Marijuana Retail Rules Released By Washington State Liquor Control Board

Tweet

Federal Law Makes Every Single Person In America a Drug Felon

Dimethyltryptamine, or DMT is a Schedule I drug according to the Federal government and the DEA.

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. -SOURCE

Because of this classification, anyone reading this article is felon. You are not only in possession of DMT, but also a user, and a manufacturer of it. You see, DMT is a naturally ocurring chemical in the brains of humans, animals, and elsewhere in nature as well. Which also makes you a distributor of Schedule I drugs if you give away free kittens, or sell your lawn clippings to your neighbor for landfill.

Check out a more in-depth article from Natural News.

Also check out our article Everything Is Illegal.




Tweet

Crime Lab Scandal Could Put 34k Felons Back On Streets

The Massachusetts legal system is reeling in the wake of a 27-count indictment against one of their leading laboratory technicians. 35-year-old drug lab worker Annie Dookhan has been accused of tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice.

The full impact of her alleged crimes may never be known, and cannot be overstated. In this day and age of scientific law-enforcement, with so much of the public convinced that laboratory work is the "holy grail" in any criminal prosecution, the integrity of those labs is the pinnacle of public trust; the very bedrock of how we have come to even define justice itself, in so many cases, in the modern era. Popular television shows reinforce this idea that laboratory evidence is irrefutable and absolute. Prosecutors are want to nurture this sentiment among jurors.

Of course, any reasonable person might consider that even in science there are errors from time to time. With DNA evidence for example, we sometimes hear the "odds" of accuracy. Sometimes as accurate as one in a hundred-thousand. Sometimes though, huge odds are defied as in the case of lab analyst Kathryn Troyer, who discovered a near-match defying 1-in-113 billion odds between two felons in the same state.

Accuracy of DNA "Matches" to Definitively Identify Suspects Questioned

What happens though, when we throw in a more human element to the science? Something that undermines even the very best science. Personally, I never really thought too much about it, but always sort of assumed that the relationships between lab staff and the legal system were kept sterile, to a large degree. I assumed that some measures were in place to ensure lab workers were not only ethically impartial, but also that systems of anonymity and lab-controls were in place to reinforce the ethical standard. I even assumed that lab work was double-checked. In other words, I foolishly believed in the system and never thought that something like this could happen. I certainly never thought I would ever see a case of this nature, of such magnitude.

Annie Dookhan began her career at the state's Jamaica Plains drug lab in 2003. In that time, she has handled evidence in more than 34,000 cases. Any convictions stemming from evidence she processed are now likely to be overturned. Worse, this has called into question the integrity of the entire lab, and countless more cases. The lab has since been shut down and numerous people have been fired or resigned, but not before the damage was done.

In June of 2011 she was caught improperly removing drugs from evidence storage in 60 different cases, but apparently her supervisors did nothing to stop her from being involved in more drug cases after that. Later that year she wrote in a private email to Norfolk Assistant ­District Attorney George ­Papachristos, “I have full access to anything and everything, one of the advantages, so some of the other chemists are resentful of me.”

The long and often quite personal email exchanges with Papachristos have been closely scrutinized and seen by many as unethical from both a professional and personal standpoint. Dookhan's marriage has been on the rocks since her husband uncovered emails back in 2009. The prosecutor has not been charged with any crime himself though, and it is not known if the flirtatious banner ever led to more than a handful of personal meetings. Nonetheless, it does show a much closer relationship than one might expect between a prosecutor, and a lab technician who is expected to be impartial. So much so, that Papachristos resigned from the DA's office.

Clearly, from her own words, impartiality was never even something she considered. She did not see her job as being a technician who processes evidence, but rather her stated goal was “getting [drug dealers] off the streets.” It should go without saying here, that this was certainly not her job as a lab technician. Nevertheless she was all too happy to do favors for prosecutors, while shunning defense attorneys even when she was required to give evidence to them. She saw herself as part of the prosecution team, as did many prosecutors themselves, with one declaring "No no no!!! I need you!!!" when Dookhan said she would not be able to testify in a case.

Dookhan is alleged to have lied on the witness stand in court about having a Master's degree in chemistry, and shot out emails giving herself grandiose job titles she simply did not have. In correspondence with various agencies she identified herself  with self-appointed titles like "special agent of operations” or "on-call terrorism supervisor." She even went so far as to create fake email conversations with a US attorney, who's name she misspelled, and forwarded to other recipients.

Assuming of course that all of these allegations are true, one has to wonder how such an obviously pathological liar could go on for so long without anyone bothering to consider that something like this might happen. Police and prosecutors were clearly willing to look the other way and even cultivate a close relationship with Dookhan, to encourage her, in order to secure easy convictions. As of yet, there are no criminal charges against anyone else aside from the lab-tech herself, but it seems clear that ethical and moral obligations were tossed aside in favor of making their jobs easier.

As a result, hundred of millions of dollars have been wasted. Entire careers have been built to be little more than sandcastles. And tens of thousands convicted felons are now poised to flood the streets of Massachusetts, then out across the country. If it was their intent to actually make the public safe, then the government certainly failed miserably in that mandate. Not only because of the threat posed by these potentially dangerous criminals being set loose upon society, but because of the threat posed by the government itself.

It may be all-too-easy to assume that all or even most of these convicts were actually guilty, but that simply does not hold up to the facts, and certainly carries no weight against the core values of our entire justice system. In the face of reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is paramount. Without these standards, we might just go ahead and just give the police a license to kill at will and close down the courts.

Understanding this, we must assume now that the government sent more than 34,000 innocent people to prison on the word of just one deluded lab technician. That my friends, is more dangerous than any drug dealer. Even if only in our hearts we assume that just some of these convicts were actually innocent, imagine for a moment that one of them happened to be you, your spouse, your parent or child. Imagine for a moment how many lives have been irreparably laid to waste by the lies of just one woman, and a government who did not care. A government that in fact has a vested interest in securing more convictions even if they are not justified. A government that encouraged this woman to commit her crimes against the people. A government that presumes guilt of anyone who crosses into their sights, and has even dispatched agents to threaten the hundreds of inmates who have already been exonerated.

