Faith in Reefer Madness

Discussion in 'The Drug War Headline News' started by xxdr_zombiexx, Aug 13, 2004.

  1. cassiusclay cassiusclay

    • New Member
    • Since: Mar 29, 2004
    • Posts: 340
    Mohammed Ali discarded his slave name, Cassuis Clay. Since I'm a slave to the policies of the right wing I choose to take it, bub.

    What was wrong with my answer. Unless you don't get it. It means that religion is a wolf in sheeps clothing, get it. Smiling faces show no traces of the evil that lurks within. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Does that clear it up for you? Religion has hurt many more people than its helped.


    Absolutely. Religion should be outlawed.

    It ridiculous, why should they be exempt. They are all about wealth, money and power. They should pay as much as any other rich organization. Oh yeah I forgot most rich organizations don't pay any taxes either.

    So will all the money for all the bush war games and all the other bu..sh.t that the government wastes money on. What's your point here, that we should waste even more money on people who already don't pay taxes! What do they do with all that tax money they don't pay. If I didn't pay taxes I could fund my own rehab center. Jesus didn't need money, why do religions need government money.

    That's not because there's a lack of god in the community. It's because the frikkin' drugs are illegal in the first place. If the government took even half the money they spend busting and caging people, they could have treatment centers in every major city. But the right wing believes its simply a matter of giving yourself to "god", which will only work if you look, act, talk and walk like some pasty faced bible thumper and give up all of your individuality and freedom of thought and follow some crusty old book written by 3000 year old morons. :Puker:

    Huh? GW is throwing money in their laps. If I ask for a donation you think I'll get it?

    Prison or Pleasantville, humm which would I choose? That's a tough one.
  2. MickityMike MickityMike

    • Orwellian Jackboot™
    • Since: Jan 28, 2003
    • Posts: 6,802
    Religion as practiced by some, can be very hurtful. But to declare that all religion is somehow “bad” does a great disservice to people of great religious faith who dedicate their lives for the good of others. Ghandi and a whole slew of Catholic Workers for Christ spring immediately to mind...

    That’s as amoral as someone advocating a state religion: Both of which the Constitution is supposed to prevent.

    Some are, others are about combating AIDS in Africa. It’s impossible to make the kinds of sweeping generalizations to religion that you’re making.

    First of all, I don’t agree with federal funding of faith-based organizations, but for reasons that obviously differ from yours, Cassius. (Then again, I’m not too hip on federal funding of a lot of stuff.) But I think the point is that if we’re going to spend federal funding on such things anyway, why not give some money to charitable groups who just also happen to be affiliated with a certain religion? Up ‘till now, the feds have been forbidden to support charities with religious overtones, simply because of the religious overtones. And you’re not really responding to his point as much as you’re just assaulting religion in general.

    But for the “record”, I don’t support faith-based initiatives simply because I’d rather not start down that slope. When possible, public money should be kept apart from organized religion as a sort of “safety valve.”

    I don’t it’s because of a “lack of god,” nor have I seen anyone else attempt to make such an argument yet.

    I don’t know – are you an organized charity trying to rehab neighborhoods, former convicts or addicts?

    I don’t know about you, dude, but I’ve seen OZ on HBO: I don’t care what the deal is, I’m not going to ****in’ prison! :D
  3. cassiusclay cassiusclay

    • New Member
    • Since: Mar 29, 2004
    • Posts: 340
    Oh man, what a combination. Ghandi never proselytized his faith on people. Christians believe they must convert people to save them. They believe that changing your life simply means changing your mind. It doesn't really solve anything unless you agree to give up your identity and get in line.

    Here's Ghandi on religion:

  4. MickityMike MickityMike

    • Orwellian Jackboot™
    • Since: Jan 28, 2003
    • Posts: 6,802
    Your mistake is in assuming that all Christians run around trying to convert people. When in actuality, most view their humanitarian efforts as the ultimate fulfillment of their religious beliefs, not conversion.
  5. xxdr_zombiexx xxdr_zombiexx

    • Leftist Blogger
    • Since: Sep 3, 2001
    • Posts: 2,212
    The GOP hates marijuana - but loves the power it gives them...

