Bongs Away!

[Opioid420z]

We need to bend over Buchanan and show her just how realistic the wizzinator really izzzz!!!!! lol... WHAT A FUCK"N JOKE!!!! I know my man OBAMA isn't 1% as pathetic as this bitch Buchanan... She needs a wizzinator cause she probably hasn't gotten one in a really really long time....

 

[phr]

Rather insolent post. But I lol'd.

 

[lifegoeson]

"And everyone thought OBAMA IS GONNA BRING CHANGE..."

damn! the man's only be in office 3 days!!

 

[Captain.Heroin]

So, should we wait until the 3rd year of Obama's term to start criticizing the government?

 

[Halcyon777]

‘We Will Eliminate the Demand’

“By enforcing the drug paraphernalia laws,” Buchanan tells me, “we will…eliminate the demand for illegal substances by eliminating those products that are used to ingest and inhale illegal substances.”

They have to be kidding.. I hope they really don't actually believe in that crap deep down

 

[manic_panic]

needless to say i don't have a comforting feeling about this

 

[juicehead]

insane... thanks for the post ...

thoughtcrimes .... 1984 anyone....

 

[foodisgood]

These are legal products to sell, buy and possess up until they test positive for controlled substances. If not, then is the government going to harass grocery stores for selling apples that might be fashioned into a cannabis pipe? Are they going to go after sandwich bag makers for selling drug storage containers? This whole side issue in the WoD is pretty ridiculous. They are never going to make it impossible to smoke or use cannabis once it is obtained. Tobacco companies are always going to lobby to make sure papers are legal and accessible as well as cheap cigars.

there have already been a few cases(I believe Chicago was the biggest) of local governments attempting to ban sandwich baggies because they are "drug paraphanalia"

Edit: In a related note as well I have a friend that picked up a paraphanalia charge for an empty baggy with a little kief left on the side

 

[junctionalfunkie]

In London, UK, Police were commending pubs and clubs a few years ago for ....... introducing sharply sloping surfaces in toilets so that it was impossible to line up Coke

In NYC, 15 years ago, I was in bars that had pebbles/broken glass/debris glued to the toilet tanks to discourage coke use. 8)

I have gone through some miserable, disgusting fucking lengths to cram chemicals into my body over the years. You'd have to get up pretty early in the morning to stump me.

Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say.

 

[EntheoDjinn]

......... is the government going to harass grocery stores for selling apples that might be fashioned into a cannabis pipe?

Apparently Parsnips are the biz for making pipes. Just core out the centre, dry, and you have a pipe that will last for years

I suppose as long as there are farmers in the US growing parsnips we'll be OK. But if not, I can imagine US sponsored crop-spraying helicopter sorties into the green and pleasant land of Britain's countryside in the very near future

Vodka and Agent Orange anyone??

 

[JahRed24x]

It is so easy to see how screwed up our "Government" is right now. When the hell are they going to legalize it...I still don't understand how one of the worst psychoactive substances known to mankind is legal like alcohol and marijuana isn't. This is the most ridiculous nonsense i've ever come across. I know many people that have never smoked a single puff of marijuana that feel the same as we all do, legalize IT.

 

[Danashae]

This shit is fucking ridiculous.

 

[fastandbulbous]

Well this is simply the logical conclusion of geting all worked up and cranky about a drug (tea) in the 18th century. Just think, if you hadn't decided to opt out of the British empire in 1776, you most probably wouldn't have such rabid head cases elected to positions of power that allow them to indulge in such deranged, petty and ultimately pointless vendettas (look at your neighbour to the north that did remain in the empire/commonwealth - they seem much more sensible & pragmatic about things like drug paraphanalia). You probably wouldn't have ended up spelling words like 'colour' incorrectly as well!

Seriously though, I really think you need a law that demands that people elected to office must first pass a test of their sanity (it would stop fuckwits like that Buchanan woman ever wielding power - I mean does any sane person think that arresting a few bong makers/sellers will abolish demand for drugs, like she obviously does)

 

[Kalash]

They have to be kidding.. I hope they really don't actually believe in that crap deep down

Of course they believe it.
Here's the interesting thing though...
The laws CANNOT be used to eliminate demand.

