Marijuana, Cops and Corruption in Trinidad and Tobago

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.

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/antitrust/statutes/clayton.html

U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.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

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.

Mj Tree House, Yummmmm

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

law illegally enacted

" . . . 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.

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?

here's why

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.

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.

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.

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.

They're not "wars" in the literal sense.

Tell that to those who have lost loved ones in your corrupting drug war. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands behind bars for weeds, Niteshift. Cannabis, coca and poppies are far less harmful than nicotine, alcohol or many pharmaceuticals.

Perhaps the problem isn't the law, it's how you are twisting it to fit your purpose.

The problem is that these ridiculous laws are enacted by people who hypocritically ignore harms from far more dangerous, but legal substances as well as harm from the laws themselves. Just because those who are affected cannot or do not speak out against these rules does not make them (the rules, that is) right.

War, with real weapons and real bullets and real deaths, is waged against American citizens, creating multi billion dollar industries that profiteer from the sales of more dangerous products that would otherwise have to compete in an open market against WEEDS.

The problem is that not enough of us speak out against such crimes. The problem is that politicians accept money and favors from companies that sell pills, booze, cigarettes, foods, additives and jail cells. The problem is that harms from these things are ignored, while we wage a war against our own people.

The problem is that more law enforcement officers like YOU are too willing to ignore that over ONE MILLION of US are killed every year from complications due to legal drugs and defective, deadly devices, while privately admitting that harm from marijuana is far less than harm from enforcement against it.

Think prohibition is legal and just? Fine, have another beer.

Tell that to those who have lost loved ones in your corrupting drug war. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands behind bars for weeds, Niteshift. Cannabis, coca and poppies are far less harmful than nicotine, alcohol or many pharmaceuticals.

Guess what Jose? I HAVE lost friends in the drug war. On my right wrist is a bracelet memorializing one of them. So don't try acting like you have a corner on this market. Do you want to start comparing number of friends lost?

Second, you can chatter all you want about the statistically small number of "lost loved ones", but is STILL doesn't make your definition of "war" correct or your legal theory any more valid.

The problem is that these ridiculous laws are enacted by people who hypocritically ignore harms from far more dangerous, but legal substances as well as harm from the laws themselves.

Using an incorrect definition and then applying laws that don't apply doesn't change that Jose.

War, with real weapons and real bullets and real deaths, is waged against American citizens, creating multi billion dollar industries that profiteer from the sales of more dangerous products that would otherwise have to compete in an open market against WEEDS.

Call it a war all you want, it still doesn't fit your theory. I'm actually surprised you aren't willing to conceed that yet.

The problem is that not enough of us speak out against such crimes.

MAybe people would listen if you stopped calling things that aren't crimes, crimes....or if you presented a legal theory that had some validity to it.

The problem is that more law enforcement officers like YOU are too willing to ignore that over ONE MILLION of US are killed every year from complications due to legal drugs and defective, deadly devices, while privately admitting that harm from marijuana is far less than harm from enforcement against it.

No, the problem is that people LIKE YOU, marginalize themselves by talking crazily about "crimes", "wars" and "treason", instead of trying to change the law in a sane, reasonable manner.

Think prohibition is legal and just?

Legal? Yes. Fine? That's debateable.

Fine, have another beer.

I don't drink alcohol sunshine. Why would you ASSUME that I do?


Bottom line to me, I'm willing to talk about sane, REAL methods of change. But I will always dispute and disprove (as I've done here), made up, ridiculous, unsupportable ideas like the one you've presented.

Come up with something reasonable and I might even help. But go on with faulty, conspiratorial theories like you've presented here, and I'll keep showing everyone with any understanding of the law that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

So why not try coming up with a REAL solution and quit pushing this empty, legal sham?

What empty sham? How is comparing lost loved ones reasonable? How do you figure that war waged against citizens is legal? Why do you keep avoiding the points that drug prohibitions increase demand, youth access and per capita homicides? I'm tired of fighting this, but I don't think it's crazy to apply existing laws against drug prohibitions. Great, I'm glad you don't drink. Help, already.

What empty sham?

This terribly flawed legal theory of yours. That is the sham. You have nothing legally supporting it and it's based on your use of the wrong definition of "war".