    The first American law pertaining to marijuana, passed by the Virginia Assembly in 1619, required every farmer to grow it. Hemp was deemed not only a valuable commodity but also a strategic necessity; its fibers were used to make sails and riggings, and its by-products were transformed into oakum for the caulking of wooden ships.

    [That's before Republicans and oil, and it's quite an amusing fact.... now on with the show - ]

    [IMG]

    Some Anslinger Lies

    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."


    Harry J. Anslinger, testimony to Congress, 1937

    [IMG]
    Anslinger Propaganda Example

    Bush: Marijuana Laws Up to States [October 22, 1999]
    Republican presidential front-runner George W. Bush says he believes individual states should choose whether to ban the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but is stopping short of saying the District should enjoy that privilege.

    The Texas governor, who in recent weeks has distanced himself from several positions taken by conservative Republicans in Congress, said that when it came to congressional efforts to ban a medical marijuana law here, he was in Congress's corner.
    *******
    In September 1998, the full House voted 310 to 93 in favor of a nonbinding resolution opposing marijuana legalization for medical use among the states.

    Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), a vocal critic of the D.C. initiative, said yesterday that the White House national drug policy director, Barry R. McCaffrey, supported the House vote.

    Barr said that Bush "has staked out a position to the left of the Clinton administration, which is a very odd place for a Republican presidential candidate to be."



    Bush Targets Pot Smokers
    New super-strength marijuana readily available on US streets is prompting the White House to change direction in its war against drugs.
    Research from the government-sponsored Marijuana Potency Project claims today's cannabis is more than twice as strong as in the mid-Eighties, leading to greater health risks for those smoking it at increasingly younger ages.


    HOUSE REPUBLICANS VOW TO MAKE U.S. DRUG-FREE(old, obviously)
    ``Drugs are not an American value,''

    Nixon Tapes Show Roots of Marijuana Prohibition:
    Misinformation, Culture Wars and Prejudice

    The Impact Today
    The marijuana issue continues to be hotly debated today.
    Unfortunately, many of the myths about marijuana put
    forward by Nixon continue to be stated today as if they
    were incontrovertible truth. The conclusion of the Shafer
    Commission rings true today: “That some of these
    original fears were unfounded and that others were
    exaggerated has been clear for many years. Yet, many of
    these early beliefs continue to affect contemporary
    public attitudes and concerns.” The impact of the
    marijuana laws has grown. In fact in recent years the FBI
    has reported a record number of marijuana arrests – last
    year 734,497 were arrested for marijuana, 80 percent for
    possession.20 From 1972-2000, 13,265,105 were
    Americans arrested on marijuana charges,21 countless
    families have been destroyed by marijuana enforcement.
    To what end? The marijuana laws have not prevented
    nearly 80 million Americans from trying marijuana, nor
    have they prevented marijuana from becoming the most
    valuable cash crop in many states.


    Kampia vs. the Inquisition: House Republicans Rake Reformer Over the Coals

    In a one-sided dog-and-pony show sponsored by the House Government Reform Committee's criminal justice subcommittee as part of the political run-up to Wednesday's Supreme Court arguments on medical marijuana, GOP drug war zealots went out of their way to demonize drug reform advocates and personally attacked the Marijuana Policy Project's (http://www.mpp.org) executive director, Rob Kampia.


    House Republicans Declare:
    Damn The Science, Full Speed Ahead!
    Approve Resolution Opposing Any Use Of Marijuana As A Medicine

    A coalition of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, approved a "sense of the House of Representatives" resolution stating that "marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should not be legalized for medical use." The resolution -- introduced by subcommittee chair Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) -- won the approval of all seven Republicans present, while being opposed by the two Democrats at the mark-up, Reps. John Conyers (Mich.) and Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas). Ironically, the subcommittee's action came just one day after the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) held its third and final symposium on the merits of marijuana therapy. The IOM organized the conferences as part of a
    federally funded 18-month review of the scientific evidence demonstrating marijuana's therapeutic value.
    Before passing the resolution, the Republicans rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, stating that the "States have the primary responsibility for protecting the health and safety of their citizens, and the Federal Government should not interfere with any state's policy (as expressed in a legislative enactment or referendum) which authorizes persons with AIDS or cancer to pursue, upon the recommendation of a licensed physician, a course of treatment for such illness that includes the use of marijuana."


