Do You Think HR313 Will Pass? Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor

[otohara]

Elimination Act of 2011,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5019860&mesg_id=5019860

The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) -- even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they're carried out. The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA, the massive federal law that prohibits drugs like marijuana and strictly regulates prescription medication.

"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for reforming the country's drug laws. "The strange thing is that the purchase of and smoking the marijuana while you're there wouldn't be illegal. But this law would make planning the wedding from the U.S. a federal crime."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993.html

4 Dems in the Judiciary Committee voted yea!

[otohara]

1. I Need Some DU Imput

will this apply to senior citizens who buy drugs in Canada?
Will they be arrested too?

[Motown_Johnny]

6. if I understand this correctly, not if those drugs are not controlled substances within the US

[shanti]

19. sounds like this is mainly about cannabis

this bullshit crackdown is happening under obama's watch, and i'm PISSED! :mad:

[starroute]

25. Exactly -- but the sponsor of the bill is Rep. Lamar Smith

And he's got a track record of being virulently anti-marijuana. A few months ago, he was refusing to even consider the Barney Frank/Ron Paul legalization proposal. This is just another aspect of the same agenda.

I frankly don't know if the Obama administration is on board with this latest abomination or not. But if they are, it's just one more sell-out to add to the list.

[SteveM]

20. As the law stands, senior citizen who buys in Canada can be arrested.

Marijuana remains a controlled substance, in the same category as heroin, and no matter if a state passes a law (Cali, for example), the feds can and WILL come after growers and dispensers. This new law would attempt to reach overseas, using some kind of cantilevered logic based on pursuing U.S. citizens deemed terrorists (see how corrosive "terrorist" laws can be?). Canada may not give a hoot, or Spain, or Botswana, but when someone steps off a plane in NYC or Atlanta or Miami, they can be arrested.

Can the law be challenged? Yes, and probably will be. But as long as the regime of Prohibition is in place, the laws will keep coming back. It's NOT about the money. It's about social control. And reactionary forces (including significant numbers on the left) desire social control. Prohibition provides this or the illusion of this.

NOTE: Most treaties involving the U.S. and its trading partners have clauses in them that say in effect if the provisions of the treaty are to be honored, then the involved countries CANNOT LEGALIZE DRUGS. This is why Holland and other countries are technically in the "Prohibitionist" camp: They don't want to violate the treaties.

Incidentally, I will concede that many interests make money off of prohibition; but the motivation is: My morals are more moral than your morals. And I will punish you if you violate my morals, and control your friends as well. The rest is secondary.

[RZM]

2. I honestly don't understand this

How on earth could it be enforced?

[otohara]

4. Drone Attacks?

Bus loads of senior citizens buying their drugs in Canada/Mexico hauled off to jail.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. I doubt it. There has to be a (D) Senator who will block it.

[otohara]

5. Senator Conrad (D) Is Sponsoring in the Senate

along with Graham.

I don't see Rand Paul supporting something like this, but he's coo coo banana's and is all over the map.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. what about someone like Franken, Frank or Sanders?

Or even Reid. I doubt if this well ever get a vote.

[otohara]

11. Well, Four Dems in the Committee Voted Yea

I just wondering about those seniors who shop Mexico/Canada for their RX's, will they be hauled off to jail when their tour buses cross into US -

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/10062011%20RC%204%20-%20Final%20Passage.pdf

[Cool Logic]

13. Article 1 does not permit it; thus, Paul will not support it.

[otohara]

14. Will you explain article one reason to me

That would pemrtain to this
Thanks in advance

[Cool Logic]

21. The United States has a federal structure, with power divided between the states and the fedgov.

Article I, defines the role of The Legislative Branch. In Section 8, the Powers of Congress are specifically and unambiguously delineated. The fedgov can only legislate in areas specifically delegated to it in Article 1.

A substantial amount of fedgov law regulating numerous spheres, is legally premised on the exercise of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause, along with the Fourteenth Amendment and spending power, allows Congress to do things that effects the States. Most of the un-Constitutional expansions of fedgov power were initially struck down by the SC. In an effort to get around the Constitution, legislators proposed increasing the number of justices on the SC from nine to fifteen. Subsequently, the SC Court reversed course and upheld the un-Constitutional legislation. The basis of their hypothesis is that participation in activities that "effect" interstate commerce, is in fact, interstate commerce.

