OUR LUNATIC WAR ON DRUGS
by Kirk Brothers
CLICK HERE to return to Index
INTRODUCTION
In Colonial days when our nation was a narrow band of
thirteen English settlements along the Atlantic seaboard, one of
the most common symbols seen on the flags of our staunchly
Libertarian forebears was the rattlesnake--coiled to strike--
above the slogan, DON'T TREAD ON ME.
The rattlesnake appeared on later flags, exhorting those
autonomous colonies to join as one nation, by showing the snake--
now cut into thirteen segments--above the slogan, UNITE OR DIE.
Our revolutionary heroes had ideals we were taught, as
school children, to honor. Patrick Henry's speech, "Give me
liberty or give me death," can still arouse in us a sense of
pride in the men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and
their sacred honor to throw off the yoke of a tyrannical monarch
across the sea.
There has always been ample justification for bloody revolu-
tion against tyranny in government. As Herbert Spencer wrote,
"Old forms of government finally grow so oppressive that they
must be thrown off even at the risk of reigns of terror".
These seven excerpts from a projected book, THE REVOLUTION-
ARY RIGHT, were constructed as links in a chain of logic to lead
the thoughtful reader from fact to fact--and finally to an ines-
capable conclusion--as the evidence, slowly building in mass and
momentum, finally tips the balance toward acceptance of the
controversial conclusion we shall now state loud and clear for
all to hear.
In our first article we proved beyond reasonable doubt that
Social Security, which has brought us to the brink of national
economic collapse, is a blatant coercive contract--enforced by
the crime of official extortion.
We next proved that our Federal Judges are traitors to the
people of this nation by their deliberate subversion of clearly-
written Constitutional rights to political expediency--according
to their partisan ideologies.
We further proved that each and every one of our politicians
at each and every level of government is in power by imposture
and default--that we have had no valid Constitution for more than
a century and a half.
Next we predicted that we are headed for economic/political
breakdown and/or a very real possibility of civil war, unless the
Congress sees the handwriting on the wall. There is ample evi-
dence of widespread, supremely-virulent hatred of our government
(which we share) that gave rise to the bombing in Oklahoma City
(which we deplore for its tragic loss of innocent life--especi-
ally infants).
We further argued that we must suffer through a healing
crisis of unparalleled severity, either now or later--and we opt
for NOW. We do not believe that a single politician should be
let off the hook, but must be compelled to face the music the
ragtime band is now playing on the deck of our sinking ship of
state.
We have advocated a non-violent, peaceful, orderly change-
over to a new government by Constitutional revision, beginning
with an amendment to bring the people back into the political
process and strip power from the liars who do not deserve to have
it. And we have predicted blood, bullets and bombs, if Americans
do not find the brains, backbones and balls to arouse themselves
from their slumber and demand such non-violent political reform
forthwith.
On a personal note, I admit that if I were forty years
younger I would be in a militia--eagerly learning how to mix fuel
oil and fertilizer in the right proportions to go boom when
detonated--so that I might be a soldier in the good fight if it
must come to that. I do not advocate violence--but I regretfully
prophesy it. From the viewpoint of history, the abuses of power
by our so-called leaders are ample cause for bloody revolution--
again.
And now, in case the evidence I have presented so far seems
insufficient to some reader to justify armed rebellion, I offer
my final article in this series to prove that our bureaucrats in
power have manufactured a false crisis to distract the American
people from the real problem.
That "crisis" is what I call OUR LUNATIC WAR ON DRUGS. It
is my apotheosis--literally, the perfect example--of everything
which is wrong with our government. To prove my case I must
weave many separate threads of argument together, which will take
effort to write and time to read--but it should not be boring.
Before I may argue I must state my foundation--so let's
begin with the facts.
REEFER MADNESS--THEN AND NOW
Back in the 1930's a Hollywood producer cranked out a propa-
ganda film called REEFER MADNESS--a collectors' item for people
who like to laugh at something supremely bad.
REEFER MADNESS is hack-written, ham-acted, and cheaply pro-
duced, with scenes of "addicts" smoking hemp and turning into
Hollywood "zombies" with glazed eyes and bizarre behavior--no
more convincing than the monsters in any other low-budget horror
movie. Nowadays the film is regarded as "camp" (unintentionally
funny), but when it was new it was often shown to organizations
such as Demolay, to dissuade high school boys from falling into
evil ways. How? By capitalizing on FEAR!
Let's remind ourselves of political realities. Most people
are stupid enough to believe a pleasant lie--but if a lie can't
be made pleasant, the next best kind is a good SCARE! If the
American people can be told by some "authority" that we are in
GRAVE DANGER, most will believe it. Most people are afraid to
question who that authority is, or what makes him an authority.