    GOP Wrong on Medical Marijuana (Even republicans see it...)
    Even though I have been a registered Republican for the past 45 years, I am disgusted with the current Republican policy on the use of marijuana and tobacco.

    When the residents of Washington, D.C. overwhelming voted to legalize the use of marijuana for medical reasons this past fall, the Republicans in Congress refused to allow the results to be announced until they were recently forced to reveal the vote by a court order. These congresspersons are now threatening to write language into the District's appropriations bill that would forbid the implementation of the initiative.
    These are the same Republicans that protect the tobacco industry in Congress while gleefully accepting millions of dollars in campaign and soft money contributions from the industry. Somehow they appear to rationalize that it is all right to smoke a drug that causes cancer but not to smoke a similar drug to help ease the pain of cancer, AIDS, etc.


    Marijuana Witch Hunt Burns States[MPP)
    The Bush administration's fight against marijuana took a somewhat weird turn last week. House Republicans, on behest of Ashcroft and Bush, pressed for a bill that would strip federal anti-drug money from local police in states that have passed medical marijuana laws.

    According to a May 22 article by Associated Press writer Larry Margasak, groups opposed to strict criminal enforcement of marijuana laws said more than $11 million could be eliminated from state and local police budgets in "high-intensity" drug trafficking areas. The money would go, instead, to federal law-enforcement officers because local police could not enforce all marijuana laws in states that legalized the drug for medical use.

    GOP Pot Attack Stalls
    House Republicans anticipated smooth sailing for legislation to reauthorize the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), including its controversial antidrug media campaign. But Democrats rebelled in late May over provisions that would have allowed drug czar John Walters to use the publicly funded advertising as he saw fit to oppose state ballot initiatives or even specific candidates.

    The ads, mostly on television, have stirred controversy since Walters took over and began running strident drugs-equal-terrorism spots that declare that personal use of marijuana supports terrorism. The House Government Reform Committee tabled action on HR 2086 after negotiations broke down over how far ONDCP could use its social marketing muscle to influence elections.
  6. MickityMike MickityMike

    • Orwellian Jackboot™
    • Since: Jan 28, 2003
    • Posts: 6,802
    Is the expected rebuttal here a demonstration of Democratic supporters of the Drug War? :confused:

    Isn't Joe Biden a Democrat?
  7. xxdr_zombiexx xxdr_zombiexx

    • Leftist Blogger
    • Since: Sep 3, 2001
    • Posts: 2,212
    That depends on what you mean by "is".

    He is a "Zell Miller" Democrat - meaning he supports the GOP and their values.

    One or two backwards Dems no more invalidate my GOP assertion than bringing up Gary Johnson or Ron Paul - these are a mere couple of individuls, and not the demonstrable history of their respective parties.

    Poor attempt: no score.

    GOP sucks.
  8. MickityMike MickityMike

    • Orwellian Jackboot™
    • Since: Jan 28, 2003
    • Posts: 6,802
    :laugh:

    I'd argue that just like the Republicans, there are fewer elected Democrats who favor legalization than who don't. If the GOP is, as is apparently your view, responsible for the Drug War over the past several decades, how exactly did they manage to accomplish all of this without Democratic support? At any time in the past 50 years, have the Democrats controlled any part of Congress or the White House? Have the Democrats never in your view proposed any “drug warrior” legislation?