Let me ask you this: If everything were exactly the same, but "they" called it the "campaign against drugs", where would your theory be? You probably wouldn't be confusing yourself with the word "war" and going off on some tangent about treason. If the circumstances didn't change, only a word did, then it's not going to apply.

How is comparing lost loved ones reasonable?

I have no idea, but you brought it up. You act like your "side" of this arguement is the only one that can say that.

How do you figure that war waged against citizens is legal?

Because it's not the same "war" you are trying to claim. You are taking one defintion of "war" and totally ignoring the fact that the word means more than one thing.......and that the definition you are ignoring fits it like a glove.

Why do you keep avoiding the points that drug prohibitions increase demand, youth access and per capita homicides?

What points about it? Where are they in this thread?

but I don't think it's crazy to apply existing laws against drug prohibitions.

Because you are trying to apply a law that doesn't fit.

The treason law doesn't fit, because all 3 branches of government have blessed the drug laws. So enforcing them CAN'T, by definition, be treason, because treason is against the government.

Applying anti-trust laws doesn't work, because anti-trust laws only apply to legal businesses.

Take yourself away from the drug issue for a minute and imagine if you could use the anti-trust laws to protect other criminal enterprises. Going after the FBI because they confiscated the rifle you use for contract killings. Going after the BATF because they confiscated the components you had for a bomb. Going after the Secret Service because they confiscated the printing press you use to print counterfeit money. (No, I am not comparing growing pot to murder, I'm trying to get you to see the bigger picture.)

Sounds stupid, doesn't it? But that's exactly what could happen if the anti-trust laws were allowed to be used to protect criminal enterprises.

Great, I'm glad you don't drink.

Again I ask, why did you assume that I did?

Help, already.

You won't accept help. I offered you assistance in the form of disproving your legal theory, so you'll quit wasting your time and energy on it, and you simply refuse to see the blatantly, painfully obvious.

Give me something reasonable to work with and I might help. But don't ask for help with a project that not only doesn't have a chance, but is based on a completely wrong theory.

it's cliched, but it's correct...

I read and hear stuff like "drug laws are unconstitutional" so often that it's almost painfully annoying. However, the statement is correct (concerning federal laws at least, like the Controlled Substances Act). Here's a simple train of logic to help explain:

1. In 1919, a constitutional amendment was passed to ban alcohol (a drug). But why bother to pass a constitutional amendment instead of simply passing a law?

2. Because the constitution clearly explains what powers the government has (Article I, Section 8), and furthermore states explicitly that any power not listed in the constitution is reserved by the States or the People (the Tenth Amendment).

3. The power to ban drugs or even regulate their distribution (prescription drug laws, scheduling laws, etc.) is not listed anywhere in the constitution.

4. Whether or not banning alcohol was a good idea (in my opinion it wasn't), the simple fact remains that our government at least went about doing it in the legal, constitutional fashion: by passing an amendment granting the government a power (regulation/banning of alcohol) which had previously been reserved by the people.

5. There currently exists no constitutional amendment granting the government the right to regulate or ban drugs. The technical foundation that all federal drug laws have been precariously resting on is the federal government's right to regulate "interstate commerce", but I think even NiteShift would admit that's bullsh*t, seeing as how federal drug laws are enforced whether or not any interstate commerce/trafficking has occurred or not.

6. Therefore, all of our America's federal drug laws are unconstitutional.

*And NiteShift, I believe you asked Mr. Melendez where the court/judge/etc. backing up his opinion was? Let me know if this fits the bill:

In 1972, Justice Thomas G. Kavanagh of the Michigan Supreme Court, made the following statement of principle in the case of People v John Sinclair, 387 Michigan Reports page 91. He said:

"As I understand our constitutional concept of government, an individual is free to do whatever he pleases, so long as he does not intefere with the rights of his neighbor or of society, and no government - state or Federal has been ceded the authority to interfere with that freedom. As has been said:

`The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of these number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant.' J.S. Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 1.

...'Big Brother' cannot, in the name of Public health, dictate to anyone what he can eat or drink or smoke in the privacy of his own home."

