End the holy war

[lightning]

It is time to end the dark ages and turn on a light.

The "War on drugs" is a Holy War waged on the peoples of the world by the governments of the world, it is in fact nothing less than the continuation of the witch trials of the inquisition.

According to the 1994 report to the Australian Government on Legislative Options For Cannabis. Page3 "Cannabis has been used for many thousands of years. It has been used for the production of material products such as clothing and rope; for its medicinal properties; and for its psychoactive properties. Cannabis was used medicinally in Australia until the mid-1960s (Emphasis added) and is currently used in many parts of the world, in the form of hemp, for the production of cordage, clothing, etc. " "In the Middle Ages cannabis was used for its psychoactive effects as well as commercially. Its use as a mind-altering drug was widespread in Egypt and seems to date from around the 13th century. In medieval Europe cannabis appears to have been employed as a folk medicine, particularly for the treatment of toothache and rheumatism, and in childbirth. Its role in witchcraft resulted in a Papal fiat in the 15th century which condemned witchcraft and the use of hemp in the satanic mass " (Emphasis Added)

And thus began the Human Rights Atrocity that History knows as the Witch Trials of the Inquisition. Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake as a witch for using herbs for healing. And as cannabis was the herb stated in the Papal fiat it is most likely the actual substance that was her heresy.

In the Dark Ages only the Catholic Church (Priests) and God could heal, anyone that healed through the use of herbs (esp cannabis) was declared a witch and a heretic. Any body who argued against the dogma was denounced as a heretic and usually killed for their insolence. If an accusation was made against a person as to the cultivation possession or use of this herb.

A. The persons home could be entered by force. They are told what the accusation is but not the name of the accuser.

B The Persons Residence is searched

C. The Person was seized and bound and arrested by the authorities.

D. The persons goods "The Wicked Weeds" are seized.

E. The person was brought before a validly convened court of the day and formally accused of the crime of "Heresy" or "Witchcraft"

F The Person was told if they admit their heresy they may be shown mercy.

G. The person is found guilty of the "crime" and sentenced. And the sentence was carried out by the "relevant authority". The usual Penalty is death by burning at the stake. The defendant was burnt alive if they refused to admit their heresy.

H. Any and all properties of value belonging to the person are seized by the "Court" in forfeiture for the crime/s committed.

Our modern constitutional secular democracies were created by our forefathers in order to attempt to prevent these atrocities of religious persecution happening again The aim being to protect not only freedom of belief but freedom from belief.

 

Fast Forward to the 21^st Century. 15 January 2007 at 7 am to be exact. Medical Professionals are the only ones "Licensed to Heal". Any body who argued against the dogma was denounced as "sending the wrong message" and silenced by whatever means are necessary. A woman dies in America after drinking 8 Liters of Water in 2 Hours, Water Poisoning,

 

An accusation of the persons growing the Evil deadly drug "Marijuana" has been made to the Police by an unnamed informant.

 

A. The persons home is entered under warrant. They are told what the accusation is but not the name of the accuser.

 

B The persons residence is searched

 

C. The persons are seized and arrested by the authorities.

 

D. The persons goods the "deadly drugs" are seized.

 

E. The persons are brought before a validly convened court of the day and formally accused of the "drug crimes"

 

F The persons are told if they admit their guilty they may be shown mercy.

 

G. If the persons are found guilty of the "crimes" and sentenced, the sentence will carried out by the "relevant authority". The usual penalty is a fine or imprisonment. If the court deems it so the persons will be sent for mandatory medical treatment, "Rehabilitation" to rid them of this "evil".

 

H. If the Court so decides any property of value belonging to the persons can be seized in forfeiture for the crimes committed.

 

While the vernacular of the day may have changed the Ideology driving it remains the same. The process has changed little in 700 years. The human rights atrocities continue.

 

The Single Treaty on Narcotics1961 states in it's preamble that....."addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind, Conscious of their duty to prevent and combat this evil,..." (Emphasis added)

The addiction to Drugs ie medicinal substances is not an "Evil" but is a medical issue that demands a medical solution. Evil is a moral concept dictated by a persons understandings and beliefs. What is evil to one set of beliefs is good to another set of beliefs. The discrimination shown in the concept of Licit and Illicit substances is a moral call based on belief not proportion and equality and certainly not based on the impartial science.

