News

**King_David**

Quote:Charles Henry Brent was an American Episcopal bishop who served as Missionary Bishop of the Philippines beginning in 1901. He convened a Commission of Inquiry, known as the Brent Commission, for the purpose of examining alternatives to a licensing system for opium addicts. The Commission recommended that narcotics should be subject to international control. The recommendations of the Brent Commission were endorsed by the United States Department of State and in 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt called for an international conference, the International Opium Commission, which was held in Shanghai in February 1909. A second conference was held at The Hague in May 1911, and out of it came the first international drug control treaty, the International Opium Convention of 1912.

Quote:signed at The Hague on January 23, 1912 during the First International Opium Conference, was the first international drug control treaty. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on January 23, 1922.[1] The United States convened a 13-nation conference of the International Opium Commission in 1909 in Shanghai, China in response to increasing criticism of the opium trade. The treaty was signed by Germany, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Russia, and Siam. The Convention provided that "The contracting Powers shall use their best endeavours to control, or to cause to be controlled, all persons manufacturing, importing, selling, distributing, and exporting morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts, as well as the buildings in which these persons carry such an industry or trade."

The Convention was implemented in 1915 by the United States, Netherlands, China, Honduras, and Norway. It went into force globally in 1919 when it was incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles.

This is how the War on Plants/Drug/Commerce of Farmers and the Poor started. It has always been a Racist "War".

Quote:Following the Spanish-American War the U.S. acquired the Philippines from Spain. At that time, opium addiction constituted a significant problem in the civilian population of the Philippines.[citation needed] It was also a significant and growing social problem in the continental United States, especially among immigrants of Chinese descent.

As we can see they used the idea that Brown People and Yellow People where using Drugs and "something must be done"

Quote:In the 1800s opiates and cocaine were mostly unregulated drugs. In the 1890s the Sears & Roebuck catalogue, which was distributed to millions of Americans homes, offered a syringe and a small amount of cocaine for $1.50.[2]

At the beginning of the 20th century, cocaine began to be linked to crime. In 1900, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an editorial stating, "Negroes in the South are reported as being addicted to a new form of vice – that of 'cocaine sniffing' or the 'coke habit.'" Some newspapers later claimed cocaine use caused blacks to rape white women and was improving their pistol marksmanship. Chinese immigrants were blamed for importing the opium-smoking habit to the U.S. The 1903 blue-ribbon citizens' panel, the Committee on the Acquirement of the Drug Habit concluded, "If the Chinaman cannot get along without his dope we can get along without him."

Pure Media propaganda, I'm sure the AMA did not have any conflicting interests in Pain Killers and other Drugs being regulated so only Doctors could( For a Fee ) "Proscribe" them.

So if you had a bad tooth, instead of buying some Cocaine and Pulling it yourself, now you're off to the dentist to pay his fee.

The trouble, from the US standpoint of this Treaty is, it never had the force of Law within the US. Banning Drugs and Alcohol has always been a States Rights issue covered under the Tenth Amendment. This is why Prohibition took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw Alcohol.

The Federal Government used the Treaty Clause to Overrule the Tenth Amendment and give itself a Power it never had.

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatably that Treaties are not higher than the Constitution itself. When a Treaty conflicts with the Founding Document the Constitution is Supreme.

What's more is all Federal Laws regulating Drug and Alcohol are null and void. The Federal Government has the Power to Tax them, but not to Regulate them.

If you're ever brought up on Federal Drug charges, fight them all the way to the Supreme Court.

This is why most of the time the Fed's will charge people in State court, with State charges.

Make sure you read that last part again before you go thinking "Drugs are legal" and you can get away with "it" because you read something on the internet. Most, if not all, States have laws banning just about everything the Fed's do.

**King_David**

For some hard truth.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 112077 08-03-2012 06:02 AM

He's a part of the PRI, the PRI works hand in hand with drug cartels so of course he wants to legalize drugs. They were in power from 1929-2000 and for those 71 years they extracted bribes from oil companies and paid to protect the drug cartels from police and whoever else. The PRI is the corrupt government that the Mexican people remember and do not want to go back to. So instead of cheering for things because you like how it sounds, how about learning about the past and why the new government is being protested against by the Mexican people.

**King_David**

LoP Guest Wrote:

He's a part of the PRI, the PRI works hand in hand with drug cartels so of course he wants to legalize drugs. They were in power from 1929-2000 and for those 71 years they extracted bribes from oil companies and paid to protect the drug cartels from police and whoever else. The PRI is the corrupt government that the Mexican people remember and do not want to go back to. So instead of cheering for things because you like how it sounds, how about learning about the past and why the new government is being protested against by the Mexican people.

The people who elected him are not protesting, they want peace with the cartels. The people out protesting on the ones who came out on the losing side of the election, now they don't want to admit they lost.

It' better to be poor and alive, than dead, and death is all this War on drugs has offered Mexico. 12 years of increasing violence, you can't beat the cartels with "Law Enforcement", you've got to change the laws and make it honest business where it's unprofitable to use violence.

As long as violence remains profitable, the violence will continue.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 46904 08-03-2012 08:13 AM

King_David Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
ArchNemesis Wrote:
IDK would legalizing take power away from the cartels by making the product available mainstream? This guy may get shot.

Good call. If he gets away with this, it could possibly destroy the entire United States police state power.

If Mexico legalizes drugs, it will bring such an incredible amount more of drugs into the US in a very short time that the US will have to respond likewise.

It won't happen.

I think less drugs would come into the US, and more people would just go to Mexico to get stoned.

In the long-term perhaps. But the insane short-term increase in drug-trafficking as cartels sought to unload their wares at the current prices would be mind-blowing.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 104278 08-03-2012 09:16 AM

freebyrd Wrote:

he is not very popular with the mexicans
millions are in the streets protesting his presidency
if this move is true and not some political ploy then he is going to be very unpopular with the gringos in DC too

i predict the locals dragging him out to string him from a lamp post just as a cia snipers bullet blows his brains out

stupid spork