Unlawful Possession of Marijuana

Here...

FDA Milestones

Start with, say, 1965.

Ya know what... nevermind.

I am through trying to stop you from making a monumental ass of yourself in open court.

Here is what you do.

You bring all of your arguments to court. Make sure you make copies for the judge, the DA and anyone else you think should read your tome.

Plan on spending the day there. Use charts and graphs. Make sure you bring the volcano with you so that you can show the court what you were using at the time.

Tell the judge just what you told us and demand the right to sue the police department for millions because of the people they have imprisoned illegally for 232 years.

Let us know what happens.

oh, and when you get to prison, tell Daniel Patos we said hello...

Danny's pre incarceration "Drugs should be legal because the government doesn't have the authority to regulate them" posting...

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

You are incorrect. The Food and Drug Administration regulates drugs that can be used safely and in what quantities and prescribed by whom.

---

So you are saying the government has partial-ownership of our individual bodies? If they don't like what we do to them, they can tell us "no," and we must cease and desist? That's lovely, considering the PEOPLE created the government, and as I said, matters involving fundamental rights (you know, the right to control one's body) cannot be voted upon.

The government can kiss my ass when it comes to them telling me how I should live my life, and what I can or cannot do to my body.

If you are willing to state the government has the power to regulate your personal life (not affecting others) choices, including what foods and drugs you use for your own purposes...you are saying the government should be able to regulate how many calories you consume in one day. Are you willing accept that?

I could argue the 9th Amendment protects us against that kind of intrusion of our fundamental liberties.

Quote:

---

For instance, show me in the constitution where murder is illegal. Or how about drunk driving? Child molestation? Cyberstalking? Rape? The creation of a nuclear device?

---

The Bill of Rights was created for the government to protect your rights against those acts.

-Drunk Driving legislation: Unconstitutional. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html)
-Child molestation legislation: Right to life, liberty, property. A child molester is violating those fundamental rights of the child.
-Rape legislation: Same as above.
-Murder legislation: Same as above.
-Cyberstalking legislation: Never even heard of this.


Also, you want to argue the FDA can say what we can and can't put into our bodies based on their relevance to medical benefits...how does that apply to cigarettes or alcohol?

Damn kid, drama much?

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

So you are saying the government has partial-ownership of our individual bodies? If they don't like what we do to them, they can tell us "no," and we must cease and desist?

---

Nope, just the substances it is legal to put into them.

The only "bodies" that are being regulated are the bodies of the plants... and they ain't complaining.

Quote:

---

That's lovely, considering the PEOPLE created the government, and as I said, matters involving fundamental rights (you know, the right to control one's body) cannot be voted upon.

---

They are everyday.

Quote:

---

The government can kiss my ass when it comes to them telling me how I should live my life, and what I can or cannot do to my body.

---

Boy, is YOUR life gonna suck.

Quote:

---

If you are willing to state the government has the power to regulate your personal life (not affecting others) choices, including what foods and drugs you use for your own purposes...you are saying the government should be able to regulate how many calories you consume in one day. Are you willing accept that?

---

Um, that was recently argued in Berkley.

however, we are not talking about too much of a LEGAL substance. We are talking about a substance that is illegal to manufacture, possess or ingest.

Quote:

---

I could argue the 9th Amendment protects us against that kind of intrusion of our fundamental liberties.

---

And, as normal, you would be wrong.

Quote:

---

The Bill of Rights was created for the government to protect your rights against those acts.

-Drunk Driving legislation: Unconstitutional. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html)

---

OHHHH... so Drunk Driving is unconstitutional?

Wow, what an interesting fantasy life you must have.

Quote:

---

-Child molestation legislation: Right to life, liberty, property. A child molester is violating those fundamental rights of the child.

---

Show me the part of the constitution that names the crime and it's penalty.

Oh, you say, it doesn't... it looks to other legislation for that.

As does pot regulation... and there are some substances that have been deemed too dangerous to own. Pot would be one.

That would be the government protecting you from yourself.

