One particular problem stems from the state`s ban on psychedelic drugs such as LSD, peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, cannabis and ayahuasca. Some people use such substances with certain cognitive, spiritual or religious motives. The use of peyote and ayahuasca is currently legal in the United States for members of certain recognized religions (e.g., the Native American Church). However, the First Amendment clause does not mention any requirement for formal affiliation to an established religious denomination in order to exercise one`s freedom of religion or conscience. In addition, this legal exemption for members of the Native American Church from using ayahuasca is a government measure that favors a particular religion over other religions as well as the non-religion prohibited by the settlement clause. Civil forfeiture laws allow police to confiscate people`s property without hearing or even notifying, let alone a guilty verdict. Theoretically, the practice is approved on the basis of the alleged association of property with criminal activity. However, property forfeiture laws often do not distinguish between illegal proceeds of crime and property that belongs to criminals or their family members but is not related to a crime. (By the way, this involves not only due process, but also the Withdrawal Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against the forfeiture of property by the government without fair compensation.) The burden of proof of the illegality of the decomposition lies either with the owner or, curiously, with the inanimate object itself. In addition, the police are allowed to retain most of the income from the sale of seized property, which perversely encourages officers to initiate confiscation proceedings.
Suffice it to say that most of the property confiscated under these laws is acquired as part of a narcotics investigation. In summary, it is not disputed that Congress has the constitutional power to tax drugs, to borrow money to fund drug programs, to regulate or restrict interstate and international drug trafficking, and to otherwise exercise its powers under Article I, Section 8 – in addition to passing all laws „necessary and appropriate“ for the exercise of these listed powers. But the source of its authority to prohibit the production, possession, sale or consumption of drugs – at least within states – remains questionable at best. The war on drugs has distorted our understanding of much of the Constitution, even before we look at the Bill of Rights. The universality of drug use throughout human history has led some experts to conclude that the desire to change consciousness, for whatever reason, is a fundamental human motivation. People in almost every culture, at every time, have used psychoactive drugs. The natives of South America take coca breaks, just as we do coffee breaks in this country. Native Americans used peyote and tobacco in their religious ceremonies, just as Europeans used wine. Alcohol is the drug of choice in Europe, the United States and Canada, while many Muslim countries tolerate the use of opium and marijuana. Meanwhile, Article I, Section 8, could not be clearer when it comes to giving Congress, not the executive branch, the power to declare war. But it was President Nixon who declared war on drugs. The term itself was originally just a rhetorical label, but since then it has included the intensive use of military force in the United States and abroad.
An excellent example is Operation Just Cause – the 1989 invasion of Panama – in which the fight against drug trafficking was one of President George Bush`s stated goals. During the operation, nearly 26,000 U.S. troops marched on Panama without Congress declaring war. Would drugs be more available if the ban were lifted? It`s hard to imagine that drugs are more available than they are today. Despite efforts to stem their flow, medicines are accessible to anyone who wants them. In a recent government-sponsored survey of high school graduates, 55 percent said it would be „easy“ for them to get cocaine, and 85 percent said it would be „easy“ for them to get marijuana. In our city centres, access to drugs is particularly easy and the risk of arrest has proven to be negligible as a deterrent. What would change with decriminalization is not so much the availability of drugs as the conditions under which drugs would be available. Without a ban, it would be easier to provide assistance to addicts who would like to abandon their habits, as the money now wasted on law enforcement could be used for preventive social programs and treatment. In 1933, for fear of widespread organized crime, police corruption and police violence, the public demanded the lifting of the alcohol ban and the return of regulatory power to the states. Most states immediately replaced criminal prohibitions with laws regulating the quality, potency, and commercial sale of alcohol; As a result, the damage associated with the alcohol ban has disappeared. Meanwhile, the federal ban on heroin and cocaine remained in place, and with the passage of the Marijuana Stamp Act in 1937, marijuana was also banned.
The federal government`s drug policy has remained strictly prohibitionist to this day. Ending prohibition is not a panacea. It alone will not end drug abuse or eliminate violence. Nor will it lead to a social and economic revival of our city centres. However, ending prohibition would bring a very important benefit: it would break the link between drugs and crime that destroys so many lives and communities today. In the long term, lifting the ban could promote the diversion of public resources to social development, legitimate economic opportunities and effective treatment, thereby improving the safety, health and well-being of society as a whole. Since Scalia had voted with the pro-federalist majorities that called the creation of gun-free school zones unconstitutional by Congress (U.S. v.
Komentari su zatvoreni.