More on the California NAACP endorsement

bullet image Alice Huffman, President of the California NAACP: Marijuana Law Reform Is a Civil Rights Issue

As leaders of the California NAACP, it is our mission to eradicate injustice and continue the fight for civil rights and social justice wherever and whenever we can. We are therefore compelled to speak out against another war, the so called “war on drugs.” To be clear, this is not a war on the drug lords and violent cartels, this is a war that disproportionately affects young men and women and the latest tool for imposing Jim Crow justice on poor African-Americans.

We reject the oft-repeated but deceptive argument that there are only two choices for addressing drugs — heavy handed law enforcement or total permissiveness. Substance abuse and addiction are American problems that affect every socioeconomic group, and meaningful public health and safety strategies are needed to address it. However, law enforcement strategies that target poor Blacks and Latinos and cause them to bear the burden and shame of arrest, prosecution and conviction for marijuana offenses must stop.

bullet image Black Church Coalition Condemns NAACP Support For Pot Legalization

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. […]

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.

Once again, the church (or at least those represented here) has no interest in actually addressing the issues.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to More on the California NAACP endorsement

  1. claygooding says:

    It is sad that Evans thinks the drug war is not a racial
    issue that NAACP should be involved in. What is it about “remove the profits-remove the criminals” he doesn’t understand?
    We have to give our government credit for the job of brain washing the public for the last 70 years though,they have done it real well,it is just too bad that they didn’t do the job of protecting us from industrialists taking our rights and freedoms from us.

    Veterans Seek Medical Marijuana for PTSD Patients in Colorado

  2. delicious kool-aid says:

    Marijuana arrests skyrocketed under Slick Willie Clinton another democrat who cares about the little guy. Pot doesn’t make anyone violent. Crack, PCP, meth all the synthetic drugs will lead to violence.

  3. Jon Doe says:

    kool-aid: I hope you aren’t suggesting that those drugs, as bad as they may be, should remain illegal. Prohibition of any consensual activity is unless. People will do it anyway. You can’t stop them.

  4. permanentilt says:

    Religious institutions ignoring reality to push a dogmatic moral code? nooooooo that NEVER happens

  5. sixtyfps says:

    @delicious kool-aid:
    If you think the line between violence and nonviolence runs parallel to the line dividing ‘natural’ and ‘synthetic’ drugs, you’re mixing too much BS into your drinks. (Alcohol?)

  6. JRH says:

    There needs to be A ethnogenic Evangelist who understands the relation of drugs and the origins of the Judeo christain religions ie. The Holy annointig oil of Moeses. Which contains either cannbis or calamus A highly halucenogenic and poisionos herb and what about the burning bush LOL the nickname of khat another halucenogic plant.
    Why cant the religous right comprehend that the anti drug laws are antichristian and thebs outright denignal of Gods word
    Drugs are made by man hrbs and medicinal plants that man perverts and makes drugs out of them . oppium herin morphine cociane and meth dont exist in nature but the plants that are perverted do

  7. Jon Doe says:

    Uh, opium is the dried sap of the poppy flower. Pretty natural if ask me. Also, the human body actually produces its own morphine.

    Oh, and please use spell check. It’s easy to do and it helps to prevent headaches in those who bother to read your posts.

  8. Barth Bottoms says:

    Wow that is some creative spelling. They were in a hurry I guess.

  9. kool-aid and peanut butter and jellies says:

    Remember alcohol is legal and it does way more harm than good old marijuana. It is always wild to see a mild person get too much drink in them and start acting like a tough guy, hopefully they puke their guts up by the end of the night.

  10. Scott says:

    “Community leaders” in general over the many decades that the prohibition of certain drugs has spanned have abused the credibility naturally gained by being considered such leaders.

    That is how they brainwash the masses.

    People unfamiliar with our issue too often assume that such community leaders (in church, law enforcement, etc.) are the true “drug experts” protecting their community.

    “We the demonized” have to fight an uphill battle against that perceived credibility and the mainly instant dismissal of our view (no matter what we say about things like botched drug raids, prison overcrowding, racism, etc.)

    Too many people in our movement apparently do not understand this, instead jumping right in to express those kinds of anti-prohibition points without first establishing why the audience they are trying to convert should open their minds to give us their attention.

    We know the aforementioned perceived credibility is just an illusion, and we have to first expose that by publicly challenging that credibility (e.g. make the prohibitionist screw up during a mainstream television session in a way that even their supporters would cringe).

    We also know that if the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not work at all, there is no need for it (i.e. game over for the CSA, victory for us).

    We can sharpen our offensive using that knowledge, creating quick devastating verbal hits perfect for the short responses during interviews and comments sections.

