back2basics Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 Ok so you man not want to manufacture CM, but it's the precedence that counts. Freedom of speech is a basic human right. Sorry i am going of on one because... It's FRIDAY.Drug-info ban likely to become lawAnti-meth bill to ban websites, magazines, and increase incarceration.By Dana LarsenThe Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act may soon become law. This bill proposes to ban most pro-pot books and websites, increase the penalties for production of marijuana and other drugs, allow police to make secret searches of private homes, and add thousands of DEA agents to smaller communities.The legislation was unanimously passed by the Senate (S.486) with little public awareness last November, and is presently before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee (HR.2987). The bill has begun to get some media attention and legislative opposition, so there is a small chance for amendments at this stage. A full floor vote is expected in early June.The bill was originally introduced one month after US Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey quoted the Cannabis Culture website before Congress, and said he was getting "rolled in the public arena" by pot-supporters.Drug-info banThe bill has many troubling aspects, foremost of which are its harsh censorship provisions. The bill bans any publication, website or even verbal communication which explains how to manufacture any controlled substance.This provision would ban magazines like Cannabis Culture, pot grow books, and even private conversation on how to grow buds. Other banned information could include the safer use of illegal drugs, information on needle exchange, and a doctor discussing medical marijuana with a patient.The bill also bans advertising of "illegal drug paraphernalia" in any form, including prohibition of internet links to sites which sell such items. This targets the advertising base of most pro-pot magazines and websites, and gives a second excuse for seizures and harassment.Although the publishers and staff of magazines printed outside the US would be difficult to prosecute, this law would allow magazines to be seized by customs agents at the border. Printers, distributors, retail stores and Internet Service Providers could also be targeted.Banning booksThe section of the bill which would ban pro-pot publications is as follows:It shall be unlawful for any person-(A) to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime;( PENALTY- Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined >under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.>>>More jail, more narcs>>The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act also adds a ten-year >mandatory minimum sentence for causing "risk of harm to the >environment" while producing any banned substance. This clause is >ostensibly aimed at supposedly toxic methamphetamine labs, yet it >could also be applied to outdoor cannabis growers using fertilizers >or modifying terrain to suit their illegal garden.>>The bill would also create many more DEA agents, to be stationed in >"small and mid-sized communities." The added manpower will be used in >"interrogating suspects, conducting surveillance operations, and >collecting evidence" against drug users.>>Some House Democrats have been pushing for amendments to the bill. >Wisonsin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, the first openly lesbian woman >elected to the US Congress, has proposed amendments which would >either strike the censorship provisions, or exempt material otherwise >protected by the First Amendment. However, there is little political >support for such alterations.>>Secret searches>>Another important clause in the bill is so carefully hidden that it >almost went unnoticed. A recentg article by Dave Kopel in the >National Review Online reported how the bill will "authorize federal >agents to stealthily enter people's homes, search the homes, and not >tell anyone.">>The clause is hidden within the bill under the innocuous heading of>"Notice Clarification.">>Currently, federal agents can search a home with a search warrant >whether the owner is present or not. However, they must notify the >owner of the search and they must provide an inventory of any items >they take.>>The new clause would allow federal police to surreptitiously enter a >person's home, conduct a search, and not tell the homeowner until >months later. Even then, cops would not have to provide a list of >"intangible" items taken in the search. So the cops would never have >to inform you if they took photographs, photocopied your diary or >copied your email after sneaking into your home.>>The federal Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000 also has the hidden "secret >searches" language. This bill has passed both houses, and was in a >conference committee as of late May.>If the "secret searches" provision became law, it would apply to all searches conducted by the federal government, not just those involving methamphetamines or bankruptcy.According to Kopel, "Should the Secret Searches item be deleted from >the methamphetamine and bankruptcy bills, it is likely that Clinton >will try to sneak the item into a gigantic budget bill, during the >Congressional Republicans' annual fall appropriations surrender.">>Action time>>There are many things you can do to help stop this kind of censorship >and prohibition.>>Contact Tammy Baldwin to express your support for her proposed >amendments to the bill. Send letters to local and major media >explaining why you oppose this bill and why the drug war is wrong. >Contact your local and national politicians, and tell them that your >vote depends on their stand against such police-state legislation. >And support publishers and booksellers brave enough to distribute >forbidden books and magazines.