> Our Freedom was created by those with the courage to dissent, to rebel, to act as individuals... Not a single one of our Freedom's was won by conforming to the will of the majority or by loyalty to the state!
Every Freedom we have - Religious Freedom, Political Freedom, the Freedom to Speak, Write & Assemble - was a Freedom won by a solitary person or by small groups who risked their own comfort & in some cases their lives to oppose the majority when they felt the majority to be wrong, or to oppose the state when they felt the state to be wrong.

> Those of us today who oppose the "War-on-Drugs" will be called "traitors" by some & misguided by many others.
Yet I hope that some small part of what motivates us may be communicated to our fellow citizens... the "silent majority" who, as usual are immersed in the business of day to day living while the more vociferous fringe elements argue & shape collective destiny.

> the United States Government has No Right to put people in jail unless they physically harm the person or property of another, the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights prohibit it! ( if your a citizen of another country, this still applies, since it is likely your country is a signatory of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. )

> If we let anyone lose their freedom without just cause, we have all lost our Freedom!

> As an American Citizen, I have no choice but to express my opposition to our government, when it violates the values of compassion & decency by a Barbaric campaign against it's own population! If I failed to voice my opposition, then I should fail my duty as a citizen!

> As a child in church and school I was taught that deceit & lying is wrong, that torture and violence is wrong, that unwarranted aggression is wrong. I believe what I was taught.
I believe that I learned values that have merit and by which I seek to live - I believe these values are valid for all times & places!

> What can I do about a government that engages in deceit & lying, that is proud of it's violence, that condones torture & is without remorse for it's aggression against it's own citizens?

> All societies must have laws of orderly rules & regulations, only the most hard-core radical Anarchist would argue that point, But I, as a responsible Adult Human Being will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or were I go with my mind!

> the intemperate panic fueling anti-drug legislation reveals an appalling irrationality... Armed Robbers, Murderers & Violent Child-Rapists receive lighter prison sentences than people captured with "unauthorized" plants or pills or powders in their possession!

> Those who demand & enforce these laws have lost all humane perspective & by opposing this injustice I am trying to, in the clearest way I can see, to act as a responsible American citizen, true to the deepest & best traditions of Freedom & Liberty of this Nation of which I am so deeply a part!

Im with you on all of that.

if the pursuit of happiness doesn't include the right to explore your own consciousness then the declaration of independence isn't worth the hemp it's written on.

good one

But forreal, the OP is 100% true and legit. Its what the country was based on. I was recently arrested on marijuana charges, and they took me into the interrogation room to question me about drugdealers. I was very pissed (yet not incoherant and rude) and made it very clear that they were violating my rights, and the rights and morals of our country. They just ignored it. Except for one, new guy. He walked me out to the car, when i was going to the station to be processed; and right when we both got in the car (noone else in the car) he apologized for what was happening and said that he thinks its horrible that this is happening. We had a brief conversation, he sAid he doesnt know if plants will ever be legal, and i said i know they will. Then his partner walked out the door towards the car, and the cop in the car said that his end of the conversation was over; he didnt want his peers to know his true feelings of this.

Somewhat sad. Yet it shows just a tinsy bit of the potential out their

The law is invalid in a constitutinal framework. bottom line, no arguments.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause

But the Federal Government has been abusing the commerce clause in the constitution for a long time, and the war on drugs is just one illegal monopoly of force illogically justified by the commerce clause.

All you can do is not cooperate or obey such unjust laws, in fact you should be proud to do so at any opportunity given. Once everyone learns that they can actually enact change by non-violent non-cooperation with such illegal governmental force, the world will begin to actually change for the better. Lobbying/voting/petitioning will get you nowhere in the current system. The will of the people was subjugated with the power of wealth a long time ago, and people by and large have yet to fully realize this.

> Why I Believe Drug Laws are Unconstitutional... The United States Constitution & it's Bill of Rights CLEARLY gives us the right to pursue our lives without the forced intervention of moralists, do-gooders or busybodies! Of Course, this is Only a personal opinion, based on my understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, John Lockes Two Treatises of Government," and many of the other documents on which our system of government is based.

> Let's Look at the Bill of Rights, in Reverse Order starting with #10...

> the 10th. Amendment Reads "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."

> This affirms that if the Constitution did-not Specifically take a power ( that is, a right or freedom ) away from the People, the People kept it.

> This settled once and for all, the fundamental question, "Does the government inherently have all the power and then dole out specific rights to the people, or do the people inherently have all the power and - in exchange for certain benefits - surrender specific powers to the government?

> Concerning the government of the United States, the answer is clear; the people inherently have the power and turn specific powers over to the government.

> These power were detailed in the Constitution ( the Enumeration of Powers ), and all other powers belonged to the people!!!

> the 9th. Amendment says... "The emmeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

> Just because the Constitution says you have certain rights does not mean that you don't have other rights, which the Constitution didn't bother to enumerate!