Once a gullible citizen believes (with no evidence whatso-
ever) that we are in danger, the next easy propaganda step is to
"prove" that, of course, our wise and benevolent government must
"protect" us from it--by a massive, self-serving bureaucracy.
Such a vast bureaucracy, to earn its keep, must ride roughshod
over many Constitutional rights.
So it is now possible for a person arrested for possessing a
single "reefer" (or "joint", in today's slang), to be branded
part of organized crime, and the government may then seize all
his assets without a shred of proof--merely the suspicion of a
trivial violation of a law which we shall prove to be unconsti-
tutional.
So today's "reefer madness" is far worse than that of the
thirties. Most people have never tried pot (or if they did, they
didn't inhale--maybe). They have never read a medical textbook,
or even a medical dictionary, on the therapeutic value of canna-
bis--and they're not about to, either--because their minds have
already been made up for them by "authorities" who don't read
anything but their own propaganda.
In short, part of our madness lies in trusting people who
have an axe to grind by telling you their self-serving propa-
ganda. The purpose of their allegations is to SCARE people into
submitting to being "protected"--by THEM! So first I'd like to
give you some scientific information about cannabis, if you have
an inquiring mind that wants facts instead of self-serving fic-
tion.
DRUGS AND POISONS
First, "drugs" and "poisons" are propaganda terms.
One of the most common propaganda tricks is to use "loaded"
words instead of objective ones. A great many words have only
one or two literal, dictionary meanings (denotations)--but in
addition have many hidden or implied meanings (connotations).
These connotations are almost invariably loaded with EMOTIONAL
responses.
In a nutshell, "drugs" is a "bad" word, while "medicines" is
a "good" word. Both mean EXACTLY THE SAME THING, but reactions
to "medicines" is favorable, while knee-jerk reactions to "drugs"
is unfavorable--because of the propaganda (hidden) meanings.
Here's an example in specific terms. A narcotic is liter-
ally a substance that promotes sleep--"narco" from the Greek word
for sleep. If you have insomnia, and buy sleeping pills from a
shelf in a supermarket, you're buying a narcotic, and therefore a
drug. But sleeping pills are drugs that people prefer to think
of as "medicines".
Because English is the richest language in the world in
terms of number of words, we have a synonym for "narcotic" that
is also "good"--that is, "soporific". The stem "sopor-" is Latin
instead of Greek but also means sleep. So a soporific is a
sleeping pill--which is a narcotic--which is a drug. So why is
soporific "good" and narcotic "bad"? Because the hidden (propa-
ganda) implication of "narcotic" is that it's addictive, or habit
forming.
"Habit forming" is also propaganda, because it suggests (to
ignorant people) the hidden meanings of "harmful" or "immoral".
Such propaganda serves the purpose of moral vigilantes, about
whom I will have much to say when I have finished laying my
foundation. Let's have a few more facts.
First, it is a fact that the habit-forming nature of many,
if not most, medicines is not a harmful CHEMICAL matter but a
harmless PSYCHOLOGICAL one. Behaviorist psychology as proved by
Pavlov, Skinner, and many others shows that rewarding a subject
for certain behavior can make that behavior a habit--every time
the subject does the "right" thing, he is given a reward.
So if someone has trouble sleeping, and takes a sleeping
pill, his reward is sleep--making the pills a HABIT, because
taking them rewards the patient with relief from his problem.
Many substances are addictive in such a manner--meaning they're
habit-forming because they HELP the patient, and NOT because they
INJURE him in any way.
But moral viligantes never make fine distinctions--they deal
in black/white terms (more on this later). As H.L. Mencken
wrote, "The public...demands certainties....But there are no
certainties." And so our moral vigilantes PRETEND their lies are
certainties--and soon believe the lies themselves.
Let's use the word "medicines" instead of "drugs". Now, we
all know that a great many beneficial medicines have poisonous
("side") effects. Paracelsus (1493-1521) was a medical writer
who pointed out almost 500 years ago that each and every medicine
may be a poison, and that each and every poison may be a medi-
cine. The difference between a poison and a medicine, wrote
Paracelsus, is simply the dose.
We can all agree that cannabis is a "poison", but don't
forget the dose principle--and the fact that "poison" is also a
propaganda term. And to examine cannabis as a "medicine"--not as
a "drug" or "poison"--let's look at the evidence of a few hundred
years.