    When confronting a prohibitionist, two things should immediately come to mind:

    1. If you are dealing with a Republican opponent, point out that the CSA is constitutional solely by way of the liberal/progressive New Deal and the corresponding abuse of the Commerce Clause that will legally justify the likes of “ObamaCare” and “Cap and Trade”.

    This should throw off the Republican, publicly embarrassing and discrediting him with his hypocrisy.

    Note that Republican support for our cause will tip the public scales strongly to our side, so they should be a primary audience for our movement.

    2. Challenge the ‘disaster predictions’ made prior to each reduction in penalties associated with illicit drugs.

    Roughly 30 such reductions instantly come to mind (including Portugal decriminalizing all drugs almost a decade ago).

    Where are any of the disasters we were warned about?

    In other words, where is the increase in drug abuse as a result of such reductions?

    There is no solid evidence proving those disasters happened, which means the CSA does not work at all, which means we win.

    Once we crush their perceived credibility, then we should strongly promote the realistic tip of a comprehensive plan towards improving society’s ability to deal with drug abuse (including alcohol).

    As a focal point for this plan, I like to cite the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse statement made back in 1995:

    “Researchers have long recognized the strong correlation between stress and substance abuse…”

    Where is the “war” against unhealthy stress? No where publicly prominent. It is time we change that.

    The public majority must learn that we are the true “drug experts” working to help find a better way to manage drug abuse to improve society, without illegally trashing the unalienable rights of the majority of people who use drugs responsibly.

    Successful application of our strategy will transfer the perceived credibility to us, making it both real and perceived by the public majority.

    Then our efforts against prohibitionists will be as easy as shooting ducks in a barrel (we will be fighting in great strength from the high ground).

  11. Just me. says:

    The federal government gives federal money to churchs that walk in lock step with thier failed policies. What does that say about these churches? Isnt greed one of the things dicussed in the bible? By the way, churchs get federal money to promote the false claim of global warming also. YAY we live in a land of liars and crooks!

  12. Windy says:

    Scott, you failed to address the Democrats, a goodly number of whom are also prohibitionists. What is your plan for defusing their opposition?

  13. alcoholica says:

    Beer before whiskey is too risky. Whiskey before beer you are in the clear.

  14. SpGNo says:

    I guarantee (or at least imagine) that many of those churches launder money for drug gangs. Just like The Wire.

  15. Scott says:


    We do not need every citizen to support us to repeal the CSA, just a solid majority to be disgusted by the tired “tough on crime with tougher drug laws and enforcement” political gimmick.

    Apparently, our country is split roughly in the middle when it comes to the public’s choice of political party.

    To the extent we have support in our government, it is usually Democrat politicians who constitute that support. Republicans have the rare exception (e.g. Ron Paul).

    I only advocate that our movement focus much more sharply, taking the overwhelming number of points we have (with the risk of diluting ourselves), and finding the one or two simple points that take out the “load bearing walls” of the CSA.

    When we start the argument intuitively appearing to advocate the increase of a destructive product into our society, we make it too easy to just dismiss us as crazy.

    We take our zero publicly-perceived credibility (thanks to being demonized for decades) and expect to persuade people.

    This approach is a seriously tough uphill battle. The evidence of this is our opponent literally does not have a single sustainable point for keeping the CSA (the ultimate slam-dunk case), and we still have not won after many decades of effort.

    Republicans are very vulnerable in their support against us, because their self-proclaimed fundamental principles oppose that support.

    If the CSA is publicly exposed as unconstitutional by any rational interpretation of our supreme law, then all other points are not needed, because the CSA cannot be law.

    The public record shows that the CSA is part of the New Deal mentality. That mentality was our government’s answer to avoiding the federal constitutional amendment required for Alcohol Prohibition (that other drug).

    The New Deal mentality is making news in conservative circles, because of the likes of “ObamaCare” and “Cap and Trade”.

    ObamaCare has passed, and if the Republicans fail to repeal it, then a major legal battle will follow, highlighting the serious problem with the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause (the problem mentioned by Justice Clarence Thomas in the first paragraph of his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich).

    Care to guess what the Democrats will need to keep ObamaCare legal? The same abuse of the Commerce Clause needed against us.

    It seems likely that most people will never like currently illicit drugs (like most people do not scuba dive).

    However, everyone is affected by ObamaCare, and the other heavy government intrusions into the private sector due to the Commerce Clause interpretation working against us.

    If possessing a certain plant has a substantial affect on interstate commerce (as the Supreme Court has ruled), and therefore can be illegal, than anyone’s thought activity (determining every part of their buying and selling decisions) certainly has that affect too.

    There is no limit to government power, as long as the blatant judicial activism regarding the Commerce Clause continues.

    Republicans will be very focused on ensuring the Supreme Court provides appropriate limits to the Commerce Clause interpretation in future cases where that clause applies.