    While both parties have their respective heroes and villains, it remains my opinion that it's counterproductive to the point of gross partisanship to lay the blame at the feet of just one party. Especially in light of the fact that one party standing alone will, in all likelihood, not be powerful enough to turn the tide without some support from the other party.
  9. xxdr_zombiexx xxdr_zombiexx

    • Leftist Blogger
    • Since: Sep 3, 2001
    • Posts: 2,212
    It remains my opinion that the GOP can be shown to have marijuana prohibition as a central and an extremely serious part of their entire identity, and that for reasons I do not understand, many people ignorantly try to not see that.

    They will NEVER listen until they are certain they will not get votes.

    Then. like spineless dems, they will change their tune; for now, they are high on reefer madness becasue people's "objectivity" allow them to get away with murder.

    And the HISTORY cannot be changed.
  10. smoking_joe_lee smoking_joe_lee

    • New Member
    • Since: Feb 11, 2004
    • Posts: 648
    goodnight docboy

    Is it not true that marijuana was made illegal in 1937, during the presidency of FDR? This is when the war on drugs REALLY STARTED. Next came Truman. What did he do to legalize marijuana? Zip! The record of JFK and LBJ doesn't look any better on this subjet. Then along comes Nixon and he gets the blame for the war on drugs, as if it did not exist in any form before he took office.

    But have no fear, Carter and Clinton came to office. Did either support decriminalization or even medical mj?

    Sure, the GOP does not have a very good record when it comes to drugs but the democrats arn't much better.

    ps
    speaking of Clinton, that gal Monica was VERY religious. She spent so much time on her knees...
  11. MickityMike MickityMike

    • Orwellian Jackboot™
    • Since: Jan 28, 2003
    • Posts: 6,802
    But as so many are so quick to remind us today when discussing matters of intelligence and how they relate to domestic and foreign policy, the buck stops at the president's desk. Why excuse FDR?

    Yeah, by most accounts Nixon was a bit of a bastard, and he certainly wasn't very friendly towards marijuana. But Nixon is not the GOP. Besides, he’s dead.

    Sure, Carter touched the political 3rd rail - marijuana decriminalization. Are there very many Dems that you can name that tried to go against the prevailing winds? Carter seems like the exception to the rule to me.

    If what you say about Republicans and their tainted history regarding marijuana and the Democrats’ comparably stellar record on opposing the Drug War is true, then surely there must be hundreds of Democrats on record as having attempted legalization? Right?

    It was a non-contribution all right. You realize what's happened to the rates of incarceration for marijuana-related offenses since 1992, right?

    Not to keep quibbling over this, but I don't think you've come close to demonstrating this assertion. You seem to rely upon anecdotal evidence, and name a few very conservative Republicans as evidence. Well, the thing is, not everyone who votes Republican is conservative, just like not every person that votes Democratic is liberal.

    I'd also like to remind you that the Republicans most certainly didn't pass all the drug criminalization stuff on their own - given the checks and balances built into our system, they almost always have to have Democratic support.

    What?

    I don't know that I appreciate the implication that I'm a "wingnut." :laugh:

    Anyhoo, I'd like to cordially invite you back to continue the debate - we've been pretty civil so far, right?
  12. cassiusclay cassiusclay

    • New Member
    • Since: Mar 29, 2004
    • Posts: 340

    Oh I see, so you personally know most christians, huh? How many? 100? 10,000? How many are there? 500,000,000... and you know most of 'em huh?You must really get around.

    What do you think a missionarys' mission is? TO COVERT HEATHONS!
  13. MickityMike MickityMike

    • Orwellian Jackboot™
    • Since: Jan 28, 2003
    • Posts: 6,802
    Well, you seem to have very little problem over-generalizing that all religion is absolutely bad - a simplification that has very little basis in actual fact. Sure, we can point to all kinds of horrible things done in some nut-job's version of "god", but we can also look to many practitioners of religion that dedicate their lives not to converting "heathens," but to helping others. But yeah, I probably should not have written “most Christians”, because as you point out, I most likely do not know “most Christians.” (Nor do you.)

