From the October 2005 Idaho Observer:

The War on Drugs: The Mother of All Frauds

by Duane R. Olson, Miami, Florida

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)].


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

Home - Current Edition
Advertising Rate Sheet
About the Idaho Observer
Some recent articles
Some older articles
Why we're here
Our Writers
Corrections and Clarifications

Hari Heath

Vaccination Liberation -

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307