The universally unconstitutional war on drugs

You can't starve the drug trade. You can only constipate it.

The reversal of the onus of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore unconstitutional in all jurisdictions.

In the “war on drugs”, the presumption of innocence is not collateral damage. It is a deliberate target: if other people plant drugs on you (e.g. to avoid being busted themselves), you must prove that the drugs were planted (which you can’t). This situation is manifestly incompatible with the rule of law, because the power to convict — the most fearsome of all government powers — is effectively taken from the courts and given to those who are willing to plant evidence. There is no clearer case of a “government of laws” being usurped by a “government of men”.

The purported reversal of the onus of proof, being contrary to the rule of law, is unconstitutional for three reasons...

More: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2011/06/02/the-fail...-5749.