“The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.”

I think that there exists that which is even more destructive of respect for a government and its law than passing laws which cannot be enforced. I guess this means that I disagree with Albert Einstein. Well, he does not have to be right about everything. He regretted the results of his research and contributions in the area of atomic weaponry.

Passing laws that can't be enforced does lower the prestige of government but, I believe acts such as 911 are more destructive. Victimless crimes and compelled compliance rules make more a governmental profit center than enforceable law.

The "war on drugs" has caused such a dangerous increase in crime, and they are laws that cannot be enforced. At the same time they infringe on our Constitutional right to defend ourselves by banning guns... more laws that cannot be enforced, that only law abiding people follow, giving criminals the upper hand.

If it was not for the war on drugs police men and women might have retained some of the honor associated with serving and protecting instead of invading and abusing. Might does not make right.

A law which is not consented to by the people is no law at all. At most it is an immoral act of coercion by the powerful on the weak.

A law is a law until it is no longer a law, despite whoever disapproves of it. Break a law of which you disapprove, in the presence of law enforcement officials, and you will discover this mystery.

You cannot defend your rights without exercising them.

"The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it’s invalid on its face."
-- Justice Potter Stewart
(1915-1985), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Source: Walker v. Birmingham, 1967

Prohibition tries to stop a man who wants a drink (or drug) from taking some. When you make it illegal, you are trying to stop a man who wants something that harms no one else from getting it. The man will then be forced to submit to the new economy of this want, and do what he must to get it Others will break the law to supply this man with what he needs. Prohibition is a violation of nature, and of the constitution as it was written.

David L. Rosenthal His atomic research may be what men use to destroy themselves but it may very well be the science behind the method of creation of everything as we know it. One cannot fault einstein for underestimating the viciousness of men when they fight to maintain power.

Marijuana should be legal. If you disagree, you are most probably a person who likes to sip his wine poured in a tall crystal glass to celebrate the actions of a legalized thug arrests a toker who have never harmed anyone. Alcohol is technically a narcotic poison. Marijuana is one of the safest intoxicants known to man. It is called doublethink. You should not disagree with a genius like Einstein. It's futile and your own excrement will come to life to kiss you in your face. I can't wait for the day real justice is served. I'm waiting patiently.

Why is there a ‘prestige’ associated with government ? Is it a slave’s need for a master ? Is it power demands fealty from its inferiors ? Prohibition law is a legal positivism’s rule by carnal man (man being a god with ability to enforce tyranny) The de jure States united were to be a natural law nation of freedom, where all were equal before the law. Servant representatives were to protect the individual sovereign’s inalienable right through natural law’s defining codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. A representative can only represent that which the sovereign has authority and right to do in and of himself. When the representative no longer represents the individual sovereign with his inalienable rights, but rather a foreign despot in an occupying statist theocracy, Prohibition law becomes enforced tyranny. "A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years" (Lysander Spooner).

Check out LEAP.cc to see how this War on Drugs is creating crime in the streets, corruption of law enforcement agencies, filling our jails to overflowing, making drugs readily available to children, and at a cost of billions per year. And it has not stopped drug use and never will.

I really can not comprehend the willful ignorance. A representative can only represent that which the sovereign individual IS ! ! ! PERIOD ! ! ! If the individual has no authority or right to prohibit his neighbor from doing a thing in the privacy of his own home, then neither does the individual's representative. de jure 'LAW' defines the sovereign individual's actions, authority and rights. To prohibit a neighbor from doing a thing in the privacy of his own home is anti / against / a breach of - law, it is a criminal act. To call the criminal act 'prohibition law' merely compounds the injustice and makes more heinous the criminal act.

I must here clarification my statements on representation. I will write real slow so even those gradiated from gubment skools can understand. Representatives in the de jure States united do not represent the individual sovereign's being. All individuals are different, in action, belief and otherwise. The representative represents the inalienable rights before the law of the individual sovereign. There, all rights are the same - the law is the same, only the administration of related order varies. Each individual sovereign has the same natural law expressions and rights as the next individual sovereign. There are many subtitles to this understanding, such as common law application, but all rights are inalienable and all are equal before the de jure natural law.

my intended grammar humor doesn't quite come off as well in writ as it does verbally - oops, sorry about that

I hope the lovers of freedom outnumber those that would sell their freedom for a promise of security. Politicians, who are not able to give or provide the security they promise, desire only their own security. Job security top-most.

"Why is there a ‘prestige’ associated with government? Is it a slave’s need for a master?"

"Why is there a ‘prestige’ associated with the Pope? Is it a slave’s need for a master?"

"Why is there a ‘prestige’ associated with priesthood? Is it a slave’s need for a master?"

"Why is there a ‘prestige’ associated with Top Brass? Is it a slave’s need for a master?"

"Why is there a ‘prestige’ associated with a tribe's chief? Is it a slave’s need for a master?"

anonymous, The reference to government, especially in the de jure States united, was a reference to a relationship; a relationship of a particular individual sovereign master(s)'s rights, to an organized inanimate body of representative servants. The servant represented the individual sovereign's rights. I understand the prestige, esteem, respect and deferential regard given to the noble being man (the individual sovereign) no matter the capacity of his work or service. I can even appreciate and or praise the works of the servants, individually and united (or even a principle) but, does that rise to the level an honored prestige in an inanimate body ? NO ! By your statement, it appears you do not recognize the difference between the noble being man, his titles and inanimate bodies (do you think corporations should be able to vote ?). The status given to ‘prestige of government’ by Einstein's quote elevates the inanimate body to a superior condition, the inanimate body being the individual sovereign’s master.

Prohibition well observed, by a master mind. Does work well with organized crime, doesn't it ! Such has this oppressive nature, of the occupying mob, worked well for the corp elite. siding with the likes of Putin, and China, apposing them at home, but siding with them behind closed doors for control of the population. Furthering their agenda of global domination.
Our current administration is the most treason ridden group of people, ever to hold our highest offices of service. Servants dictating as kings and queens, lording over through mob rule.

There are two kinds of people on the planet !! Two is the number of separation. 2 !! For some, we think people would know this fact. Care givers and patients !!. Every body else wonders what to do. The family unit, ( hospital ) has been caring for their own for a long time. It is time that we as a people come together. between we and them our care givers. !
Push all others aside. This takes Doctors to care out side of their box. As with some, maybe in DC.

Yes and no, I see the law as our second constitution and the incorporation of DC. The mission statement set forth is unachievable and in opposition to our 1776 original constitution. A corporation and it's legal name are the mission statement and "we the people" need a grass roots name change movement. Re-incorporate yourselves and demand government follow precedent. .