textfiles/magazines/FJOURNAL/fjour1_2.txt

The Free Journal/ASCII Edition
Volume I, Issue 2
Copyright 1991 Sameer Parekh (Individual articles copyright by author)
Editor-in-Chief:	Sameer Parekh
(fj@infopls.chi.il.us)

	This is the Free Journal.  Submissions are welcome.  Some
characters have the high bit set.  Distribute at will; cite authors.
(Or editors if no author is given.)
_______________________________________________________________________________
What Must Be Done?
	I have pondered this question over and over recently.  I do
not know what exactly should be done, but I know that drastic action
is necessary to preserve those rights which are fundamental to man.
Suggested reading is RCivil DisobedienceS by Henry David
Thoreau.  This speech inspired such great reformers as M.K. Gandhi and
M.L. King.
	In RCivil DisobedienceS Thoreau claims that you do not
need to convince the majority that what you are doing is right.  If
you believe what you are doing, do it.  In addition, he says, Rwhen
the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery and
organized, I say, let us not have a machine any longer.S I think it
is safe to say that oppression and robbery ARE organized now, with the
current forfeiture laws. (Ironically, they were passed in 1984.)
	However, we might argue, how can we effect this change if no
one supports us?  Thoreau states that it is not every man's duty to
change all wrong in the world, only to wash one's hands of it.  Thus,
he continues to state, if those opposing a government action did not
merely speak their objections but remove their support for such a
government, a revolution will occur.
	RUnjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or
shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have suceeded,
or shall we transgress them at once?. . .if it is of such a nature
that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I
say, break the law.S
	Do not be afraid of legal repercussions.  What point is there
in living if you do not have the fundamental rights which all men are
heir to?  If you are afraid of losing your property, do not worry, he
says.  What is more important, your property or your liberty?  Even if
they imprison your body, they cannot imprison your soul.  Thoreau also
stated, RUnder a government which imprisons unjustly, the true
place for a just man is also a prison.S
	On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested for not moving
her place on a bus for a white man as mandated by law.  Let her be a
lesson for us all.  If a law is wrong break it.
						--Sameer Parekh

The Second Amendment

Amendment II 	
	A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed.

	This amendment has been very frequently challenged.  There is
a definite reason why this amendment was added to the Constitution,
and it was NOT to hunt deer.  In Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of
Independence, he claims that when a government is being oppressive
beyond the point of reason, he states about the people, RIt is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government.S How
will this be carried out when the only people owning guns are the
armed forces?  The threat of a violent revolution is the only thing
which holds the government in check.
	One person I have spoken to claims that if all guns were
removed, then it would all be perfect.  I agree with him.  However, a
realistic stance must be taken.  It is not possible to completely
enforce any sort of gun control legislation.  Some people will always
have guns.  The fewer people have guns, the more dangerous those few
people are.  If most people owned a gun, most criminals would think
twice about mugging someone. 
						--Sameer Parekh

The Third Amendment

Amendment III

	No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner
to be prescribed by law.

	This part of the Bill of Rights is relatively free from
violation, but in King Range National Conservation Area, the Army and
other federal agencies, looking for marijuana plants, trespassed on
private property, destroyed, and even damaged a fire-protection spring
the day before a major fire.  Another right lost to the War on Rights.
						--Sameer Parekh

