THE WAR ON DRUGS: THE MOTHER OF ALL FRAUDS

Perhaps, by the time this article is published, Graham v. Holder;
5:05-cv-137-0c-10GRJ, U.S. District Court, Ocala, will be resolved,
but until I'm satisfied that I've been proven WRONG. . . my research
and investigation indicates that America's" WAR on DRUG S" is the
Mother of all Frauds-with dead-bodies on both sides.

Albeit that Title 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) is a "forged" (1970) and
"altered" (1996) instrument. . . without. . . force of law; it is
irrefutable that the legislative branch has no single "enumerated
power" or group of "powers" cobbled together that would even come
close to granting the Ninety-First Congress the Power to enact major
legislation that would directly PROHIBIT, FORBID, make LAWFUL, or
make "UNLAWFUL," the People's "unalienable right" to wear a hat,
plant a garden, (Raich v. Ashcroft;) or; "[m]anufacture, distribute,
or dispense;" ANYTHING NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED OR FORBIDDEN BY LAW.
. . and. . . Congress didn't!

The manner in which America conducts it's drug-war is not a question
of priorities over which has precedent, the People's "unalienable
rights" or the "consent of the governed," nor. . . is it a question
of the evil or benefit of "drugs or other substances," or those
"actors and players" involved in the "drug trade."

As of this date, there IS NO congressionally-enacted federal criminal
statute, or, "laws of the United States," or common law, standing
alone, that would "take-away" the Peoples "unalienable rights" and
PROHIBIT, FORBID, or make it "unlawful" to wear a hat, plant a
garden, or "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, 'drugs or other substances.'"

The cryptic-nature of the statutes, 821, 822(a)(1)(2), 841(a)(1)
and 841(b), of Title 21, enacted by the Ninety First Congress to
"regulate" the interstate/intrastate "incidents" of traffic in "drugs
or other substances," taken together, for careful analysis, reveal
that the Ninety-First Congress "authorized" the Attorney General
"[t]o promulgate rules and regulations [relating] to the registration
and control of 'regulated persons' and 'regulated transactions'"
[ 821.] for; "Every person who manufactures or distributes," [ 822
(a) (1)] and for; "Every person who dispenses, or who proposes to
dispense 'drugs or other substances'" [ 822(a)(2)].

OFFENSES and PENALTIES

21 841. Prohibited acts

"[ i] t shall be unlawful for any person knowingly. . . [t]o possess
with in tent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense. . . '[d]rugs or
other substances' . . . [i]n violation of [the] 'rules and
regulations promulgated' by the Attorney General" [ 822(b)] and;

21 841(b). Penalties

".. .[a]ny person who violates [the] 'rules and regulations
promulgated by the Attorney General' [ 822(b)] shall be sentenced as follows."

In a nutshell, Congress has been writing "laws" for over 200 years,
the Ninety-First Congress knew they had NO specific enumerated power
to enact major legislation that would directly PROHIBIT, FORBID, or
make "unlawful" any person's "unalienable Right" to wear a hat, plant
a garden, or "possess with intent to distribute 'drugs or other
substances,'" but the Ninety-First Congress either unconsciously, or
consciously, with malicious intent . . . UN-constitutionally
"authorized" the Attorney General to achieve indirectly what Congress
was constitutionally FORBIDDEN to accomplish directly-

A NATIONWIDE ACT OF PROHIBITION for "drugs or other substances." This
major legislation was enacted, enforced, punishment prescribed and
imprisonment imposed-all of it-by ONLY ONE person: The Attorney
General of the United States!

That is to say the Ninety-First Congress "authorized" the Attorney
General of the United States, one person, to cancel M/S Raich and the
People's "unalienable rights," endowed to them by their "Creator," to
plant, cultivate, harvest, and consume, by whatever method, and for
whatever purpose, the cannabis sativa plant commonly referred to as marijuana.

One wonders what's next-grapes or, perhaps, The New York Times?

Justice Stevens' answer was right, "Congress" has Power to "regulate"
intrastate commerce by virtue of the "necessary and proper clause,"
but Congress has NO POWER

to "PROHIBIT" "FORBID" or make it "UNLAWFUL" for M/S Raich or "We the
People" to plant, cultivate, harvest and ingest, by whatever means,
and for whatever purpose, grapes, corn, tobacco, wheat, or marijuana,
and therefore. . . neither does the Attorney General!

The toxic words that make the difference are "regulate," "PROHIBIT,"
"FORBID," "CONGRESS" and "ATTORNEY GENERAL."

If you are still not convinced that the U.S. war on drugs is being
waged on the authority of a constructive, legislative fraud, the
language for which is a cryptogram, then think about this: "Jorge"
Bush is not the first politician to use a slogan, "weapons of mass
destruction" (which was created by someone else, probably Karl Rove)
as an excuse for going to war. After coining the slogan, "No taxation
without representation," Samuel Adams led the infamous Boston Tea
Party in which the colonists' "favorite-beverage" (tea) was dumped
into Boston Harbor in protest of taxes that had arbitrarily attached
to it by King George.

It is not logical to infer that those who drafted the Constitution
would have ever endorsed a document for their own self-government
that would grant the central government

the Power to "take-away" the Framer's Right "[t]o possess with intent
to distribute" tea-under penalty of loss of life, liberty or property.

Note: Olson's points are well-made. We must not let our own biases
regarding "[d]rugs or other substances". . . color our view of
whether or not we should allow Congress or the attorney general to
prohibit or regulate anything in a manner not authorized by the
Constitution for the United States. Our acquiescence in this area
encourages agents of government to invent prohibitory and regulatory
arenas for which there are no laws restricting their conduct. The
"war on drugs" is a perfect example: The supply of drugs is
facilitated by policies enabled at the highest levels of government
in Washington, D.C., and flow downward to most every community in
America. Federal authority is then used to "wage war" on the "drug
enemy" its policies create, justifying lawless punishment for
non-violent possession, use, manufacture and distribution of those
drugs. This illicit war on drugs has destroyed generations and
communities and has landed millions of non-violent individuals in
prison since 1970.

A note postmarked Oct. 4 came from Olson. He indicated that the court
has not found cause to dismiss his arguments.

If you're in federal prison on a drug charge, or know someone who is,
take a peek at Graham v. Holder; especially noteworthy is the
rebuttal to the government's "answer" of June 20, 2005. ~DWH