Late one evening, a DEA agent shows up on at the doorstep of a farmhouse in south central Kentucky. He pounds on the door impatiently, waits about 15 seconds and pounds again. Growing more agitated, he shakes the screen door, turns in a circle and then gives the door a couple more good, hard raps.

Finally, a grizzled old farmer opens the door and peers into twilight.

“Sorry to keep ya waitin’. Was just fixin’ to eat some supper. How kin I hep, ya?”

The agent stands tall and straight and  in his  most official voice declares, “I’m Agent Murdoch, DEA. I’m here to inspect your fields to make sure there are no illegal drugs growing on this property,” He pauses a moment with an air of gravity.  “I’m not asking permission. Just letting you know.”

The old farmer steps out onto the porch as the rickety screen door clatters closed behind him. He hitches up his coveralls and peers quizzically at the agent, absentmindedly brushing a fly away from his forehead.

“I reckon that’ll be jist fine,” he says. “But I’ll just warn ya – ya don’t want to go into the west field over yonder,” he said, pointing to an old rusty gate silhouetted in the setting sun.

The agent bristles, reaches into his suit coat pocket and whips out a badge.

“You see this old-timer? It says DEA. That means I can go anyplace I damn well please. And  I can do anything I damn well please. I have the authority. Do you understand me?”

The old farmer, simply shrugs and cocks one busy, old eyebrow.

“Suit yeer-self, son.”

The agent quickly strides across a dusty driveway and makes his way through the creaky gate, heading  into the west field. The farmer follows and leans nonchalantly against a fence post next to the gate, gnawing on a toothpick.

The fed makes it about half way across the field when Roscoe, a massive red bull, suddenly charges out of a treeline near the back of the field. The agent, screams in horror and turns, hightailing it toward the gate. But it quickly becomes clear he’ll never make it. The 2,000 pound animal quickly closes the gap between itself and the agent.

Moments before a certain goring, the farmer cups his hands around his mouth and yells, “Show him yer badge! Show him yer badge!”

***
I respect authority.

But when an individual or institution takes its authority beyond prescribed limits, it’s clear in my mind that we have the right to resist.

Most people in the United States seem to hold the federal government in awe. It goes beyond respect into what I would call an unwarranted reverence. Yes, we should respect legitimate authority. But when the feds exercise power not granted by the Constitution, citizens have a right and duty to stand against it. We’re not talking rebellion against legitimate authority. We are talking about standing firm against unwarranted, unconstitutional and illegal acts.

And we can stand against it – through our state governments.

James Madison understood the power of the states and the people, and he envisioned it a check on overreaching federal power. When the states band together and stand against unconstitutional overreach, they become a rampaging bull. And no federal badge can stop it.

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. – James Madison, Federalist 46

The drug war is based on a repugnant assertion: that you do not have ownership over your own body; that you don’t have the right to decide what you’ll do with your body, with your property and with your life. The position of the drug warriors is that you should be in jail if you decide to do something with your body that they don’t approve of.

This is an abomination of everything that America is supposed to stand for. As long as this country continues the drug war, you are not free. At the root, then, those that force the drug war on you are enemies to your freedom.

If you are concerned at all about liberty, the economy, the Constitution and the power of the Federal Government – you cannot ignore the US government’s longest and most costly “war” – the War on Drugs.

But no matter how long it lasts, how much is costs, how many lives are disrupted, and how much it fails – the war rages on.

Why?  Well, because Federal “authorities” don’t care what your local laws are, they don’t care what your personal choices are, and they don’t care what reason you have for your choices.

All they care about is their own power.  Period.

In this ongoing drug war, you are always treated as a suspect and your neighborhood is much less safe. You are searched at airports and your bank accounts are spied on. While drug users who are no physical threat to anyone but themselves are put in jail, the prisons become more and more overcrowded, resulting in the early release of violent criminals on a regular basis.

If you love your freedom and you want your city to be safer, this psychotic war on drugs must be ended – now.

Understandably, many Americans are afraid that ending the drug war will result in countless drug addicts, including children. In reality, though, that’s just what we have now!

On top of it, we generally don’t even consider the people who are addicted to federally-approved drugs to be drug addicts. According to a 2004 CDC report, almost one-half of Americans use at least one prescription drug. It should be obvious, then, that the drug war has done nothing to reduce Americans’ use of drugs – it’s simply to control which drugs people use, and who can make a profit from them.

