Correspondence with Lincoln Davis
August 19th, 2007 -
I got a reply from Representative Davis today, presumably to what I’ve written below. I can only conclude that his helpers are either illiterate or they are avoiding the issue. I invite my myriad readers to draw your own conclusions:
August 20, 2007
Mr. John Ray
P.O. Box 84
Sewanee, Tennessee 37375
Dear Mr. Ray:
Thank you for recently contacting my office to express
your views regarding healthcare. Knowing your views enables me
to better serve you in Washington.
Providing affordable healthcare to citizens of the Fourth
District is one of my major concerns. In my opinion, too many
people are without insurance; while those who do have healthcare
coverage continually see their premium payments increase.
Meanwhile, small businesses are having a difficult time finding the
funds necessary to offer healthcare to their employees. As we
move through the 110th Congress, I am hopeful that a bipartisan
solution to these problems will be reached and that Congress will
find solutions to help make healthcare affordable and accessible
for all Americans. I will keep your views in mind when this or
related legislation comes before the House of Representatives for a
vote.
Please feel free to contact my office regarding this or any
other issue that may be of concern to you. My door is always
open.
Sincerely,
Lincoln Davis
Member of Congress
August 19, 2007
To the Honorable Representative Davis:
I must not have communicated clearly. I am concerned with the continuing problem of *prohibition* in the fourth district.
Point 1: You will not find the words “drug prohibition” in the Constitution that you swore to abide by. You will, however, note the inclusion of the 10th Amendment, which prohibits you from doing anything that the Constitution does not specifically empower you to do.
Point 2: You, and just about every other politician or pundit out there, love to talk about “personal responsibility” and “liberty”. Prohibition is antithetical to these concepts, as you know; that’s why you renamed prohibition as “War On Drugs”. That sounds so much more patriotic and righteous, doesn’t it? Consider, though: it’s certainly not a war on Merck, or Takeda, or Glaxo-Smith-Kline, it’s not a war on caffeine or nicotine, it’s not a war on alcohol anymore although you and most Americans have failed to learn from history and are dooming all of us to repeat it. Face the fact, it’s a war on recreational use of substances that are hard for you to tax.
Point 3: The Black Market exists for the single purpose of subverting prohibition laws. Crime does not attend drugs themselves, crime attends the lucre that drugs bring on the Black Market. Sure, there are weekly stories about “stupid drug criminals” and they’re often funny or tragic, therefore they make good sound-bites. Most violent crime, though, is associated with exchanges of large sums of cash and drugs, in places where the participants intend and believe that there are no police present except corrupt ones.
The “market” itself is and shall be extant, despite DARE’s gallant efforts to educate/indoctrinate the children in the notions that feeling good is not fun, or that recreation is sin, or that one cannot “commit recreation” responsibly. The market is extant. The only question is, will it be a Black Market, or a Free Market? Illegal aliens and terrorists cannot take advantage of a Free Market. Bulk tobacco costs about $15/lb in our state; marijuana is less expensive to produce, they don’t call it “weed” for no reason, so one would expect that if the market were Free, pot would be cheaper than tobacco. Therefore it would not make economic sense to smuggle or secretly produce it, in the absence of prohibition laws.
Point 4: Why did God Create marijuana in the first place? Do you suppose His Purpose was to give you yet another thing to tell the rest of us not to do?
Point 5: Harry Anslinger (Sieg-Heil!) was the first “drug czar” in the Land of the Formerly Free. He and his partner in crime, Clinton Hester, testified before Congress in 1937 in support of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. (Yes, it began as a tax because America had not yet forgotten how alcohol prohibition had backfired.) I have excerpted a few of the things they said:
Hester: “Although the $100 Transfer Tax in this bill is intended to be prohibitive, as is the $200 Transfer Tax in the National Firearms Act, it is submitted that it is Constitutional as a revenue measure”.
Hester: “… the rule is that if on the face of the bill it appears to be a revenue bill, the courts will not inquire into any other motives that the congress may have had in enacting this legislation.”
Anslinger: “I believe in some cases one [marijuana] cigarette might develop a homicidal mania, probably to kill his brother”.
Anslinger: “Last year [1936] there were some 338 seizures of marijuana in some 38 states.” (There were that many arrests last month in Nashville. You’re not “winning” the “War on Drugs”.)
There was one voice of reason in that congressional session, believe it or not. Dr. William C. Woodward, legislative counsel to the AMA, said that marijuana prohibition is “utterly unsusceptible of execution”. He was only slightly wrong:
Point 6: Prohibition laws can be successfully executed. You read correctly, you can “win” your “War on Drugs”. Just give plenary power to the DEA to force us all to submit to blood and urine tests whenever they see fit; give the DEA authority to search all our closets and basements, every glove box in every car, every pocket of every pedestrian on every street. Give the DEA power to perform body-cavity examinations on every citizen, and I specifically include every congressman. Give them power to snoop into every bank account. In words of few syllables, make the US a Police State. Then you’ll “win” your “War on Drugs”. Half-measures in the Land of the sorta-kinda Free serve only to make the Black Market more lucrative.
The points above are all irrefutable. All who attempt to refute them will surely begin by citing the interests of children who are not their own. “What about the children?” Take care of your own, don’t tell me how to care for mine. If I cause you harm, I will answer for it. Until then, leave me in peace…and Freedom.
Sincerely,
John Ray
> August 17, 2007
>
>
> Mr. John Ray
> P.O. Box 84
> Sewanee, Tennessee 37375
>
> Dear Mr. Ray:
>
> Thank you for recently contacting me regarding drug issues
> in the Fourth District. Knowing your views enables me to better
> represent you in Washington.
>
> From your letter I can tell you are deeply concerned about
> the growing problem of drugs in the Fourth district. First, let me
> say we share the same feelings of frustration and heartache when it
> comes to this problem. As you may know, meth in particular has
> become the worst drug facing the Fourth District. Since coming to
> Congress in 2001 I have done everything in my power to help
> combat Meth and other drugs. I have joined the Congressional
> Meth Caucus which over the years has fought for more funding
> and equipment to help our local law enforcement agencies. In
> addition to joining the Meth Caucus I have supported legislation
> that protects law enforcement officers who work with this toxic
> drug everyday by supporting H.R. 798, Methamphetamine
> Remediation Research Act of 2005. This bill seeks to develop a
> national set of health-based clean-up guidelines for former meth
> labs, funds the development of field-test kits to detect meth labs for
> use by law enforcement, and funds a study on the long term health
> effects of children recovered from meth labs and the long term
> effects on law enforcement officers. As we move through the
> 110th Congress, I will keep your views in mind on all legislation
> that deals with drugs.
>
> Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you have any
> further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
> me or my staff. My door is always open.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Lincoln Davis
> Member of Congress
>