 [65] TALK.POLITICS.DRUGS (1:375/48)  TALK.POLITICS.DRUGS 
 Msg  : #3919 [215]                                                             
 From : Hal Womack                          1:2613/335      Fri 26 Aug 94 23:12 
 To   : All                                                                     
 Subj : Only 5% of US supports legalization! HA!                                

From: womack@netcom.com (Hal Womack)
Organization: Womack Enterprises

EriC (n8642420@animal.cc.wwu.edu) wrote:
: steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:

: >>Ted Frank (thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: > > Ironic that you think that jury nullification would actually do anything
: > >about the War on Drugs.  If there's one set of laws that would be
: > >just about untouchable by JN, it would be the drug laws, which are
: > >consistently supported by 95 percent plus of the population (and a
: > >significantly smaller percentage of federal judges).

: >  Even if we stipulate the 95% figure (which I consider highly unlikely;
: >the most _pessimistic_ estimates I've seen indicate 10%+ support for
: >relegalization), the arithmetic is simple: 0.95^12 = 0.54, which is a
: >near 50-50 chance of at least one advocate on a standard jury.

: What about the Parade poll? Lots of average Americans, well over 50% wanted
: it legal, as I recall.. Does someone have those results?

  On December 10th, 1993 the Hearst-owned San Francisco EXAMINER
conducted a phone-in poll which it had previously announced on the
front page on the question: "Do you favor legalizing drugs as a way of
reducing crime ?"
  Total calls = 3,652
  yes      = 3,149 or 86%
  no      =   503    14%

  In this country are currently holding some 300,000 prisoners
behind bars in the WOSD [probably WAPCF for war against the people's
constitutional freedom would be more accurate]. The sepo* [*secret police]
have used every kind of betrayal and deceit to put them there. So how
would you answer when a strange caller on the telephone asks you your
opinion about 'legalizing drugs' ?
  With respect to freedom-loving, law-abiding people and the
problem of jury selection: We need to spread the word about the supremacy
of the Constitution over the neo-prohibitionist WOSD statutes which
flout it, e.g. the 10th Amendment. Any American who understands this
basic concept can swear with the utmost sincerity to uphold the law
while guarding until the opportune moment his understanding that fulfilling
that oath will mean resolutely freeing the dope defendant and, so to
speak, spitting in the eye of the district attorney. Anyone interested
in this courtroom problem should contact the Fully Informed Jury
Association either through the Libertarian Party or through FIJA
California State Coordinator Jim Harnsberger at P.O. BOX 2926 |
El Cajon, CA 92021 -- tel. = 619/466-4920.
  Reviewing the Nettalk on this topic will confirm that the
overwhelming majority of informed speakers favor freedom of diet.
OTOH the WOSD representation comes off as truly pitiful, especially
considering how many people and how much money are involved in that
repressive system. We have here a tremendous potential dramatically
to alter the situation in our favor and to put to rout the neo-
prohibitionists. Who & when ?
      FODD = freedom of diet & dress

  $100KPY = the rate of compensation for time served under WOSD*

      * = the war on some drugs

   MEDUSA = the monopoly propaganda MEDia of the U.S.A.



--
Hal of Womack Enterprises | e-mail to womack@netcom.com | tel. 415/ 923 1507
Snail mail to P.O. Box 640113/ San Francisco, CA 94164/ U.S.A. | Student of
Diego Rivera, Ho Chi Minh, Paul Robeson, Naguib Mahfouz, Shusaku, Bertolt
Brecht, Madonna & Sgt. York | "Lean on me until you're strong; we all need.."


---
 * Origin: COBRUS - Usenet-to-Fidonet Distribution System (1:2613/335.0)