>>* Tammy Baldwin: 1020 Longworth Building, Washington, DC 20515; tel >(202) 225-2906; fax (202) 225-6942; Tammy.Baldwin@mail.house.gov; >http://www.house.gov/baldwin/>>* More information about this bill is available at:>http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n071.a01.html>>* An article in Wired Online about this bill is at:>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36209,00.html>>* An article in the Village Voice on this bill is at:>http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n115/a01.html>>* For legislative information and updates about this bill, go to:>http://thomas.loc.gov and do a search for S.486 and HR.2987.>>* For the Senate testimony from when the bill was passed, click on>item 6 at this page:>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:S14932>>* For the House of Representatives Justice Committee subcommittee on>Crime, which is soon to vote on the bill:>http://www.house.gov/judiciary/sub106.htm>->->CClist, the electronic news and information service of Cannabis Culture>To unsubscribe, send a message to cclist-request@drugsense.org containing>the command "unsubscribe".>->Subscribe to Cannabis Culture Magazine!>Write to: Box 15, 199 West Hastings, Vancouver BC, CANADA, V6B 1H4>Call us at: (604) 669-9069, or fax (604) 669-9038.>Visit Cannabis Culture online at http://www.cannabisculture.com/ >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>Source: CNS News> Published: 19 May, 2000 Author: Justin Torres> Posted on 05/19/2000 07:26:43 PDT by Moosejaw >>(CNSNews.com) - Civil libertarians and a group of lawmakers are charging >that an anti-drug bill making its way through Congress will >unconstitutionally expand the power of the federal government to seize >personal property without notification and abridge free speech rights on >the Internet. >>The bill, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, increases criminal >penalties for the sale, production and distribution of methamphetamine, >appropriates funds to crack down on "meth labs" where the drug is >processed, and funds methamphetamine treatment programs. Commonly known >as the "Defeat Meth Act," the bill has passed the Senate and is being >considered in the House Judiciary Committee this week. >>But two little-noticed provisions in the bill, concerning police >seizures and distribution of drug information, have raised concerns >among civil libertarians. >>Section 301 of the bill, entitled "Notice Clarification," amends the US >Code to allow law enforcement officials to search a residence, workplace >or vehicle without notifying the owner or occupant, and remove property >without providing an inventory of the material seized until several >months later. Under present law, a property owner must be notified >immediately of any possessions seized in a criminal search. >>The provision, while part of a bill on methamphetamines, would apply to >any criminal searches. >>David Kopel, the director of research for the Independence Institute, a >Colorado think tank focusing on freedom issues, told CNSNews.com, the >search and seizure provisions were "a backdoor assault on the Fourth >Amendment [against unreasonable search and seizure]." >>"It's a disgrace that this sort of erosion of constitutional rights >could be hidden in a larger bill, instead of being debated on its own >merits," added Kopel. >>Kopel said that the bill was aimed especially at computer hard drives, >which could be copied in an owner's absence and examined without the >owner's knowledge. >>Section 203 makes it a crime to create a hypertext link on the Internet >to any site that "directly or indirectly advertise" drug >paraphernalia, or distributes information about the processing or >purchase of drugs. Under the provisions of the act, an Internet service >provider, who is notified by a district attorney or representative of >the Drug Enforcement Agency, that one of their hosted sites is in >violation, would be required to remove the site within 48 hours or face >federal criminal penalties. >>A separate provision of the bill would make it punishable by up to ten >years in prison "to teach or demonstrate . . . or to distribute by any >means of information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture >of a controlled substance." >>Rachel King, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, >compared the information distribution provision of the bill to "the >government removing magazines from a library or bookstore if it >disagreed with them. . . . Just saying it, it sounds absurd." >>King told CNSNews.com that forcing ISPs to remove material without a >hearing, warrant or judicial order, and the provisions that allow the >government to determine what is or is not a violation of the law, are a >"clear violation of First Amendment and due process laws. . . . These >are draconian regulations." >>The nature of the Internet, where web hosts link to and from sites and >content changes quickly, makes enforcement of the law difficult and will >likely result in innocent web hosts having their material removed, added >King. >>"On the web, everybody links to everybody. What happens to people who >have been linked to each other inadvertently? Does that count as >'indirect'?," asked King. "There will be a chilling effect on free >speech as people forego expression, to avoid running up against a vague >law." >>King added that both provisions "wouldn't have passed in a billion years >if it stood alone as its own bill." >>The ACLU voiced its opposition in a letter to Congress this week. >>Jeanne Lapatto, spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee and its >chairman, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), told CNSNews.com, that she was >unaware of the specific provisions in question, but defended the goals >of the