The War on Drugs Is Lost

	The drug war is lost.  And the worst part of it is that drugs
are providing the cash and the motives for the escallating violence in
our cities.
	In the 1930s alcohol was illegal.  But people wanted alcohol.
So black market networks sprang up to supply that need.  And there was
a great profit, and they shared some of that profit with the police so
that they would not be busted.
	And they spent some of that profit on guns, Thompson
submachine guns in particular.  And there was some violence, and the
authorities used that as an excuse to make automatic guns illegal.
	Toward the end of the prohibition era, federal strike forces
began making busts of bigger and bigger illegal alcohol operations,
and they used that as "proof" that they were winning the war against
illegal alcohol.
	They were not.  They were losing the war.  The larger busts
were evidence only of the fact that the rum runners were getting so
big that they could be a little careless and not miss it.
	Finally, defeat was acknowleged, an amendment to the
Constitution was passed to make alcohol legal again, but automatic
weapons, for most citizens, remained illegal.  And it is reputed that
money from the smuggling of illegal alcohol was used, in 1960, to
elect one of the most popular presidents of our time!  And the
criminal group that emerged as the strongest, after eliminating other
groups with their guns, went on to bigger and better things.
	There are parallels to that scenario today.
	Drugs are illegal.  Some people will do anything to get drugs,
including buying from the black market that has sprung up to supply
that demand.  Just as with alcohol, the price is elevated because
there is a risk involved.  That means that the black marketeer has
more profits, more money to spend on things.
	Since there are other black marketeers willing to take his
stash away from him, and perhaps kill him in the process, one of the
things that he will spend some of his loot on are guns. For some
reason, as time goes by, these black marketeers are getting more and
more willing to use these guns on each other and sometimes the bullets
go astray.  This escalating violence is increasing the pressure on our
legislators to increase the numbee of laws against guns.  (It is not
the only pressure, but it is one of them.)  People are getting plain
tired of the violence in their neighborhoods, and I don't blame them.
	But In My Humble Opinion (IMHO), it is the drugs that supply
the pressure to even have guns among the gangs, and it is certainly
the drugs that provide the profits with which they buy them!
	And we keep hearing of larger and larger drug busts, as if
that were proof that the police are finally getting some smarts and
learning how to find drugs.  (But as the recent Pittsburgh Press
series states, they are taking away many of the rights of ordinary,
non-drug-involved citizens in order to do so.)  In fact, I believe
that the larger and larger busts are more proof of the escalation of
the amount of drugs out there to be found than they are of police
efficiency!
	I'm saying that the drug war is lost!  It cannot be won!  My
only question is how many more of our rights are we going to lose in
the name of fighting the drug war?
						--Edward Kennedy

Cannabis: As Dangerous As Tobacco?

	The following is taken from RMarijuana MythsS by Paul
Hager, published by the Hoosier Cannabis Relegalization Coalition.

5. Marijuana is much more dangerous than tobacco
	Smoked marijuana contains more carcinogens than does an
equivalent amount of tobacco (1.5 to 3 times).  Marijuana, however,
unlike tobacco, actually dilates (enlarges) the air passages in the
lungs which promotes self-cleaning.  This is one reason why cannabis
has been found useful in the past in treating asthmatics.  It should
be remembered that a heavy tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco
than a heavy marijuana smoker consumes marijuana.  Two other factors
are important.  The first is that paraphernalia laws directed against
marijuana users make it difficult to smoke safely.  These laws make
water pipes and bongs, which filter some of the carcinogens out of the
smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable.  The second is that, if
marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have cannabis
drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea
which are totally non-carcinogenic.  This is in stark contrast with
RsmokelessS tobacco products like snuff which can cause cancer
of the mouth and throat.  Nicotine itself is very toxic in even small
quantities.  In contrast, the cannabinoids are relatively non-toxic.
When all of these facts are taken together, it can be clearly seen
that the reverse is true: marijuana is much SAFER than tobacco.

Suggested Readings:
	1) Marijuana and Health, Institute of Medicine, National
Academy of Sciences, 1982.  Note: the Committee of Substance Abuse and
Habitual Behavior of the Marijuana and Health study had its part of
the final report suppressed when it reviewed the evidence and
recommended that possession of small amounts of marijuana should no
longer be a crime. (TIME magazine, July 19, 1982).
	2) Co, B.T., Goodwin, D.W., Gado, Mikhael M., and Hill, S.Y.:
RAbsence of cerebral atrophy in chronic cannabis usersS, JAMA,
237:1229-1230, 1977.
	3) Kuenhle, J., Mendelson, J.H., Davis, K.R., and New, P.F.J.:
RComputer tomographic examination of heavy marijuana smokersS,
JAMA, 237:1231-1232, 1977.
	4) Dreher, M.C., Working Men and Ganja: Marijuana Use in Rural
Jamaica, Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1982, ISBN
0-89727-025-8.
	5) Nadelmann, Ethan A., RDrug Prohibition in the United
States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives,S Science, Vol. 245,
1 September 1989, p. 943.
	If you would like the entire RMarijuana MythsS pamphlet,
please contact Sameer Parekh.