www.ursm.us We must live in a police state when ACLU and ASA are afraid to defend the civil liberty “of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizure†in a court of law. It is reasonable for the police to seize marijuana because it is illegal but is the law reasonable to use state police power to deprive persons their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property for violating the marijuana laws? Due process of law requires the deprivation of fundamental rights to be justified by a compelling state interest related to public safety demonstrating the law is reasonable as required by Amendment IV. The federal case law has determine the constitutionality of the marijuana laws by rational basis. Rational basis is used when no fundamental rights are implicated by the enforcement of the laws. As a defendant and plaintiff, the federal and state courts have misrepresented the facts presented by declaring marijuana is not a fundamental right hence rational basis review, a political question. a political crime. We must live in a police state when the judiciary reviewed the constitutionality of criminal laws by rational basis. We must live in a police state when the courts, defenders of individual rights, deny seizing marijuana is deprivation of property, being arrested is deprivation of liberty. Marijuana is property. The right to acquire and possess property is a fundamental right. The private use of this property does not pose a threat to public safety. To use police power to protect me from myself violates due process of law. The right way to change the marijuana laws is by the courts. The marijuana laws are unreasonable use of police power contravening Amendment IV, V or XIX and every defendant should tell a judge this claim.
And it must be a police state when what you are being persecuted for is not even the law of your land, but a separate entity entirely- The United Nations.
You need to look up the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution if you don't think it's the law of the land. The United States was one of the original parties to ratify the United Nations into existence. lol
No, I realize this. But if you read the law of the land, ultimately, it goes back to the U.N. Single Convention Treaty. Thus, no constitutional amendment as it is a "treaty" with its justifications sitting outside of our own Constitution. U.S. statutes point to the treaty, not the Constitution. It's unconstitutional.
I haven't read this thread yet, but funny the U.N. is upset about WA and CO... http://forum.grasscity.com/marijuan...lo-wash-legal-pot-violates-drug-treaties.html The U.N. treaty sits outside of our Constitution. At the root of the U.S. statutes, (which are VERY hard to read, but I gave it the ol college try) they all point back to the U.N. single convention treaty as the basis for the laws. It is based on NOTHING pertaining to our own constitution. That is why there was no Constitutional Amendment like there was with alcohol (which was Unconstitutional, but rather than go down that path and fight it, they relented, and passed an amendment to abolish it and reverse it.) To get around the simple fact the drug war is Unconstitutional, they set up the U.N. and used it as the basis for these laws based on the single convention narcotics treaty. (Which, itself, reads such that criminal enterprise, not the individual user or low level producers, should be targeted.) It is by the interpretation, and the interpretation alone of the U.N. Single Convention treaty by the respective member states, that military-style raids occur on an individual's home. It was never even the intent of the treaty. It's just not worded to EXCLUDE such interpretations. So they decide to abuse everyone because they want to, and the purse strings go all the way up to the World Bankers, who set up the U.N. so that they can create new law outside the confines of countries' constitutions. It's a complete end-around, the U.N.
Ahhh, I see what you're getting at. They're saying the statutes are in violation of the treaty as an excuse for their invalidation even though they're squarely constitutional? The problem with that is the same problem in trying to say MMJ laws or the WA and CO statutes are invalid due to the existence of the CSA. Federal law trumps state law if there is a direct conflict, but there is no direct conflict. Individuals in the states aren't being ordered to defy federal law or those treaties, the state penalties are simply removed. There is no direct conflict and therefore no invalidation without an overreach of federal power. If there was any legitimate substance behind such an argument, the mmj laws would've been struck down before they even hit the books.
The U.N. is great but guess how much actual power they have, zero. It is a confederacy, it has no actual power except for when its participants decide to take action. And for how the U.N. will disappear, you can look to the League of Nations for that example. Look up: Halie Selassie, Abyssinia, Italian invasion. You really think once Earth's population gets high enough and competition for resources grows fierce that the U.N. will stop world war? Unlikely, nations are going to pick their side and we are going to have world war again. We can look to the unrest in Africa for that example. This is not a police state, no one came to your door after you voiced your opinion here to haul you off to prison. We are stronger in our fight for medical and recreational cannabis than ever. There is no police state in the U.S., and police states always fail anyway.
And that's not going on right now? MMJ, while annoying to the U.N. and the treaty, wasn't an all-out, across the board demand for everyone to be freed of the laws against cannabis. They could still largely continue the drug war, advance pharma agendas behind the scenes, etc. with medical mj going on. We see the Federal overreach in the raids. The people of WA and CO gave their legal, lawful notice that they no longer wish to be part of any criminal sanctions for pot. You can't have millions of people within a country dissenting from the treaty and still have it be valid for the nation as a whole. It's all or nothing buy-in for the participating U.N. member states. And in the case of the United States, you need all of our states to be buying in for the treaty to still be in effect. Holder has the international bankers breathing down his neck right now to "fix this!" I can't imagine they are pleased with his "performance" to have allowed it to get to this point and to have "lost" two states in the Union entirely. His replacement can't be far off.
