U.S. v. Kalash - Drug Law Constitutionality and Other Unconventional Defenses

[TheWalrus30]

I think challenging the drug law based upon a rational basis test argument is very interesting. Still not very likely to win, but it's something you don't see as often. And, at the very least, it's pretty funny to challenge the laws based not just on their inherent invalidity/immorality, but to challenge them because they don't do the job they're supposed to do (i.e. lower drug use and abuse). Then Lawrence v. Texas actually starts to help you, or it at least becomes a lot more relevant. Also look at Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (invalidating state law that outlawed contraceptives). Both of those have to do with sexual freedom, but I think you can draw an analogy because of the "what you do in your home and between two consenting adults is your business, not the government's." Sorry that I discounted the relevance of Lawrence so quickly. I wasn't thinking about it right. Again, it's still not exactly a shoe-in, but the more I think about attacking the laws this way, the more I like it. It's also interesting to note that Griswold specifically said that the government couldn't outlaw contraceptive drugs. This, of course, doesn't discuss the whole drug-war-is-unconstitutional-because-it-doesn't-do-anything-curb-drug-abuse thing, but it's something worth noting.

Ok, back to the rational basis test, here are some cases you'll want to look at to get you started:

1) Start early, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Doesn't discuss rational basis test, but this is where the test finds it's very first root. I won't go into it too much, but it's and ends-means type discussion. And, though it's a really old case, it's also one of the most important, well-known cases in Constitutional law. So it's age won't be as much of a factor as a less well-known old case. I find this particular quote most interesting: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." (Which is McCulloch, 17 US 316 on page 521).

2)Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (U.S. 1979) states, "we will not overturn such a statute unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature's actions were irrational." This doesn't look great, but it's still workable.

3) Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). The majority opinion isn't going to help much, but take a look at the DISSENT. Three justices dissented, including the now deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist. Thomas also dissented, and O'Connor wrote the dissent. Of course the dissent isn't precedent, but it can be persuasive, especially when it's such a contentious issue and the Chief also dissented.

I'd help out with some more cases, but unfortunately I have something I have to go do. If I get a chance later I'll add to it. But, yeah, keep with the rational basis idea. Could be interesting, and I'm betting not one the judge or prosecutor have heard quite as much about.

 

[Kalash]

I think challenging the drug law based upon a rational basis test argument is very interesting. Still not very likely to win, but it's something you don't see as often. And, at the very least, it's pretty funny to challenge the laws based not just on their inherent invalidity/immorality, but to challenge them because they don't do the job they're supposed to do (i.e. lower drug use and abuse). Then Lawrence v. Texas actually starts to help you, or it at least becomes a lot more relevant. Also look at Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (invalidating state law that outlawed contraceptives). Both of those have to do with sexual freedom, but I think you can draw an analogy because of the "what you do in your home and between two consenting adults is your business, not the government's." Sorry that I discounted the relevance of Lawrence so quickly. I wasn't thinking about it right. Again, it's still not exactly a shoe-in, but the more I think about attacking the laws this way, the more I like it. It's also interesting to note that Griswold specifically said that the government couldn't outlaw contraceptive drugs. This, of course, doesn't discuss the whole drug-war-is-unconstitutional-because-it-doesn't-do-anything-curb-drug-abuse thing, but it's something worth noting.

Ok, back to the rational basis test, here are some cases you'll want to look at to get you started:

1) Start early, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Doesn't discuss rational basis test, but this is where the test finds it's very first root. I won't go into it too much, but it's and ends-means type discussion. And, though it's a really old case, it's also one of the most important, well-known cases in Constitutional law. So it's age won't be as much of a factor as a less well-known old case. I find this particular quote most interesting: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." (Which is McCulloch, 17 US 316 on page 521).

2)Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (U.S. 1979) states, "we will not overturn such a statute unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature's actions were irrational." This doesn't look great, but it's still workable.

3) Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). The majority opinion isn't going to help much, but take a look at the DISSENT. Three justices dissented, including the now deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist. Thomas also dissented, and O'Connor wrote the dissent. Of course the dissent isn't precedent, but it can be persuasive, especially when it's such a contentious issue and the Chief also dissented.

