NH Cop Refusing to Arrest Medical Cannabis Users!

themindlessone

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
256
Location
Erie PA/St. Petersburg FL
From Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Member Brad Jardis, a 10+ year veteran of the NH police force (and probably the most courageous cop I’ve ever known):

Hello everyone.

As you all know, I have been cleared for duty and will be reporting back shortly. I have been re-reading the NH Constitution carefully so that when I return I am well versed.

I have come to a conclusion in reading the document I am sworn to defend: It is unconstitutional for the state to take action against a sick person who decides to use Marijuana to treat a medical condition.

I will never arrest a person who possesses, uses, grows marijuana to treat a medical condition……. and neither should any other NH LEO who intends follow his or her oath. I won’t even take it from them.

Legal argument in support of my declaration (quite simple):

-/-

1. Short of fellating the entire NH General Court and the Governor, political activists in this state have done everything to present FACTUAL evidence to support allowing sick people to use a natural substance to ease suffering. I personally have begged the General Court to not make me arrest sick people.

2. Chief DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young ruled in 1988:

“Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of the substance.”

3. Fourteen other states (and DC) allow the sick and dying to use Marijuana as medicine to alleviate suffering.

4. Article 10 of the NH Constitution reads as follows:

Quote
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

5. Government prosecuting a sick person for using a scientifically proven safe substance does not “benefit,” or “protect(…),” any community.

6. Government prosecuting a sick person for using a scientifically proven safe substance IS in-fact the emolument of a class of men: pharmaceutical companies. This is proven by evidence of pharmaceutical companies fighting against medical Marijuana laws. You cant grow Oxycontin in your living room, now can you?

7. A sick person continuing to suffer because a state law forbids them to use a scientifically proven safe therapeutic substance IS “absurd.”

8. A sick person continuing to suffer because a state law forbids them to use a scientifically proven safe therapeutic substance IS “slavish.”

9. A sick person continuing to suffer because a state law forbids them to use a scientifically proven safe therapeutic substance IS “destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

-/-

Conclusion: I won’t do it. Ever. Take your unconstitutional law and stuff it.

You know who I am, you know where I work, and I am not afraid of any of you. My word, my oath, is to the people: not the tyrants who want them to suffer.

- Bradley


http://freekeene.com/2010/01/18/nh-cop-refusing-to-arrest-medical-cannabis-users/
 
Live Free Or Die ++

Its nice to see an authority in the state government stand for what he believes in. Some times I wonder what I am doing in the Chicago area twiddling my thumbs when I long for those carefree days living in Lancaster, New Hampshire. I really have to ask myself what do I want from this life?

Peace,
Seedless
 
This is a good man, but he misinterprets RIGHT OF REVOLUTION article:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

The text is specifically impugning governmental venality and corruption. It goes on to say that nonresistance against such a government is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. These pejoratives denote the non-resistors, not the government.

He doesn't address how marijuana prohibition serves "the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men". He should, and very easily could.

I wish him luck and I wish my neck of the woods had LEOs of his ilk.
 
I'm curious: do other states have such a RIGHT OF REVOLUTION article? Does Florida? Please chime in if you know.
 
It will take people like this to change the evil drug laws in the world.
If all the police stood up and refused to arrest marijuana users, the laws would change.
If all the people protested and sat in the streets, refusing to continue supporting the system while one more user of this plant is treated like a criminal, getting in the way of production and money-making, the laws would change.
We need more courageous individuals to act like this police officer, to free nature's plants from human tyranny!
 
He did address how the laws are an emolument for a class of men.

6. Government prosecuting a sick person for using a scientifically proven safe substance IS in-fact the emolument of a class of men: pharmaceutical companies. This is proven by evidence of pharmaceutical companies fighting against medical Marijuana laws. You cant grow Oxycontin in your living room, now can you?
 
He did address how the laws are an emolument for a class of men.

Yeah I missed that.

If I were a pharmaceutical cabal, I'd want drug laws repealed. They could sell directly to the consumer and they wouldn't have to spend 10-15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars putting drugs through trials.

ps: grow Oxycontin?
 
I think the reason that the pharmaceutical companies oppose the legalization of drugs (particularly marijuana) like what is mentioned in this article is that many people believe marijuana takes the place of many pharmaceutical drugs. And since marijuana is a plant that people can already grow very simply and does not require a lot of capital or complex procedures to produce, they won't have the mono/oligopoly on it like they have on every other substance that can be used to treat illness.

I really don't know why they would oppose the legalization of all the other drugs, especially synthetics like MDMA, LSD, and all of the 'designer drugs'. I would imagine those would be just like you said - the pharmaceutical companies could produce them far cheaper than any clandestine chemist could and they could then sell them at the most competitive price and make a fortune.
 
Short of fellating the entire NH General Court and the Governor

I try to avoid that too.

Cannabis for everyone. Let's have a free country again.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
 
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Craneh) 137, 174. 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional law is not law; it confers no rights; imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County. 118 US 425 p. 442.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489.

18 USCC Section 241: "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any Citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or Privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.... they shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and if death results they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term or for life."

18 USCC Section 242: "Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any Inhabitant of any State.... to the deprivation of any Rights, Privileges or Immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ..shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and if death results they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term ..."
 
Top