bill. >>"This is a bipartisan bill," Lapatto said. "During hearings, no one had >any problems with the overall goal of the bill, which is curbing the >horrible problem of methamphetamines." >>A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which supports both >provisions, declined to comment directly, but did release a recent >letter from Assistant Attorney General Robert Raben to House Judiciary >Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois. >>In his letter, Raben praised the bill for providing "important and >necessary tools for deterring the spread of methamphetamine >manufacturing and abuse in our nation." >>Chris MacKay, legislative director for House sponsor, Representative >Chris Cannon (R-UT), told CNSNews.com that the no-notice provision was >necessary for "police to perform their job effectively." >>MacKay said the provision was designed to allow police to search with >minimum risk to their safety and without suspects destroying evidence >before they arrive. >>MacKay admitted that the distribution of information provision of the >bill would be "hard to enforce," but added that "anything we can do to >win the war on drugs is worth doing." >>But Representative Bob Barr (R-GA), a member of the House Judiciary >Committee, told CNSNews.com the search and seizure provisions of the >bill "have nothing to do with methamphetamines." >>"These are not minor changes," said Barr. "These are substantive and >far-reaching changes to the criminal law on search and seizure. It's >unconscionable that someone would try to sneak these provisions into an >unrelated bill." >>Barr added that had the search provision been introduced as a separate >bill, its chances for passage "would be very, very problematic." >>Barr hopes to remove the search language in the committee, and vowed to >"watch out for this language to pop up somewhere else." >>A source within the Senate Judiciary committee, speaking on condition of >anonymity, told CNSNews.com that the search and seizure provision in the >Senate version of the bill "slipped by everybody." >>"[Hatch and the Justice Department] buried it deep in the bill, and >nobody noticed until the thing had already passed," said the source, who >is familiar with the Judiciary Committee markup process. >------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 this is a serious concern, and you are right to post it here. im afraid if i were to begin commenting on these subjects now, i might not finish before the nights end. the info provided is disgraceful, and as far as i can see, underhanded is the only way to pass such laws...yet its right under our noses...when you take the whole of this thing in, when it really sinks in, its nauseating to realize the depth of it. the worst thing about it really is that we all know its happening, and yet we turn a blind eye to it...ignorance is bliss, that type of attitude. think about it...if they can march into your home, without knocking, without you knowing about it, take what they want, and leave without a trace....what's going to happen in the clubs???later.... ------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted June 2 Author Report Share Posted June 2 More seriously that wizard is that if somebody post a link in this message board to a site that sells or glamorizes drug paraphernalia this site would be breaking the law.You cannot restrict freedom of speech, even if you fundamentally disagree with the issue. If this becomes law serious music mags I buy imported from the UK will be illegal, because they have testing kits advertised, and coke snorting tools. It's madness and I think it's illegal (in the Human rights courts). What next if a rapper talks about smoking a J will that be illegal too?The vagueness of the Bill make it dangerous. I can see why they want to curb Meths but the powers hidden within the law do not relate to meths or the cooking of it.------------------I want to go out blazing not fade away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lecy337 Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 Holy S*talking about "big brother is watching!"this bothers me... alot... it wont make anything better.. if anything it'll make it worse in the long run... I dont agree with glamorizing drugs.. but knowledge is key. All I could see in my mind while reading that.. was riots.. wars within our own country... It would be awful... this is really bothering me.. I mean how the hell are people to learn about this shit? after they die.. and the possibilites of avoiding that... how do you censor freedom of speach. write, expression... call ourselves a free land.... when it seems little by little our government is becoming like those we fight against. MAN! and to think if some one was surfing ( on the web) and happen to link to a site.. just by chance.. they could be breaking the law! F* that!!! I'll be one of the First to get introuble.. those days I'm board clicking here and there.. finding this and that.. What BULL! ------------------the best things in life are freelecy337@hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted June 3 Report Share Posted June 3 Not to get too political here, but Clinton, the first American president to have smoked up, has consistently sold out all decent liberal values relating to freedom except abortion, to try to wrest the Republican's grip on the "family values" issue. He couldn't have believed in this kind of shit when he was our age. I wish he and his bitch wife would both go to hell.JohnB------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueangel Posted June 4 Report Share Posted June 4 Wow, this is something that we should all pay close attention to. The information that is out there in the internet played a big role in me being more careful and more knowledged when it cam to experimenting. And I know a lot of people that stopped because of it too. To take away our ability to learn is something very serious . . . this is what they do in communist countries! They regulate and control what you learn, read ect. ect. This totally goes against what this country is all about! My god, if they can start it with this then imagine what else they'll move onto??No way! If we (the people) let this happen then we are giving our government WAY too much power. The last time I heard . . . this is still the country of the people. We should all pay close attention and participate in fighting against this individually.BlueAngel------------------Music is the language of souls . . .