"We tell them, 'Listen, we know what you were doing before and we're watching you.'" -Boston Police Commissioner, Edward Davis

Perhaps the most frightening aspect to all of this is that this can only be the tip of the iceberg. This woman was so clearly delusional and so easily cultivated this relationship with prosecutors, it begs the question how prevalent this sort of thing is throughout the country. Especially in labs and agencies where this sort of thing is likely done more discreetly. If there are no practical standards in place to prevent something like this from happening, how could we possibly trust that this sort of thing is not rampant? How many lab workers compromise cases for monetary gain, for romantic favors, for promotions, or to simply stroke their own ego? How many might even quietly carry on the work of a zealot in their own private war against people they see as evil? Are we supposed to ignorantly believe that this is simply an isolated incident, one bad apple, and assume that it would never happen again? Are we honestly supposed to believe that some fear of the law will prevent lab-techs from committing these sorts of crimes, when the government itself benefits from these crimes?

If convicted, will Annie Dookhan be sentenced to as much time in prison as the innocent people she put there would have done?


Here are two media stories on the case:

Indicted drug analyst Annie Dookhan’s e-mails reveal her close personal ties to prosecutors

Crime Lab Scandal Leaves Mass. Legal System In Turmoil


Also see these articles and videos:

Mexican drug lord asserts he was working for US government

Obama's Drug War

Afghan Opium Farming Flourishes Under US Protection

Man Shot Dead By Police Home Invaders

Cops Give Free Drugs To Teens For Training

Cocaine Cop Gets 3 1/2 Years

Cops Munch Pot Brownies








Tweet

Dead Bang: Man Shot Dead By Home Invaders With Badges (VIDEO)

Police got a judge to sign off on a no-knock warrant to go after a woman who had been living in this man's house. Despite the fact that the woman had moved out, and they knew she had moved out, they chose to proceed with the raid anyway. This is how it went down.

((( WARNING: This video shows a man being shot to death in his own home by armed invaders. )))


Unfortunatley, this video has is being actively blocked by unkown parties. You may view it through the link below for a short time. Please download a copy before it is gone.

http://youtu.be/WV6Bq8xeQrU


The following article has a more in-depth analyses:

Police Shoot Man 3 Times Immediately Upon Entering House: Hayden’s Note; the Failed War on Drugs

A joint drug task force from Weber and Morgan county, Utah, executed a search warrant on Todd Blair’s house on September 16th, 2010, resulting in the shooting death of Blair only two seconds after entry was made.

The “Weber-Morgan Strike Force” initiated an investigation into Blair’s residence with a focus on his roommate, Melanie Chournos. Police stated in their application for warrant that Ms. Chournos would likely destroy evidence upon their arrival, and requested a night time, “no-knock warrant” for the squirrely female.  However, prior to the raid, law enforcement became aware of the fact Blair’s roommate had moved out of the house.  With warrant already in hand, or rather, still back at the police station, the Strike Force decided to conduct the night time raid anyway.

Friends and family of Mr. Blair plainly admit to his drug usage, but said he was a drug addict and not a drug dealer.

After the SWAT team hit the door three times in an attempt to open it, and as the video clearly shows, Mr. Blair appears in a far hallway, shirtless, and with a golf club in his hands.

Certainly, any reasonable person would arm themselves at the sound of their front door being kicked in for fear of becoming a victim of robbery, or worse.

The rest of the article is archived below for discussion purposes. Please click the inline link in the title to visit the original source.

Unfortunately for Mr. Blair, the home intruders were seven police officers in body armor, along with the full protection of the District Attorney’s office behind them. Strike Force Sgt. Troy Burnett immediately shoots Mr. Blair three times, in the chest and face, without giving any commands to surrender or drop the golf club.
This should startle and shock the conscience of anyone reading this article. How many times do we read in the news that “Police Serve Warrant at Wrong House” or “Police Shoot and Kill Man at Wrong Address”?  If you find yourself being awakened to the sounds of your front door being kicked in,perhaps you should simply lay down like a sheep until you are certain it is not the law enforcers.  Are we supposed to place our personal safety on hold until we positively identify who it is that is breaking and entering?

Police rarely announce their presence until they are already coming through the door.  It can happen to anyone; it merely takes botched intelligence or lack of planning, and armed men wearing badges might be killing you tonight for merely standing in your hallway in a moment of panic and confusion.  No chance to surrender, no option to apologize, or even wipe the sleep from your eyes – two to the chest and one to the face – and you’re back asleep.

As a former police officer, I understand there needs to be a balance; law enforcement need to protect themselves, as do home owners, but I feel as though it boils down to one simple, common denominator: the failed War on Drugs.  Local departments are given Federal money for drug arrests, regardless of the size, quantity, or quality; it is a carrot on a stick, being dangled in front of their face. The more arrests a department makes, the bigger their budget grows, allowing for additional units, overtime, fancy new gear, and other incentives, not to mention asset forfeiture laws that enable police departments to seize houses, cars, cash, and weapons, many times without the need for an actual conviction!

Where do all of these people go who are arrested for petty crimes?  More often than not, they are placed into “for-profit, private prisons.” These companies, such as Corrections Corporation of America, are traded on Wall Street based upon the number of bodies that are imprisoned within. CCA, and others like it, have extremely powerful lobbyists who have the ears of Senators, Police Chiefs, and the DEA.  In fact, America incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other nation in the world.

Communist China, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Iran, etc. et al, have lower imprisonment rates than the United States of America; Home of the Free.  As with any investigation, one need only “follow the money…”

“Justified”

If we dissect the video, and apply all of the usual law enforcement cautions, warnings, and training, we still have a shooting that in my opinion, should be up for prosecution. Instead, the DA’s office publicly stated that the officer-involved shooting was “justified.”

Police officers are ingrained with the “21 foot rule”, which states that a person armed with a knife or similar edged weapon, can cover 21 feet of open ground in the same amount of time it takes for an officer to recognize the threat and draw his weapon [approximately 1 1/2 seconds].  While this is a proven, and intelligent training lesson, officers executing a search warrant already have their weapons ready, have the element of surprise, and are going through the front door with the anticipation of confronting a deadly adversary. I believe it is prudent to say that the “21 foot rule” doesn’t necessarily apply in Mr. Blair’s situation, given the odds stacked against him.

Secondly, with furniture between Mr. Blair and Sgt. Burnett that would slow his approach, along with the fact he was only armed with a golf club, I believe this shooting was a bad decision and the result of a trigger happy front man. Sgt. Burnett later made statements recalling the event, saying that Blair was within arm’s reach of him when he fired, although the video clearly shows Blair a minimum of 8-10 feet away, if not further.

The Huffington Post reports Sgt. Burnett as saying, “I was always confident in my close-range shooting ability, and the ammo, I’m absolutely pleased with. It did its job.”