 

The "Total Abstinence from consumption of drugs because they are evil" is a religious observance imposed in law. It is a belief not held by a large proportion of the public as shown by known and increasing usage rates of alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, chocolate, as well as cannabis and all other mind altering substances including but not limited to all types of anti-depressants, and other central nervous system active drugs handed out by the Medical Profession and the very dangerous designer "Party Drugs" cooked up in back yard labs.

 

In General Comment22. The right to freedom of thought conscience and religion the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights States in 5. "Article18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations."

 

The Single Treaty on Narcotics has the effect of a Religious Observance or belief imposed in law and therefore it and any legislation based on it is a law for imposing a religious observance. It is the fruit of a poison tree.

 

The Single Treaty breaches the ICCPR and must be struck off immediately as invalid.

 

It is time to stop the Witch Hunts and end the Dark Ages once and for all.

1 Proceeds of Crime Property seizure Laws.

 

 

2"Church, Drugs, and Drug Addiction" Vatican's Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry 2001

 

3WHO report on "Worldwide Use of Drugs" 2006

 

4 "The winnable war on drugs". Howard Government 2007

 

5International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Edited September 8, 2008 by lightning

[entheofarm]

And where shall I stand to end the witch hunts lightning? I will stand there! You give me direction but no place to go?

 

18.3 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

 

? are they not contradicting themselves? Could the states not argue sect 18.2 with sect 18.3?

Edited September 8, 2008 by entheofarm

[Nooby]

hmmm, sounds a bit dodgy to me.

 

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc#Trial"

 

"The trial for heresy was politically motivated. The Duke of Bedford claimed the throne of France for his nephew Henry VI. She had been responsible for the rival coronation so to condemn her was to undermine her king's legitimacy. Legal proceedings commenced on January 9, 1431 at Rouen, the seat of the English occupation government.[35] The procedure was irregular on a number of points. In 1456, Pope Callixtus III declared her innocent of the heresy charges brought against her."

 

 

 

"While the vernacular of the day may have changed the Ideology driving it remains the same. The process has changed little in 700 years. "

 

Sure. But then whatever the reason for the prohibition 600 years ago, the reason for it now is to pander to American business interests. If you wanted to get all religious about it, and given that there is no continuity of human institutions for that length of time you 'could' argue that the similarities are dur to Satan trying to stop people from enjoying the benefits of one of God's creations. Good luck trying to prove however.

 

Still not what the point of your post is? Do you want us to boycott the Pope? Would that help to legalise hemp?

 

Cheers

[lightning]

Few people would argue that the ongoing prohibition is perpetuated by the political power of the Religious Right and their Corporate conglomerates of Pharmaceutical/Oil Corporations. It was the same ideological group that brought about the Prohibition of Alcohol in America in the 1930s. The same group that Abraham Lincoln spoke to when he said

"You cannot legislate against a man's appetites."

yes the trial of JoA was politically motivated but it was done under a law that was imposed through religious dogma and power, Here heresy charge was dropped by the Pope but the dogma was not and remains inplace till today.

The churches have been continuous establishments of power throughout the last 700 years and the dogma remains unchanged. Every church we have ever been to (literally dozens of most denominations ranging from catholic to pentecostal) has preached this dogma. We have been ostracized and pushed out for debating the theology and biblical basis of this dogma, We have repeatedly been called "heretics" and have even been slandered from the pulpit as "trouble makers and liars" for asking questions and suggesting that using natural medicinal herbs is a valid approach to medicine.

 

Archbishop Barragan, " The Vatican is opposed to the legalization of any drugs, even soft drugs such as cannabis, because it considers their use incompatible with Christian morality" 2001!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P.sdfootnote { margin-bottom: 0in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> "Church, Drugs, and Drug Addiction" Vatican's Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry 2001

 

That document was written by the present Pope.

The ideology was part of the christian churh before the schism of the reformation and propogated to both Conformist(Catholic) and non-conformist (Protestant) arms of christianity and is instilled as doctrine in almost every Christian church in existance today.

How do we know this is the case in Australia? Just look at what those who's laws we live under and see what they say on the issue.