HEMP
Hemp is a gift of nature--a member of the nettle family--the
result of millennia of evolution, and just a hardy and resilient
weed to most people. Like all of nature's gifts, it has many
properties useful to man.
It makes the best rope for sailors or hangmen--the root is
an edible vegetable used especially by Italian peasants in making
a hearty soup--and its sap contains substances which are either
poisons or medicines, depending upon the dose.
As a side-thought, let us remind ourselves that the potato
plant is poisonous to humans, as is the tomato plant. For years
the fruit of the tomato was called the love-apple and was be-
lieved to be fatal--by those who had never eaten it. The tuber
of the potato plant is a starchy staple for many nationalities,
but both the tomato and potato plants are members of the family
also home to belladonna (the Deadly Nightshade--one of the most
beneficent drugs when properly used).
It so happens that my father was a Homeopathic physician--as
was his father before him--and I still have my father's copy of
The American Illustrated Medical Dictionary by Drs. Dorland and
Miller (Philadelphia and London; W.B. Saunders Co.; 1936). This
old edition is far superior to more modern ones, which omit many
of the "old-fashioned" ideas which were widely practiced long
before the American Medical Association (AMA) put its political
stranglehold on people's access to medical information.
Dorland and Miller report that cannabis is a narcotic (natu-
ral sleeping pill), an anodyne (pain killer), and anti-spasmodic
(good for cramps). Old-time doctors used it in treating some
cases of asthma, whooping cough, paralysis agitans, and migraine.
The dictionary notes that in LARGE DOSES it produces intoxication
and mental exaltation (a "high" or a "buzz" in today's slang).
Dorland and Miller report only its use in Allopathy, or
conventional (AMA) medicine. But in England Homeopathy is on a
par with Allopathy, and both the Royal College of Medicine in
London and the University of Edinburgh in Scotland teach Homeo-
pathic medicine. And because I have now introduced two words
which are strange-sounding at best, and may be new to many read-
ers, I must digress briefly to give a few historical facts.
The words Homeopathy and Allopathy were coined by a German
physician, Samuel Hahnemann, as labels to explain his discovery
of what was then (c. 1800) a new healing principle. Hahnemann
converted many European doctors to his theory of natural medi-
cines in small doses, and tried to convert all of them--he was a
reformer with great zeal, and thus a knack for making enemies.
A reform movement always begins as a minority group within a
hostile majority who are to be reformed--and in this country
those Allopathic doctors founded the AMA for the specific stated
purpose of suppressing Homeopathy as "quackery"--without bother-
ing to study it scientifically.
Between 1850 and 1920 there was ideological warfare between
the two schools of thought, and Congress as usual got into the
act by meddling in what was none of its business. Around 1918
Congress passed a law authorizing the AMA to accredit ALL medical
schools in the United States--a classic example of putting a fox
in charge of a chicken coop--and the inevitable result was the
suppression of Homeopathy in America.
As a sidelight on the merits of the AMA's "superior" system
of medicine, I recall a New York Times report about 15 years ago
of a study ranking the health care systems of some 20 nations by
cost and effectiveness. The United States ranked #1 in cost, and
around #14 in quality. So much for AMA medicine. However, the
AMA has in effect infiltrated our Washington bureaucracy--through
the FDA--and thus government "drug" policy is virtually dictated
by members of a self-serving private-interest group which lobbies
for perhaps the wealthiest professional class in America.
But let us return to the medicinal benefits of cannabis.
The Allopathic uses of cannabis are valuable, but limited. For
their part, Homeopaths have used cannabis for many more problems
with brilliant success. John Henry Clarke, M.D., an outstanding
British Homeopath, in A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica,
(Bradford, Holsworthy, Devon; Health Science Press; 1977), de-
votes eight pages to the combined beneficial effects of cannabis
indica (hashish) and cannabis sativa (common marijuana). Their
differences in action are attributed to the differences of the
soil and climate in which the plants are grown.
In brief, hashish has great application in psychiatric prac-
tice, being useful for catalepsy, delusions, and mania--with some
physiological benefits proved in treating cases of delerium
tremens (the drunkard's "shakes"), epilepsy, chordee and gonor-
rhea, sex-related problems (menorrhagia, prostatitis and satyri-
asis), and urinary disorders.
Common marijuana, as is well known, may be beneficial in
some cases of cataract and the similar eye problem of corneal
opacity--and it is useful, in addition, for such conditions as
ascites, nephritis, nosebleed, palpitations, post-partum hemor-
rhage, tetanus and some cases of stammering (the spasmodic
element). And it is interesting to note that, in a Homeopathic
dose, there are NO intoxicating effects, because the dosage is
incredibly small.