This boils down to willfully shooting a man in the face and being in control of your emotions, muscle memory, and reactions.  If you can not be trusted to apply logic and calm reasoning in adrenaline-filled situations, perhaps you are not cut out for being the point man in a SWAT stack.  There is a massive difference between effectively sizing up the situation and hesitating under pressure.  I suppose some of us prefer to make sound decisions, even at the slightly elevated risk of delaying our action for a second or two, instead of blindly reacting out of panic, tunnel-vision, and fear.

“I didn’t think about saying words [giving verbal commands to surrender]. I just thought about not getting hit…or slashed or whatever,” Burnett told investigators, saying that he thought the golf club was “a sword or something.” He also said that it did not appear to him that Blair was moving toward him, an admission that could prove crucial in a federal criminal or civil case.

These statements are indicative of “coaching” on what to say rather than true recollection of the events surrounding the decision to shoot or not.  Without the inclusion of the “sword” reference, Sgt. Burnett’s armor and helmet, if he were wearing one, would have surely protected him against blunt force trauma from the golf club and it is likely that supervisors who responded to the scene; perhaps even their own internal investigators, suggested Burnett mention fear of being “…slashed, or whatever” in order to further justify the use of deadly force.

Law enforcement officers can use deadly force only when they fear great bodily harm or imminent death, and if Sgt. Burnett was only  afraid of being hit by a golf club, it stands to reason that a jury would find the facts leading up to the shooting did not warrant deadly force given the totality of the circumstances: seven-person SWAT team, no-knock warrant, element of surprise, armor, if any, as well as distance, lack of advancement or aggression, etc.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the raid was hastily planned, diverting from protocol. Sgt. Burnett told investigators that it is “absolutely not our standard” to carry out such a raid with as little planning as was done, reports the Tribune. The raid was conducted so hastily, in fact, that police forgot the warrant.  According to the Tribune, in the video it obtained, an officer can be heard asking: “Did somebody grab a copy of the warrant off my desk?”
Blair’s death raises the question of why multiple, heavily-armed officers were sent to raid a drug addict – and why Weber and Morgan counties in Utah would even need a “Narcotics Strike Force.” Local police forces are able to keep property they seize in drug raids, often without the necessity of a conviction, creating a perverse incentive to reinvest in military equipment and carry out additional raids in the infamous War on Drugs.

After searching the entire house, police only recovered some drug paraphernalia and a single, small pink baggie with what appeared to be a white crystal substance.

Kevin Hayden is a former New Orleans police officer-turned-truth seeker.  He endured Hurricane Katrina’s chaos and societal collapse in the days following and after 5 years in New Orleans, moved to Oklahoma.  Kevin currently runs www.TruthisTreason.net and works on local politics and education about our monetary, food, and foreign policies while building an off-grid shipping container homestead and helping people become prepared.  He can be contacted directly at Contact@TruthisTreason.net

[Editorial note: I am aware that it is much easier to play Monday-morning quarterback when dissecting an incident caught on film, but I believe in police accountability, regardless of the situation, and if no one else is willing to say what needs to be said, then I will be more than happy to offer my opinion.]

Related Articles:

1. Ottawa Hills Police Officer Shoots Unarmed Motorcyclist: Includes Video & Hayden’s Shooting Analysis
2. 16 DC Police Officers Arrested So Far This Year – Hayden’s Note Attached
3. Former Police Officer Talks with Adam Kokesh – Corruption, War on Drugs, and Ron Paul
4. Utility Workers and Police Trespass to Install Smart Meter, Arrest Home Owner [Video]

For more info, check out these articles and vids:

After two tours in Iraq, Marine murdered at home by SWAT in front of family

SWAT Get Medals After Shooting At Innocent Family in Botched Raid (VIDEO)

Disturbing Result of SWAT Transparency Bill

SWAT raids house becasue man failed to password protect his network

Police Shoot Family Dogs With Impunity (VIDEO x 2)




Tweet



 

Underwear Goes Inside the Pants

Why is marijuana not legal? Why is marijuana not legal?

It's a natural plant that grows in the dirt.

Do you know what's not natural?

80 year old dudes with hard-ons. That's not natural.

But we got pills for that.

We're dedicating all our medical resources to keeping the old guys erect,

but we're putting people in jail for something that grows in the dirt?

You know we have more prescription drugs now.

Every commercial that comes on TV is a prescription drug ad.

I can't watch TV for four minutes without thinking I have five serious diseases.

Like: "Do you ever wake up tired in the morning?"

Oh my god I have this, write this down. Whatever it is, I have it.

Half the time I don't even know what the commercial is:

people running in fields or flying kites or swimming in the ocean.

I'm like that is the greatest disease ever. How do you get that?

That disease comes with a hot chick and a puppy.

The schools now: It is all about self-esteem in the schools now.

Build the kids' self-esteem, make them feel good about themselves.

If everybody grows up with high self-esteem, who is going to dance in our strip clubs?

What's going to happen to our porno industry?

These women don't just grown on trees.

It takes lots of drunk dads missing dance recitals before you decide to blow a goat on the internet for fifty bucks.

And if that disappears, where does that leave me on a Friday night with my new high speed connection?

Masterminds are another word that comes up all the time.

You keep hearing about these terrorists masterminds that get killed in the middle east.

Terrorists masterminds.

Mastermind is sort of a lofty way to describe what these guys do, don't you think?

They're not masterminds.

"OK, you take bomb, right? And you put in your backpack. And you get on bus and you blow yourself up. Alright?"

"Why do I have to blow myself up? Why can't I just:"

"Who's the fucking mastermind here? Me or you?"

Americans, let's face it: We've been a spoiled country for a long time.

Do you know what the number one health risk in America is?

Obesity. They say we're in the middle of an obesity epidemic.

An epidemic like it is polio. Like we'll be telling our grand kids about it one day.

The Great Obesity Epidemic of 2004.

"How'd you get through it grandpa?"

"Oh, it was horrible Johnny, there was cheesecake and pork chops everywhere."

Nobody knows why were getting fatter? Look at our lifestyle.

I'll sit at a drive thru.

I'll sit there behind fifteen other cars instead of getting up to make the eight foot walk to the totally empty counter.

Everything is mega meal, super sized. Want biggie fries, super sized, want to go large.

You want to have thirty burgers for a nickel you fat mother fucker. There's room in the bag. Take it!

Want a 55 gallon drum of Coke with that? It's only three more cents.

Sometimes you have to suffer a little bit in your youth to motivate yourself to succeed in later life.

Do you think if Bill Gates got laid in high school, do you think there'd be a Microsoft?

