Libertarian Party
Thomas Jefferson
USA Constitution
Encyclopedia, Almanacs
Find Law
Dec of  Independence
Federalist Papers
Cato Institute
The Rule of Law
Language Translator

Schaffer Library
Lindsmith Center
FF Jury Assciation


Gun Control
Income Tax
Social Security
The Drug War

Allrelative's Sponsors
Make Money
Top 10

Sprinks- Gambling
  Online Casino
powered by  About- The Human Internet

Return Autonomy to the Individual

The Drug War: An Aberration of American Justice

When is it just to inititiate force against a person? It is justifiable when it is done to defend life, liberty, and property. The war on drugs is an aberration of American justice. There is no way to reasonably justify putting a peaceful person in jail for honestly using/possessing/trading intoxicants and/or elixirs, nor is there any rightful justification for arbitrarily confiscating private property . The American system of justice is rooted in Common Law. To win a suit at Common Law, an individual or a group must clearly show how they have been wronged. They must indicate the nature of the alleged tort or crime (assault, theft, breech of covenant, etc), and they must suggest a remedy to correct the wrong, i.e., restitution from the perpetrator. Prohibitionists have never adequately demonstrated their case in a court of law. They got their way in the halls of Congress where "might makes right". 

This is not to say that becoming addicted to drugs/alcohol is a good idea, it is simply a  statement about today's wrongful use of coercive force against certain people who legislature has wrongly and capriciously classed as "criminals". We are not fighting a war on drugs, we a fighting a war against living breathing human beings that bleed red blood and feel real pain. Drug warriors/prohibitionists are clearly wrong  when they advocate and initiate coercive force against a peaceful person. They are wrongfully using the legislative process to take what  otherwise could not be obtained in a court of law, viz, they are wrongfully taking the liberty and property of their neighbors

The USA is supposed to be country of free people at liberty to make choices for themselves. It is true, at times, that some of the choices we individuals make will not work out well for us, and it can't be denied that we are fallible, but fallible is not criminal. A real crime must involve a wrongful intentional transgression against the person or property of another. Such is the nature and definition of real crime. In civilized society, justice should triumph over tyranny. What happened here in America? What happened to the concept of liberty and justice?

One of the primary points of establishing a central federal government, and  the second cause listed in Constitution,  was to establish justice throughout the land.  The Constitution begins with: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...." It is obvious to me where our forefathers' priorities were. The primary impetus for the American Revolution originated in a free people sick and tired of injustice and arbitrary rule (the Common Law's antithesis). 

Below are a few of the reasons given for our declaring independence from the Crown in 1776. Replace “he” (the king of England) with our current “Congress” and you will see that we have now come a full circle back to near absolute despotism:

“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.”

The last twenty years or so we have seen a big push to replace judicial power with legislative power. Mandatory legislatively imposed prison sentences, the attendant burgeoning prison population, restrictions on habeas corpus filings, tort reform legislation and recent talk of making the constitution easier to amend (as if Congress needs even more power) demonstrates a clear  move back to Roman civil law  (the law of the ruler)...

“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

To make a judge dependent on the sole will of a monarch no better serves the cause of justice than making the same bow to the absolute dictums of the legislator. A cursory review of Article 1, section 8 will demonstrate that Congress enjoys extremely limited power with regard to the subject of defining crime and declaring punishment for civilian bad acts. Such federal power is almost completely limited to crimes of piracy committed on the high seas, treason,  counterfeiting US coin or securities and general war power jurisdiction. The states, the people, and their legislative bodies should provide for the punishment of real crime. Our respective judicial bodies should weigh the gravity of each crime and declare a fitting punishment.  All pertinent facts in every individual prosecution should  be presented to the courts of law -- not the halls of congress. Final veto power over any and all unjust attacks on life/liberty/property, of course, should be vested in the citizens themselves as jurors.

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Many of the current crop of anti-constitutional federal police agencies do more than “harass” our people: The ATF, DEA, FBI, FDA and others represent scores of anti-constitutional federal police agencies that have been created beginning early this century. These agencies established via Congressional action, wrongfully and arbitrarily take life, liberty and property as if it were nobody’s business. Congress (Hitler would be proud) is even more sinister and tyrannical than ole King George III when it comes to taxes, regulations and sales/possession of intoxicants. 

