world"???

[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment