SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH BARTON’S MOTION TO DISMISS

The law is supposed to yield to constitutional rights and was not meant to override them. The government and even the Supreme Court has eroded constitutional rights by ruling all use of marijuana is abuse, the right to religious use, medical use, cultural use, or even recreational use are not abuse and are protected by inalienable right of free choice. Use cannot be construed to be abuse if it does no harm. The marijuana prohibition laws turn all marijuana users into criminals and are therefore, government abuse of power. For the Supreme Court to allow government to get away with such abuse is complicitous. The Supreme Court derives its power from the people to protect the people's rights enumerated and unenumerated. For government to say that all use of any kind is abuse is overbroad, dictatorial and without legal standing because it turns citizens into criminals for crimes without victims. Cannabis hemp "marijuana" has been used since the dawn of time by every culture as a natural unenumerated right until government fraudulently created cannabis hemp prohibition. If the founding fathers were asked to pass a law prohibiting cannabis hemp they would have rebelled against such a prospect, since most of the founding fathers grew hemp and, in colonial times, could pay taxes with hemp. The founding fathers would never have allowed hemp prohibition laws to exist.

How, in good conscience, could the Supreme Court uphold such clear abuse of government power? To turn citizens into criminals does not make for health and safety for anyone. Health and safety are being used as a bogus excuse to get around constitutional rights. The founding fathers never would have allowed Congress to use commerce laws to over ride the rights of the people to grow what they choose. The founding fathers never would have allowed invasion of people's homes, confiscation of goods and incarceration of citizens for possession, sales or use of hemp. The Boston tea party was fought over lesser abuses. The founding fathers saw hemp as a valuable resource and would have fought hemp prohibition as surely as they fought the King. Hemp prohibition is tyranny. The war on hemp is destructive to the peace of our nation. It turns government against the people. A government that wars against its own people dooms itself. Government needs the respect of its people and people need to respect their government for there to be a peaceful harmonious society. The marijuana prohibition drives a wedge between government and the people for equal respect. The government doesn't respect the people and the people don't respect the government. When government respects people's rights people respect government. When government violates people's rights society breaks down. The Supreme Court must restore the rights of the people by ruling the marijuana prohibition laws are overbroad violations of the rights of the people to free choice of lifestyle, and repugnant to the Constitution of the State of New York, if not, the Supreme Court rules that government has supreme authority over the people. The Supreme Court has ruled in error on USE AS ABUSE and should overturn itself!

a·buse

tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es

1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.

2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.

3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.

4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.

5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.

1. Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse.

2. Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.

3. Sexual abuse.

4. An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens.

5. Insulting or coarse language: verbal abuse.

 
To allow government through bogus commerce laws and bogus health and safety laws to rule over every aspect of the people's actions and free choice, is not what the founding fathers ever intended when they established this government. Quite the contrary, it's the Supreme Court's duty to protect the people from government abuse, by overturning as blatantly unconstitutional, hemp prohibition as overbroad and too restrictive on the free choice of a sovereign people.  The Constitutions were created by sovereign peoples to put shackles on government to curtail government abuse. As Thomas Jefferson said,  “In matters of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”  How can the Supreme Court continue to justify cannabis hemp "marijuana" prohibition and still tell us we are a free healthy, and a safe people?

The first experiment documenting pot’s anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest of the US government. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana’s psychoactive component, THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”

Despite these favorable preliminary findings, US government officials banished the study, and refused to fund any follow-up research until conducting a similar – though secret – clinical trial in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the US National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls. However, rather than publicize their findings, government researchers shelved the results, which only became public after a draft copy of its findings were leaked in 1997 to a medical journal which in turn forwarded the story to the national media. However, in the eight years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the US government has yet to fund a single additional study examining the drug’s potential anti-cancer properties. Is this a case of federal bureaucrats putting politics over the health and safety of the people’s rights? How many people have needlessly suffered and died because of government restrictions on research for the cures of many diseases rather than admit that they were wrong about marijuana prohibition? And how many more will needlessly suffer persecution and incarceration under the disguise of government standards of health and safety enforced at the point of a gun? And how can courts justify continuing to condone and support this unconstitutional marijuana prohibition, in violation of the rights of a sovereign people, on bogus health and safety laws?  The New York State government is denying the sovereign citizens their inalienable and unenumerated rights and sovereignty.

Joseph Barton      Feb. 22, 2009