geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
Whatever your views on illegal drugs happens to be I have a some questions for your acute and studied analysis. Butr first I need to set the stage very briefly in order to make a point. I call this my "did you know , , ,?" paradigm.
Of the hundred of chemicals,plants and drugs on the federal and state controlled substance lists which are closely standardized, most can be obtained legally with a physicians prescription. A small number, such as heroin, is not a 'recognized' medical substance currently, but heroin had been so used in the not too distant past. The point here is that the so called lawmakers have t;ld us that virtually none of the forbidden substances are harmful per se and that with the physician's carefully trained hand consumption of the listed substances can be consumed in a way that the potential for abuse has been minimized to an acceptable level and that mere consumption does not automatically result in a threat or harm to the health and safety of the public. However, as we all know, if you posssess, consume, growm distribute, import or manufacture any of the listed substances you are authomatically targeted for serious punishment that runs from arrest and processing the criminal jmustice system to prison, fine and the attending albatross you will wear for a life time.
First a brief outline of what legislators have done in all 50 states and the US CongressOur elected representatives have have defined a group of persons as criminal for enbgaging in otherwise legal activity - the persons with the prescription, or other authorized use are immune from prosecution for engaging in the same activity as the one defined as a member of the '"possessing and using but no prescrtiption" group". If you are or were a communist and a law was passed criminalizing membership in the US Communst Party, then you could suffer serious penalties even in the absence of any proof or even suggestion that your activity as a Cloomunist was tainted with illegal and criminal acts.
It only need be proved that even though that you are a Communist. You may not nevertheless prove yourself a patriotic and law abiding person that has never advocated or paricipated in any violent means to further your goals as a Communist/marxist. The prosecution in fact is prevented from having to prove any unlawful or harmful conduct on you part for which you are being tried as a felon. The jury need only find that you are a member of the group tageted for punishment where the group designation is Communist party membership.
The same applies to persons targeted for punishment for possessing, consuming etc any of the controlled substances. You are in the court room and about to tell your jury that sure you smoked marijuana or snorted methamphetamine but no person or no person's property was threatened nor did actual harm happen to anyone, including yourself. The judge will send the jury from the courtroom and instruct you that your attempt to show yourself as not blameworthy is irrelevant to the felony charges of possession and use of heroin or marijuana or lsd and therefore you will be instructed that your only defense is that you didn't possess or consume any of the substances on the controlled substance list.
What does the Constitution say about targeting named or identfiable groups of persons for punishment?
A. What if there was a US Coinstitutional provision that statesof "Congress shall pass no law that targets an identifiable group for punishment without a trial." and that states "The States shall not pass any law that targets an identifiable group for punishment without a trial."? I mean 'without a trial' the same as the Communist above who is not permitted to show to the jury he didn't threaten or actually harm anyone. You cannot say to the jury, "I just got high!" , but the judge is probably going to mention to the jury the charges as possessing and using "dangerous drugs", and everybody has heard these word and understands them - this is the actual reality in today's legal/court system in the administration of justice..
B. The Constitution must be applied by the courts and judges as the words are expressed in the various provisions as are any normal laws.
C.What if there was a further constitutional provision that said, "the states shall not deprive any person of equal protection of the law"?
This would mean, would it not, that you as the person on trial, or your child or youn wife or husband or parent or sibling or complete stranger would need only to point to A and B above and show the judge a copy of the constitution and direct his or her attention to the specific provisions that prohibits a legislature, any legislature, from targeting any identifiable group for punishment without a trial, and remind his/her honor that you have been targeted for punishment as a member of the identifiable, non-prescription-holder-group by your [charged] possessing and consuming heroin or methamphetamine or marijuana.
The judge would have to set you free right? Right!.
So why don't we provide such prohibiting constitutional provisions and end the war drugs? Do you think that such provisions would have a place as a protection for basic freedoms such as choosing what substances you consume, just like the prescription holder, in the US Constitution? Or anyone shopping at Smiths. The powers that be wouldn't let us do this would they, well not easily?
Then you might also show the judge this provision and remind the judge that the prescription holder is protected from being targeted for punishment but you aren't and would not this be a violation of the clear meaning of "equal protection clause"? if there was such a clause that is. Would not this be a classic deprivation of equal protection of the law enjoyed by the prescription holders? In any event the ABC's of law 101 has been taught, and yes, you will be tested.
This thread is so much pie in the sky isn't it, (smoke dust)? It is funny, sort of, that Article I Section 9.3 of the US Constitution states, "Congress shall pass no Bill of Attainder." and Article I Section 10.1 states "The states shall not pass any Bill of Attainder."
