The federal government’s Constitutional authority to regulate drugs extends only so far as to prevent the movement of drugs across any state or federal border.

The war on drugs is not about drugs, it is about state sovereignty. Once the federal government gets us to concede the principle that the states cannot be trusted with their own sovereignty– to do what is right –then, on principle, the federal government will gain the ability to legislate other things against our sovereignty as well.

If we agree with the premise that Oklahoma cannot determine which drugs to allow its citizens to use and which ones not to let them use, then we have just conceded to allow the federal government to tell Oklahomans who they can and cannot marry, what they can and cannot eat, who they can and cannot associate with and so on.

I challenge you to re-read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution wherein you will find that Oklahoma retained all sovereignty not delegated to the Congress through the Constitution.

While the federal government can control what goods enter the stream of interstate commerce, I do not agree that we Oklahoman’s should allow ourselves to be tricked into ceding one ounce of our liberty and sovereignty under the false premise that we cannot be trusted to regulate ourselves.

I would rather retain the right of our state to handle the drug issue, as well as other social issues, than accept on principle that we cannot regulate ourselves and that we therefore must accept other forms of social legislation from the federal government.

RJ Harris [send him email] is an entrepreneur, a law student, and a candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s 4th Congressional District. Visit his website at www.rjharris2010.com.

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.

The following is based on a talk given at the Free State Project’s Liberty Forum in Nashua, New Hampshire, on Friday, March 6, 2009.

The Tenth Amendment says “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.” This effectively means that if the Constitution does not grant the power to the federal government over something, then it is for the states and people to decide. Some people here would say this is the most important amendment. If the federal government obeyed it, the entire drug war as we know it would be impossible.

In 1909, Hamilton Wright, U.S. official to the Shanghai Opium Commission, complained that the Constitution was “constantly getting in the way” of his drug war ambitions. Indeed, in domestic politics, there is no Constitutional authorization for a federal drug war whatever. Without a grant of power, the U.S. government is supposed to butt out.

In 1914, Woodrow Wilson signed the Harrison Narcotic Act into law. There was no constitutional basis for this, but at least by the time alcohol prohibition came around, it was recognized that the federal government would need constitutional authority to ban liquor. They passed the 18^th Amendment and repealed the disaster of alcohol prohibition with the 21^st amendment.

By 1937, however, there was no more such deference to Constitutional procedure. That year, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Marijuana Tax Act into law, effectively banning marijuana at the federal level. All the major federal drug laws since then had no Constitutional basis, and all of them seemed to come with general expansions of federal power. Just as Wilson’s ban on heroin and regulation of cocaine came during the activist Progressive Era and marijuana prohibition was part of FDR’s New Deal, the next major wave of federal drug law came in the 1960s, during the Great Society, and culminated in the 1970 Controlled Substances Act just as Nixon was continuing LBJ’s policies of guns and butter.

This relates to the medical marijuana debates since the 1990s. When states began allowing medicinal pot, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both cracked down on their dispensaries, and many advocates of states’ rights decried this violation of federalism. A case went to the Supreme Court on 10^th Amendment grounds and all the liberals on the court, all favoring a federal government with few limits on its power, upheld Bush’s raids. Three conservatives dissented, including Clarence Thomas, arguing that the federal government had no authority through the commerce clause to interfere with California’s medical marijuana policy.

If Obama indeed stops the medical marijuana raids, it will probably not be because, as his spokesman says, he believes “that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws.” On general questions of policy, including the drug war, Obama and most liberals favor federal supremacy. If California goes through with legalizing marijuana outright, will Obama really do nothing about it? Will the administration actually find ways to crack down on medical marijuana while claiming the operations it’s targeting are not for medical use – as it has done before? Is it possible that Obama, not believing in the constitutional principles at stake, will accelerate other aspects of the drug war?

The Tenth Amendment alone invalidates the federal drug war, and so too does the next one down.

The Ninth Amendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This means that just because a personal right is not specifically mentioned does not mean the federal government can infringe upon it. Certainly the rights to use and sell drugs are being attacked in this very way.