So what’s really going to be different – can our nation’s addiction to drug use get any worse?  It’s doubtful that legalizing all drugs could make things any worse, but even if it does, then so be it.

People will always do plenty of things that are bad for them, and there’s no reason to put them in prison for it. Think about all the things that you do which are bad for your own health and well being – should the government outlaw those too?

People eat too much fast food and they forget to floss every day. They watch too much TV and they don’t count their calories. They stay up too late and they spend too much.  And, guess what else? People swallow, snort, shoot and smoke drugs that are both legal and illegal – and it’s not going to stop. A free society just wouldn’t force you, under the threat of punishment, to be “good” to yourself all the time. That was the job of your parents – unless, of course, you want the feds to be your new “daddy.”

In all seriousness, though, if we are ever going to have a nation that respects the Bill of Rights, of which the Ninth and Tenth Amendments may be the most important, the DEA and the entire drug war must be eliminated.

If not, what’s going to be next? Orwellian telescreens in our homes and a state-mandated morning exercise routine? That would most assuredly keep the cost down on the coming national healthcare system.

Won’t that be nice?

Every day that the war on drugs continues is another day of injustice; another day of spending countless billions to lock people up that don’t behave the way the bureaucrats want them to behave.

It’s time to bring this multi-billion dollar attack on your liberty to an end.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama – who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana – will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.

Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy.

“What the president said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing here in law enforcement,” he said. “What he said during the campaign is now American policy.”

Bill Piper, national affairs director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a marijuana advocacy group, said the statement is encouraging.

“I think it definitely signals that Obama is moving in a new direction, that it means what he said on the campaign trail that marijuana should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue,” he said.

Piper said Obama has also indicated he will drop the federal government’s long-standing opposition to health officials’ needle-exchange programs for drug users.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

It’s now 35 years after Dick Nixon started this “war” -  and we now have over 1 million – yes, 1 MILLION – non-violent people sitting behind bars.  People who are in jail not for harming other people, but for making a personal choice that the politicians in government don’t want them to make.

And you – yes, you – are paying for their room and board.

How much more can we accept invasions of our privacy, monitoring of our bank accounts, the shackling and imprisoning of everyday people? How much more can we spend?  How much more can this country endure?

These are some of the questions that Texas filmmaker Kevin Booth has set out to answer in his explosive new documentary, American Drug War:

Three and a half years in the making the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested realized his cocaine source was working for the CIA.

American Drug War “the last white hope” shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just dope fiends but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it. This is not some ‘pro-drug’ stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.

According to Booth, “This is not some ‘pro-drug’ stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.”

Keep in mind that every single action of the DEA (and the entire federal government) in support of the federal war on drugs is a direct violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution was written under a principle called “positive grant.”  This means that the federal government is allowed to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution.

If the power is positively listed, then the feds are granted the authority to do it.

Pretty easy, right?

Not in practice, and the founders knew how tyrants would want to abuse their power.  They felt that limiting the government through positive grant was so important that they codified this principle in law as the 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

A simple reading of the Constitution would make it quite clear that there’s nothing that empowers the federal government to engage in the criminalization of drugs – in fact, it says nothing about drugs at all.

In fact, the only crimes that are considered federal crimes by the Constitution are – treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

Thus, the government has gone WAY outside their purview of power to engage in this increasingly costly and destructive war – this insanity needs to end.
It’s my hope that “American Drug War” will bring this to light to at least a few more people.

It’s definitely on my “must-see” list as soon as it’s released.

Read more on the war on drugs here, here, and here.

States rights have no bearing when thugs shut down businesses, destroy families, and throw people in jail.

From the MSNBC report:

Federal authorities contend that marijuana is an illegal drug, no matter how it used or who uses it, and they don’t honor the state laws.

It’s quite simple.  Federal “authorities” don’t care what your local laws are, don’t care what your personal choices are and don’t care what reason you have for your choices.

All they care about is their own power.  Period.

But, there’s nothing, whatsoever, in the US Constitution which permits the federal government to wage a “drug war.”

The Constitution was written under the principle of “positive grant,” which means that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically listed in the Constitution.  The rest, as the 10th Amendment states, are to be “reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.”

