cannabisnews.com: Shouldn't Property Rights Trump The War on Drugs? Shouldn't Property Rights Trump The War on Drugs? Posted by CN Staff on October 17, 2007 at 18:55:25 PT By Jonathan Hoffman Source: Tucson Weekly Arizona -- A local daily newspaper reports that "many pot seizures of below 500 pounds go unprosecuted." The article goes on to say that pot seizures of less than 500 pounds account for 90 percent of the seizures, and about half of all the pot seized. The reason is that there are so dang many people caught importing herb that prosecuting the bulk of them would overwhelm the legal system. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, there were 9,560 seizure incidents along the southern border in 2004, totaling 1,102,925 kilograms (we called them "kilos" back in the late '60s, early '70s) of marijuana. In English that translates to 2,426,435 pounds, or more simply, about 2.4 million pounds. Consider for a moment that the government has pinched so many pot haulers that it can only prosecute 10 percent of them, and their lost loads only represent the "inventory shrinkage" of the product crossing the border with Mexico--a minor factor in cost of goods sold. This does not address the product crossing the northern border, or the border with Humboldt County. Note to the Drug Warriors: Markets rule. Let me take a moment to assure everyone that I am not a pothead. People who argue my position are usually dismissed as such. I do not claim any exceptional purity, but it is a fact that I have not partaken of any marijuana since Jimmy Carter was president. Long before the Carter presidency, Lenny Bruce said, "Marijuana will be legalized ... yeah ... because all the guys I know in law school smoke it." Well, it didn't quite work out that way. It probably would be legalized if today's lawyers could not easily get all the pot they wanted, and therein lies the key. The only way to attack the problem is to attack the market. That means turning law enforcement away from the importers, and toward the end user. This approach has been tried, found to be successful, then quickly abandoned. The problem is that the end users are a huge percentage of us ... 2.4 million pounds, and that's just the shrinkage. If the transportation workers are overwhelming the system, imagine how many users there must be--your neighbor, your co-worker, your kid's teacher, your stockbroker, your plumber, your lawyer of course, and Uncle Free and his hippie girlfriend Sunshine. So, back we go to busting the "bad guys," the people the end users pay to sneak it to them. Meanwhile, the market will not be denied. Many moons ago, I was impaneled on a federal jury. As with most federal cases, it was a drug case. The accused was found by a couple of narcs parked down by the San Pedro river with a few hundred pounds of pot, a Mossberg 12 gage shotgun and a .40-caliber Daewoo pistol. This was apparently a very bad situation, but, other than the poor choice of pistol, I could not see why. At some point, the judge asked if anyone had a question. I raised my hand, he acknowledged me, and I asked, "Under what authority does the federal government engage in drug prohibition?" He said something about Congress saying we do, so we do. His delivery was light hearted; he chuckled. The rest of the folks chuckled along with him. I returned a steely stare to let him know that I was quite serious. I should have followed up with, "When the federal government engaged in alcohol prohibition, a constitutional amendment was passed to give it the authority. When the amendment was repealed, the authority ended. Which amendment to the constitution gives the federal government the authority to engage in drug prohibition?" Alas, it was a missed opportunity. So, the federal government employs insane enforcement policies for laws that it has no authority to enact. Yet there is a principle that trumps all. When we stand back and look at it, we see that it really is an issue of private property rights. Unless you are a slave, you own your body. Even if you believe that God owns your body, you are still the steward in this world. If you own it, you decide what goes in it. You are the authority in that regard. The federal government lacks not only the legal authority to engage in drug prohibition, it lacks the moral authority as well. Source: Tucson Weekly (AZ)Author: Jonathan HoffmanPublished: October 18, 2007Copyright: 2007 Tucson WeeklyContact: mailbag tucsonweekly.comWebsite: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/CannabisNews Justice Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/justice.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #9 posted by ekim on November 01, 2007 at 18:21:11 PT Art.46 Denunciation http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/singconv.htmDenunciationArt. 46. -1. After the expiry of two years from the date of the coming into force of this Convention (article 41, paragraph 1) any Party may, on its own behalf or on behalf of a territory for which it has international responsibility, and which has withdrawn its consent given in accordance with article 42, denounce this Convention by an instrument in writing deposited with the Secretary-General. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by whig on November 01, 2007 at 16:50:57 PT Read for intention The founders did not and could not have meant that treaties override the constitution, or they would have been stating that any foreign power could ride in and force terms against the United States which overturn the constitution at will. And yet, public officers are sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is the source of their authority and the only basis under which they have power at all. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by whig on November 01, 2007 at 11:14:42 PT Moreover The right to use cannabis is a fundamental human right. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by whig on November 01, 2007 at 11:12:19 PT Supremacy "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."That is the language. Now let's read it carefully.This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land.This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...This Constitution...and all treaties...made, under the authority of the United States...The qualifiers make the Constitution supreme. No treaty can override the Constitution. No law can override the Constitution. Only an amendment can change the Constitution. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by The GCW on November 01, 2007 at 11:05:49 PT Related - Letter to the Editor US AR: PUB LTE: The U.S. Does Have Authority to Prohibit Drug Usage, and the People Can't Change That Webpage: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Opinion/Content?oid=oid:102620Pubdate: 1 Nov 2007Also Referred at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n1201/a03.html?94152 The U.S. Does Have Authority to Prohibit Drug Usage, and the People Can't Change That I read Jonathan Hoffman's article, "Shouldn't Property Rights Trump the War on Drugs?" (Guest Commentary, Oct. 18). He states that "the federal government employs insane enforcement policies for laws that it has no authority to enact." He then goes on to state that "the federal government lacks ... the legal authority to engage in drug prohibition." Unfortunately, Hoffman is dead wrong in his uneducated assumption. The United States of America, at least the last time I checked, is a member of the United Nations, and a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances. As the United States is a signatory to this international treaty, it falls under the auspices of Article 6 of the United States Constitution, which reads, in part, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." It would appear as if the government not only has the right to enforce these laws, but is also required to enforce them under international law. As much as many millions of otherwise law-abiding, contributing members of society, including me, might want to just relax and smoke some harmless marijuana, we are prohibited from doing so. We are also angered because we can't change the law, and we refuse to respect those who have led us to believe we could. Mike Carey Source: Tucson Weekly (AZ) [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by dankhank on October 17, 2007 at 21:10:12 PT digg it redit ... Mike ... got a good look at those sites ...for the first time ... thanks ...I finally thought about these sites long enough and got past the "who cares what the masses read?" and think I'm finally getting it. diggit, redit and the many other sites that are out there can be used to advance any topic. guess I'll start clicking those little icons on any story I would like more folks to read.F4F, thanks for the up on Obama, am watching ... [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on October 17, 2007 at 21:06:46 PT fight_4_freedom Thank you. I just turned it on. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by fight_4_freedom on October 17, 2007 at 20:56:06 PT: Obama is on Jay Leno right now if anyone wants to watch. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Mike on October 17, 2007 at 19:36:27 PT And on Digg.. http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Digg_and_Reddit_Users_Want_to_Legalize_MarijuanaI linked here to make it easier to read Digg comments. The main article is linked off the Digg page. Some of the comments are unbelievable. e.g. Equating cannabis with child porn and murder. Some people are so brainwashed that they are beyond hope. Fortunately people like that get dressed down by the others.http://digg.com/http://reddit.com/ [ Post Comment ] Post Comment