Finally, the latest news reports of January 30, 1997, state
that the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has adopted
the editorial policy of advocating medicinal use of marijuana, in
opposition to the government's "hard line" against permitting
therapeutic uses of hemp.
To which undeniable medical information a staunch advocate
of "pot" laws says, "Maybe so, but SOME PEOPLE get HIGH on it--
AWFUL!"
And that's the crux of our lunatic war on drugs--the fact
that any medicinal substance may be abused by someone seeking
merely the "reward" of its psychological effects--and the fact
that religious bigots take offense at ANY pleasure-seekers,
feeling it their God-given right to dictate private behavior
standards to other people.
So such people argue that we must ALL be protected against
this DANGER--it's a threat to "family values", or "God's law", or
some other such meaningless slogan. I submit that such cretins
have no moral or Constitutional right to impose their religious
opinions on the rest of society--which is my next thread of
argument.
THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY V MORAL VIGILANTES
Let's begin with the right of privacy. As we noted in a
previous article (ABUSE OF DISCRETION--INVISIBLE TREASON),
Justice Brandeis wrote that "They [the framers of the Constitu-
tion] conferred, as against the government, THE RIGHT TO BE LET
ALONE..."
This most all-encompassing right is not explicitly stated in
the Bill of Rights, and so privacy cases are usually heard under
the Ninth and/or Tenth Amendments--the "catch-all" provisions
intended to acknowledge and guarantee EACH AND EVERY COMMON LAW
RIGHT not specifically protected in the first eight amendments.
The right of privacy is the heart and soul of Libertarianism
--the principle that an American has the right to do what he
wants, EXCEPT INJURE SOMEONE ELSE! This vital qualification
means that no Constitutional right is absolute--not even free
speech. Speech is protected as long as the right is properly
exercised--not abused so as to injure another. For example,
libel may not be defended as free speech, because libel is the
use of LIES to injure another's reputation.
But it is clear that if an American chooses to obtain and/or
use ANY medicinal substance, he injures no one but (possibly)
himself, and therefore government may not abuse its police powers
to punish him for an undeniably SOLITARY (private) act. We will
have more to say on this later, but at this point we are consi-
dering the right of privacy as infringed by "moral vigilantes" on
vague and imprecise grounds. Who are these vigilantes?
It appears undeniable that they come in various species, all
having one trait in common: they are all to some degree Puritans
--religious fundamentalists--with an axe to grind for sectarian
reasons. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, Puritanism is the neurotic
fear that someone, somewhere, somehow, to some degree, is happy.
These Puritans range from mere prudes to outright bigots, and
feel qualified to meddle in other people's private lives--justi-
fying their intrusive behavior by propaganda tricks of their own.
Now, as a Libertarian, I postulate that each and every
American has a Constitutional right to be a fundamentalist bigot,
or a schizophrenic, or a fanatic, or a prig (a female equivalent
of which is prude). As a Libertarian, I further postulate that
each and every fundamentalist bigot, schizophrenic, fanatic, or
prig/prude has a Constitutional right to run for public office
and, if elected, to "serve".
But I also postulate as a Libertarian that NO fundamentalist
bigot, schizophrenic, fanatic, or prig/prude has a right to
impose his or her fundamentalist bigotry, schizophrenia, fanati-
cism, or self-righteous preaching upon any other American BY
FORCE OF LAW.
Whatever goes on in the alleged mind of such a cretin is his
individual right--but our LAWS must NEVER be permitted to become
bigoted, schizophrenic, fanatical, or prudish by toadying to some
"authority" (usually a book like the Bible) as the one and only
"right" way to live. The United States is a SECULAR nation!
Imposing "moral" standards is identical to imposing
religious standards--moral beliefs are religious beliefs--and the
desire to coerce others into conforming to one's own religion is
obviously a proselytizing tactic. The First Amendment prohibits
establishment of any "official" religion, despite the best
(worst) efforts of Bible-belt bigots to do so by subterfuge. We
shall have more to say on this point in our Constitutional
argument.
Based upon the foregoing foundation I conclude that each and
every attempt by any public official to establish LEGAL STANDARDS
for moral behavior must be vigorously opposed in every possible
way. Of course countless fundamentalist bigots, schizophrenics,
fanatics and/or prigs/prudes have repeatedly tried to impose
thought control on all citizens.
To understand why and how, let's agree on a few definitions.
WHO ARE THE VIGILANTES?