> This amendment was designed to counter the argument, "If we have certain rights, then it might be supposed that those are the Only rights people have." - As seen in the 10th. amendment, the people clearly hold all the rights, and just because Some of those basic rights are listed in the Constitution does not in any way mean to limit the rights not mentioned!

> the 8th. Amendment says... "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments imposed."

> To me it seems both cruel and unusual to punish people for doing something that potentially could only harm themselves! This is especially true when the punishment is often worse than the damage they might do themselves. Such punishment, however, has become So usual we've become numb to it's cruelty!

> One arrest - even without conviction - can significantly and permanently reduce the quality of your life!

> If it's true - as the moralists claim - that drug use is so Harmful to the individual that it should be illegal, isn't the use of drugs punishment enough? Adding arrest, trial and conviction seems cruel and unusual.

> the 7th. Amendment guarantees a jury in civil matters. We can't make every matter a criminal matter, the Constitution is saying; we can't lock-up every citizen who displeases another citizen. the government can, however, guarantee a fair system by which disputes between individuals ( civil matters ) can be settled. This system is trial by jury.

> This amendment acknowledges that not every physical harm one person does another is a criminal offense. How much Less a criminal offense it must be then, when people only potentially harm themselves!

> The Constitution made provisions for civil disputes so that the government could use the criminal enforcement branch of the government only for the most Clearly Criminal Acts!
The civil acts - even many that do cause physical harm to others - the Constitution left to the civil courts.

> Not only does the Constitution have No Authority to regulate personal morality; it also has no system by which to do it!

> the 6th. Amendment deals with criminal prosecution which, alas, brings us to "drug crimes."

> This amendment guarantees us "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." One of the requirements for this jury trial is for the accused "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." In a trial for a "crime" without a victim, who are the witnesses against the person accused?

> In a genuine crime ( except murder, of course ) the innocent victim can come forth and testify against the accused! If someone robs you at gun-point, you can go into court and testify against the accused.

> If there is no clear-cut victim, however, who says Anyone should testify against you?

> That the government should be against any "crime" that has no clear-cut victim is certainly not part of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or any of the other documents on which our system of government is based!

> the 5th. Amendment is most famous for the provision that one does not have to testify against oneself in a criminal case!

> Because of this amendment a lot of "drug crimes" have - thanks to the Constitution - not been prosecuted as vigorously as the might. Courts can prove Possession of a drug, but not necessarily drug use!

> Another important guarantee of the 5th. amendment reads "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This affirms the Sanctity of Private Property!

> This seems to be a Clear Statement that the government is Suppose to protect the individual against the majority, even protect the individual against the government itself!

> This protection was steadfastly respected here in the United States since the time of the founding fathers.

> However, in the current madness involving drugs and violation of drug "laws," A person in "Authority" can seize your property, invoking the mechanisms of civil forfeiture, and you can't do a thing about it! This can take place without any jury findings whatsoever, in fact, without a trial of any kind being held!

> Taking something from someone without just compensation, especially thru use of violence is THEFT, at least this is what I was brought up to believe!!!

> the 4th. Amendment begins, "The Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers & effects, against Unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

> Again, we have a Clear directive that the government should stay out of our private property, unless it has a very specific search warrant ( described in the rest of the amendment ).

> The Idea that the government should punish people for doing something that could potentially hurt themselves is Fundamentally Unreasonable! Hence, any searches and seizures of "persons, houses, papers and effects" for the purpose of discovering that people might be harming themselves ( and, therefore, should be imprisoned ) are Unreasonable! ( drug "crimes" have been used to make such "unreasonable" searches seem more reasonable to some.)

> the 3rd. Amendment reads... "No solider shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law."

> Once again, the Constitution affirms the absolute sanctity of private property. Even a solider - who may someday risk his or her very life to defend your life and property - cannot spend the night in your house without your permission!

> Second, the amendment shows that, in time of war things change, and certain sacrifices must be made, but even then a solider cannot stay in a private home, unless a law is passed allowing him to do so, in other words the legislature must become involved! ( That the American people rise to the occasion of war is well known and used by those who would manipulate us. Thus, the War on Drugs... )

> This is one of the many safe-guards in the Constitution against a Police State, against a military body that decides it's needs are more important than those of a citizen and takes what it wants by force!

> the 2nd. Amendment affirms "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms."

> This is the amendment - interpreted literally - that the National Rifle association uses to keep all kinds of firearms - including 200,000,000 handguns legal. the NRA Insists that it is our Constitutional Right to "Keep and Bear Arms."

> the intent behind this amendment, however, comes clear when read in it's entirety...
" A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

> This amendment dealt with keeping a milita armed. A milita was made up of people who -
when the need arose - grabbed their muskets and protected the home front.
Today the National Guard fulfills that need, civilians who can be called up at moments notice. Even when mobilized, however, National Guard troops are not asked to bring their own guns; these are supplied to them. I doubt if many non-National Guard gun-owning citizens really expect to be called into service of their country - mid-nite specials
in hand!