Of course not.

You got to spend a long time in your own locker with your underwear shoved up your ass before you start to think,

"You'll see. I'm going to take of the world of computers! I'll show them."

We're in one of the richest countries in the world,

but the minimum wage is lower than it was thirty five years ago.

There are homeless people everywhere.

This homeless guy asked me for money the other day.

I was about to give it to him and then I thought he was going to use it on drugs or alcohol.

And then I thought, that's what I'm going to use it on.

Why am I judging this poor bastard.

People love to judge homeless guys. Like if you give them money they're just going to waste it.

Well, he lives in a box, what do you want him to do? Save it up and buy a wall unit?

Take a little run to the store for a throw rug and a CD rack? He's homeless.

I walked behind this guy the other day.

A homeless guy asked him for money.

He looks right at the homeless guy and says why don't you go get a job you bum.

People always say that to homeless guys like it is so easy.

This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants.

Outside his pants. I'm guessing his resume isn't all up to date.

I'm predicting some problems during the interview process.

I'm pretty sure even McDonalds has a "underwear goes inside the pants" policy.

Not that they enforce it really strictly, but technically I'm sure it is on the books.

Tweet

Big-Brother Needs No Warrant to Put Surveillance Cameras on Private Property, Federal Court Rules

In a precedent-setting case, U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for DEA agents to enter private property without permission and without a warrant. Further, the judge adopted the recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan that evidence collected by surveillance cameras, which were placed on the property by trespassing Federal agents, did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendants who now face life in prison for growing marijuana. The property in this case, was protected by a locked gate and marked with "no trespassing" notice signs.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," -Magistrate Callahan

There are actually two separate arguments to be made here. The first, is the Constitutional matter of the Fourth Amendment. The second would be to ask if the police have the right to vilate the law in order to enforce the law, which we will discuss below in a few moments.

Were the judge's wrong in stating that the rights of the defendant's had not been violated?

"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." -4th Amendment

Debatable, but the Amendment does not specify property, other than to say "effects" which is also defined as moveable property. Land is not moveable (though it is transferable.) This interpretation is more than likely they basis of  a 1984 Supreme Court case called Oliver v. United States, in which a majority of the justices said that "open fields" could be searched without warrants because they're not covered by the Fourth Amendment.

On the other hand, the word "houses" can be interpreted to include land in the common area immediately surrounding a home, any enclosed area of property adjoining a habitated building, and so forth. This is referred to as curtilage.

The word house is defined as: A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family.

In other words, once a fence is put up, the land could certainly be considered as part of the structure of the house and no longer an "open field." Again, in this particular case, the property was protected by a locked gate and signs notifying potential transgressors that they would be guilty of trespassing, should they cross the marked boundary.

So now we see that this land could indeed fall under the purview of the Fourth Amendment, through the word "house" if the enclosed property is a part of the dwelling of the property owner. Other examples might include your enclosed porch, a garage, a carport, a barn, and so forth.

The second argument to be noted here, is the fact that the Federal agents committed a crime in order to gather their evidence, and that the evidence was obtained as a direct result of that criminal act. Can police break the law in order to enforce the law? In many instances, the answer is an unfortunate yes.

Breaking the Law to Enforce It: Undercover Police Participation in Crime

However, in these cases, the breaking of the law is given special permission by operational commanders and may be specified by a court in individual cases or through "affirmative defense" clauses written in at the time a law is adopted. Statutory protections for law-enforcement are in place for run-of-the-mill police work, such as when a police officer makes a drug-buy from a criminal, and the drugs are turned over immediately as evidence, rather than taken home by the officer for personal use.Deception is permissible and cannot itself be said to be a violation of law.

Other more questionable but often approved activity might be deemed as necessary as part of peripheral concerns in an ongoing operation. An example of this might be when a narcotics officer operating in an undercover capacity is forced to ingest narcotics in order to maintain operational integrity and even his own personal safety.

While arguments could be made for or against these sanctioned violations of law by government agents, one place where we should certainly draw the line is when evidence is obtained through a direct violation of law. An extreme example of this might be to have a police officer carry out a killing at the behest of a mafia boss, in order to bring a murder-by-proxy charge against that mafia boss. Another example might be that a police officer can't buy a joint from a drug dealer, smoke it, and then arrest the drug dealer for selling him the joint. Yet nother example might be in a case where a police officer assaults a person in order to glean information. It is not and should not be allowed.
 
In essence, that is what we have here in this case though. Even if the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated the police still committed a criminal act against the property owner, in order to gather their information, and said information is a direct result of that violation. This is an important distinction. The police did not just violate a law, like maybe smoking a joint in order to get more information, they committed an act directly against the law in place to protect a citizen property owner.

If the police surveillance had been done from outside of the property and looking in, there might still be grounds for a Fourth Amendment defense. Do police need a warrant to use a telephoto lens to peer into the windows of your home? Do police need a warrant to fly overhead and take a heat-signature snapshot of your home and it's contents? Maybe, maybe not. Such evidence might be allowed or thrown out on a case by case basis.

But in this instance, we are talking about government agents actually breaking the law, not simply pushing back the boundaries of their legal purview to conduct a search. They did indeed knowingly pass onto private property. That is a violation of trespass law. The violation is elevated to a criminal trespass because the property was fenced. In some states, trespassing while armed is a felony, and it is more than likely that they were carrying firearms. The property owner might also be able to show that the placement of the surveillance equipment did damage to his property, which would constitute an additional charge of criminal mischief. Often too, each of these charges may be elevated when each act is committed while in the commission of another crime. In other words, their violation of law is no small thing, and if you as a civilian were to commit such an act, you would likely spend years in prison and be sued for extensive civil liability as well.

All in all, there is one final question you should ask yourself. Why should police and government agents have this power? Why didn't they just go get a warrant in the first place? The simple but scary answer is because the government is now setting the precedent that your private property is no longer private. That with or without cause, they can come onto your property and do whatever they want. Sounds like Communism to me, not the America I was raised to believe in.

How do you define police-state?

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras- In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.











Tweet

Jury-Nullification Gets Accused Pot Dealer Off the Hook

Personally, I am no pot-head. So in that respect this case has no bearing on me personally one way or the other. I am not over here smoked-out mumbling "right on man, right on" and applauding this as a victory for marijuana smokers.

However, I do believe that the war on drugs is a terrible waste of resources, and is more damaging than the drugs themselves. Even when it comes to harder drugs, other than marijuana, I believe in decriminalization. 