Moral vigilantes may be classified in four groups, each
group having definitely unlovely qualities--some being more
unlovely than others. The problem for freedom (privacy) loving
people is that such vigilantes often form powerful political
coalitions to present a united front against the "sinners" whom
they feel called upon to reform--or punish.
The least offensive of the four groups, perhaps, is that of
the prigs and prudes. These are the womanish men and the mannish
women who are obnoxiously concerned with being "nice".
Perhaps the best example of a prude is a character in the
1798 comedy by Thomas Morton called SPEED THE PLOUGH. Her name
is Mrs. Grundy--and she is never seen, but constantly referred to
in such lines as, "What will Mrs. Grundy say? What will Mrs.
Grundy think?" From the dialogue of the on-stage characters, it
is quite obvious that Mrs. Grundy is what a psychiatrist would
call a frigid female--incapable of any normal passion--and
excessively concerned with manners and morality.
Not her own--other people's.
Priggish men and prudish women are simply narrow-minded, and
"hung up" on arbitrary and artificial standards of propriety. An
earthy joke may provoke a frown of disapproval, and the sight of
animals copulating may cause them to look in another direction.
Having no sex drive to speak of, they cannot relate normally to
other people--they are natural celibates, which clearly shows an
abnormal mind, if not a pathological one.
A real-life example of the ultimate prude, perhaps, is that
of a lady named Elizabeth Borden of Fall River, Massachusetts.
She was a spinster who lived with her mother and father--until
she allegedly murdered them both with an axe. The jury found
reasonable doubt of her guilt (she went to church quite often),
but a familiar bit of doggerel shows she was convicted in the
court of public opinion. The jingle went:
Lizzie Borden took an axe,
And gave her mother forty whacks.
And when the job was nicely done,
She gave her father forty-one.
A cut above the prigs and prudes are the fanatics--and for a
truly inspired in-depth study of the nature of fanaticism, read
THE TRUE BELIEVER by Eric Hoffer (a longshoreman and taxi-driver,
among other occupations). His book is a work of sheer genius,
unequalled by most academics with a long string of degrees after
their names.
A fanatic is an uncritical and enthusiastic adherent--a fol-
lower, not a leader--of some theory or belief, often religious.
Religious fanatics include such diverse types as the Hare Krishna
cultists in saffron robes who accost people on the street for
donations, and the neatly-dressed men and women who knock on your
door to talk about the Bible (as interpreted by them).
One characteristic of fanatics is their dogged determination
to wear the opposition down by prefacing every sentence with,
"The Bible says..." or some other catchphrase. They do so be-
cause they never question their "authority"--they accept it
blindly and appear not to hear any argument to the effect that
they are naive or just ignorant. Trying to reason with a fanatic
is as futile as trying to give medicine to a corpse.
A cut above the fanatic is another "religious" specimen--the
religious schizophrenic. They are relatively few in number, but
because they adhere to delusional beliefs and express them with
great fervor, they are often followed by the fanatics mentioned
above. They often lead cults, and their followers obey their
every word as divine revelation.
But the worst of all is the bigot. The two characteristics
of bigotry are absolute stubbornness and absolute intolerance.
A bigot is sublimely assured that God is on his side, and that
anyone against him will burn in hell forever--so he therefore
will never compromise his beliefs. The only cure for bigotry is
rigor mortis.
Now, how do these four groups with disparate goals manage to
pull together in a political coalition? The most common way is
to find ONE cause upon which they can agree, as a "war" on "evil"
in some form or other--into which each group brings its own
membership for a political crusade. Let me give you an example
from fairly recent American history.
DEMON RUM, CARRY NATION AND THE VOLSTEAD ACT INSANITY
Just as "drugs" are now seen as some sort of scourge of the
Devil by moral vigilantes, a century ago the scourge was alcohol.
Let's face it--alcohol is a food in moderation, but a poison
in overdoses. In short, it's a drug if we use that term objec-
tively. Let us also admit that alcoholism is a ravaging disease
which affects both the body and the mind. Permanent liver damage
(cirrhosis) is a common legacy of liquor.
Even worse is the fact that every time a drunk passes out, a
few million brain cells die from lack of oxygen, because alcohol
in the blood combines with oxygen also in the blood--thus depri-
ving brain cells of that vital element. Brain cells never regen-
erate, so mental loss is slow but irreversible. Alcohol is FAR
WORSE THAN CANNABIS as a poison!
Let us also agree that every alcoholic KNOWS that alcohol is
a poison BEFORE he becomes addicted to it--so that his addiction
is the result of a stupid choice for which a realist might well
argue that the addict alone is responsible. Finally, let us
agree that the abuse of alcohol is a social problem in terms of a
patient's work performance, family relationships, etc.
