howlingwolfpaw wrote:Ok you are right about my error in the constitution, to me they are bound together in the same brain file. whether or not in either document it still holds true as an unalienable right. meaning as long as it is not hurting anyone else to grow a plant then there are no laws that can be made which are valid. There is also the freedom of religion thing as the bible even states in genesis that all herbs are for us as meat. the declaration is what our countries freedoms were founded upon, the bill of rights are really mainly about legal proceedings.
there is a difference between having a choice and being coerced into a choice. Due process of the law was not followed they should have red her her rights and pressed charges. After reading up on my constitution vs declaration i find the 5th amendment interesting:
Fifth Amendment
Main article: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[79]
now lets focus on " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" She was coerced into the loss of liberty (to unwillingly snitch on others) with no due process. no files charges. There are no records of these crimes or confidential informants, the police simply find them, and black mail them into doing their dirty work.
Even the article asks if the agencies are addicted to the drug money. That they get with more arrest.
I don't have a tin foil hat, but I do have a copper pyramid wrapped with crystals!
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, therefore the entire first paragraph of your post is moot. But I'll respond, just to clear up some misconceptions you seem to have. You say that rights are unlimited, but this is written nowhere in any legal document. If that were the intention, it would have been directly stated (as opposed to relying on an incredible stretch of interpretation).You also appeal to the a freedom of religion, but following this strand of logic, what right CAN'T one claim under freedom of religion? Can I claim the right to carry out animal sacrifices if it's part of my faith? The answer is no, because secular law (in this case, protecting animals from abuse) has always trumped religious law. Therefore, your "smoking dope is my religious right" argument falls short as well.
Now onto the second part of your post: she was read her rights during her arrest, and she did not rue ended her right to a trial. In cases like these, the state offers a deal on exchange for not pursuing a guilty verdict (or looking for more lenient sentencing) at trial. They still charge people, read them their rights, and take them to trial. They simply agree beforehand not to pursue certain results at trial. This girl, I imagine, was offered a lesser charge if she cooperated, which is perfectly within the rights on the state. And again with the blackmail claim, lol. Repeat after me: SHE VOLUNTARILY SIGNED A DOCUMENT. SHE RETAINED THE OPTION TO DROP OUT AND GO TO TRIAL FOR THE ORIGINAL OFFENSES AT ANY TIME. SHE WAS NOT BLACKMAILED - SHE WAS OFFERED A CHOICE.
The agency has every incentive to get drug-dealing thugs off the street. They pollute our society with their filth, and I hope they rot in prison for what they have done. Anyone who makes money getting adults and children addicted to drugs deserves time behind bars.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.