I also believe that a jury has not only the right, but the duty to return an acquittal, regardless of the facts, when they see a law as unjust or being improperly applied.

Be sure to also read...

What is Jury Nullification?

... if you are a stranger to the concept.

NJWeedman found not guilty in pot distribution case


MOUNT HOLLY — Ed “NJWeedman” Forchion hopes the not-guilty verdict a Burlington County jury rendered in his pot distribution trial plants a seed for other medical marijuana patients and sparks a change in the law.

“I think other patients should argue the same points. They can call it the ‘Weedman defense,’ ” he said after a jury of 10 women and two men returned the verdict Thursday following an hourlong deliberation that ended the three-day trial. “The law is wrong. My jury heard that and understood that.”


Forchion, who claims dual residency in Pemberton Township and Los Angeles, was acquitted of possession with the intent to distribute a pound of marijuana that police found in his trunk during a traffic stop on April 1, 2010, in Mount Holly.

The state contended that the sheer volume in Forchion’s possession and the $2,000 in cash he had in his pocket at the time of his arrest were tell-tale signs of distribution, despite the absence of other packaging paraphernalia.

Forchion has maintained that he is no drug dealer. He brought the marijuana from California, where he is a licensed medical marijuana patient, for his own use while on a trip to New Jersey to visit his family, he claimed.

“I don’t use it the way the state says. To me, it’s medicine, it’s food,” Forchion said in his closing argument, noting for the jury that he had been eating pot-laced cookies throughout the trial. “I feel I’m the victim of a flawed law.”

Article continues at link:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/crime/njweedman-found-not-guilty-in-pot-distribution-case/article_2d6d582d-0887-53f2-a7d5-c7c10bc8b958.html

NJ “Weedman” found not guilty in jury nullification victory

With few options left for people to protect themselves from the ever growing police state, an old and long forgotten aspect of constitutional law is making a huge comeback, and becoming very popular in cases where people are facing jail time for nonviolent offenses.

This reemerging defense is the act of jury nullification, which is basically the right for any juror to not only judge the facts of the case, but to also actually judge the validity of the law itself. This means that if a jury feels that a defendant is facing an unjust charge they actually have the right to rule in their favor even if they are technically guilty.

Ed Forchion is a medical cannabis user and cancer patient known as the “NJ weedman”. Ed claims dual residency in Pemberton Township, New Jersey and Los Angeles, California. Due to his residency in California he has a prescription for Cannabis and is legally allowed to grow and consume the plant in that state.

However, he is not legally allowed to possess the plant in the state of New Jersey and unfortunately while in New Jersey on April 1, 2012 Forchion was stopped by police and found with a pound of cannabis and $2,000, enough to get slapped with a distribution charge.

Article continues at link:

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/nj-weedman-found-not-guilty-in-jury.html

Tweet

'Google Shopping' Blocks All Vitamins and Natural Products

Okay, now this is totally creepy, and right in keeping with what natural health advocates have been saying for years. For a company the size of Google, to be actively blocking vitamin supplements and natural products is a terrible omen that outright illegalization is right around the corner now.

 (NaturalNews) If you have ever done any sort of comparison shopping online, chances are you have probably used Google's Shopping portal to pull up product information and compare prices. But if you live in the U.S. and try to use Google Shopping to buy vitamins, supplements, personal care products, and even many health foods, your search queries will now turn up blank, as Google has apparently blocked access to all vitamins and natural products for American customers.

Right around June 28 of this year, Google Shopping users first began noticing that search queries for many common health products like "vitamin C" and "fish oil" began turning up zero results, whereas before they would generate a copious list of vendors that offered these products, as well as corresponding price information. In the days and weeks that followed, these same users learned that vitamins and natural products in general were no longer showing up in Google Shopping.

When asked about the issue by several concerned shoppers, Google's public relations team reportedly gave vague and incomplete answers about why natural products are no longer showing up in its Shopping section, even though they are still showing up in Google's general web search area. Others with inside information claim that Google has quietly, without any announcement to the public or its venders, added vitamins, supplements, and other nutritional products to its "sensitive category" of products, which means they are completely blocked from Google Shopping searches.

In either case, Google Shopping users are now unable to search for nutritional products, which means it has become that much harder for the average person to access vitamins and dietary supplements online. And the venders that used to sell such products through Google's site -- many of these businesses had been paying Google to include their products as part of Google Shopping searches -- are now watching their businesses decline, as Google holds a significant monopoly on the product search and comparison market.

"Google publishes a list of products in [the natural health] category that are blocked as a matter of corporate policy in the public interest. So shopping results for (things like) steroids are always blocked," says the Healthy Chronicle, an online health blog sponsored by California-based supplement company iMedmart.com. "(But) we're talking about something completely different here -- Google is blocking whole categories of respected, brand-name products ... from online shoppers for no stated reason."

Read full article here

Now this video is a bit dated, and Codex Alimentarius was stalled for a short time until President Obama finally signed off on it without any public knowledge or media coverage. Nevertheless, what is happening is real, and is probably the biggest threat mankind has ever faced. We talk about a lot of things on this site, but there is probably no bigger, more important, and under-reported issue than this.

Here is the short version, but the full length will be linked below:


FULL-LENGTH LECTURE (40 mins)


Be sure to check out other links here on what has been happening to our food supply:

FDA to ban dietary supplemets formulated after 1994 

Government subsidized obesity? You betcha!

Walnuts Are Illegal Drugs, Says FDA

Evil Ingredients in Your Food, A to Z

Fascist Food and Nutrition Nazis

Fat Tax: The Socio-Economics of Obesity

"Let Them Eat Cake!" or the Tale of American Nutricide





 Tweet

Welfare Drug Testing, Give Me One Good Reason

This article was submitted by a good friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous. He was inspired to put it together though, after reading our own article on the matter. 


This seems to be a real-hot button issue lately, that myself and a few friends have taken up as sort of our "pet" issue. Pet-peeve might be more like it, seeing how people are actually swallowing this fascist crap. Sadly, other friends of mine who I have a lot of respect for in other ways, have fallen prey to the rhetoric, and actually believe that this drug-testing thing is actually a good idea.

On July 1st of last year, Florida put it into effect for a number of months before the courts stepped in and said it was un-Constitutional. Despite the total failure of that program both fiscally and legally, Georgia is now slated to implement their own drug testing program exactly one year later to the day, on this July 1st.

Well, I have decided to throw down the gauntlet. I challenge anyone to give me one good, logically sound reason to believe that this is a good idea. Because up to this point all I see is fascism and bigotry as the lowest common denominator in this sort of legislation.

