WND readers want pot legalized

Worldnet Daily ^ | 9/18/2002 | Joel Miller

[WindMinstrel]

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

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.

[steve50]

Abortion, even partial birth, is done in accordance with the law. According to your view on scripture, I guess you must be supportive. In China they even have forced abortions as the law of the land, you're telling me a Christian would have to submit?

[Moby Grape]

On-line polls mean nothing...in fact, if WND (with its' strong Libertarian influence) cannot get more than 56% in an on-line poll where the vast majority of those who read WND are Libertarians, it is NOT a good omen for the legalize proponents. Quoting on-line poll results for support is a sign of wishful thinking and perhaps desperation.

[steve50]

The feds using the same tired lies they've been using for 70 years is the sign of desperation. Their war on cannabis is on it's last legs. I wonder where they'll come up with the billions of dollars to replace the drug supply profits?

[Moby Grape]

Do you think an on-line poll is a reliable measure of public support?

[steve50]

An online poll, or any other poll means nothing. This is a nation ruled by Constitutional procedures. The Constitution makes no provisions for a War on Drugs, if the Fed wishes to legislate in this area a Constitutional Amendment is required. Alcohol prohibition clearly sets a precedent in this area.

[JimRed]

...to you it shall be for food.

So, we light up and inhale our broccoli?

[JimRed]

I wonder where they'll come up with the billions of dollars to replace the drug supply profits?

Clarify, please?

[dogbyte12]

Asset seizure laws, and billions of dollars in taxes that fund the war on drugs will all vanish if the war on some drugs is ended.

Think about all the people on the dole, from the feds, state law enforcement, local police, county sherriffs, the prison industry who rely on the war on drugs money to keep coming in. You could divert some of the local law enforcement to say rape, murder, and robbery... but robbery will take a big drop in numbers if/when the WOD is eliminated. There are not many robbers who do it to feed their cigarette or alcohol habits, but do to support habits of illegal drugs whose prices are vastly inflated because of the WOD. They would stop robbing people if they could beg for the money they needed as opposed to trying to figure out where they are going to come up with $100 a day.

Now they steal $500-$1000 worth of honest people's possessions and exchange it for $100 worth of drugs. It becomes $10 worth of drugs, they go to a street corner and give liberals sob stories about how they are homeless vets, even when they aren't. They sucker a couple, and they can go put themselves in oblivion without breaking through your bedroom window to steal your jewelry and your VCR.

[steve50]

The Mena deal, the Dallas Drywall Cartel guys, every five or ten years they arrest half the Miami police force for complicity in drug trade. In case you hadn't noticed the same people are supplying the stuff and running a war against it. The drug smuggling profits are one of the largest sources of funding for the NWO types.

Check out who was funding Montesinos in Peru thru the 90's, I think there might be a witness or two left alive.

[PaxMacian]

RE: Rom 13:1-3
"...no authority except from God..."

RE: 1 Peter 2:13-16
16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
Are you a servant of God if you destroy the gifts he gives you and that which he gives to all the fauna for food?
If you had been in Germany with Hitler would you have submitted to his 'Supreme Authority'?
When they come to put the mark upon you will you submit to the Authority?
Are they "governors, who are sent by him"? is the real question.

RE: Titus

Ephesians 6
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

[PaxMacian]

RE: ...to you it shall be for food.

So, we light up and inhale our broccoli?

Hemp seed has the second most complete set of amino acids of any food on the planet. Eradication is a crime against every living thing!

Genesis 1:30
And 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.

[PaxMacian]

RE: The problem is, and this goes back to the original article, that there are several instances in which you are instructed to obey the law of the land and your leaders, essentially. That sort of presents a wrinkle because the LAW does not support marijuana use.

What was meant by the LAW when this was written was much more pure and simple and particularly determined to be God's law from which kings and governments derived their power

Psalm 119
164 Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.
165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
166 LORD, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments.

[Moby Grape]

Does the Constitution state that you have a right to drugs? The Founders lived and thought on a much higher (no pun intended) level that the right to intoxication....If this country supported the Libertarians and the anti-WOD crowd, then they would be swept into power in elections. Instead the vote percent contiunes to drop. The proof of support for your views is found in vote totals.

[Mr. Mojo]

If that's the case, then why don't more Dimocrats support the War On Drugs? Could it be that they're the ones getting kickbacks from the drug kingpins?

I don't mean to be impolite, but you need an education in this matter in the worst possible way. The biggest supporters of the WOD are the drug kingpins/cartels/dealers because drug prohibition drives the price of their products up, thereby insuring a higher profit margin. They'd all be out of business very quickly if drugs were suddenly legalized. So you see, if some Dimocrats were in fact receiving kickbacks from cartels, then it would be for supporting and perpetuating the WOD, not trying to abolish it. (And btw, both Dem and GOP politicans support the WOD, so draw your own conclusions).

[Virginia-American]

If that's the case, then why don't more Dimocrats support the War On Drugs? Could it be that they're the ones getting kickbacks from the drug kingpins?

All the D*ms I'm aware of do support the WosD. I assume that a lot of Woddies are on the take, politicians as well as narcs. Think of our last 'president' and Dan Lassiter.

[steve50]

The Constitution states that the rights of man are his by the will of God, not by the arbitrary decisions of professional politicans. That's why the Constitution was made difficult to amend.

Since the WoD has so much support, why don't we just draw up an amendment that will pass in the required 3/4 states and end this arguement once and forall.

[Moby Grape]

Are you and your fellow LPers the knowers of God's intent? Do you sugggest that God desires that man take drugs? As for the Contitutional amendment, if the LP can't get out of single digit vote counts, how in the world do you believe they can ever get enough support for an amendment?

[steve50]

I'm more strict constructionist than LPer, it's the pro WoD side that needs an amendment allowing them to legislate in this area.
What's your objection to letting the people decide the limits of Constitutional authority, it was accepted 100 years ago by the politicans that this was not a power granted in the Constitution. That's why the first laws were against non citizens and why we got the original tax stamp dodge, to avoid Constitutional limits on authority.
I'm sure some kind of regulation would be approved, aren't you? And we would have clear cut Constitutional authority for whatever was adopted.

[PaxMacian]

RE: Are you the knowers of God's intent?

GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

[Moby Grape]

The Contitution provides that we elect representative who write the laws. Drugs are illegal by means of this Constitutional framework...now the debate as to why drugs should are should not be legal will be decided in the market place of ideas. If our representatives keep them illegal, then we are remaining true to the Constitution. My problem with the LP (and other legalize drugs proponents) is the assertion that it is anti-Constitutional to to have laws against additive drug use. The reason we have laws against drugs is due to the crime and misery (which effects society at large, not just the drug user) that drugs bring. The laws that keep drugs illegal were arrived at through Constitutional means. If those who think like you can gather enough support of legalization, then so be it...but I do not think they will.