Finally, Some Sanity on Drones

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this blog, the FAA has authorized the use of military surveillance drones by local law enforcement agencies. I was, of course, outraged about this; but even more outrageous was the lack of outrage (so to speak) from just about everyone else, outside of the liberty community.

Fortunately, someone in Washington has found the courage to say "This is not right" and introduce some legislation. Foxnews.com is reporting that GOP Rep. Austin Scott has introduced a bill that would ostensibly curb the use of drones for surveillance on US soil.

Unfortunately, Mr. Scott's bill only seeks to limit the use of drones, rather than ban them entirely. As stated in the linked article, Mr. Scott's plan would only limit the use of drones to cases where a warrant is issued; or in warrant-less surveillance at the border, or in a terrorist attack. As we know all too well, however, such broad exceptions leave the door open far too wide for abuse of those exceptions.

I call on Mr. Scott to amend his proposal to ban surveillance drones outright from use on US soil.

Medical Marijuana: Coming to *Another* State Near You?

The number of states that allow one form or another of medical marijuana may in the near future grow (see what I did there?) from sixteen (DC makes seventeen) to twenty four, putting almost half of the nation's sovereign states in blatant defiance of federal law. Currently, seven ballot initiatives/proposed pieces of legislation are awaiting action in Illinois, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. A couple of these cases require a closer look.

The proposed Illinois statute would authorize users with medical marijuana prescriptions to fill their scripts at state-licensed dispensaries under a pilot program that would last three years; after the three years, the legislature would theoretically review the program's successes and/or failures and decide whether or not to renew the program. Unfortunately, here in Illinois medical marijuana is mostly wishful thinking at this point. The legislation has been stalled for several years and is not currently up for any votes or discussion.

Interestingly, Illinois' Democrat governor Pat Quinn, who is on the record as saying he thinks marijuana should remain illegal, supports Chicago mayor (and Obama flunkie) Rahm Immanuel's proposal to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in Chicago. I hope a reporter is able to corner Quinn and get him to admit why he favors decriminalization in Chicago but not the rest of the state.

Unfortunately, Missouri's proposal also appears to be dead in the water. It is currently not scheduled for any review in the Missouri legislature. We can only hope that the bill's sponsor will find the courage to re-introduce it at the next legislative session.

Of course, while I welcome any attempts to introduce medical marijuana, my ultimate desire remains full legalization across the country.

The Drug War Claims More Innocent Victims

In their fanatical quest to protect us from what we put into our own bodies, the feds, under the banner of the War on Drugs, are now targeting those who are legitimately sick and need prescription painkillers for legitimate pain management.


As reported here, here, and elsewhere, patients with legitimate prescriptions for narcotic painkillers have found their pharmacies closed due to the DEA deciding that they (the pharmacies) have filled too many painkiller prescriptions; or have even been arrested for filling their prescriptions.


Now, let's be clear about a few things. First, opiates are dangerous drugs (especially when compared to harmless "drugs" such as cannabis); they are powerfully addictive and can (and do) lead to severe physiological harm to their users. Second, many people who would otherwise never touch drugs have found themselves addicted to opiates as a result of surgeries, injuries, or other chronic pain-inducing conditions; and thus find themselves facing the same problems that an addict on the street faces.


However, the government has no right to regulate what we put into our bodies, even if those things are harmful. So why do so many (conservative) Christians decry attempts to regulate sugary soft drinks or trans fats  (both dangerous substances) as unnecessary government intrusion into our personal lives, but allow the Drug War to continue?


The fact of the matter is, if an opiate addict can get his/her fix at market prices without any legal hassle, then the addict won't need to resort to so-called "rogue pharmacies" or other black markets for their product. Further, the Drug War simply fuels the black market, so that addicts in need of a fix are driven to commit actual crimes (that is, crimes with victims) to get the money to pay for their addiction. If we legalized drugs, there would be no need for the black market and thus no artificially inflated prices.


So instead of zealously prosecuting (and persecuting) those who have legitimate (or "illegitimate") needs for opiates, and those who attempt to fill those needs; legalize opiates and tax them. Use the tax money to fund treatment options for those who seek treatment. Instead of criminalizing and demonizing opiate use and addiction, treat it like a disease that requires treatment.

Who *Really* Benefits from Marijuana Prohibition?