To get things rolling, I have put together this piece, challenging some of the more common reasons people give for supporting drug-testing of welfare applicants and recipients.


It will save the taxpayers money.

FALSE. In Michigan and Florida it has already proved to cost taxpayers a lot more than it saved. These programs were an expansion of social services, not "smaller government" and not an effective cost-cutting measure at all. Other states that considered passing similar laws, rejected the idea when their own studies found that it would cost far more than it would ever save to implement a drug-testing program of this nature.

In Florida, taxpayers are now left on the hook to reimburse payment for the 97.4% of applicants who passed the drug screening. All of that money is going directly into the pockets of the private drug-testing companies. Companies like Solantic, which was founded by welfare drug-testing champion Florida Governor Rick Scott, and then handed over to his wife for safe keeping amid the fervor of an obvious conflict of interest.

The NY Times tells us:

...2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state... Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test... the testing cost the government an extra $45,780.

No one has even tried to crunch the numbers to find out the actual final cost to taxpayer either. The test is only one component of a now hugely expanded welfare bureaucracy which must digest the test results, process the information, manage appeals, and battle the Constitutionality of the program in courts. What will this cost the taxpayer in man-hours for social workers and other state employees? What will the cost to taxpayers be for something as simple as the new forms which must be filled out? It doesn't seem unreasonable at all to guess the cost of the program might actually be 3 or 4 times the cost of the actual test itself.

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

Florida's welfare drug testing costs more than it saves

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows 


Drug testing will stop druggies from applying for welfare.

FALSE. An internal document states unequivocally...

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload”

This shows that there is no "hidden" cost benefit to the program. It also shatters the myth that poor people use illicit drugs at a significantly higher rate than the national average. Studies done on the subject reject
that myth, and many show that people in poverty are actually less likely to use illicit drugs. That conclusion is supported by the Florida statistics too. If there was no sudden downturn in the number of welfare applications when the drug-testing went into effect, then the 2.6% who did test positive is a fairly accurate assessment of detectable drug use among welfare applicants at any given time, seeing that the program provided no significant deterrent.


At least I won't be supporting an addict, even if it costs more.

FALSE. Once again.

Most drugs process out of a person's system within 24-72 hours, which is plenty of time to prepare for a welfare drug test, whether applying for the first time or re-certifying. So you will still be supporting the most hardcore drug abusers out there regardless of costly drug testing and bigger government. The same thing goes for alcohol, which is not even illegal of course, yet which is the most dangerous and frequently abused drug out there. You will still be supporting them too. Consider as well, the explosion of prescription drugs in society. Even when taken according to doctor's instructions, many people are dieing or becoming addicted.

So really we must consider the moral dilemma of not helping people in a battle with addiction in the first place. How do we differentiate between the addict who got their start on a school yard, and the addict who was assigned their first fix by a doctor? Who is more in need of assistance than a end-stage drug addict who is simply not capable of meeting their most basic life needs? Someone with diabetes perhaps, or cancer? Those diseases are often brought on by poor choices or bad habits too. Smoking, tanning, over-eating, poor diet. Do we reject all of those people from welfare too? There are many people who would shake their head yes, but those are the same people who reject welfare in its entirety, and are simply using the drug-testing issue as a cover for their bigotry toward poor folk. That is their right of course, but bigotry should never be a basis of law. So let's not follow the red-herring here and get back to the real issue.

Whether or not one thinks they should be supporting an addict, this law is not going to do anything to change it, and you will still be laying out money for a program that does not achieve your objective. There will still be people doing drugs and collecting public assistance funds, regardless of a costly drug-testing program.

And the few that do get caught? Pot-heads mostly. According to the state agency the majority of rejected applicants tested positive for marijuana. Hardly the die-hard smack fiend that might fit the common stereotype. Can weed be addictive? To a degree, sure, but not so much as harder drugs, or even nicotine or alcohol. And as we have already established, true addiction is a disease anyway, which should be treated as such, not discriminated against. Since marijuana is the only thing that is really turning up in these drug tests, what are people really saying, when they support a law for drug testing of the poor?


I don't want people on welfare spending my money on drugs, testing will put a stop to that.

FALSE. You guessed it.

It only means that the tiny fraction of the people on welfare who do use drugs, will turn to harder more dangerous drugs which are not so easily detected, or simply become drunks instead of pot-heads. Which would you rather see wandering the streets looking for a job, a mellowed-out stoner, or a vicious unstable drunk?

Granted, people should not be spending public assistance funds on any sort of vice, but then again, we are talking about human beings here too, who actually require some form of recreation to keep from going insane, literally. Not everyone has a fitness center or a social hall in their neighborhood, and we all have our vices. One could just as easily say that people on welfare don't deserve to watch television, don't deserve to eat anything but gruel, should never wear anything but tattered rags, should sit in a tiny room staring at the walls all night after walking the streets for 12 hours a day looking for a job that isn't there. Is it really so offensive that someone like a homeless veteran smoked a joint in a park once or twice this past month with some hippy who walks her dog there? Is that such a high crime that we will deny him food and shelter for the next year, perhaps to die in the streets in the meantime?

The truth is that we all need some way to unwind and enjoy ourselves for a bit. That need is probably even more acute for those living in poverty, not less. Depression, loneliness, lack of resources, lack of recreation, these are things that often lead to drug abuse in the first place. Relaxing with a doob or socializing with a few friends around a case of beer may be the very last things that a person living in poverty has to hold on to in order to retain their humanity, even any attachment to society. Maybe smoking a doob with the neighbor will get someone into a construction job. Maybe having a beer at the pub will lead to a job at the grill. Who are we to really judge?

Especially when you consider that, for the most part, people are not actually spending welfare money on any drugs at all. Welfare does not provide enough to live on in the first place, much less to support a drug habit. Which sadly enough, is often another big reason why poor folk turn to drugs in the first place. The allure of quick cash in the black market to make up the short-ends when it comes to putting food on the table and keeping the lights turned on. So then it is not welfare money that is paying for drugs, but black market dollars instead. The welfare money is still going to the basic necessities of life, not drugs. Now one might argue that the drug money should be going to keeping the lights on instead of the welfare money, but then you would be making the case for legalizing drugs so that it could be declared and taxed as income. So if you argue to legalize drugs while demanding drug-testing, doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite?

