http://online.wsj.com/…

The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation’s drug issues.

“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.”

The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment’s role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said.

The administration also said federal authorities would no longer raid medical-marijuana dispensaries in the 13 states where voters have made medical marijuana legal. Agents had previously done so under federal law, which doesn’t provide for any exceptions to its marijuana prohibition.

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest law-enforcement labor organization, said that while he holds Mr. Kerlikowske in high regard, police officers are wary.

“While I don’t necessarily disagree with Gil’s focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don’t want to see it at the expense of law enforcement. People need to understand that when they violate the law there are consequences.”

1. You can’t convince people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product’ because that’s impossible and just as ridiculous as a ‘war on terror’ or ‘war on a tactic.’ They see it as a war on them because it is. Drug and products exist only because people desire them. You must go after the actor behind the drug or product. The user or seller or manufacturer. Whenever you prohibit something you will enveitably make that problem worse and cause negative side effects you didn’t account for. Whether that be drugs, guns, prostitution or fast food.
2. While forced treatment is likely better than forced incarceration you will still have asset forfeiture happening. You’re still forcing people to do something against their will for what was likely a consensual, non-violent, voluntary ‘crime.’
3. Treating it as a ‘health’ issue doesn’t make me feel any better. Health in general but specifically mental health has been a tool used by violent fascist governments throughout time to remove those who they disagreed with. Many states in the USA practiced eugenics before Hitler or anyone else. Many regimes would use vague mental ‘disorders’ to lock up political advisories in padded rooms and in most countries including the United States you can be held practically forever without the same well documented legal rights that a normally imprisoned individual has. Not that that always helps.
4. Medical-marijuana dispensary raids? Oh yes because that promise was so well kept. I’m totally going to just ignore all of Obama’s lies and believe his drug ‘czar’ on this one.
5. This has been said many times but… czar? Really? Must they be so blatantly power hungry? I’ve no doubt these guys think of themselves as little emperors. It’s sick.
6. Even if treatment goes up will incarceration go down? Will he ask Obama to release/pardon all or some or even one of the non-violent federally held drug ‘criminals?’ The USA has the largest prison population both in total number of prisoners and per capita. The prison system is one of the fastest growing industries. To make room for non-violent drug offenders California last I heard was planning on releasing violent prisoners out early. Seems wrong on several levels.
7. Oh… and what about obeying the actual laws of the land Mr. Kerlikowske? You know… the US Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments. Would you be so kind as to point out the section in Article 1 that gives congress the power to pass such prohibitions?
8. Of course James Pasco is wary of the proposed changes. As he says: “I don’t want to see it as an expense of law enforcement.” What he really means is that he doesn’t want the war on drugs to shrink because then he may not get the funding or get to use his fun SWAT equipment as much. Can’t have a reduction in the police state. Gotta keep them boys employed. Can’t make it look like they aren’t enforcing the rule of law. Even though they are breaking their oath to be peace officers and to the Constitution regularly.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

Your move federal government.

http://www.cnht.org/…

In a stunning denial of their oath of office, members of the House of Representatives today voted 216-150 to defeat HCR 6, the bill that sought to reaffirm the US and NH Constitutions.

A massive rally was held ahead of the vote.

Rep. Dan Itse (R) the bill’s sponsor, gave his testimony, which was then supported by Rep. Al Baldasaro (R) and others.

A Representative from the Democrat side spoke against it citing a vote from YEARS ago when similar legislation was defeated.

In rebuttal, another Republican Representative stood up and challenged the hypocrisy shown when she reminded this same Democrat that he had voted to protect us against the Federal National ID legislation, a bill which had bipartisan support and was signed by the Governor.

The reaction from those observing in the gallery was not a favorable one. The gallery when CRAZY and was heard yelling things like “this isn’t over” and “we aren’t giving up”.

To be sure, these legislators will forever be tagged with the fact that they have essentially violated their oath off office, which they took, and which states they will uphold the NH Constitution.

