The universally unconstitutional war on drugs
In the "war on drugs", the presumption of innocence is not collateral damage. It is a deliberate target: if other people plant drugs on you..., you must prove that your possession of the drugs was unwitting (which you can't). This situation is manifestly incompatible with the rule of law, because the power to convict... is effectively taken from the courts and given to those who are willing to plant evidence. There is no clearer case of a "government of laws" being usurped by a "government of men".
The purported reversal of the onus of proof, being contrary to the rule of law, is unconstitutional for at least three reasons:
First, the mere existence of a constitution, written or unwritten, presupposes the rule of law and therefore invalidates any legislation or judicial precedent incompatible with the rule of law.
Second, the mere existence of a court presupposes the rule of law and therefore precludes the court from entertaining any proposition incompatible with the rule of law...
Third, the legislative power is limited to the making of law, which by definition must be compatible with the rule of law...
Wherever there is an overriding prohibition on cruel or unusual or degrading punishment, there is a fourth reason, namely that the reversal of the onus of proof foreseeably leads to punishment of innocent people, such punishment being cruel or unusual or degrading by reason of their innocence.
Therefore, if you are on the jury in the trial of a person charged with possession of a prohibited drug... and if you are told that the "law" requires the defendant to prove that the possession was unwitting, it is your civic duty to... put the onus of proof back where it belongs (on the prosecution), raise it to the proper standard (beyond reasonable doubt), and hand down a verdict on that basis...
Indeed, reversing the onus of proof protects the bosses of the drug trade: if the bosses arrange for the drugs to be in the "possession" of some unsuspecting person, and if that person is caught, that person takes the rap and the investigation never reaches the bosses...
Full text: "The universally unconstitutional war on drugs" (3rd ed.), by Gavin R. Putland.
Prohibition engendered black market profits are obscenely huge. Remove this and you remove the ability to bribe or threaten any government official or even whole governments. The argument that legalized regulation won’t severely cripple organized crime is truly bizarre. Of course, the bad guys won’t just disappear, but if you severely diminish their income, you also severely diminish their power. The proceeds from theft, extortion, pirated goods etc. are a drop in the ocean compared to what can be earned by selling prohibited/unregulated drugs in a black market estimated to be worth 400,000 million dollars. The immense illegal capital, gifted through prohibition, is what gives these criminal cartels and terrorists power. Power that has allowed them to expand into other areas with near total impunity.
Millions of fearless North Africans have recently shown us that recognizing oppression also carries the weight of responsibility to act upon and oppose that oppression. Prohibition is a vicious anti-constitutional assault on ALL American citizens by a criminally insane and dysfunctional government, which left unchallenged will end with the destruction of the entire nation.
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.