Finally, to wrap up this section, it must be admitted that some people will wind up spending public funds on drugs (or alcohol, or tobacco, or chocolate, or caffeine) but drug testing is not going to stop that. It's also not even something we should be so concerned about that we are willing to shred up the Constitution and shoot ourselves in the foot with the costs. Will people use welfare money for drugs? Sure. No system is perfect. But what percentage of people on welfare are actually spending public cash on drugs? Not the occasional pot-smoker, not the pot dealer who gets high on his own supply. So out of the 2.6% of people on welfare who are doing drugs, there is still only a tiny fraction of that number, who are probably so far gone into their drug habit that they will be dead within a few years anyway. Better off to just let them have the damn few hundred bucks rather than dealing with them breaking into your house.

If you are really concerned about where your tax dollars are going, you would be much better off to demand answers about where these $2.3 TRILLION in tax dollars vanished to, or why a cop who sniffs coke off the dashboard of his squad car still gets his pension, or why you are funding all of these crimes, or why you are supporting a failed war on drugs.





It's for the children! Drug testing will protect them.

FALSE. No it won't. No more than cops protect kids by shooting the family dog in front of a 7-year old. Whenever fascists come calling, they tell you for it's for your protection, whenever they really want to shove something down your throat they tell you it's for the children.

Drug testing of welfare recipients will put children directly in harm's way. Specifically, when the parent is denied assistance, the children will have to go without food, shelter, and basic immediate needs. There is no child advocate standing there to take custody of a child the moment a welfare applicant tests positive for drugs. Which means that the child will indeed be forced to endure starvation and neglect as a direct result of this policy, while they disappear onto the streets. Now some may argue that it is the result of the parent's irresponsible drug use, not the policy, but that argument is logically flawed. First, because of the high risk of false-positives, it is quite possible that the parent did not in fact use drugs, but still turned up positive on a test. Secondly, it is the policy which is denying direct aid that would be allotted for this child, not the parent. The child's hunger will not be fixed by placing blame on the parent. Blaming the parent in this case is like blaming the waiter for burning your food. Sure, maybe they should have seen that it was burnt when they brought it out, but they were not the one who burned it.

Some might argue that a child should be taken away immediately if a parent tests positive for drugs, but that is a very dangerous precedent to set. First, as we already pointed out with false-positives, the state would be taking away children from parents who were not in fact drug users, but who had perhaps used some nasal spray before the test, or drank a Mountain Dew. Secondly, it would set a precedent that would not be limited to just folks on welfare. This would mean that any parent who ever tested positive for drugs, perhaps as part of a job interview, would be subject to the state stepping in and taking their children. Any arrest for simple possession, a DUI, those too would be grounds for a children's removal from the home, even if it turned out the parent was not even proved guilty in a court of law. A tool for the state to come in and take children away based on a simple accusation against parents who have in fact done nothing wrong.

Even if it turns out a parent actually is one of those dreaded pot-smokers, would a child really be better off tossed into a state facility or a foster home, where children are often beaten, raped and murdered? Except under the most dire circumstances, a child is better off with a parent, and the courts agree. In a controversial case, the State of NY overturned a ruling which barred a level-3 sex offender from seeing his children, and even opened the door so that he could sue social services for barring him access to start with. (His conviction had nothing to do with any crime against his children.) 

...under New York's Family Court Act, they
cited two findings that required them to determine neglect. The first is
"proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional, or mental
impairment to the child." Second is the danger "must be a consequence
of the parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care."

The court noted the statutory test is not best or ideal care for children, but a minimum degree.

So we see here that it is the drug-testing law which creates the neglect, by denying essential emergency services to benefit the child, based on no actual violation of the law. Having a pot-smoking mother may not be the ideal situation for a child, but it certainly is not proof of any imminent danger. Remember, it is illegal to have drugs on you, illegal to distribute them, but there is nothing specifically illegal about having drugs in your system. Even if it were illegal, then the welfare applicant must be tried and convicted in a court of law, by a jury of their peers, before they could be seen as responsible for anything having to do with drugs in their system. In the meantime, it would still be the state themselves which were creating the neglectful condition, not the parent. There are plenty of parents out there who can smoke a joint on the weekend when the kids are away, without endangering or neglecting the children in any way. Just as there are parents who are responsible drinkers, without impeding on the safety of their children. It is the government's refusal to assist those in poverty which impedes on the safety of the children, no matter what the government's excuse might be.

Would a hospital refuse to treat a child for injuries or some other emergency health condition, simply because the parent refused or failed a drug test? Certainly not. Hospitals can't even refuse treatment based on someone's ability to pay for the services. Would an ambulance driver refuse to take a child to the hospital after a car wreck, when it looked like the parent was driving drunk? Would an ambulance even refuse to render aid to the drunk parent themselves? Certainly not, because if they did it would be a dereliction of their duty to render emergency aid. And emergency aid is exactly what welfare is. Granted, it may seem like some of these emergencies go on forever, but don't blame the victims of a terminally flawed economic system for that. Which of course bring us to...

If we make them get drug tests, it will force them to get off their ass and get a job.

FALSE. For one simple reason. There are no jobs.

For every job opening in America, there are 4 people actively trying to fill that position. Those numbers don't include people who can only find part-time minimum-wage work, and must therefore turn to public assistance funds to feed their family. Those numbers don't include those who have run the length of their Unemployment Insurance benefit without ever managing to find a job. Those numbers don't include those who finally gave up, virtually hopeless, exasperated beyond the point that the working stiff would ever care to imagine. You might be pissed off about your job, how hard you work, all the taxes you have to pay. Try not having a job for a while. You will envy those who have an April 15th deadline. But in the meantime, we are going to take away from you the Constitution, your liberty, and oh, by the way, your last shred of dignity as well....




Yup, that's right, that schmuck has a job, and you don't. Your journey to the darkside is now complete. You are now a slave, in every sense of the word, and it's all your fault.





Tweet

Is Your Dealer a Cop?

Took this fun little quiz for the heck of it. I don't use drugs on a regular basis so I'm not too worried about it. But I learned the ropes a bit back in high school and college on how to spot trouble, so I took this quiz with those rules in mind.

Is Your Dealer a Cop?

But as soon as I saw the title, all I could think of was all the cases of crooked cops, and wondered if this was that kind of quiz. But if it had been, I suppose they would have called it, "Is your cop a dealer?" lol.

Cocaine Cop Gets 3 1/2 Years

Tweet

Cops Give Free Drugs to Teens Taken From OWS Movement Sites

This is the hypocrisy of the drug war.