A simple reading of the Constitution would make it quite clear to anyone, that there’s nothing mentioned about drug wars, drugs, marijuana, plants, or anything of the like.

Thus, it’s not only the federal marijuana laws that are unconstitutional, but the entire federal “war on drugs.”

It’s time to bring this multi-billion dollar attack on your liberty to an end.

Frustrated by government policy and inaction, a group of advocates for medical marijuana sued two federal health agencies on Wednesday over the assertion that smoking it has no medical benefit.

The group, Americans for Safe Access, a nonprofit organization based in Oakland, filed the lawsuit in Federal District Court, challenging the government’s position that marijuana, “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

Although the lawsuit is well-intentioned, it’s clearly misdirected. Whether or not marijuana has a medical benefit is not the issue; whether or not the war on drugs should exist at all is the issue.

The Drug War knows no bounds. The Tenth Amendment clearly limits the federal government to powers that are specifically listed in the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

But yet, national laws, including those that are definitively prohibited by the Tenth Amendment, are continually held to be superior to state and local laws; all to the detriment of your personal liberty.

The fact is that you have a right to do what you want with your own body. Self-medication, for example, is a right protected by the Ninth Amendment. More importantly, though, there is nothing listed in the constitution giving the federal government the power to prohibit people from using drugs or medicine.

Therefore, the federal government has no right to violate local drug laws or force you to change your personal choice. Doing so is in direct violation of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But, the Constitution be damned – that’s what the politicians are telling us!

In Murray Rothbard’s book, For a New Liberty, you can see the inherent problem with the drug war – it simply gives the federal government power over you in ways that no free person should want:

Propagandize against cigarettes [or marijuana] as much as you want, but leave the individual free to run his own life. Otherwise, we may as well outlaw all sorts of possible carcinogenic agents – including tight shoes, improperly fitting false teeth, excessive exposure to the sun, as well as excessive intake of ice cream, eggs, and butter which might lead to heart disease. And, if such prohibitions prove unenforceable, again the logic is to place people in cages so that they will receive the proper amount of sun, the correct diet, properly fitting shoes, and so on.

Once the government is given the power to limit the liberty of one group of people, it then has the power to limit the liberty of others – including you. If you approve of the government interfering with people’s rights to use whatever drugs they want, then you approve of politicians being able to decide what’s good for you as well. There is no stopping point once the government has the power to determine what is good or bad for you to put in your own body.

Thus, the drug war is based on a repugnant assertion: that you do not have ownership over your own body; that you don’t have the right to decide what you’ll do with your body, with your property and with your life. The position of the drug warriors is that you should be in jail if you decide to do something with your body that they don’t approve of.

This is an abomination of everything that America is supposed to stand for. As long as this country continues the drug war, you are not free. At their root, then, those that force the drug war on you are enemies to your freedom.

In this ongoing drug war, you are always treated as a suspect and your neighborhood is much less safe. You are searched at airports and your bank accounts are spied on. While drug users who are no physical threat to anyone but themselves are put in jail, the prisons become more and more overcrowded, resulting in the early release of violent criminals on a regular basis. If you love your freedom and you want your city to be safer, this psychotic war on drugs must be ended – now.

Understandably, many Americans are afraid that ending the drug war will result in countless drug addicts, including children. In reality, though, that’s just what we have now! On top of it, we generally don’t even consider the people who are addicted to federally-approved drugs to be drug addicts. What’s going to be different – can our nation’s addiction to drugs get any worse?

According to a 2004 CDC report, almost one-half of Americans use at least one prescription drug. It should be obvious, then, that the drug war has done nothing to reduce Americans’ addiction to drugs – it’s simply controlled which drugs people use, and who can make a profit from them. It’s doubtful that legalizing all drugs could make things any worse, but even if it does, then so be it.

People will always do plenty of things that are bad for them, and there’s no reason to put them in prison for it. Think about the things you do that are bad for your own health – should the government outlaw those too?

People eat too much fast food and they forget to floss every day. They watch too much TV and they don’t count their calories. And, guess what? People swallow, snort, shoot and smoke drugs that are both legal and illegal – and it’s not going to stop. A free society just wouldn’t force you, under the threat of punishment, to be “good” to yourself all the time. That was the job of your parents – unless, of course, you want the feds to be your new “daddy.”