"All Drugs are Evil... They are evil, all of them, and there should be an uncompromising social condemnation of drugs," PM John Howard. Sept 2007

Or just look at the prohibitionist websites, the theme is everywhere!! "Sending the wrong message" "Evil deadly drug" "Corrupts our children and our society" etc. etc. The drug info clearing house(Oz Govt propaganda department) sent us 5 pages of misquoted scripture to justify their position when we challenged them direct on the issue.

What do we do about it? Shout it from the roof tops. Propagate the concept that it is religious bigotry imposed in law which is a direct breach of our constitution. Demand the bigotry end.

Treat the issue of drug addiction as the medical issue it is not as a "moral" law and order issue that imposes on ALL the religious observance of Abstinence under threat of penal provisions.

Edited September 10, 2008 by lightning

[Nooby]

Lightning,

 

I'm not sure which part of that post was your own and which was just quotes. Also, the green text makes me want to eat my own head. P

 

But anyway if the current hemp prohibition was brought about through religious organisations for religious reasons then you're gonna have to show me some evidence. You're also going to have to disprove the excellent "Emperor Wears no Clothes' by Jack Herer, which is very well researched and shows that it was greedy American businesses that brought the current prohibition into force. Granted the religious right are happy to perpetuate the bullshit (in their ignorance) cos most of them are just as dumb as the general population and believe the lies of the govt. They also have added liability of believing they are doing 'Gods' work when AFAIK Jesus was all about freedom and not enslaving everyone through dodgy legislation. So while I am happy to support the de criminalisation of hemp/cannabis i will fight against it on the basis that the law is unjust, caters to the rich and greedy criminals who run the planet and is UN-Christian at it's very core. I've NEVER heard any Christians argue against hemp use on theological grounds, mostly I guess because they don't have any. ;-) They all argue on social responsibility grounds, based on the false information that's been foisted on western society for the last 80 years. IMHO to attack 'religion' will not further your cause and will probably harm it. Stick to the facts that you can demonstrate, use logic and persuasive argument and you might get an audience. Go on a witchhunt and it'll come back and bite you in the bum.

 

Cheers

N

[lightning]

nooby the "greedy American businesses that brought the current prohibition into force" were and are run by the religious right that is historical FACT. Or is all the carry on about GWB and Halliburton just media speculation The convenience of their religious bigotry meshing with their greed for power and wealth is is no coincidence. Power and wealth is how you get your dogma installed as law and if that helps keep your wealth and power then the circle is complete.

 

World wide people are commenting on the human rights atrocities carried out in the name of the "Drug War" yet nobody seems to realize religious dogma imposed is the force behind the lies. Why else would Governments made up of supposedly humane people refuse the science and make policy based on ideology refusing medicine to the people their masters and ignoring. the "Experts" who have repeatedly tried to tell them the truth instead they make speeches about moral imperatives from their point of view and decry or publicly destroy anyone they view as a heretic. "soft on drugs"

 

Almost every comment they make is started with the words "I believe"

 

As far as proving the basis of the law is religious what part of the usage of the word "Evil" in the treaty don't you understand as

a statement of belief being imposed in law.

 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck

It Is a duck!!!!!

[Nooby]

"nooby the "greedy American businesses that brought the current prohibition into force" were and are run by the religious right that is historical FACT. Or is all the carry on about GWB and Halliburton just media speculation The convenience of their religious bigotry meshing with their greed for power and wealth is is no coincidence. Power and wealth is how you get your dogma installed as law and if that helps keep your wealth and power then the circle is complete."

 

OK, but in that case I thnk you're getting 'ideology' confused with 'religion. ;-)

 

 

"World wide people are commenting on the human rights atrocities carried out in the name of the "Drug War" yet nobody seems to realize religious dogma imposed is the force behind the lies."

 

Maybe that's because it's not religious dogma that's behind it at all, but. like most other authoritarian bullshit, religion is being cited as the 'excuse'?

 

"Why else would Governments made up of supposedly humane people refuse the science and make policy based on ideology refusing medicine to the people their masters and ignoring. the "Experts" who have repeatedly tried to tell them the truth instead they make speeches about moral imperatives from their point of view and decry or publicly destroy anyone they view as a heretic. "soft on drugs""

Because like everyone else, they've been brainwashed over the last 70 years into believeing something that isn't true. The problem of course is that are convinced it IS true.

