XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa   
   From: bliss@sfo.com   
      
   JohnR wrote:   
   > "B Sellers"  wrote in message   
   > news:7ikd6eF322b4uU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >> Pete nospam Zakel wrote:   
   >>> In article <4AC431D9.6070202@aol.com> Tristan    
   >>> writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> This sort of action is probably the most effective way to get   
   >>>> marijuana (and other drugs) legalized.  Appoint panels of experts   
   >>>> to study the problem and make recommendations (as a large group of   
   >>>> economists recently did for marijuana).  Few politicians   
   >>>> (including Obama) have the guts to come out for legalization on   
   >>>> their own.  But if we can get the policy makers to appoint an   
   >>>> expert panel and abide by their recommendations, practically all   
   >>>> experts will advocate some sort of legalization.  It would be a   
   >>>> start at least.   
   >>> The trick is to get the politicians to actually abide by the   
   >>> recommendations.   
   >>> There was just such an expert panel put together in the early 70s   
   >>> that   
   >>> recommended legalizing marijuana, and the report was buried and   
   >>> ignored   
   >>> because it didn't give the results the politicians wanted.   
   >> Actually it was one politician aka President Nixon who warned that   
   >> if the commission came back with recommendations that supported the   
   >> legalization he would suppress it.   
   >> The following is in my tpd file:   
   >>   
   >>       In 1969, Nixon commissioned a study on marijuana that   
   >>   recommended marijuana be decriminalized. Nixon rejected that   
   >>   conclusion out of hand. More recently, a law counsel to the   
   >>   DEA, Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge, on Sept. 6,   
   >>   1988, filed a report that marijuana was factually and   
   >>   truthfully less dangerous than aspirin.  That report, too, was   
   >>   summarily repressed and rejected.   
   >>   
   >>> -Pete Zakel   
   >>>  (phz@seeheader.nospam)   
   >>>   
   >>> "However, on religious issures there can be little or no   
   >>> compromise.  There   
   >>>  is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious   
   >>> beliefs.   
   >>>  There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jese   
   >>> Christ,   
   >>>  or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.  But   
   >>> like any   
   >>>  powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be   
   >>> used   
   >>>  sparingly.  The religious factions that are growing throughout our   
   >>> land   
   >>>  are not using their religious clout with wisdom.  They are trying   
   >>> to force   
   >>>  government leaders into following their position 100 percent.  If   
   >>> you   
   >>>  disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue,   
   >>> they   
   >>>  complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.   
   >>> I'm   
   >>>  frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this   
   >>> country   
   >>>  telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I   
   >>> must believe   
   >>>  in `A,' `B,' `C,' and `D.'  Just who do they think they are?  And   
   >>> from where   
   >>>  do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs   
   >>> to me?   
   >>>  And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the   
   >>> threats of   
   >>>  every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to   
   >>> control   
   >>>  my vote on every roll call in the Senate.  I am warning them   
   >>> today:  I will   
   >>>  fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their   
   >>> moral   
   >>>  convictions to all Americans in the name of `conservatism.'"   
   >>>   
   >>> -Senator Barry Goldwater,   
   >>> from the Congressional Record,   
   >>> September 16, 1981   
   >> I only wish that the Republicans post-Goldwater had heeded his   
   >> advice.   
   >>   
   >> later   
   >> bliss   
   >>   
   > The drug laws are a valuable weapon for power and control inc., there   
   > is no way the "public faces" in power will be allowed to destabilise   
   > that system.   
      
   	Those intrusive laws are destabilizing society.  They have already   
   caused untold damage by the surrender of the market to the criminal   
   elements, people willing to kill each other and innocent   
   bystanders to   
   maintain their market monopoly.  The individuals in search of   
   adequate   
   pain relief and their families torn apart by DEA action as well   
   as the   
   compassionate physicians whose practices are destroyed as the   
   unlicensed   
   agents and judges attempt to practice medicine are all going to   
   become   
   more visible victims.   
      
   > The faceless government organisations, the ones with real power who   
   > have grown accustomed to abusing the vindictive drug war system for   
   > all manner of intervention, leverage and monetary gain both   
   > domestically and around the world would eliminate anyone who looked in   
   > danger of succeeding with legalisation.   
      
   	Eventually the faceless organizations will be given a face of greed   
   at the expense of the greater society.   
      
   	Wait and see if you have time.   
      
   	I think legalization has an excellent chance of passage in   
   California.   
   	Oh and if it passes it will be the will of the people.  Sooner   
   or later even   
   the Republicans in the Congress will wake up to the waste of tax   
   money   
   and possible revenue from excise taxes as with alcoholic   
   beverages and   
   tobacco.   
      
   	later   
   	bliss   
   	   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)