The lie that we've been told since the 1930's is that marijuana is harmful, so the government is looking out for us by keeping it illegal. Almost eighty years into Prohibition, the government continues to perpetuate this myth, and unfortunately, too many Christians continue to buy into it.


In reality, marijuana is no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol - two legal substances. This point is backed up by millions of hours of research over decades, and does not need to be debated here. What is actually orders of magnitude worse than marijuana itself are our country's marijuana laws. Consider the case of Jillian Batty, a candy-maker from California, and ask yourself the question: which is more harmful; marijuana, or our marijuana laws?


As reported on copblock.org, Jillian Batty Wemyss was on her way from her home in California to New Hampshire, where she had planned to set up her booth selling her candy and fudge at a festival. While driving through Texas, Jillian was stopped at an unconstitutional border-patrol checkpoint, where a drug dog signaled that she (the dog) smelled drugs. Jillian's vehicle was unlawfully searched, and she was found to be in possession of less than a gram of cannabis. She was jailed overnight and placed in solitary confinement. Under Texas' particularly draconian drug laws, she's facing 180 days in jail.


What, specifically, is Jillian being protected from? The possibility that she would have gone to her hotel that night and relaxed with a joint, while victimizing nobody? In what way is Jillian's life going to be improved now that she's a name and number in the Texas criminal justice system? Thanks to our overbearing government's "protection" of Jillian, she missed out on her chance for her business to make money, depriving her family of income. But at least we're protecting her from harm.


Why do we continue to prosecute this ridiculous war against a harmless plant and those who use it? Let's take a look at who [i]actually[/i] benefits from marijuana prohibition.


1. The Drug-Testing Industry. Ever wondered why your employer is so interested in what you do in your free time? If you're a conservative and/or a Christian, you've most likely bought into the mistaken belief that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, and simply accepted having to pee in a cup as part of the job. In reality, the drug testing industry is a multi-billion dollar industry [1] that purports to benefit employers and probation boards, while instead funneling millions back into government anti-drug propaganda and politicians' campaign funds in order to stay in business.


2. Police Unions. The federal government hands out billions of dollars in grants to local law enforcement agencies in the name of anti-drug enforcement; here is one example [2]. If those government grants were to dry up, local police departments would be out that sweet, sweet federal money. Of course, if marijuana were legal, police departments wouldn't need that money to bust the 900,000 people per year that they do for possession. Of course, the police unions don't see it that way. Federal grant money = police jobs = more money for police unions. The system continues to perpetuate itself. As long as a misinformed populace continues to demand police protection from the Loco Weed, police departments will continue to demand those federal anti-drug grants. And as those federal anti-drug grants continue to enrich police unions, which leads to campaign donations (but only for those candidates who are interested in continuing marijuana prohibition), prohibition will continue.


3. Criminal Gangs. There's a reason the Bloods, Crips, MS13, Mexican drug cartels, and any other armed criminal gang that you care to name, are involved in the drug trade: it's profitable. If users could purchase their cannabis legally (as they can in 16 states, barring federal enforcement), armed gangs have no incentive to become involved in marijuana trafficking. Of course, this makes a larger case for the legalization of all drugs, but that is a topic for another column.


If you are interested in supporting Ms. Batty Wemyss, and getting some delicious toffee, fudge, or candy in return, please visit her website: Stateless Sweets

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/08/12/CM163746.DTL
[2] http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120507/ARTICLE/120509652?tc=ar

North Dakota Voters Reject the Phony War on Religion

Ordinarily, a ballot measure in a spring election in a Midwestern state is hardly worthy of notice by the news outlets, the blogosphere, or the podcast-o-sphere.  But North Dakota voters and their defeat of Measure 3 have gotten us talking.

In the main, this proposed amendment to the North Dakota constitution was an attempt to restrict the legislature from getting involved in entanglements in matters of religious liberty without a compelling state interest. Although the proposed legislation predates the controversy, there is an obvious overlap between this legislation and the national discussion on contraception. Indeed, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, vocal supporters of the proposed legislation, pointed out that this measure would have prevented the state from requiring institutions to provide contraception coverage.

North Dakota voters defeated the proposed amendment. At first blush, this appears to be a blow to the ideas of religious liberty. However, a closer look at the facts reveals that the real reason the measure was defeated have to do with its broad language and poor wording. In its proposed form, opponents argued, the legislation could have paved the way for state-sanctioned genital mutilation, honor killings, and related horrors committed in the name of religious liberty.