 

"Almost every comment they make is started with the words "I believe" "

 

Which would be a great thing to point out in a debate with them. Like "Hey, you're entitled to your beliefs but here are the FACTS". ;-)

 

 

"As far as proving the basis of the law is religious what part of the usage of the word "Evil" in the treaty don't you understand as

a statement of belief being imposed in law."

 

 

""All Drugs are Evil... They are evil, all of them, and there should be an uncompromising social condemnation of drugs," PM John Howard. Sept 2007"

 

What part of 'bullshit" dont YOU understand? It's clear from that sentence that he was only talking about 'some' drugs. It's also clear that as a politician seeming to be proactive on the 'war on drugs' is an easy way to appease ignorant voters. it's also pretty clear that his statement about drugs being evil is morally incoherent. A drug is just a thing, it has no moral component to it whatsoever. Now in the wrong hands, there are a LOT of drugs that can act as a catalyst for evil acts to occur there's no denying that, but lets be clear that some of the worst are LEGAL drugs. Anyone debating Howard in that context should be able to point that out quite easily.

 

Of course your claims also beg the question "which particular religion is responsible for the hemp prohibition?" Looking at the historical banning of hemp 1920's-30's which religion was demonstratively involved and what have they benefited from it? Are you SURE that you just aren't leveraging the hemp issue as an outlet for your religious hatred?

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'

[littlbit]

Hey Nooby perhaps you should not get on you soap box regarding the religious groups regardless of who they are. Simply put I hate religion as does Jesus. Religion is man made rules it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith and belief, religion kills, faith saves.

 

Now sweetie stop getting your knickers in a knot and read what is really being said, we are both Christian and neither of us are in the least religious.

[lightning]

What religion? as I said in my previous posts so called Christianity of most denominations, the dogma infests them all. If you don't think so you should get out more and ask people about the issue and hear the responses.

An ideology is a set of beliefs, aims and ideas, especially in politics. (wikipedia)

Religion is a set of rules laid down by men based on their ideology and usually for the power of the few that dictate policy not for the good of whole. Do I hate that, when it is used to further a political agenda as opposed to seeking truth. Absolutely

 

Let me be clear I believe in the God of Abraham mentioned in the Bible and his son Jesus of Nazareth and have considered myself a Christian for over thirty years and would never attack another's faith in God. Attack their bigoted bullshit, every single time.

Nor will I condemn or even comment on what another person puts in their own body, that is between them and their God, none of my business. Many however have felt free to criticize myself and others for what we put in our mouths and have even called us criminals for it. Try telling a Jew or Muslim, Hindu or that that matter a Christian, that abstaining from certain foods is not a religious observance I think you might get some argument.

 

I have repeatedly heard sermons on the "evil weed" from the pulpit and have been thrown out for debating the issue with the one who made the statements.We joined the Liberal party when Howard was PM to get in the faces of the pollies on this subject and others till we were pushed out for our views.

 

If you do not agree with what I say that is your right, Mine is to voice my opinion which is the only thing people cannot steal from me.

freedom of Religious belief in Australia is the freedom to believe or not believe and therefore the term ideology is correct

[Nooby]

Oh hey, it's not that I disagree with you on the basic point, it's just that I'm not sure that trying to tackle the issue as a 'religious' one is going to win you any points, especially in a court of law which is where this fight will be won or lost. Now sure, you cold argue in loose terms that the 'spirit' behind prohibition in religious in nature though i reckon you'd have a hard time getting the average person to understand it. I'm not sure you I understand the point myself, hence all the questions. As you are a follower of Christ you would know that the Bible speaks more in favour of legalisation rather than against it but so far you have not made that case.

 

(BTW I'm not saying that you're wrong here either but I (as a supporter of hemp legalisation) aren't convinced, how do you think you'll go against someone who is actually hostile to the cause?

 

"I have repeatedly heard sermons on the "evil weed" from the pulpit and have been thrown out for debating the issue with the one who made the statements."

 

orly? Which Church(es) did that? Also how were trying to engage them in the debate? was it by interrupting? Cos TBH the only time I've ever seen anyone ejected from a Church is if they were pissed and causing trouble. (not saying that's the case with you, just curious.)

 

 

(and littlbit, maybe if you took the time to explain my misuderstandings to me instead of going on the attack we might ALL be better served? )

 

Cheers