I'd help out with some more cases, but unfortunately I have something I have to go do. If I get a chance later I'll add to it. But, yeah, keep with the rational basis idea. Could be interesting, and I'm betting not one the judge or prosecutor have heard quite as much about.

Thanks

Definitely looking into those!

I don't think I'm prohibited from filing another motion - am I?
there's the timeliness thing - but I'll worry about that if/when I get to it.

 

[TheWalrus30]

Pre-trial motions can be filed anytime before trial theoretically. Now, realistically, a judge is going to want you to file them as soon before trial as you can, and he's going to want you to file as many of them at one time as you can. That way he can go through and rule on everything at once. It doesn't have to all be in one neat little packet, but you don't want to force him to have 10 different motion hearings (well, he probably wouldn't have that many hearing regardless).

 

[Kalash]

Pre-trial motions can be filed anytime before trial theoretically.

I think there's a 10 day cut off.
My boss mentioned that I could really piss the judge off and apply for a Writ.
I think that might actually be beneficial in this case.

Though I'm fuzzy on what exactly that means.
My understanding - a demand for a writ is an interlocutory appeal, appeal before trial, where some measure of law is challenged and the issue is taken above the trial court's jurisdiction...


Is that right?
Is there a difference between an interlocutory appeal and a writ?
Is "Writ of Mandate" the proper term?

 

[Johnny1]

They're the same thing, in your instance. It's the proper term.

But is there a decision of the trial court that you're trying to overturn? (I'm sorry, Kalash, I haven't been following your thread closely.)

The vast majority of writs are not heard by the appellate court. I would be very hesitant to file a writ if you have a friendly judge presently. The best reason to file a writ would be if the judge has clearly ignored the law or has made a mistake about the law. Even then, most writs are denied without a hearing.

 

[TheWalrus30]

It's called a "writ of mandamus" and judges, whether they admit it or not, do not like it one bit when one party petitions the appellate court for one, and he might not want to be friends with you if the petition is granted. There generally has to be an "abuse of discretion" for the trial court's order to get overturned. Sometimes you'll hear it called "getting mandamussed," which I think is funny.

The abuse of discretion standard is quite the difficult burden of proof, so unless there is a clearly incorrect ruling AND the judge did not have authority to make the ruling, you aren't going to win and it's not in your best interest to file for one. In fact, it is normally the case that the other side doesn't even have to reply to your petition unless the appellate court, after reading your brief, decides they need to see the other side's arguments. In theory, there are things relating to pre-trial motions that will get denied on petition for mandamus, but that are actually strong issues for a conventional appeal.

Anyway, to the actual cut-off time--See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 12(c):
"The court may, at the arraignment or as soon afterward as practicable, set a deadline for the parties to make pretrial motions and may also schedule a motion hearing."

So there isn't a set deadline. Goes by who your judge is and what he feels like doing. If the judge denies you the chance to file certain pre-trial motions, they denial won't be overturned except for an abuse of discretion by the trial court.

That's all I've got for right now.

 

[Kalash]

http://mike.revolutioni.st/motiondenial.html

I finally typed the thing in >_<

Footnotes and all.

Foot note #5 - Bill of attainder - Special legislative act prescribing punishment, without a trial, for a specific person or group.

Isn't that the CSA?
Drug users are to be deprived of their property - without trial (i.e. punished) for exercising their property rights after having Congress take away their property rights through unconstitutional legislation?

 

[Kalash]

Discontentment - dissatisfaction - and desire to understand what I did that was CRIMINAL.

"Proof of the corpus delecti is required in all criminal cases...There are three basic elements in the proof of a crime: (1) the occurrence of loss or injury, (2) criminal causation of that loss or injury and (3) the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. However, it is firmly established in this State that the term corpus delecti embraces only the first two of these elements-loss or injury and criminal causation." State v. Hill, 221 A.2d 725, 728.

But in answer to this, the Court, in its opinion, claims that standing and the corpus delicti are not required at the federal level, as Congress can make laws, and any violation of Congressional will (alleged RIGHT to dictate actions) provides automatic jurisdiction - as the "crime" alleged is in violation of Federal Law.

Standing is automatically provided to the Prosecution because the "crime" is "against the United States."