Video documentation by local activists and independent media shows that police officers and county deputies from across Minnesota have been picking up young people near Peavey Plaza for a training program to recognize drug-impaired drivers. Multiple participants say officers gave them illicit drugs and provided other incentives to take the drugs. The Occupy movement, present at Peavey Plaza since April 7th, appears to be targeted as impaired people are dropped off at the Plaza, and others say they've been rewarded for offering to snitch on the movement.

Local independent media activists and members of Communities United Against Police Brutality began investigating police conduct around the Plaza after witnessing police dropping off impaired people at the plaza and hearing rumors that they were offering people drugs.  We videotaped police conduct and interviewed participants, learning some very disturbing information about the DRE program.

Officers stated on record the DRE program, run by the Minnesota State Patrol, has no Institutional Review Board or independent oversight. They agreed no ambulances or EMTs were on site at the Richfield MnDOT facility near the airport where most subjects were taken. Multiple times, participants left Peavey Plaza sober, returned intoxicated, and said they'd been given free drugs by law enforcement. We documented on more than one occasion, someone being told they were sober by one officer, and then picked up by a different officer, and returning intoxicated.

Given the dangers of impaired driving, there is value in training law enforcement officers to distinguish between the effects of various drugs and several common medical conditions. However, we have captured video footage of instances in which DRE trainees recruited subjects who are not already impaired, and those participants say they were given drugs by the officers.

Although program documents indicate that participants must sign a waiver, https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/msp/forms-reports/Documents/SFSTSponsorResponsib... there was no indication from any of the participants interviewed that a waiver was offered or obtained. Further, video footage seems to validate the recollections of participants that no medical personnel or ambulance were on site during the observation and testing in Richfield. A DRE officer told one of our investigators that no Institutional Review Board assessment of the program has been made, a requirement of all experiments involving human subjects. Since it's unethical to encourage people to take drugs--whether by giving them drugs directly or enticing them with food, cigarettes, or other rewards (which participants say they were given)--it is unlikely such a program would pass IRB review as it endangers the test subjects.

According to the WCCO article from May 2011, officer trainees in the past have worked with various non-profit organizations to recruit drug users. It would appear now that they are no longer relying solely on this tactic, instead recruiting users directly and, participants say, providing them with drugs. After the sessions, these individuals are then dropped off in public areas without supportive care, creating a public safety hazard. In an example at Peavey Plaza caught on film, an individual who said he's been smoking courtesy of the police for an hour, crossed a line of Minneapolis police barricades, climbed to the top of a large sign and sat 15 feet above the sidewalk swinging his arms and legs in front of a police camera.

Our investigation points to particular efforts to target and recruit youth. Further, law enforcement officers have been taped recruiting people from the Peavey Plaza area of Nicollet Mall and have dropped off a number of impaired individuals at Peavey Plaza. In some instances, Minneapolis police squad cars were present while DRE trainees recruited people at Peavey Plaza. After receiving drugs, some subjects were asked to snitch on the Occupy movement or asked about various people and activities of Occupy, they said. Given efforts by the Minneapolis city council to pass an ordinance designed to restrict access to Peavey Plaza by the Occupy movement, the conduct of DRE trainees points to the possibility that they are working hand-in-glove with Minneapolis police to discredit and disrupt the Occupy movement.

"I think most people would be very surprised to have our tax dollars used to get people high," states Michelle Gross, president of Communities United Against Police Brutality. "These activities call into question the methods and motives of this DRE training."

Tweet

Obama's Drug War 2012

The so-called "War on Drugs" is a total failure. It has been from the start really, unless of course you are one of those in power reaping enormous profits from the sham. People like William Randolph Hearst who wanted to shut down hemp production to protect his investment in timber camps, the profitable backbone of his print-media empire. His efforts to outlaw cannabis were supported by chemical companies like DuPont, who knew that their new invention nylon would never flourish while cheap hemp fiber was available. Pharmaceutical companies as well, chemical companies themselves really, were also threatened by cannabis and stood to reap enormous profits from eradication of cannabis plant production, while eventually getting people addicted to far more dangerous chemical drugs. 

Up through the late 70's and early 80's then, when prison rates simply exploded, while the US government themselves were the ones importing tons of cocaine and other drugs into the country. Police budgets were made obese with public tax dollars, as was the booming prison industry, reaping enormous profits from the misery of others and stripping freedom from non-violent citizens in the name of "public safety."

Meanwhile, the real threat is the totalitarian police-state that has been built up around us, in this War on Drugs, and now too the War on Terror. Another sham. Is it coincidence that during the CIAs covert wars in Central and South America, cocaine was the scourge, while today, the most potent threat from drugs comes in the form of Afghanistan-sourced Heroin?

In America, we like to think of ourselves as free, while picking fun at other nations who have fallen under the sway of some totalitarian regime, imagining that we would never tolerate any such thing here at home. But think about this... The United States of America keeps more people in prison than any other nation in the world, including  our Cold War nemesis Russia, or even modern Communist China with their 1.3 billion people. That's not per-capita comparison either. They a billion+ more people than the U.S. and still have far fewer people in prison. The United States has only 5% of the world's population, but a full 25% of the world's total prison population. One out of four people in prison on the planet, are doing time in an American cell. So, thanks in very large part to a failed war on drugs, the land of the free is now the land of incarceration, literally.

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise." ~Adolf Hitler

Obama’s New Drug Control Report Calls for More Workplace Drug Testing, Nationwide Zero Tolerance Laws, Prescription-Only Ephedrine Products, and the Return of the “Above the Influence” Campaign

MC Short-Change

The first thing you should know about President Barack Obama’s 2012 Drug Control Strategy report is that it begins and ends with the declaration that the war on drugs is working and will continue apace. 

Obama administration policies have “yielded significant results,” according to the President’s introductory letter, which concludes by saying, “While difficult budget decisions must be made at all levels of government, we must ensure continued support for policies and programs that reduce drug use and its enormous costs to American society.” 

The report ends with a familiar refrain: “Legalization of drugs will not be considered in this approach. Making drugs more available and more accessible will not reduce drug use and its adverse consequences for public health and safety. We will continue to educate young people and all Americans about the science on the harmful health effects of marijuana use.” 

The pages in between those two statements contain a broad outline for increased drug enforcement, mandatory rehabilitation programs for people who don’t need or want them, and the return of melodramatic Reefer Madness-style agitprop aimed at teenagers. 

The worst policy plans contained in the report are outlined after the jump.


Read the complete article at link: 


http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/17/obamas-new-drug-control-report-calls-for

Tweet