In all seriousness, though, if we are ever going to have a nation that respects the Bill of Rights, of which the Ninth and Tenth Amendments may be the most important, the DEA and the entire drug war must be eliminated.

If not, what’s going to be next? Orwellian telescreens in our homes and a state-mandated morning exercise routine? That would most assuredly keep the cost down on the coming national healthcare system.

Won’t that be nice?

Federal agents raided two south Modesto homes Wednesday, uncovering an indoor marijuana farm that may be linked to an Asian crime syndicate operating out of the Bay Area.

Federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents, Internal Revenue Service officers and Galt police served a search warrant at a two-story house in the 1700 block of Rancho Encantado Lane at 10:30 a.m. The house was next door to a day-care center.

That brings to 50 the number of houses that have been raided from Modesto to Sacramento that are believed to be connected to the crime ring, Taylor said.

The fact of the matter here is that people have an inalienable right to do what they want with their own bodies. And, more importantly, since the Constitution does not specifically authorize the federal government to prohibit drugs, actions such as these are in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Federal drug laws (the Controlled Substance Act) ban the possession of marijuana as well as a number of other drugs, while the FDA continues to legalize other drugs made by corporations that have enormous political influence.

But, the essential question is this: If a simple federal law is all that was needed to ban marijuana, why did Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920’s require a constitutional amendment?

James Madison made it quite clear that the federal government would only be able to exercise the powers that were specifically delegated to it in the Constitution. In Federalist #45 he wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The Tenth Amendment gave Madison’s opinion the force of law, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

When the United States imposed a nationwide ban on the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol in 1919, a Constitutional Amendment was required. This is because the Constitution did not, and still does not today, give the federal government the power to prohibit alcohol. (or any other substance, for that matter) As we all know, this was eventually repealed. In 1933 another Constitutional Amendment was required to repeal the previous prohibition.

The federal government now argues that it is allowed to prohibit the possession of marijuana and other drugs, because they fall within the realm of interstate commerce. Obviously, this wasn’t the case back in 1919. So what changed? How could the Commerce Clause of the Constitution morph into something that would apply today?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that the “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states…” This “commerce clause” is the legal bedrock for all federal regulation of business activity that crosses state lines.

We must take note, the Commerce Clause itself was never meant by the Founders to be some sort of blank check for absolute control over anything and everything we do that might have some sort of influence on some sort of commercial activity. But, that distorted view is just what all three branches force us to accept today.

In reality, though, the economic purpose of Article I, Section 8 was almost exactly the opposite of what the government has been telling us since the FDR years.

The original meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states. It was written to ensure that States wouldn’t prohibit the free-flow of commerce from state to state through tariffs, taxes, quotas, and the like. The idea was to ensure that trade was made “regular.” Thus, it was designed to promote trade and not to restrict it.

Since the explicit language used in the Controlled Substances Act, just like economic regulation in most every other realm, prohibits the free flow of goods, it is therefore completely repugnant to the meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause.

Even the great centralizer Alexander Hamilton specifically noted in Federalist #17 that the Commerce Clause would have no effect on such matters:

The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction.

James Madison concurred in Federalist #42 that the commerce clause would “provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States.”

Thus, the Commerce Clause has been converted from a power to eliminate prohibitive trade barriers put up by states into all-encompassing police power over anything that the government tells us is “related” to commerce. Therefore, we vehemently reject this distorted use of the commerce clause to interfere with the right of the States and People to determine the legality of marijuana.

Since the commerce clause is not a valid argument for the increase of federal power, we must, then, ask that essential question once again. If all that was needed to ban alcohol was some legislation from Congress that would list it as a banned substance, then why did the government go through so much trouble with the Constitutional Amendments? Why is marijuana different in 2007 than alcohol was in 1919?

The answer is quite simple. It isn’t. Setting constitutional arguments against prohibition aside, the fact remains. To do something of this magnitude – something that the Constitution doesn’t authorize – would require a constitutional amendment. But, as per the norm, our politicians refuse to follow the rules that govern them. With the flick of a pen, they dictate what is good and what is bad. What is allowed and what is not.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2006), American taxpayers are now spending more than a billion dollars per year to incarcerate its own citizens for marijuana “violations.”

Sooner or later a new question will have to be asked amongst “We the People”: Does the federal government have the power under the Constitution to stop cities and states from legalizing marijuana?

The answer must be a resounding no!