[Cultural Jihad]

Which statement? Why, this statement of yours:

Immaterial to a felon convicted in Calif on federal charges of 'possession' under an unconstitutional law.

People who pay a hundred dollar fine are not called "felons." Otherwise, we'd have "felonious jaywalkers," or "felonious double-parkers," or "felonious sidewalk-spitters."

[tpaine]

~ Federal~ charges of
'possession' were felonies, last time I heard CJ. You have new info? Let me know sometime in the next year or two, when someone might care.

The facts remain, you advocate a war on drugs, -- in reality, -- a war on the constitution, and the people of the U.S.A.

"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago. The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all. " Jim Robinson, 5/9/01