Comments on: Paul Armentano: The Unconstitutional War on Pot http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/ Concordia res Parvae Crescunt Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:41:31 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gavin R. Putland http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-607983 Gavin R. Putland Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:55:12 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-607983 The reversal of the onus of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore unconstitutional in all jurisdictions. More: <a href="http://is.gd/ccxry6" rel="nofollow">http://is.gd/ccxry6</a> . The reversal of the onus of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore unconstitutional in all jurisdictions.

More: http://is.gd/ccxry6 .

]]> By: TheRealBillC http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-317313 TheRealBillC Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:40:25 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-317313 Don't be so sure that the police in your state are not using drug laws differently for urban minorities than for suburbanites, or just peope they don't like. That is what is happening in New York State. In the state at large personal possession of a small amount is a minor infraction, but in New York City the police are using a law that says that cannabis in public view is a misdemeanor. What they do is they tell some poor black kid to empty his pockets. The kid doesn't know he can refuse. Once the baggie of cannabis is displayed "in public view" they are arrested on a misdemeanor charge. As long as these laws are on the books, we are all vunerable. You also have to consider that personal users have to get their cannabis from somewhere. It is really unequal justice to leave the people who create the demand alone, while going after the people who provide the supply. After all, if it were legal, they would be no different than the licquor store owner (trafficker) or shop that sells tobacco products (pusher). Decriminalization, whether actual or de facto does nothing to reduce the violence or diversion of money to gangs from cannabis sales. Don't be so sure that the police in your state are not using drug laws differently for urban minorities than for suburbanites, or just peope they don't like. That is what is happening in New York State. In the state at large personal possession of a small amount is a minor infraction, but in New York City the police are using a law that says that cannabis in public view is a misdemeanor. What they do is they tell some poor black kid to empty his pockets. The kid doesn't know he can refuse. Once the baggie of cannabis is displayed "in public view" they are arrested on a misdemeanor charge. As long as these laws are on the books, we are all vunerable. You also have to consider that personal users have to get their cannabis from somewhere. It is really unequal justice to leave the people who create the demand alone, while going after the people who provide the supply. After all, if it were legal, they would be no different than the licquor store owner (trafficker) or shop that sells tobacco products (pusher). Decriminalization, whether actual or de facto does nothing to reduce the violence or diversion of money to gangs from cannabis sales.

]]> By: tenthamendmentcenter podcasts | The Ruthless Truth blog http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-295954 tenthamendmentcenter podcasts | The Ruthless Truth blog Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:18:23 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-295954 [...] Paul Armentano: The Unconstitutional War on Pot [...] [...] Paul Armentano: The Unconstitutional War on Pot [...]

]]> By: Thomas Mackie http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-280128 Thomas Mackie Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:32:53 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-280128 Read Nigro v. U.S.,276 U.S. 332 (1928) where the Supremes held, "...In interpreting the Act, we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of the opiate and other drugs, it is beyond the power of Congress, and must be regarded as invalid." Nothing has occured to Article I of the Constitution since 1928 that would alter, increase, expand or further advance the power of Congress. Read Nigro v. U.S.,276 U.S. 332 (1928) where the Supremes held,

“…In interpreting the Act, we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of the opiate and other drugs, it is beyond the power of Congress, and must be regarded as invalid.”

Nothing has occured to Article I of the Constitution since 1928 that would alter, increase, expand or further advance the power of Congress.

]]> By: Terry Morris http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-265056 Terry Morris Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:25:26 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-265056 Guess not. Carry on. Guess not. Carry on.

]]> By: Terry Morris http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-265055 Terry Morris Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:24:44 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-265055 Testing: Just wondering whether this comment format supports blockquotes. I've never tried it before at this forum. Let's see. Michael wrote: <blockquote>From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even if someone were being harmed. It’s a state or personal issue, pure and simple.</blockquote> Testing:

Just wondering whether this comment format supports blockquotes. I’ve never tried it before at this forum. Let’s see.

Michael wrote:

From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned – treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even if someone were being harmed. It’s a state or personal issue, pure and simple.

]]> By: larry http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-264609 larry Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:20:45 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-264609 "From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting" why I can see some far reaching idiotic federal prosecutor try to make a case that Pot stolen from boat owner to boat owner is piracy? “From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned – treason, piracy, and counterfeiting”

why I can see some far reaching idiotic federal prosecutor try to make a case that Pot stolen from boat owner to boat owner is piracy?

]]> By: Michael Boldin http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-264386 Michael Boldin Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:42:58 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-264386 Terry, you make a really important point with this: <em>"I’m not even sure that it should be the fed’s business if someone else IS being harmed. "</em> From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even<em> if</em> someone were being harmed. It's a state or personal issue, pure and simple. Terry, you make a really important point with this:

“I’m not even sure that it should be the fed’s business if someone else IS being harmed. “

From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned – treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even if someone were being harmed. It’s a state or personal issue, pure and simple.

]]> By: Terry Morris http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-264368 Terry Morris Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:17:59 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-264368 Bryce wrote: <i>If a person does it in one’s own home, not harming another person, then why should that be any of the Fed’s business?</i> Hmmm. I'm not even sure that it should be the fed's business if someone else IS being harmed. I don't see anything wrong with a state declaring a substance to be illegal within its own borders, and to prevent interstate trafficking of such substances. But simply declaring something to be illegal does not necessarily mean that state law enforcement is going to aggressively pursue private users. Some states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, but they don't go after and raid the homes of known sodomites based on the existence of these laws. In my state the so-called "war on drugs" isn't really used to go after pot smokers per se, it is utilized to go after hard core drug traffickers, people who make and distribute meth, etc. The average (casual) pot smoker is left to himself to do what he pleases in the privacy of his own home. But if he gets out on the public streets and highways while using, endangering the lives of the common citizenry, well now, that's a whole 'nother story. Bryce wrote:

If a person does it in one’s own home, not harming another person, then why should that be any of the Fed’s business?

Hmmm. I’m not even sure that it should be the fed’s business if someone else IS being harmed.

I don’t see anything wrong with a state declaring a substance to be illegal within its own borders, and to prevent interstate trafficking of such substances. But simply declaring something to be illegal does not necessarily mean that state law enforcement is going to aggressively pursue private users. Some states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, but they don’t go after and raid the homes of known sodomites based on the existence of these laws.

In my state the so-called “war on drugs” isn’t really used to go after pot smokers per se, it is utilized to go after hard core drug traffickers, people who make and distribute meth, etc. The average (casual) pot smoker is left to himself to do what he pleases in the privacy of his own home. But if he gets out on the public streets and highways while using, endangering the lives of the common citizenry, well now, that’s a whole ‘nother story.

]]> By: larry http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/07/paul-armentano-the-unconstitutional-war-on-pot/comment-page-1/#comment-264349 larry Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:20:52 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2371#comment-264349 Laws on Marijuana should be put on the same level as fireworks, Some prohibit, some allow. But allow local governments to choose what direction they want to go. Research needs to be done on the percentage of federal funding that States receive to pursue pot growers in the name of "the war on drugs" and it needs to be cut off. Laws on Marijuana should be put on the same level as fireworks, Some prohibit, some allow. But allow local governments to choose what direction they want to go.

Research needs to be done on the percentage of federal funding that States receive to pursue pot growers in the name of “the war on drugs” and it needs to be cut off.

]]>