Follow the link above for photos of the rally and supposedly a list of those who voted against it.

I think that while it failed it was close enough to be a promising start. More free staters and more federal government intervention in local government will hopefully push this type of rather extreme resolution into the realm of possibility.

http://www.downsizedc.org/…

“If the court grants our request … then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back.” – U.S. Attorney Thomas O’Brien

“The government can’t ban confederate flags, swastikas, or klan robes, and it sure as hell can’t ban the display of the Mongols’ logo.” – Marc J. Randazza

“What if the government had decided that, because of the Watergate scandal, nobody could use the word Republican again? – Zeichner Ellman

The Justice Department indicted 79 members of the Mongol Nation Motorcycle club for racketeering on October 21. The indictment included federal seizure of the “Mongols” trademarked name.

The case hasn’t even gone to trial yet , but U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has authorized the seizure of the defendants’ . . .

* Clothing, motorcycles, and other property bearing the Mongols trademark.
* Any similar property bearing the trademark that belongs to the defendants’ “agents, servants, employees, family members, and those persons in active concert or participation with them.”

In other words, many people who weren’t even indicted will have their property seized.

This ruling has serious problems . . .

* In April, Mongol Nation transferred its trademark to Shotgun Productions, LLC, in April, a company that isn’t even named in the indictment.
* Prohibiting possession of trademarked items sets a dangerous precedent. If the government for some reason seizes the Nike swoosh, could FBI agents strip Tiger Woods of his cap, shirt, and shoes?

Civil asset forfeiture was already wrong. The government has no right to seize property without a trial and conviction. But now Judge Cooper and the Justice Department have taken it to a whole new level . . .

* An organization could lose its trademark because of the alleged crimes of some of its members.
* Normal asset forfeiture only seizes property alleged to have been used for illegal purposes, but now the government can take property simply because it sports the wrong logo!
* People completely unrelated to any indictment are now having their property seized too!

Civil asset forfeiture already violates the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Now it endangers the First Amendment too. Government officials could trump-up charges against any organization they don’t like, seize its name, and put it out of business! It could happen to DownsizeDC.org!

This will chill freedom of expression.

Civil asset forfeiture must die. Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell Congress to repeal civil asset forfeiture.

Use your personal comments to tell Congress . . .

* About the Mongol case
* That’s its wrong for the government to seize property without due process and a conviction
* And even more wrong to seize property simply because it sports a legally-obtained, trademarked logo.

Demand that Congress abolish civil asset .forfeiture.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC army.

And a hat tip to The Legal Satyricon blog for providing links to government documents.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

This is really slick. I hadn’t considered such an action. Asset forfeiture has generally been able to continue do to its reach. It effects few and often those who are accused or convicted of a crime taking advantage of the fact that many do not wish to be associated with criminals and therefore will not stand up for their rights. However, should that reach grow as it has in this particular case perhaps there will be more public outrage. Then again perhaps not. Eminent domain has been more and more abused recently with relatively little increase in response.

Today after voting I walked to the Fort Lee police department to hand in forms to acquire two hand gun purchasers permits. It seems they have created a wonderful system to annoy the shit out of and get money from want-to-be gun owners. You pay $54 for a background check, then $5 for the firearm ID, $18 for another background check for a handgun purchasers permit and $2 for each permit. The latter two is for each time you apply for a purchasers permit. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. According to the NJ code if I already have a FID I don’t need to do this again. Why would they need a new check and finger prints? My prints don’t change and if I had been arrested for something which would cause my permit request to be denied shouldn’t that arrest have also revoked my FID?

I have no desire to give NJ another penny of my money so I can have permission to “keep and bear arms.” A right protected by the federal government by the 2nd Amendment and prohibited of the states by the 2nd and 10th.

The restrictive NJ laws on firearms can be found here. I’ve sent an inquire to the state police about all this. Lets see what they say.

The ongoing entertaining and sad story of the Outlaw Leafletter.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3