The only "RIGHT" which I may have violated in this instance is the "RIGHT" of congress to be obeyed without question.

That is no RIGHT.



The court continues, in its opinion, to claim that it has no jurisdiction over my grievance against Congressional desire to control myself and my actions.
The court ignores my claim of property rights, contending that all rights must be subject to Congressional grants of privilege - when dealing with possession or distribution. The court claims that such rights are not "fundamental" because Congress has attempted to license these rights to the people - demanding that licensing fees be paid to the government prior to attaining the "right" to possess and distribute or use one's property.

The statute is clearly an unconstitutional licensing statute - a contention that the Court conveniently ignores.



The court also claims that the CSA's prohibition of MDMA is not vague - because it is clear to all people that which is prohibited, yet admits that it is not easy to find such information, as it requires, "A bit of statutory and regulatory searching."
Anything that requires personal attentiveness, and a willingness to search statutes and regulations prior to exercising what one believes to be fundamental property rights is not necessarily vague, but is criminally misleading in its attempt to prohibit something which it aims at keeping secret through burying beneath layers of codes and regulatory statutes, requiring extensive research beyond the ability of "ordinary people (to) understand what conduct is prohibited."

If one must ask an attorney if such conduct is prohibited, the statute is clearly vague.
By the court's own reasoning, clearly written or not, the numerous dead ends in the statutory provisions misleading the "ordinary people" making it nearly impossible to find that which is actually prohibited does give rise to a vagueness argument.
The enforcement is also arbitrary and discriminatory - as the statute provides no provision making the possession by informants nor police officers immune from prosecution. If possession of something is, indeed, a criminal offense, one's relationship with the government cannot be used to provide immunity from prosecution should they come into possession of that which is prohibited.


Drug possession does not negatively affect the rights of others. The comparison to nuclear weapons and chemical waste does not withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.
Nuclear weapons can only have two intended purposes - (a)detonation or (b) threat of detonation to achieve some sort of control over those threatened by such detonation (terrorism).
Neither use can be lawful, providing that the owner of the nuclear weapon does not own land sufficient to absorb the force of the blast and contain all fallout from its detonation.
Chemical waste, cannot in itself be "criminal" to possess. If this were the case, all companies working with chemical waste - or portable toilets - would be continually committing crimes.
The CRIME arises from improper storage or improper use resulting in a direct threat/infringement upon the rights of those in the general vicinity.

Drugs are not communicable - their use cannot threaten those in the vicinity of the user.
Without prohibition, the "violent crime" associated with drug distribution would not exist. What the court claims is a "perceived dangerousness of drugs and drug trafficking" is a result of prohibition, not the drugs themselves.
Personal risk and responsibility are part of our fundamental right to liberty.
For the government to weigh risks and determine that no person has the liberty to choose for himself if the risk of his private conduct is worth the potential benefit from said conduct, is to deprive him of his fundamental right to liberty.
This is further aggravated by the fact that Congress has prohibited not the ownership of what it claims to be dangerous, but the rights associated with ownership.
To say that one's property rights are not fundamental is clearly flawed.

The court's claim that Congress may prohibit the possession of something - thus depriving the people of their rights of ownership - and therefore strip the people of this fundamental right, is the contrary to the purpose the court was created for.
Their reasoning is circular - as prohibition creates the "dangerousness" of drug distribution.

The court also inadequately dismisses the argument for a Constitutional Amendment granting Congress the ability to prohibit one's fundamental property rights - as the 18th and 21st Amendments show to be necessary prior to any attempt to prohibit through licensing statutes.









I'm not happy.
But I don't know what to do about it.

 

[Kalash]

Deadlines...

Again.
My attorney wants me to decide by Monday if I'm taking the plea. (It's the same as before - ~4 years with a possible 5k1 (further reduction.)


To me - it's still insane.
By pleaing I lose my right to appeal all the stuff I've brought up - and my right to make more motions calling for dismissal.

The fundamental facts remain;
The allegations against me attempt to punish me for possessing and contracting with my private property - with a consenting adult.

I still believe this is a bill of attainder - whereby I am deprived my rights (property) without trial (I have to prove the law only affects a specific group of people. Are drug users a "group"???) - and am then held to be "criminal" for exercising my rights (to property) that have been usurped and licensed...
All because I ignored the unconstitutional licensing statute permitting me to exercise my fundamental property rights - only by governmental consent.