Matters of law and matters of religious liberty are, unfortunately, going to intersect in today's world, just as they have for centuries. As a liberty-minded Christian, I'd like to explore my thoughts about the nature of this relationship.

First, something needs to be said regarding the national discussion about government requiring institutions to provide contraception care. Let me be fully clear about this: I think that the Catholic Church's position on contraception and birth control is ridiculous. It defies common sense; it unjustly burdens Catholic women and Catholic families; and it can be argued that it has lead to increases in AIDS (due to the Church applying pressure to African governments to stop providing condoms and condom education). Nevertheless, whether I agree with it or not, it is the Catholic Church's position. Therefore, I reject the notion that an institution should be forced, by the government, to pay for something that they don't believe in. This is a clear violation of the principles liberty, and while I sympathize with the plight of those victimized by the Church's position, I cannot abide any attempt by law to interfere with a religious matter if it does not affect the liberties of another person. This distinction will be important in the following paragraphs.

However, far too often expressions of religious liberty lead to victimization of innocent people. An extreme example of this is female circumcision. While some would seek to justify the practice by calling it an expression of religious liberty, the reality is that it's a hideous act of aggression against a human being. Any law that would prevent the practice would, of course, have my support (although such a law isn't necessary in the U.S., as our existing assault & battery laws would come into play).

When matters of religious liberty intersect with the lives of children, we walk a very fine line. For example, I could declare that I support the right of any parent to raise their children in a way that suits them. But I would be lying- I don't support the right of parents to mercilessly beat their children, even if their religion allows (nay encourages it). I don't support the right of parents to marry off their adolescent daughters to old men for lives of sexual slavery, even if their religion allows (nay encourages it). But do I support the right of a parent to deny life-saving medical care to a child because of their religion? Do I support the right of a parent to deny their ids vaccinations because of their religion? Unfortunately, in cases like these the answer isn't so readily apparent.

The First Amendment, while at once abundantly clear ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), is simultaneously limited. The Founders couldn't possibly have considered such things as genital mutilation, or contraception, or blood transfusions, or any of the modern areas where law and religion become entangled. For this reason, legislators need to take a cautious and measured approach when dealing with matters of religious liberty. The goal should be to allow as much freedom as possible in practicing religion while protecting the rights of others not to be victimized by an expression of religion. Unfortunately, broad and poorly-worded legislation is not the way to go about it.

Kentucky Terrorism Held in Solitary Confinement for a Year

I fully admit that, immediately following the September 11th attacks, I fully bought into the notion of the Social Compact - that is, the idea that you must willingly give up liberty in the name of safety. I dismissed as bleeding hearts and do-gooders those who attempted to speak up for people who were denied their liberty and due process in the name of stopping terrorism. With my flag in one hand and my Bible in the other, I laughed at those who opposed Camp X-Ray, indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, and all of the resultant human rights violations that have come about from this phony War on Terror.

Ten years later, however, I continue to realize how wrong I was. Nevertheless, human rights abuses in the name of the War on Terror continue. Lest you think that this is a big-city only problem (or a Pakistan-Yemen-etc. problem), consider the case of Mohanad Shareef Hammadi in Louisville, Kentucky.

The specifics of Mr. Hammadi's case can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/attorney-terror-suspect-isolated-165947922.html In short, Mr. Hammadi has been held in solitary confinement, without access to human contact or any form of electronic media, for nearly a year. It's easy to dismiss Mr. Hammadi's lawyer's concerns about his client because Hammadi is a Muslim and is an alleged terrorist. But just because he's Muslim and/or an alleged terrorist does not disqualify him from the rights afforded to him by the Constitution. But the larger point is, if it can happen to Mr. Hammadi it can just as easily happen to me or you. All it takes is a ginned-up terrorism accusation and any of us can find our Constitutional protections thrown out the window.

I'm reminded of the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). We use this story to teach Sunday School children about the need to show kindness, and that's all well and good. But in the larger context of this parable, the focal point is not the Samaritan; it's the "rich young ruler" who asked about the Samaritan. When this man asked Jesus, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" - to which Jesus responded, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself' - then asked the follow-up question, "Who is my neighbor?" he wasn't looking for an example. He was looking for an exception. Jesus provides the example of the Good Samaritan not as an object lesson in showing kindness, but as an object lesson in showing kindness despite our prejudices.

