Marijuana.com

Bellatrix

Cops raid ganja camp


Express 6 | Monday, August 9th 2004

A mid-morning raid by officers of the Santa Cruz Police Station yesterday netted more than $120,000 worth of marijuana trees found in the hills of Cakelands overlooking the Santa Cruz Valley.

Police said that at around 11 a.m. a large party of North Eastern Divisional officers led by Snr Supt Waldron Bishop, and including ag Insp Kenrick Edwards, Cpl Alexander and PCs Marlon St Rose, Joseph Jones, Ali and Ragbir, journeyed about two miles into the forested area, where they found the thriving plantation.

A 32-year-old man who was seen leaving the camp with an armful of marijuana was arrested on the spot.

Officers then set about uprooting and burning the narcotic. They also retrieved some of the marijuana to be used as evidence.

Santa Cruz police are continuing investigations.

Bellatrix; I've also included a related article from the same source. The symptoms of prohibition are always similar, no matter where you go.


Prison officer in court for ganja

Hayden Mills | Express 6 | Wednesday, August 4th 2004

A PRISON OFFICER attached to the Golden Grove Prison appeared in court yesterday, charged with marijuana possession.

Kerwin Wright, 31, of Phase I, La Horquetta, appeared before Magistrate Gail Gonzales in the Arima Magistrates' Second Court.

The marijuana was allegedly confiscated from him by a supervisor on Monday night who allegedly observed an unusual bulge in Wright's shirt pocket, while he was on duty that night.

He was charged by acting Cpl Job of the Arouca Police Station.

Wright pleaded not guilty to the charge and a description of the loose plant material, resembling marijuana, in a plastic bag was taken by the court.

The marijuana had a weight of 90 grammes.

The accused officer was granted $40,000 bail and the matter was adjourned to Tuesday.

__________________

Marijuana.com Community Posting Guidelines
Marijuana.com Article Submission Guidelines

FREE MARC EMERY

 

Jose Melendez

Officers then set about uprooting and burning the narcotic.

Had this occurred in the U.S. (and it does) it would be illegal, although currently unlikely to be enforced as such.

from: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/844.html

18 U.S.C. 844(i)

Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both; and if personal injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or both; and if death results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall also be subject to imprisonment for any term of years, or to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.

from; http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm

1. SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 § 1 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

§ 2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.


See also:

Clayton Act:

http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/...s/clayton.html

U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...rticleiii.html

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Drug War IS Crime.

- jm

Niteshift

Had this occurred in the U.S. (and it does) it would be illegal, although currently unlikely to be enforced as such.

It would not be illegal.

The drugs are contraband. You can't legally own them.


Title 21, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1, Part E, Sec. 881:

(a) Subject property



The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and NO PROPERTY RIGHT SHALL EXIST IN THEM:

(1)

All controlled substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of this subchapter.

(2)

All raw materials, products, and equipment of any kind which are used, or intended for use, in manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing, or exporting any controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter.

(3)

All property which is used, or intended for use, as a container for property described in paragraph (1), (2), or (9).

(8)

All controlled substances which have been possessed in violation of this subchapter.



(g) Plants


(1)

All species of plants from which controlled substances in schedules I and II may be derived which have been planted or cultivated in violation of this subchapter, or of which the owners or cultivators are unknown, or which are wild growths, may be seized and summarily forfeited to the United States.



(3)

The Attorney General, or his duly authorized agent, shall have authority to enter upon any lands, or into any dwelling pursuant to a search warrant, to cut, harvest, carry off, or destroy such plants.





The law is very clear and I have told you before that your interpretation was incorrect. You are trying some complicated BS, applying a law that isn't applicabble, when the ACTUAL LAW, is clearly written.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Cabs

Damn, I wish I had a marijuana tree...

__________________
I beleive in gay marage, as long as both the chicks are hot.

Jose Melendez

" . . . when the ACTUAL LAW, is clearly written."

The law cited was illegally enacted, increases the profitability of inferior and far more harmful products that would have to otherwise compete with raw, generic cannabis (or coca or poppies). That's a violation of antitrust laws.

Perjury, as well as omission of material and relevant fact are a part of the Congressional record leading to the enactment of the laws in question.

Those with pay, profits and pensions to protect refuse to acknowledge these truths. They ignore that per capita homicides, drug related crimes, proliferation and drastically increased availability of drugs to ever younger populations of youth are the result of arbitrarily enacted and capriciously enforced rules.

Drug war IS crime.

- - -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

VENACIO AGUASANTA ARIAS, et al., : Plaintiffs, : vs. : DYNCORP, et al., Defendants. :

Wednesday, February 27, 2002 Washington, D.C.


Deposition of RAND BEERS, held at the offices of the International Labor Rights Fund, 733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 920, Washington, D.C.,

commencing at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 27, 2002, before SHIRLEY S MITCHELL, Notary Public for the District of Columbia.


EXAMINATION BY: Mr. Collingsworth

WITNESS: Rand Beers

Q. Are you aware of any studies conducted regarding the issue of drift with respect to Roundup, the fumigant base that is being used in Plan Columbia?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that there are any studies?

A. No.

Q. Do you know what kind of spray was initially being used when Plan Columbia first began?

A. No.

Q. Do you know what kind of spray is being used now?

A. No.

Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?