Now a Bill of Attainder has been around for hundreds of years. Kings would siometimes be suspicious of the Duke of Darkness as he appears to have a mean and evil look as if intending treason against the throne. The King would make a law stating any person associating or communicating with the Duke of Darkness shall be taken to the Tower of London and immediately have his head chopped off. That person observed talking to the Duke asking for the time of day, was in violation of the law and was tnerefore one of slome targeted persons talking to the Duke with punishment in the form of "beheading".
There are varying definitions easily found by googling on "bill attainder" but all definitions boil down to the fact that a bill of attainder is a law targeting members of an identifiable group for punishment [without a trial], and certainly a law that named a specific person or person is equally reprehensible.
The bottom line here children, is that we actually have a working constitution proihibiting the passing of bills of attainder and also a provision that protects any person to the equal protection of the law.
The last item was passed/enacted shortly after the end of the civil war when freed blacks were made objects of laws prohibiting them from possessing weapons, and access to public benefits otherwise available to whitey. However, the equal protection provision does not just specify 'newly freed slaves', the provision, is called the "14th Amendment", maybe you've heard of it, says the states shall not deprive any person the equal protection of the law, which 'any person' includes, women, children, whitey, black, oriental, hispanic, Brazilians head hunters in the US, fundamentalist Islamics, homosexuals, heterosexuals, democrats and republicans, communists, old, young, fat, skinny, beautiful people like yourself, Mexican Nationals not possessing a Geen Card, and whose backs appear freshly moistened with water flowing through the Rio Grande, and even ugly people, but I have already mentioned democrats and republicans, and yes the 14th Amendment even applies to stupid people, but then I've already mentioned democrats and republicans, haven't I?
Yes the US Constitutions applies to you and it applies to me and it has been paid for with gallons upon thousands of gallons of blood, rivers of blood as some commentatorsw describe it, as for example did Maurice Boyd pay, and did Loyall D. Anderson pay,yes, reluctantly perhaps, but they paid the full price- the bottom of the bottom line here? Use it or lose it pilgrim.
And did you know that Archie Brown a known Communist was tried and convicted of being such in 1964, and the US Supreme Court cut him loose (US v Brown 381 US 437) because the law he was convicted under was a bill of attainder.
Is this too much for what you call your 'mind' to digest? If so, go back to sleep, you apparently need the rest, what the hell, take a couple of Darvons.
Of the hundred of chemicals,plants and drugs on the federal and state controlled substance lists which are closely standardized, most can be obtained legally with a physicians prescription. A small number, such as heroin, is not a 'recognized' medical substance currently, but heroin had been so used in the not too distant past. The point here is that the so called lawmakers have t;ld us that virtually none of the forbidden substances are harmful per se and that with the physician's carefully trained hand consumption of the listed substances can be consumed in a way that the potential for abuse has been minimized to an acceptable level and that mere consumption does not automatically result in a threat or harm to the health and safety of the public. However, as we all know, if you posssess, consume, growm distribute, import or manufacture any of the listed substances you are authomatically targeted for serious punishment that runs from arrest and processing the criminal jmustice system to prison, fine and the attending albatross you will wear for a life time.
First a brief outline of what legislators have done in all 50 states and the US CongressOur elected representatives have have defined a group of persons as criminal for enbgaging in otherwise legal activity - the persons with the prescription, or other authorized use are immune from prosecution for engaging in the same activity as the one defined as a member of the '"possessing and using but no prescrtiption" group". If you are or were a communist and a law was passed criminalizing membership in the US Communst Party, then you could suffer serious penalties even in the absence of any proof or even suggestion that your activity as a Cloomunist was tainted with illegal and criminal acts.
It only need be proved that even though that you are a Communist. You may not nevertheless prove yourself a patriotic and law abiding person that has never advocated or paricipated in any violent means to further your goals as a Communist/marxist. The prosecution in fact is prevented from having to prove any unlawful or harmful conduct on you part for which you are being tried as a felon. The jury need only find that you are a member of the group tageted for punishment where the group designation is Communist party membership.
The same applies to persons targeted for punishment for possessing, consuming etc any of the controlled substances. You are in the court room and about to tell your jury that sure you smoked marijuana or snorted methamphetamine but no person or no person's property was threatened nor did actual harm happen to anyone, including yourself. The judge will send the jury from the courtroom and instruct you that your attempt to show yourself as not blameworthy is irrelevant to the felony charges of possession and use of heroin or marijuana or lsd and therefore you will be instructed that your only defense is that you didn't possess or consume any of the substances on the controlled substance list.