And in moral terms, this is what the drug war means. It is the denial of self-ownership. Someone who can’t decide what to put in himself does not own himself. The logic of the drug war is that the government owns you.

We look at all the rights trampled in the name of the drug war and we see how all rights are connected. People are denied the right to self-medicate and take the treatment they desire. Not just in regard to illegal drugs either, but those that are regulated.

The Food and Drug Administration is tied at the hip to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The pharmaceutical interests who control federal prescription drug policy have a stake in maintaining a control on what drugs people can do. The FDA, by keeping life-saving drugs off the market, has forced tens and tens of thousand Americans to die prematurely. Mary Ruwart puts the number in the millions.

What would amuse me if it were not tragic is that so many liberals defend the FDA even as they question the drug war. But if you have a right to do drugs to get high, you surely also have a right to do any drug that you think might save your life. Medical freedom in its true sense is totally impossible without drug freedom.

Because of the drug war, the right to travel is impeded, and the right to have and transfer money. Laws against money laundering – itself a victimless crime – have sprung up almost entirely because of the drug war. And anyone who believes that the right to practice free enterprise is important and guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment must necessarily oppose the drug war, which violates free market principles in a million ways.

Next on our list is the Eighth Amendment, which guarantees that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Well surely any punishment is cruel for a victimless crime. Conservatives might say this is a liberal reading of the Amendment. But at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, prisons as we know them hardly existed, and the notion of imprisoning someone for ten years for growing hemp, on which the Constitution was drafted, would have been seen as quite cruel and quite unusual. In the 1970s and 1980s, Congress passed mandatory minimum laws which reduce the discretion of judges in handing out sentences – almost all such federally determined sentences are for drugs or guns.

The average sentence in federal prison for drug trafficking is longer than for sexual abuse. The burgeoning prison state is one of the most horrifying features of modern American history, with the drug war playing a huge part. About one in four or five Americans prisoners are there for non-violent drug offenses – acts that were totally legal in the nineteenth century. Before Reagan stepped up the drug war, there were half a million Americans in prison or jail, and another 1.5 million on parole or probation. There are now more than two million behind bars and seven million total in the correctional system. Prisons grew by 500 percent from 1982 to 2000 in my state of California.

One out of four or five prisoners are there for drugs alone. And for their non-crime, they are sentenced to a personal totalitarianism: Gang violence, an alarming frequency of prison rape, beatings and sometimes death. Americans by the hundreds of thousands who have never raised a finger against anyone are in constant fear of being abused and turned into slaves by their cellmates. How any American can think this is in any way consistent with civilized society boggles the mind.

Bail is often ridiculously high for drug war victims – $1 million or more. The advent of asset forfeiture – whereby the government confiscates your property and essentially accuses it of being guilty of a civil offense – has become an effective way to circumvent the “excessive fines” clause.

What about the Seventh Amendment? It reads: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

I mentioned civil asset forfeiture. It is important to recognize that there is no criminal hearing for the vast majority of forfeiture victims. The property is seized through civil litigation. But since the property itself, and not the owner, is on trial, the Bill of Rights offers no protection. There’s no right to a trial. If a person wants to reclaim his confiscated property, he must ask for a trial. If the court rules that the property be returned, the government can ask for another one, or merely make return of the property contingent upon the victim paying tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

You might be a charter pilot who has his plane taken as part of a drug investigation, and be unable to pay the six grand to get your plane back after being bankrupted by the legal system. This happened to Billy Munnerlyn in the early 1990s. You could be the wrong color or have the wrong amount of cash on you and lose it all to confiscators who get to keep a cut of what they steal.

One point of the Seventh Amendment was to protect the rights of Americans to sue government officials for wrongdoing, and have a fair trial – not the type of mock trial the Founders saw used by the British Crown to let their officials off easy. The drug war has turned this entire idea on its head. Now the government can just take your property without charging you and all you can do is hope that it lets you make your case in a fixed sham proceeding that you are innocent.