More than a century ago the Women's Christian Temperance
Union (WCTU) became active in a crusade to eradicate the use of
"demon rum". Their crusade began with church meetings exhorting
drinkers to kick the habit, and their programs were enlivened
with music which was specially written for that purpose. One
such temperance song had a happy waltz tune with the following
lilting refrain, and was often performed by a solemn young
soprano with pigtails:
Please sell no more drink to my father,
It makes him so strange and so wild.
Hear the prayer of my heart-broken mother,
And pity the poor drunkard's child.
The drive to prohibit the use of alcohol gathered momentum
over many years, and the catalyst in the prohibition movement was
a religious woman named Carry (Moore) Nation. Carry--perhaps
borrowing a leaf from Lizzie of Fall River--used an axe in her
personal crusade. She stormed into one saloon after another, axe
swinging, smashing bottles of liquor to fragments. Periodically
she was arrested, imprisoned, released--and re-arrested when she
at once bought a new axe and started all over again.
And so she became a MARTYR--perhaps the most powerful kind
of SYMBOL--a necessary crystallizing element in any fanatic move-
ment--a rallying force that inspired her fellow fanatics to even
greater effort to bring about prohibition of alcohol in the
United States.
The Eighteenth Amendment, also known as the Volstead Act,
launched one of the more colorful periods in American history--
that of Prohibition--and the rise of the Mafia, as millions of
Americans openly defied the law and continued to drink, as
"criminals".
Before leaving this subject, we should note that vigilantes
are prone to one propaganda trick in particular--that of the
false dichotomy. In plain language, this is an argument that
splits all people into TWO AND ONLY TWO groups--polarizing the
population into black/white extremes which eliminate any possible
middle ground. Here are three versions of the fallacy to illus-
trate the point:
"You're either on God's side or the Devil's".
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem".
"You're either for us or against us".
These over-simplified choices are repeated, again and again,
benumbing the mind of a stupid hearer until, at last, the THIRD
POSSIBILITY--that of neutrality--no longer exists in his think-
ing.
So, as we all know, the WCTU and their fanatical supporters
persuaded Congress to draft the 18th Amendment, and brainwashed
stupid Americans into voting for it. Those who could not be
brain-washed simply became criminals.
Precisely the same thing occurs now when a beneficent
medicine (hemp) is prohibited by self-righteous prigs--simply
because SOME people ENJOY some of its effects. Naturally many
persons continue to use the medicine, if only to protest what
Libertarians view as damnable gratuitious meddling in everybody's
right of privacy.
History shows that Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and
our less restrictive laws aren't stopping people from getting and
using marijuana, either. If anyone refuses to consider just that
fact, please note that the Volstead Act was repealed by the 21st
Amendment--and repeal has never been suggested as the cause of
any subsequent social problem.
Our laws against marijuana must be repealed, for one simple
reason we shall now argue.
OUR MARIJUANA LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
First, a few introductory notes. Our Memorandum of Law here
is far briefer than that submitted in Chapter One of this series
--partly because there has been no Supreme Court test of the
legal question asked, and partly because there are relatively few
cases in lower courts bearing directly on our point of conten-
tion.
In addition, to avoid repetition of what has been said at
length in previous chapters--and in the preceding pages of this
excerpt--we have saved time and space by using some topic
sentences and parenthetical notes to cite sources.
This brief is offered for information purposes for laymen,
and is NOT in proper form to submit to any Court! In preparing
this brief, our source was the private notes of the same layman
who wrote our Social Security brief.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE
A law may be unconstitutional in two ways--either as writ-
ten, or as applied. In the first instance, the text of the law,
in and of itself, obviously infringes a Constitutional right-such
as a hypothetical law requiring people to go to church on Sunday,
and horse-whipping them if they stay home instead.
In the second instance, a law might "look" okay on paper--in
terms of what it purports to do--but its enforcement under police
powers violates a Constitutional right which appears unrelated at
first glance.
The text of any anti-drug law creates a superficial appear-
ance of legitimacy, because the people are being "protected" from
a "danger"--as eloquently argued by the best shysters in the
game. It would be quite difficult to prove that anti-drug laws
are unconstitutional AS WRITTEN, because it is an ancient legal
maxim that public safety is the highest law.
So we shall now prove that each and every legal prohibition
of cannabis is unconstitutional AS APPLIED, because enforcement
of any such law infringes the Fifth Amendment rights of each and
every American.
QUESTION ASKED
Does legal prohibition of a medicine infringe the Fifth
Amendment guarantee of due process when the law is applied?