Justice Kavanagh applied the same reasoning to vote to strike down laws on sale of drugs, in People v Eric Lorentzen, 387 Michigan Reports page 167. He said:

"The right to possess and use something, however, has little meaning unless one also has the right to acquire it, and hence proscription of sale cannot be reconciled with a right to possess and use.

It may be that some legitimate public interest may be served by the regulation of traffic in marijuana, but a statute which absolutely forbids the sale of marijuana is as offensive to the right of privacy and the pursuit of happiness as a statute which forbids its possession and use."

If you've actually bothered to read all of this and you have a reply or a question or you think I'm full of sh*t, email me as well as replying to it on this thread (if it's not too much trouble) because I don't check this website often enough and I'd actually like some feedback on this.

AlucardOrange3@yahoo.com

Oh and here's a link to the American Constitution so that you can check out Article I, Section 8 and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/constitution.html

I want to thank AlucardOrange3 and Niteshift for participating in this discussion. Both of you have reminded me that I am correct. Niteshift, you may claim to disagree, but somehow I doubt you would stand for the wholesale arrest of your family, friends and neighbors were the use of Budweiser and Marlboro suddenly criminalized.

. . . and that the definition you are ignoring fits it like a glove.

I strongly disagree. The definition you give suggests that drugs are considered injurious. However, it is the use of drugs to excess that is injurious, not the drugs themselves. Certainly the crimes that are directly linked to and exacerbated by their prohibitions are far more harmful.

Without question, more dangerous illicit contraband of questionable content and purity is the result of these rules. Just as with bathtub gin and moonshine in the 20's and 30's, crack and meth use today is only popular because of the prohibition of less harmful products. Under today's war against our own people over pot, heroin use by eighth graders is skyrocketing.

Furthermore, many legally manufactured and consumed deadly, addictive substances and defective delivery devices are in fact inferior products that cost the consumer artificially more than they would were their makers and sellers forced to compete in an open market, hence the antitrust violations I described earlier.

I am forced to repeat: Why do you keep avoiding the points that drug prohibitions increase demand, youth access and per capita homicides?

Your response earlier to this was What points about it? Where are they in this thread?

Here, from: http://www.marijuana.com/420/showthread.php?t=31847

Posted: 08-11-2004, 06:59 AM

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.

- - -

As I've stated elsewhere, these rules against cannabis, coca and poppies were never legally enacted, and as former DEA judge Francis Young pointed out in 1988 about the medical use of marijuana, are arbitrary and capricious. Of course, his ruling was ignored:

http://www.fcda.org/judge.young.htm

As a further example of how unreasonable and arbitrary such rules are, belladonna grows prolifically in Florida, and is deadly. Yet, we don't confiscate properties with hedges of Angel Trumpets. It should be obvious from Alcohol Prohibition that if we did start advertising that weed, as the Office of National Drug Control Policy does today for cannabis, demand and black market value for those (belladonna) flowers would increase, and their use by children, along with many deaths, would skyrocket.

The use and trade of so-called marijuana only remains illegal because not enough of We the People speak out against this unjust and corrupting war against us.

As for lost loved ones, I do not "act like (my) "side" of this arguement(sic) is the only one that can say that." What I do state firmly, for the record and without hiding behind a pseudonym, is that war on drugs increases deaths, crimes, youth access, and demand for more dangerous products, some of which are legal, but protected by the same hypocrites that would insist drug war is lawful.

Recreational use of marijuana is exponentially less harmful than booze, pills, cancer sticks, or the results of the laws themselves. That said laws have unquestionably resulted in increased use, crime, homicides, pay, profits and pensions for those gainfully employed in multi-billion dollar industries created on both sides of the law is consistent with previous "noble experiments" throughout history.

Drug War IS Crime. Just because we, the oppressed marijuana users of this country are disinclined to speak out does not make prohibitions against use and trade lawful, especially since such rules unfairly and unjustly benefit crooks on both sides of the law.

~Nightshift

~Jose

~Nightshift

Actually, it appears that Jose brought up the issue of lost loved ones. You, Nightshift, brought up comparing the losses. Jose, asked how would comparing be reasonable.

