"The war on drugs is a failure," Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Cesar Gaviria and Ernesto Zedillo — the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico — wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month. "Prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalization ... simply haven't worked," they wrote. (See: "The Drug War Body Count: A Commentary," by Debra J. Saunders. Rasmussen Reports. March 15, 2009.)
Marijuana today is the alcohol of the Prohibition Era. The analogy is apt. Crime, interdiction, prosecution, incarceration, these all place a huge cost on society concerning a narcotic that need not be associated with violence or victims. Just as gangs controlled liquor during Prohibition, gangs control marijuana now in large measure. The underground economy linked to marijuana is fueling weapons sales in the U.S. and transport to Mexico. Wouldn't it be wiser to lift the prohibition on marijuana just as it was lifted on alcohol? Wouldn't we see much the same results? There would still be problems, but wouldn't they be more manageable? Would they be less violent and less disruptive and less costly to society?
The U.S. incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other industrialized nation in the world. A large portion of those in the U.S. who are behind bars are there on marijuana possession charges only. Allowing them to go free would immediately reduce the strain on the prison system across the nation and reduce the taxes going to handle the overcapacity problems. The corporations that make a profit by incarcerating petty offenders wouldn't like it, but why should we allow their lobbyists to shell out campaign funds to politicians to override the public will on the matter.
The same regulation concerning the use of alcohol could easily be applied to marijuana. Don't use it and then drive or work, especially dangerous equipment.
The linked article also goes into the tax ramifications of legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana use.
I don't use marijuana. I don't advocate its use. I realize there are those who say it has medicinal benefits, but I know there are better ways to handle disease. I also know though that the bankers love these anti-drug laws because of all the money that flows on account of it — money the bankers control on both sides of the fake war, fabricated war. It's all evil. The lesser of evil is to mundanely legalize the stuff. The righteous path is to overcome it all.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)