Mr. Hammadi, like all terrorism subjects, deserves the same protections and rights given to all criminal suspects. We cannot continue to justify cruel and unusual punishment, and the deprivation of the right to due process (and dozens of other human rights and Constitutional abuses) simply for expedience in this War on Terror. Like it or not, the Constitution should protect us all, not just those we like.

Why Advocating Armed Violence Never Works Out

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/was-a-church-going-daddys-girl-arrested-because-she-likes-to-blow-up-toilets-on-her-property/

Making the rounds of the Atlanta-area blogs and news outlets this week is the story of Celia Savage, a 23-year-old Georgia woman who has run afoul of the ATF. Based on the story linked above (and, considering that The Blaze has ties to Glenn Beck, we're probably not getting the whole story), it looks as if this young lady is mostly harmless, but it looks as if she's definitely in over her head thanks to some poor decisions.


Celia was apparently a bit of a popular contributor to Youtube, posting videos of herself blowing up toilets on her own property with homemade bombs. This in and of itself probably wouldn't have gotten the ATF's attention - Youtube has more than its share of videos of people people blowing stuff up - were it not for the fact that Celia is also a vocal advocate of violent revolution. At least, if her Facebook page is to believed. Describing herself as a "Christian Anarchist," Celia's Facebook page contained quotes that seem to support the belief that Celia may be an advocate of violence. Again, Christians advocating anarchy (though undoubtedly rare) are probably not worthy of the ATF's attention. But when her [alleged] violent anarchist beliefs are combined with documented tendencies to blow things up (and, as one of her supporters alleges, an anonymous tip from someone who holds a grudge against her), the ATF takes notice.


For the record, I hope Celia gets off. Not because I support violent anarchists or homemade pipe bombs; rather, I think Celia is probably just an enthusiastic young lady who has made some poor choices and wound up in a situation that is far bigger than she imagined.


But Celia's case raises a bigger issue; namely, the idea that Christians are right to advocate violence against the government. As a liberty-minded Christian, I share the concerns of many Christians about intrusive government. However, I reject the ideas of those who advocate violence. Consider these points:


1. There is no call in Scripture for Christians to violently oppose government. In Acts 1, Jesus' disciples began to question Him after the resurrection. The first question asked of Jesus (that Luke records) concerned violent revolution: "Then they gathered around him and asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?'" (Acts 1:6, NIV) The disciples had hoped Jesus would lead Israel in a violent revolution against Rome. Their hopes had been dashed at the crucifixion, but with a resurrected Jesus the disciples were right back in their revolutionary mindset. Jesus, of course, refused to allow His life and ministry to be used as an excuse for violence, reminding the disciples instead that "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the Earth." (Acts 1:8, NIV). Elsewhere in the New Testament, when Christians run afoul of the government, they either accept their punishment as an honor to suffer in Christ's name (Romans 8:17) or appeal to existing government processes for remedy (Acts 25:11).


2. Violence just leads to more violence. Far more often than any Christian would like to admit, Christians are just as guilty of aggression and violence as others. Recent sectarian violence in Nigeria (http://www.voanews.com/content/nigerian-religious-leaders-work-to-stop-sectarian-violence-in-north/1146367.html) has led to at least 700 deaths as Christians retaliate against Muslims for crimes committed against Christians. Which then leads to Muslims committing violence against Christians in retaliation, which then leads to Christians committing violence against Muslims in retaliation, etc. This cycle continues to play out elsewhere in the world: Egypt (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15235212); Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles); and even in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence). In Ephesians, Paul calls on Christians to eschew violence and instead embrace love, saying "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another, just as in Christ God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:24)


3. Peace works just as well as violence. There is a reason Dr. Martin King Jr. is remembered with a federal holiday while Malcolm X remains a historical footnote. Dr. King effected social change through peaceful means, while Malcolm X advocated violence. Consider, for example, the seminal moment in the Civil Rights Movement, the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Neither bombs, nor riots, nor vandalism, nor any other violent means brought about the end to the segregation of Montgomery's buses. Instead, peaceful resisters used peaceful means (namely, boycotting the buses and cooperating with each other to lessen the negative impact that the boycott would have on them personally), the Montgomery bus system was crippled financially and blacks ultimately won a victory over hate. This victory was obtained not through violent revolution, but through peaceful evolution.


If we, as Christians, feel wronged or threatened by our government, violence is not the means to make our voices heard. Instead, we must imitate Christ's example of peace.