The Sixth Amendment reads, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

For standard crimes like murder, theft, rape and the like, it is perhaps possible to have trials reasonably available to every suspect. But there are simply too many drug offenders for this and no victims to serve as reliable witnesses. So the standard of evidence has been lowered to the point where the mere existence of enough cash and a cop’s say-so is enough to convict.

What’s more, defense attorneys are often burdened with a hundred clients at once, so they must prioritize and leave those who are fated to only a year in prison to lesser hearings. Some judges have even refused to assign public defenders in drug cases.

A dangerous alternative to the trial system is the “drug court,” wrongly touted by some reformers, including the Obama administration. In Obama and Biden’s “Blueprint for Change” they propose to “Expand Use of Drug Courts” to “give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.”

But as Morris Hoffman, a state trial judge in Denver and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Colorado, warned at the USA Today blog in October last year:

[It’s] not just that drug courts don’t work, or don’t work well. They have the perverse effect of sending more drug defendants to prison, because their poor treatment results get swamped by an increase in the number of drug arrests. By virtue of a phenomenon social scientists call “net-widening,” the very existence of drug courts stimulates drug arrests.

Police are no longer arresting criminals, they are trolling for patients. Denver’s drug arrests almost tripled in the two years after we began our drug court. At the end of those two years, we were sending almost twice the number of drug defendants to prison than we did before drug court.

Attempting to win the drug war, even in a more progressive sense, is thus no substitute for abandoning it altogether. The only change I can believe we’ll see under Obama is more erosion of the Sixth Amendment.

We’re just getting started. The Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall be. . . subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Mandatory drug testing can be seen as self-incrimination, as soon as the results are used in criminal prosecution. Civil asset forfeiture has allowed for the deprivation of life and liberty without due process, and also for the effective phenomenon of double jeopardy, as people are punished both in the civil and criminal systems.

The Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978 expanded the use of forfeiture to include any property connected to the drug crime in any manner. An early 1990s study estimated that 80% of people who lost their property to civil asset forfeiture were never charged with a crime.

We often hear of money being confiscated for drug residue, which can be found on over 90% of the cash in circulation. We hear of people losing their homes, cars, boats and businesses because of the presence of marijuana seeds. The drive to get loot, some of which police get to personally keep, has even led to some deaths, as was the case with Donald Scott, a California rancher gunned down because bureaucrats wanted to seize his land on which they claimed they found some seeds. Michael Bradbury, the Ventura County DA, said that the police raid was “motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government… [The] search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant.”

I shouldn’t even have to discuss how the Fourth Amendment has been compromised.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Where to begin? Warrants have become a mere bureaucratic technicality, rubberstamped or often neglected altogether in the pursuit of drug offenders. No-knock raids have become a commonplace in modern American life. 92-year-old women are murdered and have drugs planted on them. Men who shoot no-knock invaders are sentenced to death, and if they’re lucky, have their sentences reduced to life – this happened to Cory Maye in Mississippi. Children are shot in the back. Family pets are killed by laughing officers as they break into homes searching for drugs.

With a real crime, it is often possible to have an “Oath or affirmation” backing the warrant, which can actually “describe the persons or things to be seized.” In a murder case, a warrant can describe a bloody knife. Drug war warrants are typically too vague to pass constitutional muster. Mere suspicion that some law is being broken is often enough.

The courts have ruled that if the government tries to arrest you when you’re in public, and you escape into your home, they can now search the home without a warrant. As for automobiles, drug war roadblocks have erased the Fourth Amendment concerning cars, which are now treated as the property of the state.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that police may prevent people from entering their own homes while the police apply for a warrant. These abuses are often glorified on television as the necessary implements to catch vicious criminals, but they originated with, and are principally used for, the war on drugs.

Americans tend to look at the Third Amendment as an anachronism. “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Surely this hasn’t been touched by prohibition, has it?

Even by a very narrow reading, I believe it has. In one instance, in 1997, 40 members of the Army National Guard moved into the Las Palmas Housing Project in Puerto Rico to search for drugs. Years later, there were hundreds there.