If, like me (and the guys who wrote the Constitution), you believe that interstate commerce means actual interstate commerce, then it is logical to assume that growing marijuana plants in your backyard is not interstate commerce. With the exception of drugs that are actually transported interstate, the possession of narcotics is no more "interstate commerce" than walking your dog.

Everything I have studied about the framers reveals them to have been men who erred on the side of liberty, rather than restriction. Thus, the intent of the commerce clause was one of facilitation, rather than prohibition. Clearly, they did not intend for the sphere of fedgov to spread into my backyard garden--vegetable or otherwise.

Why do you think it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to prohibit the drug known as alcohol?

[otohara]

22. Thank You

someone I know is in a panic over this - has to do with Peru and American's going there for ancient meds from plants.

[Cool Logic]

8. It is beyond my realm of comprehension to observe as one un-Constitutional piece of legislation...

after another is proposed and/or enacted into law.

The fedgov can only legislate in areas specifically delegated to it in Article 1 of the Constitution. Thus, for those who can read, comprehend, and reason, it is clear that the drug war and the laws that prohibit the private consumption of certain drugs are un-Constitutional. Prohibition laws, themselves, violate every tenet of limited government that is embodied in the Constitution. That is why it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to prohibit the drug known as alcohol. In view of that, how can it possibly be Constitutional to prohibit other drugs without going through the formal amendment process?

The fedgov should either abide by the 9th and 10th Amendments, or repeal them. To pretend that they do not exist is an insult to the People's intelligence and an offense to their heritage.

Note to Conservatives: If the Obama's health care legislation is Unconstitutional, so are federal Drug Laws.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[ohheckyeah]

9. These people are

out of their fucking minds. The economy is in the shitter and people are going hungry and they are worried about someone talking about buying pot when in another country where it is legal? OMG

[Warpy]

10. It's totally unenforceable.

Unless these screaming assholes plan to put DEA agents all over the globe and have them record random tourists hoping to find something incriminating, this is one ridiculous law that won't allow them to jail any of us.

You can tell when Republicans propose laws. They won't be happy until half of us are employed monitoring the other half of us full time. And then they'll bring in people on H1B visas to monitor the monitors!

This law is insanely stupid. I can see no purpose to it except playing to the church crowd back home.

[saras]

12. Curious that no one's jumping in screaming "Paranoid! the Senate won't pass it! Obama will veto it!"

[RC]

17. Yeah, strange dat.

Obama being a far left wing liberal and all. :eyes:

[kenny blankenship]

15. Is it fucking crazy? Does this bill represent a draconian or unworkable solution to a non-problem?

Does it slap a film of spackling and paint over a deep crack in America's foundation? Does it invade personal liberty to reach the world over to deal outsized and palpable punishments to an tiny or imaginary foe? Then it has every chance of passing the US House and Senate unanimously.

[bemildred]

16. Seems like a clear restraint of free speech and free association. nt

[SteveM]

18. Reason for this? GOPer wants to cow down Dems. Dems will. nt

[nomb]

23. Amsterdam just ain't today what it use to be when I lived there. That Q may soon become theoretical.

This part:

"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution,"

I believe that under the current rules, or those recently proposed, what few coffee shops remain will be prohibited from selling to foreigners. Amsterdam, as always will enforce last. But it will enforce.

I first started going there during the days of the open air shooting galleries and married a Nederlander and moved there later. The Dutch have been fighting to push drugs back since then. The sophisticated gang problem didn't help the legalization cause either, but much of the pressure comes from the EU.

[RainDog]

24. so, if you're a writer doing research for a fiction or nonfiction project

and you want to learn about the cannabis industry in order to write about it and talk to someone in another country to find out what's going on there....

you've just become a criminal.

thought crimes are here.

[otohara]

26. Like in Minority Report

more paranoia in this country, that's all we need.