Quote:

---

-Rape legislation: Same as above.
-Murder legislation: Same as above.

---

See above...

Quote:

---

-Cyberstalking legislation: Never even heard of this.

---

neither did the founding fathers... but they created a system where the constitution was a living document that can evolve.

Oh, and if you are REALLY still debating the property thing, may I recommend Kelso v City of New London?

Quote:

---

Also, you want to argue the FDA can say what we can and can't put into our bodies based on their relevance to medical benefits...how does that apply to cigarettes or alcohol?

---

Did you even READ what I linked? Both are discussed.

These discussions go better if you listen to the other side.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


---------------------

Where do you see anything about "Congress shall have the power to make laws regarding drugs and intoxicating substances?" I do not see it, thus Congress has NO right to make laws (1937 federal marijuana ban) dealing with intoxicating substances.

---

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the General Welfare clause cited in Section 8, clause 1 here??

Can this be interpreted to regulate drugs?

Why do you think the Founding Fathers included it??

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the General Welfare clause cited in Section 8, clause 1 here??

Can this be interpreted to regulate drugs?

Why do you think the Founding Fathers included it??

---

It's called General Welfare for a reason, otherwise the Founders would have just put "Welfare."

The prohibition of marijuana (or any other drug) doesn't help me nor the MILLIONS in prison, therefore it doesn't help the General Welfare.

Quote:

---

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars

---

-James Madison (Federalist 41)

Quote:

---

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one...."

---

-James Madison

Quote:

---

Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.

---

- Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

`The constitutional {test} of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose of {general} or {local} nature. If the former, there can be no want of constitutional power.... Whatever relates to the general order of the finances, to the general interests of trade etc., being general objects are constitutional ones for {the application} of {money}.''

---

- Alexander Hamilton (emphasis added)

Quote:

---

This assembly does further disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare, by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.

---

- Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

The States supposed that by their Tenth Amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers ...

---

- Thomas Jefferson

It's a shame the Constitution went from being a "clear-cut," "anyone can read it" document to being a brain teaser. How far we've come.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7zvGxJ8J1I

Edit 2: "General:"

Quote:

---

1. involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2. involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group
3. not confined by specialization or careful limitation

---

- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Again, please try to start a constitutional argument because you got caught with pot in the dorm.

make sure you get it on video. It will be worth it.

By the way... here is how it is going to go...

You:"Your honor, I would like to bring up the unconstitutionality of this law... you see, my body is my property and any I wish to...."
Judge:"Are you an attorney?"
You:"Well, no, but I have done a great deal of study on this project."
Judge:"Was it in a law school class?"
You:"No"
Judge:"Well then, what say we talk to someone who HAS been to law school... counselor, why don't you begin? Are you going to present the unconstitutionality of drug possession?"
Your attorney (that doesn't want to look like an ass in the next edition of ABA weekly):"no, your honor. I would, however, like to discuss diversion and parole in exchange for a guilty plea"
Judge:"You may proceed. Son, let your attorney do the talking from here on out...."

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Again, please try to start a constitutional argument because you got caught with pot in the dorm.

make sure you get it on video. It will be worth it.

By the way... here is how it is going to go...

You:"Your honor, I would like to bring up the unconstitutionality of this law... you see, my body is my property and any I wish to...."
Judge:"Are you an attorney?"
You:"Well, no, but I have done a great deal of study on this project."
Judge:"Was it in a law school class?"
You:"No"
Judge:"Well then, what say we talk to someone who HAS been to law school... counselor, why don't you begin? Are you going to present the unconstitutionality of drug possession?"
Your attorney (that doesn't want to look like an ass in the next edition of ABA weekly):"no, your honor. I would, however, like to discuss diversion and parole in exchange for a guilty plea"
Judge:"You may proceed. Son, let your attorney do the talking from here on out...."

---

You have yet to disprove me.

All you've done is presume I'm going to fail when I go to court. Yet, not one word you've uttered has contradicted my interpretation of the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

You have yet to disprove me.