More broadly, the entire spirit of the Third Amendment has been trounced. The point of the amendment was to prevent the abuses seen with the British Quartering Act, to protect Americans from having to quarter soldiers – to support them, even financially – except at wartime when and through legal means. But all around us, we have seen the police militarized in the name of the drug war.

Some conservatives objected when Bush modified the insurrection act and amassed more presidential power to call up the National Guard on his own say-so. But this trend began before 9/11. In a hearing on the drug war in 1994, then Congressman Chuck Schumer said, “The National Guard is a powerful, ready-made fighting force. Redefining its role in the post Cold War era presents exciting possibilities in the war against crime.”

Also troubling have been the attempts to weaken Posse Comitatus, which since Reconstruction has forbade the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. But before the war on terrorism, there was the drug-war loophole. In the 1980s, Posse Comitatus was amended to allow for military-police cooperation in drug interdiction. Whereas the military was understood to be inappropriate for the enforcement of federal civil rights during Reconstruction, it was supposedly okay for the drug war. This precedent culminated in the largest massacre of American civilians by their own government since Wounded Knee.

Why was the military involved in Waco sixteen years ago? Because the government decided to treat their upcoming publicity-stunt raid as a drug measure. They claimed the Branch Davidians had a meth lab. That’s how they got the warrant and military involved. That’s how they got the military weapons. It was only later that the excuse shifted to child abuse or illegal gun ownership.

Which brings us to the Second Amendment. One of the terrible tragedies of our time is that more people do not understand the connection between the drug war and gun rights.

As soon as violating people’s rights to find drugs became excusable, the crusade against private gun ownership got a big boost. Both concern the ownership of inanimate objects. As wars on possession crimes, both government crusades rely on the same kinds of dirty tactics, the punishment of minor offenders with disproportionately long sentences as a deterrent, the erosion of due process, privacy and the rights of the accused.

The relationship between the drug war and violent crime has been documented. The spike in violent crime following prohibition has traditionally led to more severe enforcement of gun laws. Both gun control and the drug war lead to violent black markets, and thus more state power in a spiraling vicious cycle of mutual reinforcement.

It was, after all, the bootlegging gangs that emerged out of alcohol prohibition that served as the inspiration for the first major federal gun law: The National Firearms Act of 1934. A year after the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 passed on a similarly used an abusive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Moreover, just as with terrorism, the two issues became linked in law enforcement. Federal law mandates additional penalties if drug dealers are caught in mere possession of a firearm. Nobody wants to stick up for the rights of drug dealers to keep and bear arms. But so long as they are violating no one’s rights, they should be left in peace. There are many legitimate reasons, from a moral perspective, that a dealer would want to defend himself.

Many non-violent drug convicts are automatically denied the right to bear arms. This is a serious and grave attack on the human rights of drug convicts who have already paid a debt to society that they didn’t even owe.

The lesson is clear: If you want your right to self-defense protected, you must oppose drug prohibition.

Last but not least is the First Amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

For years, politicians have wanted to censor us, using the drug war as an excuse. Probably the most notable example was Senators Feinstein and Hatch’s proposed Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which in its original language would have outlawed speech that advocated drug use or production and cracked down on websites that merely linked to sites that sold drug paraphernalia. Then there is the more general chilling effect of students being harassed in public schools for outwardly advocating drug use or legalization.

Here in New Hampshire, Ian Freeman has been threatened with criminal penalties for the act of advocating drug possession.

As for religious liberty, American Indians have long used hallucinogens as religious rites, and have risked penalties under federal law for the peaceful exercise of religion. This brings us to a fundamental incompatibility between the First Amendment and the drug war.

Under the American Indian Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1994, American Indians can use peyote because it is part of their religion. But if something is peaceful, anyone should be allowed to do it, whether it is recognized by the government as religious or not. For peyote users to be jailed because they do not believe in its spiritual dimension is a de facto official government endorsement and granted privilege for some religious groups. If it can conceivably be allowed for the religious, it must constitutionally be allowed to everyone. Yet for peyote users to be jailed despite their religion is a violation of their religious liberty. The only way to reconcile religious liberty with federal drug law is to abolish it altogether.