Not at all in the sense I was referring, no. That's not what the legalization bills in WA and CO do... they just remove the penalties. lol Raids are not federal overreach in the sense I was referring. There is a substantial argument as to the unconstitutionality of the CSA considering the legal history of alcohol prohibition, but it's largely overlooked, even by pro-cannabis advocates. That's not a dissent from a treaty. I mean, how do you even figure that's what it was? If they were trying to dissent from anything, they would've declared the CSA invalid in their state or something. Removing criminal penalties and violations from the state books can in no way be interpreted as a dissent from an international treaty. The law just doesn't work that way. How are WA and CO failing to criminalize and prosecute marijuana a violation of the treaty? If that's the case, then we've been in violation for forty years now, every since Oregon decriminalized marijuana way back in 1973. Your claims have no basis in reality or the law...
The drug war is clear proof that we do live in a police state. You have the right to use whatever drug you want at any time for religious purposes. The constitution grants you freedom of religion. Not freedom to choose from a list of government pre-approved religions.
True. There is no difference between the police force (patrol) and a gang besides a government sanction.
Look, I can't help but feel you are putting in your best efforts to NOT understand what I'm trying to say. Let's break it down to its most rudimentary level: If anything I am saying is not true, WHY is the U.N. calling on Holder to "fix this?" Think about it! Again, you cannot have MILLIONS of people out of compliance with a treaty and have it be valid. They are not in compliance. Treaty is invalid. CSA? "Poof." Gone. At least with respect to pot. "Decriminalization" was all within the "local framework" (a.k.a. U.S. statutes.) Obviously, when my own state also "decriminalized" back then as well, yet we have no less than 26 drug task forces. Obviously, de-crim is not the answer, and doesn't ultimately affect a treaty participation. They never said it was no longer a Federal offense in the 70's. Only modified criminal penalty, which is within states' rights. I mentioned medical only for the reasons I did. It didn't affect the CSA, But it was "dangerous" in that it changes public perception and was just an "annoyance" for the Feds and the U.N. CO and WA are different in that their actions go all the way to the top and how our own Federal statutes interplay with the Treaty. Therefore, not following the CSA/Single Convention Treaty invalidates the whole shebang. Thus, the U.N. heavily breathing down Holder's neck right now. I'll be very surprised if he is not replaced soon.
No need for rudimentary nonsense, I feel the same way. That just isn't the way the law works. I mean, that's probably how it should work, but that is definitely not how the law currently operates. The CSA is still in full effect. State legislation has no effect on federal legislation. You can still be busted in WA and CO under the CSA. They've merely removed the state penalties. Oregon decriminalized weed in 1973. If a state simply removing the penalties for marijuana from the books is in violation of said treaty, then the US has been in violation for for FORTY YEARS with no ill effect and The Netherlands have been in 'full violation,' as you would claim, for quite a while now as well. The UN is doing nothing but making fallacious, sensationalist claims that have no legal validity and you're falling for it. The state legislation does not remove the federal penalties in WA and CO like you seem to incorrectly believe. Also, decriminalization didn't modify the criminal penalty for possession, it removed it entirely. They are not doing that now either. The state legislation passed in WA and CO have no effect on federal law. No, decriminalization did not only modify the criminal penalty, it completely removed it. Neither do the initiatives that passed in WA and CO. No, they do not. The bills have no effect on federal law whatsoever. Such an effect would be unconstitutional and invalid. You can still be busted in WA and CO under the CSA. The CSA is still in full effect in all 50 states in the Union. You are simply wrong. lol The law just doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.
Again, the Netherlands never changed their laws. Only the enforcement. (Their "tolerance POLICY." Again, NOT LAW.) Please stop arguing with me about how the law supposedly "works." It does not work on any level, and is invalid for the reasons I have cited. The U.N. wouldn't come calling on Holder to fix it if it didn't matter. Think about it! Decriminalization does not completely remove criminal penalty. It alters it. You are wrong from the start, I am sorry to say. If you think decrim in the 1970's had the potential to invalidate the Single Convention Treaty, that tells me you do not seem to have a grasp on this.
lol Government POLICIES, especially policies like US administrative rules, are technically law... I'd like to recommend that you take Business Law 101 or some other type of rudimentary law class because they go over all of the basics like that. Decriminalization in Oregon, the state I live in, occurred in 1973 and completely removed, without otherwise modifying, the criminal penalty for possession of less than 28.35 grams of cannabis. Do your fucking research and don't talk shit about what I have a grasp of when you're factually incorrect.
What happens when you have 29 or 30 grams in your possession? Did the STATE laws change? Did the Federal? When the Federal Laws depend on the TREATY being followed, do you see what I'm getting at?? De-crim ups the penalty for production. That's it.