[This message has been edited by blueangel (edited 06-04-2000).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted June 5 Author Report Share Posted June 5 I have sent letters etc to all relevant people, unfortunately not having a vote means not having a voice, but you guys do. It's always easy to read and be annoyed but something should be done.>Contact Tammy Baldwin to express your support for her proposed >amendments to the bill. Send letters to local and major media >explaining why you oppose this bill and why the drug war is wrong. >Contact your local and national politicians, and tell them that your >vote depends on their stand against such police-state legislation. >And support publishers and booksellers brave enough to distribute >forbidden books and magazines.>>* Tammy Baldwin: 1020 Longworth Building, Washington, DC 20515; tel >(202) 225-2906; fax (202) 225-6942; Tammy.Baldwin@mail.house.gov; >http://www.house.gov/baldwin/------------------I want to go out blazing not fade away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjr. Posted June 5 Report Share Posted June 5 this is some serious stuff, but i am not surpised by the matter.I think its only a matter of time before it really gets out of control.I mean the fact that your home can be searched with out notice is bananas@!Thanks for the info.I wonder how many other hidden little surprises await the world!------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeM Posted June 7 Report Share Posted June 7 There is ONE person running for President who will protect our rights. Educate yourself and VOTE for Harry Browne.NEWS FROM HARRY BROWNE FOR PRESIDENT |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|FOR RELEASE: Saturday, May 27, 2000-----------------------------------For additional information contact:Jim Babka, Press SecretaryJimBabka@HarryBrowne2000.org-----------------------------------High on the Hill 'Congress wants to smoke the Fourth Amendment,' charges Harry BrowneArlington, Virginia -- "Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, and Utah Congressman ChrisCannon appear to be using the Bill of Rights as rolling paper, so they canlight up and satisfy their addiction for power over our lives," declaredHarry Browne. Browne, a Libertarian candidate for President, spoke out todayagainst H.R. 2987, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, sponsored bythe Utah Republicans -- a bill that would trash your right to privacy, dueprocess and free speech. The bill empowers the police to conduct secretsearches of your property, often referred to as "black bag" searches. Itcreates a new type of search warrant that allows police to enter your homeor place of business, conduct a search, seize or copy files from yourcomputer, and not tell you about it until months later.Another provision of the bill allows government agents to seize yourproperty without giving you a list of the seized items. Currently, the lawrequires such an inventory -- including computer files -- to be given to theproperty owner immediately."This an outright assault on the Fourth Amendment," said Browne. "But ifyou're out to demonstrate that you're a law-and-order politician like Hatchand Cannon, that pesky amendment is a real drag. But that’s exactly whatthe Constitution is supposed to be -- a drag on government power."Browne pointed out that the bill would also create new federal drugoffenses. "There are only three federal crimes listed in the Constitution:treason, piracy and counterfeiting," he said. "So the 9th and 10thAmendments are being free-based. Apparently, law and order congressmen likeHatch and Cannon have smoked our Bill of Rights till they are high withpower.""Even if this bill goes down to defeat, another will come along just likeit. In fact, one already has," said Browne pointing to a bankruptcy reformbill, HR 833, that included similar provisions, passed both houses earlierthis year and is currently being considered in a conference committee."While opposing this bill is Constitutionally correct, that won't restoreour lost and stolen rights," lamented Browne. "The only way to stop thepoliticians from further injections of unconstitutional authority is to endthe insane war on drugs. That's the Constitutional thing to do."|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|TO CONTRIBUTEto the Harry Browne for President Committee onlineplease visit http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org TO SUBSCRIBEto this listmailto:Majordomo-LibertyWire@mjx.HarryBrowne2000.orgwith the words subscribe LibertyWireon the first line of the body of the message.Please leave the rest of the message blank.TO UNSUBSCRIBEfrom this listmailto:Majordomo-LibertyWire@mjx.HarryBrowne2000.orgwith the words unsubscribe LibertyWireon the first line of the body of the message.Please leave the rest of the message blank.L i b e r t y W i r eis a service of theHarry Browne for President Committee3509 Connecticut Avenue NW/Suite 2000Washington, DC 20008-2470Phone 202-521-1200 http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org Comments or questions? Pleasemailto:Info@HarryBrowne2000.org------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.