AUTHORITIES CITED
U.S. Constitution, Amendments I, V, IX, X, XIV
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, 2
J. Wigmore, EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW, #2072
(Chadbourne rev. 1978)
Roe v Wade (1973)
Sandez v U.S. (C.A. Cal., 239 F 2d, 239, 244)
Jefferson v Sweat (Fla 76 So 2d 494, 499)
People v Thomas (95 Misc. 2d 289, 407 NYS 2d 812 (1978)
Wooten v State (Tenn. 314, SW 2d 1,5)
NOTES ON AUTHORITIES
Wigmore's comments on Common Law rules of evidence are as
authoritative as the Commentaries of Sir William Blackstone
(cited in Chapter Two of this series).
Roe v Wade is, of course, the landmark Supreme Court abor-
tion test case, but our notes do not include a more precise
citation.
FIRST ARGUMENT
We shall now offer two separate, but interlocking, arguments
to prove that laws prohibiting possession or use of hemp violate
numerous separate Constitutional rights of every American.
POINT #1
The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, 2, reads, "This Constitu-
tion...shall be the Supreme Law of the land, and the judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution
or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Amendment V reads, in the relevant part, "...nor shall any
person...be deprived of...liberty or property, without due
process of law."
Amendment XIV reads, in the relevant part, "No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."
CONCLUSION: Therefore, NO Constitutional right of any
individual or minority group--no matter how small, unpopular,
"immoral", or "irreligious"--may be abridged by any statute,
State or Federal, to appease "moral vigilantes", who clearly
attempt to impose their religious (moral) beliefs on all
Americans by force of law, in violation of Amendment I.
POINT #2
Government at any level is not authorized by its Consti-
tutions to practice medicine.
PROOF: Self-evident by reading the relevant Constitution(s).
In brief, the practice of medicine is defined by relevant State
laws in words to the effect that medicine is the diagnosis and
treatment of human disease.
The U.S. Constitution, Amendments IX and X, state that
rights not specifically granted to the Federal government reside
in either the states or the people. The practice of medicine is
implied as a privacy right by Amendment X, and there are ample
cases on the right of privacy to establish that freedom of choice
in medical treatment is a right reserved to the people.
PROOF: Roe v Wade established that a pregnant woman has the
right to choose abortion as a medical treatment. It is self-
evident that abortion is a medical treatment which terminates a
human life at some stage. Therefore, if medical termination of a
human life is protected as a right of privacy, it follows by
logic that any less draconian medical treatment is also protected
as a right of privacy.
POINT #3
Hemp (cannabis indica and/or cannabis sativa) is a medicine
with a long history of success in treatment in both Allopathic
and Homeopathic practices.
PROOF: see the material presented earlier in this article.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, if medical treatment is protected as
a right of privacy, and hemp is used as a medical treatment, it
follows that the use of hemp as a medical treatment is protected
as a right of privacy. It is self-evident that the abuse of any
medicine may be a medical and/or social problem, but may not be
deemed a criminal act, because the intent is not criminal.
SECOND ARGUMENT
If it be DENIED that the medical use of hemp is protected as
a right of privacy under Amendments IX and/or X, it will now be
shown that enforcement of any law which prohibits the possession
or use of hemp violates a defendant's right to due process of law
as guaranteed by Amendment V.
INTRODUCTION
Due process is one of the cornerstones of Common Law. It
includes the presumption of innocence, the right to an unbiased
Court and trial by unbiased jury, and all procedural rules to
guarantee fairness--including rules of evidence which have been
part of Common Law tradition since the Magna Charta. Black-
stone's commentaries and Wigmore's rules of evidence are two of
the prime sources for any scholarly study of Common Law and due
process thereunder.
Courts exist for one purpose: to provide a mechanism for
redress of injuries. An injury is a violation of some other
person's legally-protected rights. Actionable injuries may be
either civil or criminal offenses. Because marijuana laws are
criminal statutes, we focus here on due process in criminal
cases.
Before a person may be charged with a crime, it must first
be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been commit-
ted. Proof of this fact is called the corpus delicti, or body of
the crime. In a murder case, the body of the victim is no longer
a mandatory exhibit--but there must be proof that someone is
dead, and that death was caused by someone's criminal act.
AFTER the corpus delicti has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, a suspect may be indicted and tried--the trial then
focusing on proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the
person who committed the crime which the corpus delicti has
proved to exist.
There was a celebrated mystery some 50 years ago in New York
City involving the disappearance of a Judge Crater--accused of
underworld connections--who had been subpoenaed to testify before
a Grand Jury. Judge Crater vanished before his appearance, and
his body has never been found. No one has ever been charged with
his murder, because there is no corpus delicti--his death is
merely presumed.