What does the Constitution say about targeting named or identfiable groups of persons for punishment?
A. What if there was a US Coinstitutional provision that statesof "Congress shall pass no law that targets an identifiable group for punishment without a trial." and that states "The States shall not pass any law that targets an identifiable group for punishment without a trial."? I mean 'without a trial' the same as the Communist above who is not permitted to show to the jury he didn't threaten or actually harm anyone. You cannot say to the jury, "I just got high!" , but the judge is probably going to mention to the jury the charges as possessing and using "dangerous drugs", and everybody has heard these word and understands them - this is the actual reality in today's legal/court system in the administration of justice..
B. The Constitution must be applied by the courts and judges as the words are expressed in the various provisions as are any normal laws.
C.What if there was a further constitutional provision that said, "the states shall not deprive any person of equal protection of the law"?
This would mean, would it not, that you as the person on trial, or your child or youn wife or husband or parent or sibling or complete stranger would need only to point to A and B above and show the judge a copy of the constitution and direct his or her attention to the specific provisions that prohibits a legislature, any legislature, from targeting any identifiable group for punishment without a trial, and remind his/her honor that you have been targeted for punishment as a member of the identifiable, non-prescription-holder-group by your [charged] possessing and consuming heroin or methamphetamine or marijuana.
The judge would have to set you free right? Right!.
So why don't we provide such prohibiting constitutional provisions and end the war drugs? Do you think that such provisions would have a place as a protection for basic freedoms such as choosing what substances you consume, just like the prescription holder, in the US Constitution? Or anyone shopping at Smiths. The powers that be wouldn't let us do this would they, well not easily?
Then you might also show the judge this provision and remind the judge that the prescription holder is protected from being targeted for punishment but you aren't and would not this be a violation of the clear meaning of "equal protection clause"? if there was such a clause that is. Would not this be a classic deprivation of equal protection of the law enjoyed by the prescription holders? In any event the ABC's of law 101 has been taught, and yes, you will be tested.
This thread is so much pie in the sky isn't it, (smoke dust)? It is funny, sort of, that Article I Section 9.3 of the US Constitution states, "Congress shall pass no Bill of Attainder." and Article I Section 10.1 states "The states shall not pass any Bill of Attainder."
Now a Bill of Attainder has been around for hundreds of years. Kings would siometimes be suspicious of the Duke of Darkness as he appears to have a mean and evil look as if intending treason against the throne. The King would make a law stating any person associating or communicating with the Duke of Darkness shall be taken to the Tower of London and immediately have his head chopped off. That person observed talking to the Duke asking for the time of day, was in violation of the law and was tnerefore one of slome targeted persons talking to the Duke with punishment in the form of "beheading".
There are varying definitions easily found by googling on "bill attainder" but all definitions boil down to the fact that a bill of attainder is a law targeting members of an identifiable group for punishment [without a trial], and certainly a law that named a specific person or person is equally reprehensible.
The bottom line here children, is that we actually have a working constitution proihibiting the passing of bills of attainder and also a provision that protects any person to the equal protection of the law.
The last item was passed/enacted shortly after the end of the civil war when freed blacks were made objects of laws prohibiting them from possessing weapons, and access to public benefits otherwise available to whitey. However, the equal protection provision does not just specify 'newly freed slaves', the provision, is called the "14th Amendment", maybe you've heard of it, says the states shall not deprive any person the equal protection of the law, which 'any person' includes, women, children, whitey, black, oriental, hispanic, Brazilians head hunters in the US, fundamentalist Islamics, homosexuals, heterosexuals, democrats and republicans, communists, old, young, fat, skinny, beautiful people like yourself, Mexican Nationals not possessing a Geen Card, and whose backs appear freshly moistened with water flowing through the Rio Grande, and even ugly people, but I have already mentioned democrats and republicans, and yes the 14th Amendment even applies to stupid people, but then I've already mentioned democrats and republicans, haven't I?
Yes the US Constitutions applies to you and it applies to me and it has been paid for with gallons upon thousands of gallons of blood, rivers of blood as some commentatorsw describe it, as for example did Maurice Boyd pay, and did Loyall D. Anderson pay,yes, reluctantly perhaps, but they paid the full price- the bottom of the bottom line here? Use it or lose it pilgrim.
And did you know that Archie Brown a known Communist was tried and convicted of being such in 1964, and the US Supreme Court cut him loose (US v Brown 381 US 437) because the law he was convicted under was a bill of attainder.
Is this too much for what you call your 'mind' to digest? If so, go back to sleep, you apparently need the rest, what the hell, take a couple of Darvons.