> I went on like this, not to attack the NRA's stand on handgun ownership, but merely to point out that just because a portion of the Constitution may be antiquated does not make it obsolete.

> So, if anyone argues against the contention that crime's without clear-cut victim's are Unconstitutional by saying, "What the Constitution Says & what it Means are two different things - Things are different now," Just Remember the NRA & the Right to bear Arms!!!
( the NRA is to be congratulated on this, by the way, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." AMEN. Owning something should not be illegal, but rather using something to physically harm the person or property of another. )

> There. Now that I've got Everybody mad, lets move onto the First Amendment!!!

> the 1st. Amendment. Ahhh, the Best for last... the FIRST Amendment, forty-five words that spell "FREEDOM." Here it is in it's Full Glory...

> "Congress Shall Make NO LAW Respecting an Establishment of Religion, or Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof; or Abridging the Freedom of Speech, or the Press; or the Right of the People Peacefully to Assemble, and to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances!

> Allow me to Emphasize one portion of the First Amendment; Congress Shall Make NO LAW! -

> Allow me to Emphasize that again; NO LAW!!!

> By what authority does Congress Dare make laws based on limiting Assembly, Speech, and, Especially, Religion???

> The Freedom of Religion is Guaranteed to us Twice; the Freedom from Religion and the Freedom of Religion! Most laws against drug use are based on Religious ( ie. Moral ) Beliefs!

> The second clause prohibits Congress from making any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of Religion!

> IF The CONSTITUTION GUARANTEED NO OTHER FREEDOM THAN THIS, It WOULD BE ENOUGH To IMMEDIATELY ABOLISH ALL SO-CALLED DRUG-LAWS, Not To Mention Any Other "Crime" Without A Real Victim!!!

> Who is to say the Practice of my Religion should not include the consumption of any currently "illegal" substance???

> Think About It!!!

Specifically on this note:
" > the United States Government has No Right to put people in jail unless they physically harm the person or property of another, the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights prohibit it! ( if your a citizen of another country, this still applies, since it is likely your country is a signatory of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. )"

I fully agree here, however the only thing is without big brother breathing down our necks further, a trial is useless now a days as technically unless there is a witness or a camera present, we can never officially prove someone did something, and even then its sketchy since people lie and video can be altered incredibly realistically nowadays. So as I said I do agree with the statement but there'salmost no way to better this policy in the government as it is, short of putting a Camera with an uneditable format on EVERYONE'S shoulder or face or something to see what EVERYONE is doing at all times, and in such a case at this point I would think enough people would finally wake up if that ever happened and finally rebel... and we'd be in chaos and have to fight for our freedoms again .

I've read over the bill of rights so many times and everyone in office is sworn to uphold the constitution. I see now that the interpretations are in fact "construing " the actual meaning behind the document. The government has long ago stepped over its delegated powers.

I too got charged with marijuana charges. When I was in court the room was full of people. The majority was small time drug offenses, like small possession. Its a waste of time and resources of the court and prisons to charge people who otherwise would be outstanding citizens.

When I was being held i was with a guy who had broke into 19 peoples house and stole things from each. Too compare me, a person who couldn't bear the thought of stealing from someone, to that guy is ridiculous.

Now I have to pay 100 a month for probationary cost, submit to drug test, and take 15 hours worth of drug addiction classes which cost another 150. If I couldn't afford this I would get locked up

In today's society it all comes down to the mighty dollar. There was a lawyer I could hire for 5000 that would clear me of my three charges, but I don't have that kind of money.

Most people are blind to the fact that money rules our government. They think that religious morals are righteous in the laws. I find them extremely suppressive to anyone of different ideology. My religious view go hand in hand with me consuming hallucinogenic substances to further explore my consciousness; whether it be mushrooms, cacti, dmt, LSD or anything of the such. To lock me up with longer sentences than rapest shows the how the system is failing.

One day I believe a change in awareness will come through society. We will be blind no more to the corruption. And the ignorance that they use to pass their "justifiable laws" will fall away and the will of all the people will be heard, instead of people with fat wallets. We can only dream and let our dreams be heard. If we want our fantasies to become a reality.

Absolutely horrible.

One day, awareness of this will start to grow exponentially. It will reach a tipping point.

I do beleive this will one day be recalled as a very lucid lesson for society, just ashame so many honorable people have to suffer for this lesson.
Actually, i see this as the best possible situation where this lesson could be learned, and stick in the minds of future generations, once it is learned

I do agree that its reaching a tipping point. We tried the war on drugs but it is a war on personal freedom. Marijuana laws are the first that have started changing.

I have also seen more literature being published on magic mushroom medicinal effects. Psychedelics are starting to get a positive light and its only a matter of time before they will be decriminalized and legalized.