You are right though, Nightshift. There are no courts or precedents set yet to back up many of the very valid points which Jose has brought up. Unfortunately, the courts haven't seen it our way, just yet. Give us a little time, as with the abolition of slavery and the entire civil rights movement, these things take time.

peace

Both of you have reminded me that I am correct.

Then you haven't listened to a word I've said.

Niteshift, you may claim to disagree, but somehow I doubt you would stand for the wholesale arrest of your family, friends and neighbors were the use of Budweiser and Marlboro suddenly criminalized.

Again with the alcohol thing. I wouldn't have to worry, because my family would cease using any of them, if they were using them, when they were criminalized.

I strongly disagree. The definition you give suggests that drugs are considered injurious. However, it is the use of drugs to excess that is injurious, not the drugs themselves. Certainly the crimes that are directly linked to and exacerbated by their prohibitions are far more harmful.

You are arguing something different. It says CONSIDERED injurious. At this moment, the federal government considers drugs injurious. They aren't asking what YOU think or how YOU interpret it. So the definition still fits perfectly. The government, the one using the term, DOES consider them injurious.

I am forced to repeat: Why do you keep avoiding the points that drug prohibitions increase demand, youth access and per capita homicides?

I asked where it was brought up. So now you show me. Don't act like you showed me before and I have "avoided it" again.

Now, you show it.......but you make no specific points. There is nothing there to refute, agree with or really discuss. You simply make a vague reference to them......then claim I'm "avoiding" the topics. Say something SPECIFIC about them and we'll talk.

As I've stated elsewhere, these rules against cannabis, coca and poppies were never legally enacted, and as former DEA judge Francis Young pointed out in 1988 about the medical use of marijuana, are arbitrary and capricious.

Possibly because Young was an ADMINISTRATIVE judge, with no criminal jurisdiction.

I repeat, your legal theory has no legitimate support. You mix too many factors in your arguement, which confuses you and leads you to incorrect conclusions.



1. In 1919, a constitutional amendment was passed to ban alcohol (a drug). But why bother to pass a constitutional amendment instead of simply passing a law?

They did pass an amendment. That much is true. But here is where you stop using your "train of logic"........If banning it was illegal (ie a states right issue like you state) why was there a need for ANOTHER amendment to repeal it?

2. Because the constitution clearly explains what powers the government has (Article I, Section 8), and furthermore states explicitly that any power not listed in the constitution is reserved by the States or the People (the Tenth Amendment).

That is the issue that will be answered by the Supreme Court this spring. The federal governments application of the marijuana laws under the interstate commerce clause is specifically what is at issue.

3. The power to ban drugs or even regulate their distribution (prescription drug laws, scheduling laws, etc.) is not listed anywhere in the constitution.

Currently, they are using the interstate commerce clause, which is what is at issue in front of the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be upheld, maybe it won't. I don't know. But that is the constitutional hook they've hung their hat on for decades and what makes it, at the moment, legal.

4. Whether or not banning alcohol was a good idea (in my opinion it wasn't), the simple fact remains that our government at least went about doing it in the legal, constitutional fashion: by passing an amendment granting the government a power (regulation/banning of alcohol) which had previously been reserved by the people.

How can you claim they did it legally, while also claiming that they didn't have the authority to do it? The amendment should have been null on it's face.

And maybe, they realized that they didn't need another amendment if they invoked the interstate commerce clause.

5. There currently exists no constitutional amendment granting the government the right to regulate or ban drugs. The technical foundation that all federal drug laws have been precariously resting on is the federal government's right to regulate "interstate commerce", but I think even NiteShift would admit that's bullsh*t, seeing as how federal drug laws are enforced whether or not any interstate commerce/trafficking has occurred or not.

I have seen them invoke the interstate commerce clause when I didn't agree with it. And this will be decided in the spring. I'm the one who started a thread in this very section talking about that case and it's possible implications. I think the case can have very wide implications, in areas besides drug law.

I have no idea how they will rule, but it is my hope that they will issue a definate ruling that settles the issue.

In 1972, Justice Thomas G. Kavanagh of the Michigan Supreme Court, made the following statement of principle in the case of People v John Sinclair, 387 Michigan Reports page 91. He said:
People v Eric Lorentzen, 387 Michigan Reports page 167. He said:

Wow, a SINGLE judge............Now, why don't you tell us the REST OF THE STORY. Tell everyone how that cases went for Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Lorentzen . How did the Michigan Supreme Court rule on those cases?