"Corpus Delicti" and personal injury requirements do not apply to CRIMINAL cases (so CRIME doesn't have to exist in criminal cases) - I still take issue with that.

The only "right" I've violated is Congress's "right" to control my actions.
That isn't satisfactory legally, nor emotionally.

And the court's accusation that I concede that the government's statistics show that MDMA causes harm is b.s. too.
I don't concede it - I contend that their numbers are outdated and have been refuted with scientific evidence - that their numbers and statistics are either fabricated or based on bad science.



So...
A second motion - keep fighting?
Do the government's arguments (including the court's) hold up? Am I the only one that thinks they're completely ridiculous?

 

[AfterGlow]

I wish there was something I could do to help you. All of your arguments are sound and legitimate. But government simply manipulates the letter and spirit of the law to suit its own political agenda. They might just as well come out and say that you're right, but they're going to convict you anyways because they have determined that drugs are bad and they've decided to infringe upon your personal freedom to do what you want with your own life even if you're not harming anybody else. KEEP FIGHTING! Somebody has to do it! I'm praying for a miracle!

 

[jimborg]

Kalash,... Rather than make another reply saying how this is all pointless, self-indulgent nonsense that will get you nowhere,... here's some semi-constructive feedback. Not as far as specifics, mind you, because I have no desire to attempt an amateur interpretation of some smattering of legal precedents found with google.

I would love to see your case thrown out, and I would love to see drug laws change. For either of those to EVER happen I think it will take a VERY special group of people on your side who can back you up. These forums have been awesome for you, and are an excellent ace in your sleeve. However, what you need right now more than anything is credibility.

Since you are neither a judge, an attorney, a politician, a respected not-for-profit organization, a well-known member of your community (I'm guessing), etc., the best way for you to get credibility is to borrow other peoples' credibility by getting their support.

I guess what I'm saying is that rather than going at this with the "Kalash vs. the World" mentality, how about trying to get more people on your team? I think the only way miracles like the one you're looking for happen, is with:

1) Lots of support from citizens like yourself (you've sort of got that here, would be better if your community had some reason to rally behind you personally).
2) Support from the legal system (a sympathetic judge, jury, attorney, etc.)
3) Support from some sort of publicly respected organization/lobby e.g., ACLU.
4) If you're lucky, support from a local politician or some other leader.
5) And if you have several of the above, the press would eat it up hence increasing #1-4.

Have you considered reaching out to more people than just those on this forum?

At one point you expressed a desire to contact the ACLU. Any luck?

Are there any socially-liberal politicians in your area that you could write to or schedule a meeting with?

At the very least could the ACLU recommend an attorney in your area that is sympathetic to your position?

Is there any respected group or influential members of your community that you could reach out to?

This one is up for debate but it could potentially help in more ways than one - Have you considered contacting someone in the local press? If you really want to take this to the next level (as it sounds like you do) you'll need exposure.
It would be very easy for the legal system to sweep you under the rug - how about making sure that doesn't happen? I would imagine just about any local journalist would jump on a headline like "local ecstasy dealer challenges drug law constitutionality."
One way that could potentially help you is that people tend to work more diligently under the spotlight. If you suddenly have some sort of press following your case (even if it's just a local newspaper), the prosecutor and judge are going to have to think reeeeal hard about what they say. Of course the opposite side of that coin is they might fight even harder to make an example of you.

 

[mulberryman]

Kalash, I think you should listen to this guy, that's gotta be some of the soundest advice I've heard yet in this thread, Even if they make an example of you, imagine the shockwaves that exposure could render.

 

[Kalash]

Kalash,... Rather than make another reply saying how this is all pointless, self-indulgent nonsense that will get you nowhere,... here's some semi-constructive feedback. Not as far as specifics, mind you, because I have no desire to attempt an amateur interpretation of some smattering of legal precedents found with google.

I would love to see your case thrown out, and I would love to see drug laws change. For either of those to EVER happen I think it will take a VERY special group of people on your side who can back you up. These forums have been awesome for you, and are an excellent ace in your sleeve. However, what you need right now more than anything is credibility.

