The Case of Illinos vs. Cabelles

[Osborn F Enready]

Yes, it does matter.

You obviously feel that because it is a law, it is RIGHT.

Marijuana was made illegal by racists, paper manufacturing company owners, and all the alchoholics that DID NOT WANT a tax on their alchohol.

Harry Anslinger is the one most responsible for the ridiculous, unconstitutional outlawing of marijuana and the beginning of what is NOW known as the War on Drugs. Along with some other well known, incredibly rich people who stood to profit... DuPonts, Hearsts, etc.etc....

(quote from http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm )

HARRY J. ANSLINGER
"The Father of the Drug War"
Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics 1930-1962

On January 1, 1932, the newly established Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a unit in the Treasury Department, took over from the Alcohol Unit of the department the enforcement of the federal antiopiate and anticocaine laws; and former Assistant Prohibition Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger took over as commissioner of narcotics. Commissioner Anslinger had no legal jurisdiction over marijuana, but his interest in it was intense.

The Bureau's first Annual Report under his aegis warned that marijuana, dismissed as a minor problem by the Treasury one year earlier, had now "come into wide and increasing abuse in many states, and the Bureau of Narcotics has therefore been endeavoring to impress on the various States the urgent need for vigorous enforcement of the local cannabis laws."



Many people believe that Mr. Anslinger collaborated with industry giants to outlaw marijuana. It is known that he was acquainted with both the Hearsts (of Hearst Newspapers) and the DuPonts, of DuPont plastic fame. (Hemp seed oil derivatives could replace DuPont's petroleum derived compounds.)
In the 1930s, Hearst, who owned newspapers all over the country, started publishing sensationalist-type "news" stories about marijuana use. These stories, often written by Hearst or Anslinger himself, talked about "insanity, criminality, and death" caused by smoking marijuana, sometimes after just one joint. This intense propaganda campaign led to anti-marijuana laws in many states.

In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was passed, effectively prohibiting possession or use of marijuana. It was claimed to be needed to oversee and coordinate existing state law concerning marijuana.

The following are excerpts of Mr. Anslinger's testimony before a Senate hearing on marijuana in 1937:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

HOOVER appointed ANSLINGER, the DRUG CZAR. Hoover, was a republican my friend as have all majority backers of the "war on drugs".

More about Anslinger:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/people/anslinger/

Please Reference this site, for the issue of Prohibition and its conclusions in Hindsight;
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer...ies/nc/nc2a.htm

D.A.R.E. Program Report:
http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dy...s.org/DARE.html

ACTUAL FACTS about the War on Drugs:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/

[tinybear]

Look, it was illegal when Cabelles was caught with over 200 pounds of the stuff. Cabelles broke the law and was guilty. It's as simple as that.

[Osborn F Enready]

The simple part is, that you can't admit you want other people to make up your mind for you, instead of being American, and accepting to be reponsible for yourself.

[tinybear]

So, Osborn, are you agreeing with me that the law can sometimes be an ass? And that even though it is the law, it can nevertheless be stupid?

[Osborn F Enready]

NO, I am saying that when the people do NOT ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION, the government becomes a huge pile of asses, passing unconstitutional laws, to benefit themselves, their friends, and their corporate investments, at the cost of the peoples rights, their incomes, and their future.

Stop trying to simplify this to a standard it cannot be reduced to.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The simple part is, that you can't admit you want other people to make up your mind for you, instead of being American, and accepting to be reponsible for yourself.

Wrong. I made up my mind that whatever the historical reasons for banning marijuana, it is an addictive and harmful drug which is rightly banned and should stay banned.

But, we digress......

[Osborn F Enready]

No tiny, I am saying show me the PROOF of it being what you say.

Not the law, the PROOF. And it has to be from an INDEPENDENT TEST, not from the government sponsored tests.

[Osborn F Enready]

How old are you tinybear?

You absolutely must be under 25.

[tinybear]

Didn't I already post a link?

[tinybear]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How old are you tinybear? You absolutely must be under 25.

Yeah. How did you guess? I'm very young. That's why I'm a 'tiny' bear.
:p

[kharmajunkie]

Quote by: tinybear Hey guys, would your opinions be any different if Cabelles had been a serial rapist/murderer and a teenaged girl was found in his car trunk? If so, why? If not, why not?

This is why you'll never get it. Because you use a rapist/murderer example as an analogy in a debate
about a pot dealer. Do you think that if something is a law then it must be right? Do you question anything? How about our twisted election laws, are those "spot on" too? Some laws are counterproductive, oppressive or just plain bad.