All you've done is presume I'm going to fail when I go to court. Yet, not one word you've uttered has contradicted my interpretation of the Constitution.

---

That's only because you haven't been paying attention to anyone but you.

It is common to get so excited about an idea that you cannot see where it is wrong.

General welfare means those rules in the health and wellbeing of the entire country.

To that end, the FDA and DEA were formed to identify those substances that were against the general good and to enforce the laws written around them.

To aid in the removal of dangerous substances, legislation (at the federal, state and local level) has been created to make sure that the possession, ingestion, creation or distribution of these substances is a crime complete with penalty.

The Constitution provides the ability to the legislature to create those laws and standards necessary to provide the environment desired.

In the same way that specific law can be created to prevent someone from driving too fast, beating his/her child or flying their aircraft over the pentagon, law can be created to restrict those behaviors deemed in opposition to the general welfare.

Your continual references to privacy make no sense. Your roommate consented to the search and then handed them the pot.

You do NOT have the right to hide illegal substances in your body... whether that be in your bloodstream or in condoms swallowed as you cross the border.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

That's only because you haven't been paying attention to anyone but you.

It is common to get so excited about an idea that you cannot see where it is wrong.

General welfare means those rules in the health and wellbeing of the entire country.

To that end, the FDA and DEA were formed to identify those substances that were against the general good and to enforce the laws written around them.

To aid in the removal of dangerous substances, legislation (at the federal, state and local level) has been created to make sure that the possession, ingestion, creation or distribution of these substances is a crime complete with penalty.

The Constitution provides the ability to the legislature to create those laws and standards necessary to provide the environment desired.

In the same way that specific law can be created to prevent someone from driving too fast, beating his/her child or flying their aircraft over the pentagon, law can be created to restrict those behaviors deemed in opposition to the general welfare.

Your continual references to privacy make no sense. Your roommate consented to the search and then handed them the pot.

You do NOT have the right to hide illegal substances in your body... whether that be in your bloodstream or in condoms swallowed as you cross the border.

---

Again, you are wrong.

The general Welfare clause is only applicable if it helps everyone. In no way, shape, or form can that clause be applicable to marijuana use, as it does not help everyone.

Do you not see the flaw in your logic?

Driving too fast: Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Beating child: Child's rights are violated.
Flying over Pentagon: Flying, again, is a privilege, not a right. Privileges can be taken away, rights cannot be.

This is the problem with this country, people are too ignorant to understand and grasp simple concepts. The Constitution, both at the Federal and State level, was created to prevent government from overstepping it's bounds. The Constitutions were created GRANTING government specific powers, not giving the government the power to GRANT the people power/rights.

My rights of "life, liberty, and property" supersede ANY law the government passes, if those laws violate my aforementioned rights (note: the government has the power to strip away those rights IF I violate someone else's rights...smoking, eating, vaporizing a plant doesn't violate anyone's rights). The whole idea of Law is to reach justice, not to oppress a group of people.

My right to live my life the way I want to live it, regardless of public opinion, cannot be stripped away from me. As long as I am not harming an individual with my personal choices, I cannot have my rights stricken from me.

By arresting me, fining me, jailing me, et al for possessing a plant, which harms NO ONE, is a direct violation of my rights. The quicker you learn this, the quicker we get back to actual freedom and liberty in this country. Until then, we are a nation run by a tyrannical government, under the consent of an uniformed and apathetic populace.

If the legislature gets some whiteout and erases the anti-marijuana legislation, does it all of a sudden become morally right? What do you plan to tell the those in prison, and those who have had families ruined, once marijuana becomes legal? "Oh, my bad, sorry about that...here, enjoy some free, legal, weed on us!"

Was slavery in the first 100+ years right? I mean, it was the law at the time. Do you not understand what I am saying?

The only rights we have, are the ones we are willing to fight for. I am personally willing to fight for my right to be self-owner of my body, mind, and soul. If you're not, so be it, but enjoy your life as the slave you truly are.