Here is a question to ponder. Why did it take an act of Congress to establish a means to punish people for trading alcohol? If trading intoxicants were such a horrible crime (as some would have you believe) why was it not  actionable prior to the installation of modern ad hoc legislation? Let me put it this way. Unlike murder, assault,  theft et al, possession/sales of intoxicants is not "crime" in the absence of legislation. In fact, a criminal statute that prohibits real crime is nothing more than a codification of Common Law. 

Fiat laws (legislation) that punish people for possession/sales of select drugs; that prescribe the “legal” confiscation (under the color of law) of private property, and/or schemes that legislatively mandate imprisonment (bills of attainder), are laws foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by the Common Law. What started out as a “sin tax”, has now festered into a virulent war that decimates legislatively chosen drug "offenders" with impunity! It's a classic condition of class warfare,yet it eludes the minds of many. Many of these people, who legislature has capriciously classed a criminals (with a showing of hands and a stroke of the pen) are suffering manifest injustice. What has history taught us? Anything? Now,  jurors are told that they must not judge the justice of the law; that they must overlook the reality that a given individual is being  prosecuted for a pretended offense. They are told that they must find a defendant guilty if it shown that he indeed violated a statute (not a person). This, of course, is not true. A juror’s job is to see to it that justice is served -- not the will of the oligarch or monarch !

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws…

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent…

For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences…”

Is theft a “pretended offence”? NO! Is murder? NO! Is simple possession/sales of drugs or guns a faux offense? Yes! When you, as a juror, are told that you must apply the code/statute as it is written in spite of the fact that doing so will likely wrongfully damage someone who has committed no real crime against the person, property or liberty of another, what is the point of being on the jury in first place? Why not just give a rubber stamp to a few government bureaucrats? Don't let anyone fool you (especially judges or prosecutors). As jurors, we have the absolute right and power to judge the justice of law, that is, we are empowered to veto, at the jury box, any prosecution in the face of overwhelming evidence. Have you ever thought about it? A juror (ordinary citizen), is far more powerful than any politician or group thereof! However, few of us exercise our rightful Constitutional power when we have the opportunity. Seems that most are content to be obedient serfs, afraid to rock the boat even when justice begs for it.

“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”

Have you ever seen clips of federal police chasing down marijuana or “drug” smugglers? Have you ever seen any old clips of federal police forces raiding alcohol "criminals/smugglers"? It's scary. How many sea vessels do you think have been wrongfully confiscated by federal police in pursuance of anti-Constitutional drug legislation initiated at the hand Congress? I’m not aware of entire towns being burnt down, but the federal government has, among other egregious acts of tort, initiated and participated in the wrongful burning down of inhabited churches while allegedly in the process of serving warrants for pretended offences. Waco is a prime example.

“A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.

  • We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.

  • We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.

  • We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. “

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity…"

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice. It was the last charge written in the Declaration of Independence. The patriots who pledged their lives and their sacred honor, tried to get their own people (“British brethren”) to acknowledge the indignities suffered by the colonists at the hands of their common ruler.

I might explain to you how the war on drugs causes much more real crime than it prevents. I might explain to you how alcohol prohibition was responsible for huge increases in health problems and deaths. But I ask you...  What kind of incentive for quality does prohibition give “illegal” drug/alcohol manufacturers? 

I might explain to you that certain legislatively banned “illegal” drugs are far safer than many of the current legislative/bureaucrat defined “legal” ones. I might explain to you, speaking from a pragmatic position, that the war on drugs is counter-productive. Such testimony, however, is largely irrelevant. It may be a bad idea to drink/smoke/take certain drugs. But it is far worse to wrongfully and arbitrarily (via bills of attainder), take life, liberty, and property in an effort to create the perfect obedient society. History is chock full of failed attempts by tyrants/rulers/dictators to create such a fantasy world. The morbid results are here for anyone to see.

Fellow Americans, brethren, what exactly is this voice of justice that our forefathers fought and died for? Does this voice call for the wrongful decimation of peaceful individuals? Does anyone know what justice is anymore? Does anyone care?

Drugs ° Pharmacy ° Defense attorney ° Nutrition °  Health ° Herbs