[kharmajunkie]

Quote by: tinybear Quote by: Osborn F Enready How old are you tinybear? You absolutely must be under 25. Yeah. How did you guess? I'm very young. That's why I'm a 'tiny' bear. :p

Then why not "Cub"? Or did you not want to be connected with that cursed baseball team from Chicago? (sorry to go off topic, it's almost spring training in Az.)

[tinybear]

On the contrary, I do not think something is right just because it's the law. If I did, the 4th Amendment is quite clear about this isn't it? If there's no probable cause for searching Cabelles' trunk, he walks, right? But I question this. That's why I posted this thread. To see if there are others who feel the law is an ass for letting a person in blatant violation of the law go free.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tiny, the link you provided: http://www.wctu.org/false_promotion.html

That is one doctors opinion, who is probably being paid for that statement. I notice know reference to where that article came from, nor is there any list of credits of that doctor.

I have hundreds of independent tests, historical fact on how it was outlawed, proof of the government lying to the public about the facts of the drug, proof that the government will not allow states their rights to appease the public, proof that the U.S. Government does not any longer know the difference between constitutional, and un-constitutional laws.

Believe what you want, you will still be wrong in this case.

[Osborn F Enready]

No, you posted this thread implying that the use of a drug dog was legal in a TRAFFIC stop.

[tinybear]

No, I did not.

[Lou Minotti]

"He had drugs". All the criminal activity of our own government is trumped by 216 pounds of dried flowers.

[The Dunedan]

1: It is physically impossible to get addicted to Marijuana. There is no physical addiction, PERIOD. Some people do become psycholiogically dependant; the same sort of people who become psychologically addicted to coffee, porn, work, sex, or chocolate. In other words, people with Addictive Personalities who lack will power.

2: It is physically impossible to overdose on THC, the active ingrediant in Marijuana. You could smoke a pound a week ( Like Bob Marley! ) and not OD on the stuff because THC is simply NOT TOXIC. Period.

3: Pot does have some harmful effects: all of which are identical to those suffered by cigarette smokers. Cigarettes, you'll notice, are legal and easily gotten. It's possible for pot-smoking to impair judgement and make it dangerous to operate a vehicle; this why DUI is illegal already. Alchohol has much more dehabilitating effects in thie regard, and is also still legal.

[Osborn F Enready]

tinybear said: (threadstarter topic post)

This case is now being heard by the US Supreme Court.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041110/D8698CNO0.html

What are your views? Should the State's appeal be allowed?

(2nd post)
Hey guys, would your opinions be any different if Cabelles had been a serial rapist/murderer and a teenaged girl was found in his car trunk? If so, why? If not, why not?

(3rd post)
Would it any different if Cabelles had resisted arrest and, in the process, had seriously wounded the cop with the sniffer dog and that, at the trial, he claims that his resistance to arrest was lawful because he shouldn't have been arrested in the first place?

(4th post)
Hmm, yes, it would logically follow, wouldn't it? Let's say I give you some more facts. Cabelles has a long string of comvictions for assault & battery, spousal abuse, drugs, controlling a prostitute, robbery, rape..etc. The wounded policeman (who will be disabled for life), on the other hand, is a veteran with 30 years of impeccable service with the force, having been awarded medals for bravery on no less than 10 occasions by the State. You are sitting on the jury. What say you? Same as before? Cabelles walks?

I say:
As you can see from the quotes from tinybears posts above, she posted a link to a legal case, and then asked a series of questions after debate had ensued, and the topic had shifted to the legality of the search with a drug dog/K-9 police dog.

Her topic question was: Should the States appeal be allowed?

Her second question was: Would the other debaters opinions be different if a different substance had been found in the ILLEGAL search?

Her third question was: An obvious appeal that because of the extenuating circumstances in this case, shouldn't the person in questions rights be cast aside to acheive the seemingly just outcome?

My answer was fairly clear here. The Constitution recognizes rights of the people, that enacted the government, and the system of law we use to regulate our society. Since our system, has not been forced to apply to the limitations of the Constitution, since the mid 1900's, we have created several laws that are un-constitutional, and almost all of them are "victimless crimes".

The case in question, is a victimless crime. A man(no matter who) was transporting illegal goods in his trunk. He was pulled over for a traffic violation. The policeman used a specially tuned device, to search the man/his property/his being without due process, a warrant, or a probable cause. In this case the device, was a trained dog, trained to detect the smell of drugs that the Government PROCLAIMED to be illegal. The search, was unwarranted, and not done within the limitations imposed by the Constitution, since the man was pulled over for a traffic stop.