POINT #1
We now offer three separate precedents establishing a single
point of case law, or stare decisis.
"The fact that a crime has been committed, or corpus
delicti, CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED BY A PRESUMPTION" [emphasis sup-
plied] (Jefferson v Sweat, supra).
"The corpus delicti has TWO ELEMENTS: that a certain
[actionable] result has occurred, and that someone is criminally
responsible for the act" [emphasis supplied] (Wooten v State,
supra).
"The due process clause protects a defendant from presump-
tions which, ABSENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, shift the burden of
proof to his detriment....It is IMPERMISSIBLE for Courts to
sanction the use of CRIMINAL PRESUMPTIONS which legally establish
guilt, but which cannot logically be said to do so beyond reason-
able doubt" [emphasis supplied] (People v Thomas, supra).
CONCLUSION: It is well established by the above and other
precedents that, if there be no corpus delicti, prosecution of a
citizen for an alleged crime violates his Fifth Amendment right
of due process.
POINT #2
Wigmore's EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW (supra) states
that THREE facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to
CONVICT a criminal defendant. They are:
1) That an injury has occurred;
2) That the injury is the result of a criminal act;
3) That the defendant is the perpetrator.
Wigmore SPECIFICALLY STATES that THE FIRST TWO WITHOUT THE
THIRD comprise the corpus delicti (see Wooten v State supra).
The Circuit Court of Appeals for California, in Sandez v
U.S. (supra) affirmed the Common Law rule of corpus delicti, as
stated in Wigmore--specifically holding that PROOF THAT A DEFEN-
DANT HAS VIOLATED A STATUTE DOES NOT COMPRISE THE CORPUS DELICTI.
CONCLUSION: Read that last sentence again, please!
POINT #3
Therefore, if a citizen is arrested for possession of medi-
cine which is prohibited by law, government must prove beyond
reasonable doubt that his possession of that medicine has injured
some other person.
POINT #4
But there is no evidence whatsoever that the possession of a
medicine by "A" violates any legally-protected right of "B".
SUMMARY
Therefore there is no corpus delicti, and enforcement of
drug-control laws is unconstitutional under Amendment V. Q.E.D.
BRINGING A TEST CASE
If any reader wants to fight this question in Court, here
are some facts you must know--and ideas you should consider.
1) You must find as many other plaintiffs as the law
requires to bring a CLASS ACTION--or you will be given the brush-
off!
2) You must bring your suit in a Federal District Court in
the state of California--because Sandez v U.S. is a California
ruling by the Circuit Court of Appeals, and is therefore binding
upon all District Courts in California.
NOTE: Sandez v U.S. is ALSO BINDING upon ALL Federal Courts
nationwide EXCEPT the Supreme Court of the United States--but by
abuse of discretion, which we call judicial treason, Courts in
other states ignore it at will, pretending that they are not in
California "jurisdiction". The effect is that a Constitutional
right in California may be "different" than a Constitutional
right in other states.
Does that make sense? Of course not--if a Constitutional
right may vary from state to state, then what the hell is the
meaning of the term, "Constitutional right"?
3) You must hire a Libertarian lawyer who is willing to
fight for you because he/she sincerely believes in your cause.
He/she must be a member of the bar of the Court in which the
action will be brought, and preferably of the Court of Appeals
also.
4) You must sue the United States under 28 U.S.C. 2201,
seeking a Declaratory Judgment on a question of Constitutionality
of Statute and, after serving the Complaint, your lawyer should
give the U.S. Attorney no more than 21 days to file an Answer.
If an Answer is not filed and served by that deadline (or perhaps
even if it is, depending on Uncle Suck's papers) your lawyer
should file a Motion for Summary Judgement to cut the bullshit
and force the issue to a head in a hurry (translation: less than
a year).
5) Follow your lawyer's advice on publicizing the case. He/
she can NOT ethically fight the case out of Court, but plaintiffs
may inform the media of what is happening, and permit Court
papers to be seen by news reporters (legally). However, the
practical reality is that publicity might prejudice (is that
possible?!) a Judge against you--and your lawyer should know when
to shut up to avoid antagonizing whoever is trying the District
Court case.
6) If you lose in District Court, you must appeal to the
Court of Appeals in California--which issued the ruling in Sandez
v U.S., and is bound by its own prior ruling.
7) If you win in District Court, the U.S. will appeal
directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, and there the
fat will be in the fire for everyone to smell!
Good luck!