Prompted by: “DEA is wrong? How can that be?” (DrugWarRant)
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has long held the position that international drug control treaties to which the U.S. is a party prevent the federal government from…
As a quick aside, you may note that I repeat myself a lot around here (I’m mainly a musician, so responsible repetition is in my soulful groove). In the case below, there’s additional information inserted into my constant refinement (like progressive ocean waves) towards expressing this logically critical (yet eerily apparently undiscussed) issue extending well-beyond the drug issue to affect literally all of us.
My comment there echoed here…
Those treaties require national constitutionality for validity.
After Alcohol Prohibition failed via two federal constitutional amendments (the latter basically verifying that failure), our Supreme Court decided to illegally redefine the Commerce Clause from “regulate commerce” to ‘regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’.
Our Judicial Branch has no power to (re)define law — just solely interpret it.
During several decades of metaphorical crickets chirping over that illegality, we have Certain Drug Prohibition (if you will) — the negatively bigger and badder sequel to Alcohol Prohibition, but “mysteriously” without a similar constitutional amendment.
The Commerce Clause is not a sane (so just) basis for banning (not regulating) the mere possession of a plant, for prime example.
Judicial corruption is obvious to anyone caring enough to look, but apparently due to the boring nature of law, most people don’t — so millions of non-violent (sanely innocent) lives have been demonstrably ruined to varying degrees for several decades and still strongly counting.
Fundamentally and critically, this is a language issue.
The ninth amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) outrageously has literally no judicial effect — despite clearly judicially recognizing our fundamental rights (the only rights formally defined outside of our Constitution).
That obviously includes the right to liberty, which objectively (so fairly, so justly) is defined as the unalienable condition of being free from restriction or control (the only limit against your liberty is the right itself — civilized liberty — without exception).
The ninth amendment is illegally trumped by the tenth 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.”)
Notice how amendment nine refers to rights, while the tenth refers to powers.
Exercising rights requires power.
If any right (e.g. liberty) is trumped by government power, then it’s obviously not a right to begin with — and that’s the fundamental and critical problem that nobody else is apparently even discussing.
It’s also the “lawful” basis for rampant discrimination (e.g. race, gender, sexual preference, recreational drug choice, etc.) hypocritically spanning our nation’s history.
Genuine idiocy in law extends to the “living document” belief system supported by even self-proclaimed constitutional experts — a belief stating our Constitution is amenable via judicial forces (e.g. Commerce Clause redefining).
Article V in our Constitution defines the very (very) serious challenge required to amend our Constitution, so that belief truly is idiotic (but still popularly embraced amid the aforementioned crickets).
“We the people” can’t uproot judicial corruption on corrupt judicial turf. We need to take this serious case to the court of public opinion (the true highest court of the land) until public pressure is enough to ensure the mainstream media broadly and powerfully challenges (and then finally exposes) the horrific drug war scam (i.e. flagrantly massive law abuse).
Despite billions of taxpayer dollars spent annually, we don’t even have a drug-free prison system (nonetheless literally one shred of concrete, so credible, evidence proving any effectiveness against drug abuse).
Law (actually language) is the fundamental problem, and if that remains unaddressed, millions (if not billions) of more innocent lives will be ruined to varying degrees by law abuse — inclusively the actual drug epidemic (drug prohibition addiction).
If judicial corruption is removed, those international treaties have no national effect here.
Law abuse does not send the right message to children (or anyone else).
If oppressive enough, it literally ruins a nation that (despite being violently established via a revolution tragically ironically against British law abuse) refuses to primarily address that logically worst form of abuse (due to its mainly broad scope of damage done).
The only logical (so realistic) way to prevent law abuse is to have a concrete (so fair, so just) barrier to legislative entry. Logically speaking, that inevitably requires firmly judicially implementing the aforementioned definition of liberty, backed by the need for conclusive (not suggestive) science verifying harm in use (not just abuse, or “heavy use”).
Because of the serious risk of law abuse, law is not a proper basis to define risk.
Defining risk by law also can never be reconciled with an unalienable right to liberty.
Risk must become and remain purely an educational issue, while law solely addresses conclusively proven harm.
Then responsible entertainers (i.e. educators understanding entertainment is needed for learning interest) can finally properly leverage the Information Age to logically bring forth the Education Age — one that best entertainingly ensures every lifestyle runs into sound wisdom to prevent any form of abuse.