Posted on 07/07/2010 6:41:51 AM PDT by jessduntno
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A nationwide coalition of 34,000 minority churches is condemning the California NAACP for supporting a state ballot initiative that would legalize recreational use of marijuana.
The California State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People announced support for the November ballot measure, saying current laws unfairly target non-whites.
But the Rev. Anthony Evans, president of the National Black Church Initiative, says drugs have "ravaged" the black community with too much violence and death to consider legalization.
Evans says his church will no longer contribute to the NAACP because of its position on marijuana.
A California coalition of black churches also has denounced the NAACP for endorsing legalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at 13wmaz.com ...
Soros is laughing his ass off at them.
They also need to condemn the NAACP for their lobbying to get the Black Panther Voter Intimidation case dismissed.
Corrupt minds....
Reverend Evans has it right! Legalization of drugs which cause violence, poverty, and crime is insane. Bad enough we have to live with the turmoil from alcohol...
Well, we banned alcohol for a couple of decades, that didn’t work out too well. After that failure, and in consideration that the new bureaucracy that formed around prohibition needed to be fed, marijuana was made illegal using ridiculous propaganda to support the ban such as Reefer Madness etc. A starving bureaucracy is very dangerous.
I am in favor of legalizing marijuana, but the NAACP’s reason for it i.e. the current laws discriminate against non whites is laughable.
Yeah. Let's do that again! What a great idea! It works in Saudi Arabia. Let's have a government like that.
Legalize it ALL. Lets see just how right Darwin was. I would rather deal with the addicts than the crime. We could provide great rehab with the money we saved fighting drug cartels.
National Association for the Advancement of Crack and Pot
“Yeah. Let’s do that again! What a great idea! It works in Saudi Arabia. Let’s have a government like that.”
Your way works great here to tens of thousands of deaths per year, thousands of abused children, tens of thousands of crime...But don’t worry...you can drink yourself blind and ignore it.
How did banning alcohol not work? Except the allowance by local government to not enforce...
Indeed tens of thousands of people die each year because of others who are drunk, thousands of children are abused each year because of alcohol sopped parents, other criminal acts not to mention the beligerence, immorality, and sloppiness we have to put up with.
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of drug-related crime is linked to the illegal drug trade and not linked to users under the influence. If weed was legal all the violence associated with it would go away, and the funding of war lords would disappear as well.
“If weed was legal all the violence associated with it would go away, and the funding of war lords would disappear as well.”
Uh huh.....
“How did banning alcohol not work? Except the allowance by local government to not enforce...”
From Wikipedia
The proponents of Prohibition had believed that banning alcoholic beverages would reduce or even eliminate many social problems, particularly drunkenness, crime, mental illness, and poverty, and would eventually lead to reductions in taxes. However, during Prohibition, people continued to produce and drink alcohol, and bootlegging helped foster a massive industry completely under the control of organized crime. Prohibitionists argued that Prohibition would be more effective if enforcement were increased. However, increased efforts to enforce Prohibition simply resulted in the government spending more money, rather than less. Journalist H.L. Mencken asserted in 1925 that respect for law diminished rather than increased during Prohibition, and drunkenness, crime, insanity, and resentment towards the federal government had all increased.
During this period, support for Prohibition diminished among voters and politicians. John D. Rockefeller Jr., a lifelong nondrinker who had contributed much money to the Prohibitionist Anti-Saloon League, eventually announced his support for repeal because of the widespread problems he believed Prohibition had caused. Influential leaders, such as the du Pont brothers, led the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, whose name clearly asserted its intentions.
Women as a bloc of voters and activists became pivotal in the effort to repeal, as many concluded that the effects of Prohibition were morally corrupting families, women, and children. (By then, women had become even more politically powerful due to ratification of the Constitutional amendment for women’s suffrage.) Activist Pauline Sabin argued that repeal would protect families from the corruption, violent crime, and underground drinking that resulted from Prohibition. In 1929 Sabin founded the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR), which came to be partly composed of and supported by former Prohibitionists; its membership was estimated at 1.5 million by 1931.
Indeed tens of thousands of people die each year because of others who are drunk, thousands of children are abused each year because of alcohol sopped parents, other criminal acts not to mention the beligerence, immorality, and sloppiness we have to put up with.”
Like that isn’t bad enough, the dipships want to add drugs to the list of things we do to cause killing and neglect...I know I don’t want to be driving home with some moron stoned in front of me after a “hard days work” on ANYTHING..and joints will be a lot easier to fool the fools into thinking they can get away with it.
Now brainy one...besides reading wikipedia...maybe contemplate how much strife is caused each day from alcohol. If you are capable of discerning reality you will realize that it dwarfs the so called strife from Prohibition, much of was caused by bad enforcement. I noticed that the wikipedia slant is that this is inevitable, that we cannot restrain ourselves from immoral, criminal behavior. If you truly believe that then what crime can you say is different from prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition from murder certainly has not worked under the same parameters as your article presents. Neither does assualt and battery, rape, child molestation, etc. Indeed, if you do a little research you will find that alcohol is involved in many many of these kinds of crimes...hmmm maybe something to consider rather than accept the brainwashing...
Is it a sin to smoke pot now?
Sorry that you slipped into namecalling and sarcasm, I hope you can learn to restrain that urge in the future.
Copying and pasting from wikipedia does not a serious discussion make...
“Is it a sin to smoke pot now?”
I suppose that depends on what you might do while under the influences, but I would say not in general. Neither is ignorance. You appear to be willing to become intimate with at least one...let me know how they work out for you.
How many times will you be wrong on one thread?
“How many times will you be wrong on one thread?”
Considering that opinions can be neither right or wrong, I would say ... none. See? Clear thinking is a blessing. You should try it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.