    For example, let's take the aforementioned Catholic Workers. They're very active at home and abroad, and contrary to what you might claim, their primary goal is not one of conversion, but one of simple humanity. To quote from the Catholic Worker homepage:

    So you see, here’s a very active Christian group not working to spread their version of Biblical events and to convert the impure, but to care for those who are homeless and live in poverty and/or suffer at the hands of the powerful. They actively protest all acts of violence, and for example, many Catholic Workers are involved in annual protests at the formerly known School of Americas.

    Judging by your posts, you seem to have an overly antagonistic view of religion. Many religious groups and charities have a primary goal of “works of mercy,” not of conversion.
  14. Higher Logic Higher Logic

    • Web Developar
    • Since: Feb 17, 2003
    • Posts: 12,227
    Dude, you're wrong, just let this one go :)
  15. gg27 gg27

    • New Member
    • Since: Jul 28, 2004
    • Posts: 62
    Church & State

    If you are a student of history - Well then you would realize that the separation powers placed into the constitution by Thomas Jefferson was to keep Government out of the Church, not the church out of the Gov’t. This is the basis for millions of people that have voyaged to the US to avoid religious persecution. Don't forget we are a country founded upon Judeo-Christian doctrine. Now since the late 1700's has our Gov't run amuck?? My god the founders would vomit all over Washingron if they saw it today.

    Yes a missionary is on a mission. Better known as the "Great Commission" found in the book of Matthew. Mt. 28:19 & 20 Go forth and make disciples of all nations in my name.. Ring any bells. I know a few missionaries. Great people. They are all about the good news of Jesus Christ.

    Now as for W’s stance. Well hells bells man what else would you expect. That former hard drinking dope smoker can’t take any position but that. He would easily lose the Nov. election if he said something otherwise. I completely disagree with his position, and I have accepted Christ as my personal savior, and I say that Jesus might fire up with you if you met him.
    - Toke on - GG
  16. cassiusclay cassiusclay

    • New Member
    • Since: Mar 29, 2004
    • Posts: 340
    OK, I do tend to be a bit criptic and snarly sometimes, but thats seems to be part of my process. So what I have a problem with is the way religion thinks it knows god. Religion mostly looks to the distant past for the answers.

    God is an evolving being, albeit the most advanced evolving being in the universe. We all must evole and heal. I mean serious healing of the planet, not just mental masturbation. We are not all we can be. We suffer from the early days of little experience in the creation, when things got their start. We must work with the real God, the one that lives in each of us (and everywhere except the void) to bring the Original Plan of Love into fruition. Nobody was god before god, so he did the best he could shooting from the hip.

    Nothing in the universe is static...except the gospels and other frozen images. Religion bases itself on things that were written down in the past, most of which, IMO, have little to do with the present because its full of prejudice and judgement. Even god can admit he was wrong in the past. I know some of you will now scream Blasphemy!

    I would say that my anger towards all the f**ked up stuff that "religious" people have done throughout history (I was there because I also believe in reincarnation) should not totally discount the people today who have honest intentions and compassion. I would have nothing against anyone trying to help, I would only ask them to let go of their training and live in the here and now. See the pain that people are feeling and accept it as a valid part of self. In other words, our pain is not something to get rid of, but to embrace and heal. This involves not rejecting ourselves and others for what they feel. Sex comes to mind, sure we need to protect children, but lets lighten up on the sin of loving consenting adults. Religion tends to want to supress us and make us pray. God does not want praise, he wants understanding. Yes understand that he created all this mess and he needs us to accept it as real even divine and not look to get rid of anything except the intent to stay in denial.

    When we come out of denial that everything we see is part of us, god, and the One whole creation, we can begin to change it. But if we keep our heads in the same old box... well :devil:
  17. MickityMike MickityMike

    • Orwellian Jackboot™
    • Since: Jan 28, 2003
    • Posts: 6,802
    I think the misunderstanding is that you're assuming that everyone who holds a religious belief views that belief as "static," or believes word-for-word what's written in the Bible. When in fact, that couldn't be further from the truth. (Of course you've got your KKK and Taliban, but to me those seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule.)

