Marijuana.com

Suetaz

Constitutional Violations of The War on Drugs

Written exclusively for Marijuana.com by Enraged American- July 22, 2004


Unalienable Rights.

What are they?

Unalienable is defined as "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable; not alienable; incapable of being alienated, surrendered, repudiated or transferred."

This means that they cannot be removed from The People by any means whatsoever, including laws or regulations. These rights are so intrinsic to The People that we are unable to even give them away willingly. They are with us for life whether we want them or not.

Where do they come from?

The Declaration of Independence states the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" are the source of man's rights, not the government.

Thomas Jefferson explained this 2 years prior to the Declaration with, "A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

Let us now examine the Constitution to show the limitations set by the founders and how they have been violated.

ARTICLE I, Section 8

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

The "Commerce Clause" has been misconstrued to prohibit the private growing of plants which is a misapplication in every sense of the word.

"The intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the 9th Circuit in December 2003.

The court added that "this limited use is clearly distinct from the broader illicit drug market, as well as any broader commercial market for medical marijuana, insofar as the medical marijuana at issue in this case is not intended for, nor does it enter, the stream of commerce."

Our founding fathers grew Hemp (AKA: Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis Indica, Cannabis Ruderalis, Marihuana and most recently Marijuana).

President George Washington proclaimed in 1794 "Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere." Incidentally, the Indian Hemp he referred to was Cannabis Indica, the kind of marijuana grown primarily for medicinal use.

Certainly our First President would never have allowed any law outlawing hemp to escape his veto.

The current "laws" regarding hemp make criminals out of our founding fathers and place our founding documents (The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution) under government contempt as they were written on hemp paper.

What was legal for our founding fathers should not be illegal for us.

Slavery and the right of women to vote were dealt with the proper way, Constitutional amendments, not so with any of our drug "laws".

The Bill of Rights:

Article I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The definition of religion is:

1)(a)Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as Creator and governor of the universe.
(b)A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2) The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Whether we believe in God or are an agnostic or atheist, we are all engaged in religion of some sort.

Every person has at least one cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion that could be defined as their religion and is protected under the 1st. Amendment as a result.

Those who believe in the God of the Bible should read their Bible more carefully.

Genesis 1:29 states, "And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.""

One cannot freely exercise their religion if man prohibits an herb that God allows us to consume.

Religious denominations supporting medical marijuana or state discretion on this issue include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church.


Article IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We have the right to be secure in our choice of medicine, an effect. We have the right to be secure against clearly unreasonable government officials searching for and seizing home grown marijuana for personal medical or relaxation use. For a person to grow marijuana for personal use in the privacy of their own home does not affect interstate commerce in any way whatsoever, but the People continue to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures as a result of the misapplication of the Commerce Clause in the Controlled Substance Act.


Article V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

One only needs to skim through the newspapers of our nation to see how our lives, liberty and property are desecrated by "the war on drugs".

People growing marijuana for personal use are routinely deprived of private property with no compensation whatsoever.


Article VIII.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Each and every point contained in the 8th amendment are violated without restraint in "the war on drugs". It is nothing less than cruel and unusual the way drug war storm troopers treat users of cannabis.

One case that has to be the worst in the history of "the war on drugs" is that of W.A.M.M. on September. 5th 2002. During this "raid", Suzanne Pfeil understands why federal agents burst in just after dawn with guns drawn and handcuffed her. That's routine in drug busts. What she can't understand is why agents kept ordering her to stand up after they saw her crutches and leg braces next to the bed. Then when her blood pressure spiked and she felt chest pains, the agents refused to call an ambulance, says Pfeil, 42, disabled by polio. That she can't forgive. "Totally unprofessional," she says. "They were brutalizing us."


Article IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Simply put, the 9th amendment means that just because some specific rights are listed in the Constitution, it doesn't mean that others that are not listed can be taken away or disrespected.

Disparage is defined as "To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. To reduce in esteem or rank."

Every aspect of our government, from the street cop to the drug czar, disrespects our right to grow and consume the plants of our choice.


Article X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power of the people to govern their own lives is a long forgotten right, but still reserved by us nonetheless.

The government has gotten around the 10th amendment by a misapplication of,

Article 1, Section 8

Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

They have taken the "general Welfare" phrase to mean that they are free to control every aspect of the people's lives.

If the words and intent in the Bill of Rights are subverted thru loop holes contradictory to its intent, then we have lost the meaning of the words which govern our lives.

Our "leaders" hold up the Constitution and proclaim its virtues as long as it fits their goals. They are using the Constitution as a tool for their own purposes and to deny many rights retained by the people.

One right that the people retain and exercise in abundance is "the right to be blissfully ignorant of the rest of our rights being taken away", a right that we should stop exercising before it is too late.

__________________

 

Jose Melendez

cross posting from my comments on cannabisnews.com:

I've just returned from Jacksonville where leap.cc had a booth at the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice show, where we were directly next to the Drug Enforcement Administration booth and had some very interesting debates with several special agents.

I'm trying to write a book about all this, including my documentary film experiences and have decided I need to go back to UMASS.

Jack Cole (the executive director for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) has agreed to help me get film grants and even is springing for a cell phone, to assist with my documentary and leap activism work.

In my documentary video, entitled Drug War IS Crime, I am going to point out that existing U.S. law specifically deems illegal any war waged on Americans (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3), and that the Clayton and Sherman Antitrust acts specifically state that restraints of interstate trade and restrictions of foreign commerce, or the creation of a monopoly are unlawful.

Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. 844(i) (Supp. IV 1998), prohibits the destruction by fire of a building or other property "used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce,"

LEO's do regularly dismiss out of hand or ignore these points, despite the fact that they are all sworn to uphold and defend the laws and Constitution of this country.

Here again I must state for the record that I find it particularly disingenuous of LEO's and prohibitionists that they so consistently dismiss these ideas, and in every case so far, without actually addressing those points.

Yet consistently, the majority of said law enforcement pros, including former and current narcotics agents and corrections professionals, have conceded privately that they agree that drug war is at least disproportionately waged on minorities.

Certainly and nearly without exception, almost all current LEO's agree that legal substances are far more harmful, yet refuse to state those opinions publicly, for whatever reason.

It is a fact that statistics provided by our government consistently point to a doubling or more of the homicide rate during periods of alcohol and "illicit" drug prohibitions, even as inferior manufactured products, when used legally and as advertised and suggested by the makers and distributors of those foods, medications, intoxicants and additives, do kill more than one million Americans each and every year.

For those who would ask or express concern: YES, the title is intended to promote controversy, partly because that is what sells in our society. But if I report a crime, as I have to dozens of law enforcement professionals, and they consistently ignore those reports, yet continue to support this illegal war on us, what else can I do?

See my follow up at: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread19221.shtml#8

Enraged American

LEO's do regularly dismiss out of hand or ignore these points, despite the fact that they are all sworn to uphold and defend the laws and Constitution of this country.

Here again I must state for the record that I find it particularly disingenuous of LEO's and prohibitionists that they so consistently dismiss these ideas, and in every case so far, without actually addressing those points.


Not just certain points, civil and human rights in general.

To them, the Constitution is an enemy to be defeated when it comes to fighting "crime".

They dismiss the truth because they know it is so. How can they sleep?

__________________
The one sided, negative view that people are given about drugs is similar to the one sided, negative view they are given about guns—something that conservatives complain about.
------------------------------------------------------
Freedom with limitations is not freedom at all.