I guess I should have said, show me a case that supports the theory, because both LOST!

Finding a SINGLE judge doesn't cut it, because a) His reasoning was rejected by his peers when he was voted down, b) the laws in question STILL stand and c) our system is DESIGNED so that a single judge can't make thos kind of decisions. Humans are flawed. That's why all of our courts, above a certain level, rely on multiple judges that vote on cases as a group.

The fact that your could only find one, or even 5, out of the THOUSANDS of judges that have served in the time frame we are talking about should be a CLEAR message.

If you've actually bothered to read all of this and you have a reply or a question or you think I'm full of sh*t, email me as well as replying to it on this thread (if it's not too much trouble) because I don't check this website often enough and I'd actually like some feedback on this.

I have bothered to read it all.......and I will probably do the email thing when I have a chance, but it also bears answering here too.

Actually, it appears that Jose brought up the issue of lost loved ones. You, Nightshift, brought up comparing the losses. Jose, asked how would comparing be reasonable.

He did bring it up, by saying "Tell that to those who have lost loved ones in your corrupting drug war.". The clear implication is that I don't know what that would be like. Except that I do. I have been in that situation, more than once.

And you know what? I haven't met one single family member of ANY of those friends lost that would agree with this arguement. In fact, let me tell you about one of them. She lost her husband on Jan. 20, 1999. Instead of blaming the drug war or the laws, she took up his fight. She took the helm of an organization devoted to fighting drug trafficking and has continued the fight he started.

What you folks seem to forget sometimes is the "the other side" has it's share of losses too, but we don't always deal with those losses in the same way.

So yes, I was, and am, offended by the implication that I don't know what it's like.


You are right though, Nightshift. There are no courts or precedents set yet to back up many of the very valid points which Jose has brought up. Unfortunately, the courts haven't seen it our way, just yet. Give us a little time, as with the abolition of slavery and the entire civil rights movement, these things take time.

Stephanie, you're missing the point. Most of the points Jose brought up are NOT valid. His theory isn't just without juducial support, it's without support in legal theory period.

The laws MAY be unconstitutional (after a court rules such) and they MAY get changed. But they will NOT be changed on the basis of this theory that Jose has brought forward.

Let me put it this way: If I had $1000 to donate, and had a choice of giving it to help a lawyer fighting the case that is contesting the use of the interstate commerce clause by the federal government, or giving it to a lawyer who was arguing Jose's theory, there would be NO CONTEST. The lawyer fighting the commerce clause would get my money! Why? Because he has a legally supportable arguement. Jose does not.

Don;'t confuse yourself by thinking I am defending the prohibition law. I'm not. I'm arguing the legal issues at hand. IMO, this theory of Jose's is completely empty and I feel very confident that if he and I were to argue it in front of a neutral judge, I would win that arguement.

and I feel very confident that if he and I were to argue it in front of a neutral judge, I would win that arguement. (sic)

The fact that multi-billion dollar industries have the benefit of practically unlimited funding from taxes, asset forfeitures and artificially high profits may keep me from ever presenting my arguments in court, and I've gotten lots of eye rolling on this from both sides of the law.

But the fact remains that drug prohibitions are supported by corporations that stand to benefit financially from sales of their inferior, far more harmful products. That those corporations fund politicians who choose our judiciary says to me that there is unlikely to be such a thing as an unbiased judge, and as one very biased judge told me herself, " . . . there ain't no justice in our justice system."

He did bring it up, by saying "Tell that to those who have lost loved ones in your corrupting drug war.". The clear implication is that I don't know what that would be like.

No, the implication is that it's a WAR, and that those lost loved ones are collateral damage in that war against Americans, which is unlawful per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The Clayton and Sherman Antitrust Acts clearly prohibit restraints of interstate trade, foreign commerce, and the creation of monopolies, which is exactly what prohibitions against legal access to raw, generic cannabis, coca and poppies accomplish.

Drug war benefits crooks, increases per capita homicides and youth access to illicit contraband, and pays huge profits to those employed by or who have invested in the incarceration industry.

These are crimes.