Since you are neither a judge, an attorney, a politician, a respected not-for-profit organization, a well-known member of your community (I'm guessing), etc., the best way for you to get credibility is to borrow other peoples' credibility by getting their support.

I guess what I'm saying is that rather than going at this with the "Kalash vs. the World" mentality, how about trying to get more people on your team? I think the only way miracles like the one you're looking for happen, is with:

1) Lots of support from citizens like yourself (you've sort of got that here, would be better if your community had some reason to rally behind you personally).
2) Support from the legal system (a sympathetic judge, jury, attorney, etc.)
3) Support from some sort of publicly respected organization/lobby e.g., ACLU.
4) If you're lucky, support from a local politician or some other leader.
5) And if you have several of the above, the press would eat it up hence increasing #1-4.

Have you considered reaching out to more people than just those on this forum?

At one point you expressed a desire to contact the ACLU. Any luck?

Are there any socially-liberal politicians in your area that you could write to or schedule a meeting with?

At the very least could the ACLU recommend an attorney in your area that is sympathetic to your position?

Is there any respected group or influential members of your community that you could reach out to?

This one is up for debate but it could potentially help in more ways than one - Have you considered contacting someone in the local press? If you really want to take this to the next level (as it sounds like you do) you'll need exposure.
It would be very easy for the legal system to sweep you under the rug - how about making sure that doesn't happen? I would imagine just about any local journalist would jump on a headline like "local ecstasy dealer challenges drug law constitutionality."
One way that could potentially help you is that people tend to work more diligently under the spotlight. If you suddenly have some sort of press following your case (even if it's just a local newspaper), the prosecutor and judge are going to have to think reeeeal hard about what they say. Of course the opposite side of that coin is they might fight even harder to make an example of you.

I've sent another request to the ACLU.
You're absolutely right. I'm at my breaking point - I can't keep going alone.

Yeah - the support here has been great.
The support from the Ron Paul community has been excellent - even the anti-drug Ron Paul supporters.

I just bought - and am reading - his new book - The Revolution; A Manifesto.

Chapter 5 is (mostly about the war on terror but also) aimed at undermining our current drug policy, ending prohibition, and back the people's rights.

There's Judge James Gray - an Orance County, CA judge (not federal >_<) that was written...
Eh.
Here's his book...
http://www.judgejimgray.com/


I should try to get in touch with him... (speaking of - after reading what you wrote, I have an untitled message window sitting below my browser...)

The citizenry I associate with (BL users and radio announcers) all back me.
Random people on the street (because if there's one thing the prosecutor's said that's absolutely true, it's that I talk too much...) agree with me - or don't, but at least see where I'm coming from and don't want to pay my bills for the next 5 years....

There's a way of saying this stuff that makes it incredible palatable to everyone.

I'm not up on "drug charges" - I'm being tried for exercising my fundamental property rights without getting permission from the government.

When they ask what that means, I tell them that I was arrested for being in possession of my private property.

It takes a few minutes for them to catch on - and at that point, they're already wondering why the government can punish me for exercising a right.
Burden of proof rests with the government.
I think it's time to start making it heavier and heavier.


Media - I'll contact Christie again - Freedom Fighter Radio (I think she changed over to Truth Brigade Radio now) - and see about getting back on there (That's where I did the back and forth thing with Howard Wooldridge back in Feb.)

There's LEAP.
I don't have good contact info for them... and they generally don't speak at trials - but I could probably get some general letters of support from their members - and if nothing else, get the media talking to them through http://ddeal.us - and the rebellion it inspires in people.

I'd love to do an interview against myself...
And while I've grown increasingly fond of Kalash - I'd probably use that as my name - and use my real name as the founder of DDEAL - and argue back and forth (that'd make an interesting youtube video... All I need is a camera...)

You're absolutely right.
If I'm going to keep fighting, I need some help.

Making an example of me - the plea agreement is for 5.25 years (with a possible 5k1 - further reduction on the arbitrary non-binding scale).

The actual time for the charges is 6 1/2-8.
1.25 years is all the time I'd get off going along with their game, refusing to challenge the rules they keep making up as they go, and lose - gloriously - without putting up any kind of an effort.