    For instance, the following could've been written by you or by the most devout Catholic:

    God is an evolving being, albeit the most advanced evolving being in the universe. We all must evole and heal. I mean serious healing of the planet, not just mental masturbation. We are not all we can be. We suffer from the early days of little experience in the creation, when things got their start. We must work with the real God, the one that lives in each of us (and everywhere except the void) to bring the Original Plan of Love into fruition. Nobody was god before god, so he did the best he could shooting from the hip.

    That's the kind of Church I was raised in (although I was never an altar boy...), and that's what I'm most familiar with.

    Most religious or spiritual people realize that their personal Faith is more like a philosophy that's been handed down through the ages. Religion is constantly undergoing change, and for the most part, I'd say that it's anything but "static."

    I’d also point out, that the views you described above as yours seem fairly “religious” in nature to me. :)
  18. Higher Logic Higher Logic

    • Web Developar
    • Since: Feb 17, 2003
    • Posts: 12,227
    Very good explanation; you have to realize that just because the doctrines say one thing doesn't mean every person believes that. Some view their religion as a way of living, as a way of making their life whole. Some view it as a means of explaining the world, as a way of providing answers to questions that we can't even answer now (like where did we come from). Some believe religion is based on the economy of a certain area. Some believe it deals with the Oedipus Complex (Freud), while others feel it's the opiate of the masses (Marx). There's numerous theories on what religion is and what it stands for, and I think that's the problem with people who either aren't religious or were never introduced to religion, they view it from a perspective that these "nuts" are just following some old book written by a bunch of nutjobs. Religion serves a great purpose in our society, why, just about everything around you has been inspired by religion. For instance, marriage. People like Van Gogh were inspired by religions (African ones in the case of Van Gogh), just look at the churches around the world, some of them are frickin' incredible! And they did that for what, for the sake of religion! That's pretty amazing to me. Music is inspired by religion, poems, books, etc. Much of what is around us has been, in one way or another, inspired by religion. And do remember there are more religions out there than Christianity; some don't have doctrines, or founders, or believe in a God at all; some view it as a philosophy, a moral guide, a guide for ruling a nation. And finally, some view religion as a means of explaining the mysterious: mysterium tremendium, that feeling you get when you look over the Grand Canyon, or watch the sun set, or you see a lightning storm; you just look at that and are in 'awe' at the power of nature and that feeling is what some consider God. Language really has put a damper on how we describe and understand religion, tis sad :)
  19. cassiusclay cassiusclay

    • New Member
    • Since: Mar 29, 2004
    • Posts: 340
    Well I consider myself "spiritual" but not religious. I don't believe in rituals, chanting or prayer, self sacrifice, virgin sacrifice, goat sacrifice, or any of the other repressive strictures of religions. I don't believe that I need to go to a large, expensive building to find god. I don't believe I need to ban homosexuals to please god. I don't believe I need to "protect" marriage (another ritual). I don't believe I need to start wars to follow god. I don't believe anyone needs to hear the words of the bible to understand anything except what people knew about life 3000 years ago. I believe that protecting the environment is protecting gods holy place, Earth.

    Bush is the worst enviromental president ever, (I know some of you think that is all spin, but the facts are out there on this). For him to start wars for oil, rape environmental laws, personal rights laws, give huge tax breaks to the rich while ignoring the deficit, and on and on and on... and call himself a man of god... :Puker: I know all religious types are not this bad, but many, many people will follow along with whatever a so-called man of god tells them to do.
    If there was a religion that told people to listen to their feelings about things and not their heads or somebody elses head, maybe I'd like it better. For now, its way too mental to really make a difference. Its all show and talk and then fondling little boys in the vestibule. All catholics should be ashamed of themselves. I was raised catholic, and I know why I left.
  20. Higher Logic Higher Logic

    • Web Developar
    • Since: Feb 17, 2003
    • Posts: 12,227
    We should get back on topic, I realize the word 'faith' is in the title of this thread, but not the kind of faith we are talking about. There's some issues regarding religion in the Contemporary Thought section, so let's get back on topic :)

Share This Page