Now, regardless of who the person is or his previous record, this policeman cost the public at large another un-necessary cost at the expense of the taxpayers, by not following correct procedure in application of the Constitution and the rights recognized within when dealing with a traffic stop violation. The government is at fault for trying to "force" the states law enforcement officers, to enforce un-constitutional laws, by allowing roving drug dog searches, and random inspections. The Congress is at fault, for allowing "victim-less crimes" for being recognized as actual crimes, since they are realisticly unenforceable laws that create them and all of the laws that create them are un-constitutional. The people of America are at fault, for not removing the elected officials who refuse to recognize the peoples will, and demand for participation and census for law-making, AND the people are also at fault for not enforcing the Constitutions limitations on government at ALL COSTS.

tinybear said: (most recent post on topic)
On the contrary, I do not think something is right just because it's the law. If I did, the 4th Amendment is quite clear about this isn't it? If there's no probable cause for searching Cabelles' trunk, he walks, right? But I question this. That's why I posted this thread. To see if there are others who feel the law is an ass for letting a person in blatant violation of the law go free.

I say:
Even though you never framed this as a question, before the last post you made, I will answer this also.

The law is not the ass, the people are. The people hold every ability in this system of law. They can remove the entire system. They are the only ones who have the power, within the Constitution, to run the government, when the designed and "elected" government fails to meet the needs, or limitations of the people or the Constitution.

When people can't see past their personal beliefs or prejudices, and realize that liberty is necessity, not a privlidge, it may be time for another call to "Common Sense" as Tom Paine once did.

What one person sees as right or wrong, good and evil, may be completely different than every other person who surrounds them perceives respectively on those topics. Law is in this country, intended to be the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM NECESSARY to still maintain order of the society overall. Law is a compromise between anarchy, and tyranny. All forms of law, are a form of tyranny. All forms of lawlessness, are a form of anarchy or disorder. In this country, we chose to attempt to permanently weave in the limitations of that tyranny, to bring us to the edge of anarchy, but with a line of sense all people could understand who understood the true fight of man against nature for sustinence and survival.

We chose to put the emphasis on the single element of the individual. All people are one, and have only themselves to look within on their dying day, one person to blame for their own shortcomings, one person to have the drive, courage or sacrifice to prevail against the odds of nature which is all mans friend and enemy equally. They chose to recognize the FACT that all men ARE created equal, in the sense that all men have internal desires, ambitions, dreams, aspirations and creative passions. All men are mortal, and have the same short time on this planet, with which to co-habitate, explore, educate and create for those who they wish to see carry on and prosper against our common friend/enemy, nature. All men, are helpless as one, yet strong as many. All lessons have shown, that man in order to survive, must work with all other people in some way, to overcome the giant setbacks that eternally strive to limit man.

They recognized that all men should be equal, in the eyes of the society. All men should be allowed an equal footing, with which to succeed or fail of their own volition. All men should be allowed the benefit of innocence, until PROVEN guilty, in the minds of a jury of their peers beyond all reasonable doubt. All men should be equally able to represent themselves in this court, and all men should be responsible for themselves, since all decisions affecting an individual of free-will, relies on the compliance of that individuals free-will. In other words, an individual has his own mind, his own decision-making ability, his own energy to comply or fight any decision he should be presented to be complicit in , and recognizing this, all men will answer for themselves to their peers(or equals).

Our forefathers were almost unitedly AGAINST democracy, since in a democracy, 51% rules completely the other 49%. This means 49% of the people are under constant tyranny from 51% of the people.

Instead, they believed in a compromise of limited democracy, and individual responsibility.

The democracy, was for electing the representatives who would speak "in the will of the people", and the individual responsibility was in the form of effectively limiting government to an agreed equal ground, set forth in the limitations imposed by the Constitution of the United States of America. This system had many designed in checks and balances, to ensure that the system couldn't be taken over by corruptors, and self-serviant groups, gangs or organizations. The RESPONSIBILITY of the PEOPLE, was to enforce the limitations of the Constitution at all costs, as prescribed in the document itself. Its last form of resistance against internal takeover of the government, or internal tyranny, is revolution.

We are nearing that last form of resistance, since the limitations on government have not been applied since the mid 1900's, and the number of people who believe in the new system, are equalizing the number of people who still believe in the old system, due to constant propaganda and "re-education" being done by the internal corruption which brought us public schooling, welfare, social-security, federal banking, and a "supposed" guarantee of economic stability.

The truth is finally coming out, that the New Deal was really an old deal, called socialism. It's introduction into the capitalist system of personal rights, and private property are causing the downfall of everything that the patriots before us died to insure. Liberty, and justice for all.

To answer your question, people are the ass, for not realizing that liberty is the necessity of life being a gift, as opposed to a sentence, and for not realizing the ideology of the American experiment.

[Lou Minotti]

Amen, Brother Osborn!