For a year - it isn't worth giving in to these criminals.
Either they need locked up - or to at least let me go...
Or I'm seriously in need of a padded room - not a room with bars.


If you know anyone that'd be interested in an interview - the story - or anything...
Contact them.
Get in touch with me.
My phone's off (that's a long story...) but should be back on in the next few days.
Email addresses...
Just use

kalash
@
ddeal
.us


I'm gonna go send out some letters, probably send an email to my attorney (I was supposed to talk to him about taking the plea (or not) today. He wanted an answer TODAY so we could sign and turn the thing in by Friday.) and see what kind of support I can rally up.

Thanks for the advice.
It's definitely time to get going with the media if I want to have a chance at all.

 

[mulberryman]

For a year - it isn't worth giving in to these criminals.
Either they need locked up - or to at least let me go...
Or I'm seriously in need of a padded room - not a room with bars.

Well. I don't think you're crazy, but I do think the world is. Just watching any randome nightly newscast is proof of that. But, since you can't lock up the world, the only right option for them would be to let you go. Whether or not the courts care about what'r right, well these days. I honestly don't know.

 

[jimborg]

That's the spirit!

Only thing I would remind you is that:

- My main point was lending yourself credibility by getting credible people on your side. Not saying that all of the resources/groups you mention aren't legit, but it would really help if you used people/organizations that are somewhat mainstream and/or widely respected.

- Same thing as far as media/interview - being on a radio show that might be considered extremist, ultra-right or ultra-left wing, etc. won't help your credibility much or get you much exposure. Find out what newspapers are in your town and call one up (i.e., look in phonebook), tell them you have a story for them (make it sound as sexy as possible).

Looking forward to seeing you on CNN in a few weeks. ;-)

 

[Infinite Jest]

I hate to sound negative, but the local media? Giving a positive spin on a drugs story? About a large scale dealer?

Y'all must have different local media where you are, 'cos I can't see it happening anywhere I've ever lived.

I agree that with some seriously credible people on your side, you might have a better chance of getting at least neutral coverage. But I'm sceptical.

 

[Kalash]

I hate to sound negative, but the local media? Giving a positive spin on a drugs story? About a large scale dealer?

Y'all must have different local media where you are, 'cos I can't see it happening anywhere I've ever lived.

I agree that with some seriously credible people on your side, you might have a better chance of getting at least neutral coverage. But I'm sceptical.

That's a valid point...

No luck so far with Judge xx or xx.

Judge xx said;

Dear Mr. Kalash,

You certainly raise some interesting and important issues. But as a judge I am expressly not allowed to practice law. And you are asking me for legal advice.

So unfortunately all I can do is recommend you get the advice of a good attorney.

But I do wish you justice.

Judge xx

xx's was a little longer;

Kalash,



I am not an attorney & thus take this for what it is worth.



The only shot I know of for you would be to argue your case based on the decision below. = Privacy argument of being in your own home & a consenting adult. Beyond that, since the charge is distribution, you would need to show that all of it was for personal use.



I wish could be more useful. Best.


Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), [1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law that ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas - 94k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


xx



Officer xx (retired)

Education Specialist, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc)

Washington, DC

That does lead me back to the direction I wanted to take next - do we have a right to do what we want in the privacy of our own homes; exercise our right to pursue happiness so long as we do not violate the rights of another?

Force a ruling on the ability to self medicate - exercise one's liberty by making risk:benefit decisions for ourselves rather than being told what is acceptable and what is not.


I can see getting the media involved being good and bad.
Bearing in mind that portraying drug use in a positive light is against FCC regulations - it's going to be difficult to get a neutral/positive view on the whole thing.

Knowing that in order to change the law (via public opinion) one must break another law (FCC regulations) to sway public opinion...

It's a beautiful scam they're running. Every loose end is tied up tight.

 

[Banquo]

Kalash -- again, I think it best not to identify people by first and last name on this board (yourself included), so please edit out names. This is for the protection of this forum and everyone involved in these correspondences.

 

[bingalpaws]

Bearing in mind that portraying drug use in a positive light is against FCC regulations -
huh?

 

[mulberryman]

^yes that is correct, thats why some stations will bleep innocent enough words like blow or bong even.