    The CSA (or at least freely growing and possessing marijuana) will not likely survive that interpretation correction, if we do our jobs right.

  16. Scott says:

    One fairly quick addition:

    If we focus on the unconstitutional nature of the CSA, then it is easy to counter the “tough on crime” gimmick, dominating the effort against us.

    ‘The law is actually on our side.’ stance leverages the prohibitionists’ publicly-perceived credibility against them.

    Combined with the inability to solidly prove an increase in drug abuse when drug laws are loosened, we can expedite the repealing of the CSA.

    We should avoid needing to promote our own credibility and instead work the debate so that the prohibitionists are forced to discredit themselves by failing to prove their policy works or is lawful. Think Jiu Jitsu.

  17. Pete says:

    Good article about the warring factions here

  18. I will be on a panel with Ms. Huffman at the National Bar
    Association’s conference next month in New Orleans. There are many state NAACP presidents that are/will support her when the NAACP holds their conference this month.

    I am sure she understood what would ensue before she came out supporting the legalization of Cannabis.

    Hopefully, there will be good information to share upon my return.

  19. Kozmo says:

    Wow ! Another reasoned and educated letter about the evils of the WoD followed by one filled with ignorance and falsehoods. Just take a look at them side by side and the stark reality of refusal to think critically becomes clear.
    The “Black Church Coalition”, another victim of the WoD propoganda war.

  20. claygooding says:

    The Rand company,a non-profit statistical research company that happens to be on the ONDCP’s payroll for any statistical studies they want to push the prohibition agenda,and whom we have discussed and cussed numerous times over their skewed statistics,has released a study
    showing that marijuana prices will drop by 80% following legalization. This is a surprising study,not because we didn’t already know that prices would drop,but because it is coming from them. The study “seems” to support our claims of”remove the profits,remove the criminals”.

    Now the other shoe has fallen. Here is their newesst release:

    California marijuana use may double if legal: RAND

    The increase could be debunked by the statistics of the countries that have already legalized or decriminalized
    such as the Netherlands,Spain and Portugal but the objective of Rand,no doubt under the directions of the ONDCP is spreading their propaganda and trying to scare voters to vote down the initiative in CA.

    Heads up people,we need to defuse this quickly.

  21. claygooding says:

    And just for effects,they released the dropped price study from DC and the increased usage through one of the ONDCP’s propaganda outlet news sources in the UK,,Rueters.

  22. denmark says:

    Use of marijuana will not double once legal in California, people just won’t be hiding their use anymore. How in the heck can that even be calculated? It can’t.

  23. claygooding says:

    I know that denmark,and most at this site realize it also,but not Bishop Allen or your next door nerd.

  24. denmark says:

    Understand that you know that claygooding and value your opinion.
    Just wanted to get it in here so if any awakened individuals start searching for the truth concerning the WoD they’d read that.

    When I run into people now that have swallowed WoD hook-line-and sinker, and don’t want to hear the truth, I’m asking them to at least be aware of the multitude of lies that have been shoved down their throats, and to at least become more observant.

    One gal here at the hotel was going on and on about senior citizens and how wonderful they were, and I said something to the effect of “the senior citizens you speak so fondly of are largely responsible for the mess our government is in”.

    She didn’t like that I took her to task, but that’s just too bad. She drinks every night and stands at the main desk blabbing for hours on end. Last night I said something about her drinking and she turned angry. What I said was mellow and kind but of course she was three sheets to the wind and took it the wrong way.

  25. claygooding says:

    That is true,a lot of the uninformed check Pete”s page and if they leave without learning something,I guess it is all of us to blame.

  26. Tim says:

    Now they’re calling for Huffman to step down.

    There is a phrase for people like Ron Allen. It features the word ‘house.’

  27. the best way to counter the claims that the number of pot smokers will increase drastically is this: so what?

    pot does not cause a whole lot of “damages” to either individuals or to society as a whole (except currently the legal repercussions) — so point that out to people.

    we need to stop being afraid of admitting that pot isn’t really dangerous in any legitimate or sensible way. yes, if it were legal more people would use it — but why should we get our panties in a twist over that fact?

    when the harpies start screeching, point at them and laugh.

  28. Criminal Romish-Masonic shadow government bans coca, opium, cannabis, pharmaceutical, alcoholic intoxicant and cigarette market protection (with only the latter two exempted from being required to label their ingredients!!!)

    Yes, the Roman Catholic Church, note the involvement of their tool William Randolf Hearst in manipulating public opinion, and the timing of their 2nd Godfather III style Papal Gold Medal as a Benefactor of Humanity to Vin Mariani creator Angelo Francois Mariani in January 1904 just months prior to the eruption of the anti-coca campaign by Hearst, and the USDA and AMA/APhA’s Harvey Washington Wiley.

Comments are closed.