A. I am not at liberty to say.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I am not at liberty to say.

 

Niteshift

The law cited was illegally enacted, increases the profitability of inferior and far more harmful products that would have to otherwise compete with raw, generic cannabis (or coca or poppies). That's a violation of antitrust laws.

You keep saying that. Why do you not have any courts backing that up?


Many states have similar laws, and they too have withstood judicial challenge. There are also similar laws for other things, besides drugs. For example, mine has one declaring no property rights to machines used for illegal gambling and mandating their destruction.

Simply put, you keep making this claim, by applying a law that isn't relevant. The main reason it's not relevant is because the laws don't protect illegal activity.


And what does Arias v. Dyncorp have to do with this?


Note: The person testifying in Arias v. Dyncorp, Rand Beers, is currently the national security advisor to John Kerry. Beers also testified to the link between drugs and terrorism and tried to claim FARC terrorists in Colombia were getting training from al Qaeda. What do you think he'll be telling Kerry?

Jose Melendez

Q. Why do you not have any courts backing that up?

A. They are all crooks or hypocrites. Judges ignore Constitutional and antitrust laws in these cases, because they have vested interests and friends in high places, some that they drink and smoke legal drugs with.

Q. And what does Arias v. Dyncorp have to do with this?

A. You answered that one yourself, with your question as to what Beers will recommend Kerry does about Plan Colombia. They are all crooks, or hypocrites.

They look the other way and ignore harms caused by the laws themselves, deaths from "legal" poisons and "drug related" crimes. Increased demand and youth access. Billion dollar industries like yours, that depend on the status quo.

And when they do (rarely) speak out, they are shouted down or ignored.

Drug war IS crime, unconstitutional violations of antitrust laws based on lies, and maintained by criminals.

Niteshift

A. They are all crooks or hypocrites. Judges ignore Constitutional and antitrust laws in these cases, because they have vested interests and friends in high places, some that they drink and smoke legal drugs with.

It's pretty hard to belief that every judge in the US is in on this conspiracy. You have to admit, it's a little tough to swallow that they are all in on it.

If that were the case, how would you explain the 9th Circuit Court's ruling about medical marijuana in California. They clearly feel it should be ok, so why haven't they ruled in agreement with this theory of yours?

A. You answered that one yourself, with your question as to what Beers will recommend Kerry does about Plan Colombia. They are all crooks, or hypocrites.

No, I didn't answer it myself. My original point was that there is no US law or ruling supporting your theory. Arias v. Dyncorp is about actions that happened outside the US.

Drug war IS crime, unconstitutional violations of antitrust laws based on lies, and maintained by criminals.

So far, your claim is based only on your interpretation of the antitrust laws, which don't even apply since the activity in question is illegal and not protected under them.

Jose Melendez

You have to admit, it's a little tough to swallow that they are all in on it.

If that were the case, how would you explain the 9th Circuit Court's ruling about medical marijuana in California. They clearly feel it should be ok, so why haven't they ruled in agreement with this theory of yours?

I concede that it was irresponsible of me to use the term "all".

So far, your claim is based only on your interpretation of the antitrust laws, which don't even apply since the activity in question is illegal and not protected under them.

No, drug war is regularly waged on Americans, a violation of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Outside or inside the U.S., drug war harms us all, poisons our environment and encourages the sale and use as advertised of deadly devices and drugs indisputably associated with hundreds of thousands of annual deaths in this country, and millions world-wide. The scheduling of cannabis, coca and poppies unfairly and I dare say unlawfully supports makers and sellers of inferior, far more harmful products.

Niteshift

No, drug war is regularly waged on Americans, a violation of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Again, you say this, but you have no support either by act or interpretation. I'm not sure what your legal training consists of, but I'd submit that it's not very complete, given your consistent claim of this theory.

This is most likely due to you literal interpretation of the word "war". The "War " on drugs is a figure of speech, just like the "war" on illiteracy, the "war" on poverty. They're not "wars" in the literal sense. Just like the drug "czar" isn't a real czar and neither will the intelligence "czar".

In the Constitution, they used the word war, meaning armed conflict against the government of the US and it's people by someone other than the government. A law that has been passed by the legislature, enacted by the executive branch and upheld by the judicial branch can hardly be considered treason.

If you bother to look up the word "war", you'll see more than one meaning, such as:


a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

That is from dictionary.com. Now, unless you want to allege that they too are part of this elaborate conspiracy, we can reasonably say that definition b fits the term "war on drugs" perfectly. Are you honestly going to have people believe that "A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious" is what the framers had in mind when they defined treason?

So let's get the correct, legal definition of treason:

Chapter 18, Part 1, Section 115 of the US code:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States"


The "them" they are referring to is the US government.

Now let's look at the part of the Constitution you are hanging your arguement on:

" Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Again, the first "them" is referring to the United States government.

Try this, take those 2 passages to an English professor and ask him if I'm correct.


Perhaps the problem isn't the law, it's how you are twisting it to fit your purpose. Your advice and interpretation is harmless until you start presenting it to other readers here as factual, which is what you are doing. You keep repeating that is IS a crime (your emphasis). You present it as factual, rather than the sheer, unsupported opinion that it is.