Thus we see that Ludwig von Mises was hardly off the mark. The entire Bill of Rights has been shredded in the drug war. In Constitutional terms, “If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption,” one does indeed “take all freedoms away.” With even the precious First Amendment battered, Mises was right that the drug warriors “unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.”

The alternative, say the drug warriors, would be worse. They persist in their claims that we are utopians and unrealistic. But it is their vision of a drug-free America that is unrealistic. America’s prisons are constantly monitored and prisoners have very little of what we would call civil liberty, yet drugs flow throughout the system. America itself could become one big drug prison and their vision would be no closer to being obtained.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

While there have been studies showing that marijuana can shrink cancerous tumors, medical marijuana is essentially a palliative drug.

If a doctor recommends marijuana to a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy and it helps them feel better, then it’s working. In the end, medical marijuana is a quality of life issue best left to patients and their doctors.

Federal bureaucrats waging war on non-corporate drugs contend that organic marijuana is not an effective health intervention.

The federal government’s prescribed intervention for medical marijuana patients is handcuffs, jail cells and criminal records. This heavy-handed approach suggests that drug warriors are not well suited to dictate health-care decisions.

It’s long past time that Congress showed some leadership on the issue and passed legislation reaffirming the Constitution’s 10th Amendment guarantee of states rights.

States that prefer to cage sick patients for daring to feel better can continue to do so. The more enlightened states that have passed compassionate-use legislation should not be stymied by a federal government that really should have better things to do.

No doubt that these are issues that should be left to individuals and their doctors – but governments around the country would rather continue spending massive amounts of our money to throw these people in cages.

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, 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.

Joel Turtel takes note of this in his recent article, “The Sick and Futile War on Drugs.”  Here’s an excerpt:

The fact that the head of our government’s War on Drugs is called the drug “czar” reveals a great deal about the sick “war” on drugs. Czars were the absolute rulers of Russia for a thousand years. They were totalitarian dictators, above the law.

Unfortunately, our drug czar is too close a relative-in-spirit to the Russian czars. He wages war against the American people’s basic liberties, their right of free choice. Drug laws promote arbitrary confiscation of peoples’ cars, homes, and bank accounts. Drug laws condone violent, middle-of-the-night raids on people’s homes by SWAT teams who break down doors without warrants, and sometimes kill innocent people. Drug laws let airport police conduct “cavity” searches on innocent travelers’ bodies, and searches of their luggage. They allow arbitrary police searches of cars on our highways, without warrants or probable cause. Drug laws condone long prison terms for millions of Americans whose only “crime” was simple possession of a single joint of marijuana.

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.”

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.

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.

In a free country, you would be the owner of your own body, and you could decided if you wanted to take marijuana, or prozac, or no drugs at all.  Again, Joel Turtel hits the nail on the head:

In a free country, along with freedom comes risk and personal responsibility. If you harm yourself with drugs, alcohol, or fatty hamburgers, you will pay the consequences. That is part of what freedom means. You reap what you sow. Risk is part of liberty, and risk is part of life. You cannot legislate away personal risk. To imprison people for the alleged “crime” of doing harm to their own bodies is morally obscene.

To do that takes away our most precious possession, our freedom. If every person in this country wanted to fry their brains with drugs if they became legal, that is their right, the right of free men and women, of free citizens. No drug “czar,” no self-righteous legislators, no “moral majority” has the right to abrogate our liberty because some stupid people harm themselves with drugs.

And that’s the truth.

Here’s what Gregory had to say:

I distinctly remembered that Bush said something back during his first presidential campaign about leaving medical marijuana laws up to the states. After Clinton’s horrendous crackdowns in California, I recall thinking Bush’s stance on this, along with his “humble” foreign policy promises, was a reason I quietly rooted for him against Gore. I imagined on civil liberties and war, as well as economics, he’d be slightly less bad.