Nigro v. U.S.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/276/332/case.html

"In interpreting the (Harrison Narcotics) Act, we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of the opiate and other drugs, it is beyond the power of Congress, and must be regarded as invalid, just as the Child Labor Act of Congress was held to be, in Bailey, Collector v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20. "

What does this mean? That the "law" is only valid if it "regulates commerce" without having a severe elimination of demand.
As it is clear that the purpose of the drug laws today is to "Eliminate Demand" the laws have no authority - they are unconstitutional and invalid as if they were no law at all.


People continue to defend themselves the wrong way, saying, "It wasn't (interstate) commerce!"
Possession of your dick in your hand reduces the international demand for condoms (as you have no partner and won't be needing one), so jerking off "severely" affects interstate commerce. (Mild exaggeration, but if it made it to the courts, I'm sure they'd rule in this manner...)

EVERYTHING is Interstate commerce. You have no defense there.
The defense is in the laws - and their usage - themselves.
What do the laws do?
Prohibit the CONTROL of private property.

Where does government get the power to CONTROL private property the Government does not own - WITHOUT Due process nor just compensation?
The Interstate Commerce Clause?
How so?

“That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

That seems fairly straight forward - property rights are insoluble by law.
That's as the founders intended it to be...

“WHEREAS the powers granted under the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and every power not granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will; No right therefore of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States” Continental Congress WEDNESDAY, the 25th of JUNE, 1788.

Whoops.
Property rights are inherent, unalienable - AND protected under the 5th Amendment...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

Whoops.
So Control of your private property is now a "crime" under the "Controlled Substances Act" because Government has usurped your "RIGHT" to control your property - without due process nor compensation - under the Interstate Commerce Act?

I don't think so...

"If there be any conflict between these two provisions (powers to make law in the Articles of the Constitution and the "rights" protected by the Amendments), the one found in the Amendments must control, under the well-understood rule that the last expression of the will of the lawmaker prevails over an earlier one." Schick vs United States [(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826

You all forget that the "prohibition" we have is not absolute.
We do not have "PROHIBITION" today...
We have LICENSING laws that allow for the LICENSE of distribution of the property in question.
What's that mean?
Our fundamental right to CONTROL PROPERTY regardless of the moral approval of others is being LICENSED back to the people...
Such a law is invalid and can be ignored without consequence.

“And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an Unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license. "The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its Constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands." Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 602 (Stone, C. J., dissenting), adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U.S. 103, 104 . [394 U.S. 147, 152]” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (1969) 22 L Ed 2d 162, 394 U.S. 147, 89 S Ct 935

This is all stuff from an early reply brief I was writing for my case... (With working links to the case law quoted here)
I'm still fighting - and getting ready for an appeal to the 9th circuit on the basis that the Court denied my "demurrer" motion because there are "no property rights not subject to governmental control"

If there are no property RIGHTS that are not controlled by Government, there are no property RIGHTS at all - only the PRIVILEGE of use and possession granted by Government.
This is legislative enslavement of the entire populace and is obviously oppressive legislation...
Without one final case to quote making this quite clear;

UNITED STATES v. BALINT ET AL.
Many instances of this are to be found in regulatory measures in the exercise of what is called the police power where the emphasis of the statute is evidently upon achievement of some social betterment rather than the punishment of the crimes as in cases of mala in se.

That ruling there is POWERFUL.
The drug laws are not laws against "mala in se" acts (actual crimes), but are laws of punishment for achieving a social betterment - rising from one's social class to another.

I'm working on getting all this stuff together for my appeal - and would appreciate any help anyone can provide...
Either cases that I may not have seen yet that back this cause, or organizations (like the ACLU, NORML, etc) that could help with the appellate process.
If you have access to any such organization - or anyone that would be willing to help with the procedural process at a federal appellate court, I would really appreciate any information you could get me.
Thanks,
Mike (at) DDEAL.us