And, of course, here’s the original 1999 report from the Washington Post:

“Campaigning in Seattle on Saturday, Bush answered questions about medical marijuana laws by saying, ‘I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose.’”

R. Keith Stroup, executive director for the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws in Washington, which has backed D.C.’s drug initiative, said he was “delighted” by Bush’s support of state authority.

“Governor Bush is at least being consistent,” Stroup said. “Republicans frequently talk about devolution, returning power to the states. . . . It is encouraging to hear him indicate that he would leave this decision to them.”

Consistent – sure – as long as he wasn’t running the country as our “commander-in-chief.”  But, as Lord Acton warned us about human nature, once he got power, that power corrupted.  (Remember? Power Corrupts – absolute power corrupts absolutely.)

Then again, he might’ve just been acting like politicians act – and saying something to get a few votes.

Either way, it doesn’t really matter, because in practice Bush has only upped the ante and supported the seemingly never-ending war on your freedom/drugs.

As Ron Paul has said so clearly, this issue is one that’s supposed to be left to the states – to decide locally:

The Federal government should recognize that states have the authority to decide these issues.  This affords all states the opportunity to see which policies are most beneficial. As a Congressman and a physician, I strongly advocate that healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not politicians or federal agents, which is why I am an original co-sponsor of the recently introduced “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act” which would bar the Federal government from intervening in such doctor/patient relationships that violate no state law.

As written previously on this site, the federal drug war is an abomination:

…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.

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.

K.K. Forss does not claim medical marijuana solves all his problems.  His pain from a ruptured disc in his neck is debilitating.  He is unable to go to work or to the First Baptist Church  he used to attend because of the pain and muscle spasms.  Taxpayers through Medicare spend over $18,000 a year on his various medications.

Half of those drugs are strong narcotics.  The other half address the various side-effects brought on by the first half, such as nausea, heartburn, heart palpitations, difficulty sleeping, and muscle spasms.

No, marijuana would not completely address all his pain, but it made a tremendous difference in the quality of his life when he tried it for over a year.  It helped him regain 38 pounds he had lost.  It calmed his muscle spasms and helped him sleep. In short, it alleviated many side effects and greatly reduced his need for other expensive medications.  Mr. Forss estimates that being allowed to use medical marijuana would save taxpayers at least $12,000 a year in medications he would no longer need.  He would also be able to work occasionally and attend some church services.

Scientists at the University of California at Davis recently completed a study that backs up Mr. Forss’s experience, finding that cannabis demonstrates significant relief of neuropathic pain.  Many in government call for more studies while people like K.K. Forss suffer.  More studies will not change what many patients already know, and that is for some, medical marijuana helps their pain.  But over-reaching government gets in the way.

K.K. Forss lived in constant fear of federal and state officials so he eventually stopped taking medical marijuana and switched to his more rigorous and expensive pill regimen.  Presently, twelve states have passed legislation allowing marijuana, under certain conditions, to be prescribed legally by doctors for patients who could benefit from it.

K.K. Forss lives in Minnesota, where it is not yet legal.  However, even if it is legalized by the state, Mr. Forss will still have plenty to fear from the Federal government, as cannabis dispensaries and clinics that operate under these state laws are still under fire from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In other words, the federal government sees fit to use our tax dollars to raid state sanctioned healthcare clinics, to imprison and fine patients and operators, in order to compel people like Mr. Forss to be bedridden and overmedicated at great taxpayer expense every single day.

The Federal government should recognize that states have the authority to decide these issues.  This affords all states the opportunity to see which policies are most beneficial. As a Congressman and a physician, I strongly advocate that healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not politicians or federal agents, which is why I am an original co-sponsor of the recently introduced “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act” which would bar the Federal government from intervening in such doctor/patient relationships that violate no state law.

The bottom line is that K.K. Forss should be treated as a free American.  Mr. Forss is one of many who would like to use marijuana medicinally because it helps him.

Politicians and bureaucrats have no right to interfere.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

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.