Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[tpaine]

Sure - OK, - I'm not winning. But in the meantime you've proved yourself to be quite the weirdo. - Thanks.

[Roscoe]

[Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists.]

1.Absolutely. Limitations. Not eradication.

2. I'm not concerned about local regulation; I prefer it.

Shell game.

Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow.

No cites, naturally. Endless baseless assertions.

The Constitutional justifications are carefully laid out in the CSA. None of the drug legalization crowd on FR have ever managed to refute them.

This title may be cited as the 'Controlled Substances Act'.

§ 801. Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances.

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

• (1) Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
• (2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
• (3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because -
  • (A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
  • (B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
  • (C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.
• (4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
• (5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
• (6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.

[Ken H]

Here's a related thread that illustrates the downside of a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that many defend-- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821460/posts

[tpaine]

"Local" prohibitions are done under the police power of the state. The police power can be activated by anything that presents a danger to the public health, welfare and safety. The polpow is extensive and unlimited, but the danger must be specified and demonstratable, must be constitutional, and the remedy being possible and effective. Read the Slaughterhouse cases for more. -WT-

No cites, naturally. Endless baseless assertions. -roscoe-

Roscoe, how can you keep up your pretense to any credibility on this forum? -- WT cites Slaughterhouse, and then goes on to present more arguments as to common law, etc, -- and you blithely ignore them, make a partial quote, and then lie about that.

Incredible, lying chutzpah. You have no honor.

[tpaine]

"The Constitutional justifications are carefully laid out in the CSA. None of the drug legalization crowd on FR have ever managed to refute them." -roscoe-

"Endless baseless assertions", and another lie. That congressional 'finding' has been well refuted several times on FR by reputable, legally trained men, -- - perhaps even by WT himself.
You are well aware of that fact roscoe, as both of us have been present on those occasions.

As I say, you have no honor. Get lost.

[btcusn]

That was a argument many founders had against the Bill of Rights, they were afraid that if any rights were listed, than sooner or later only those listed would be considered protected. Guess what,they were right. Thank God that the Bill of Rights is there, or some would be arguing that we have NO RIGHTS, except what the govt was willing to extend to us. Subject to change, of course.

[Roscoe]

WT cites Slaughterhouse

Which doesn't say that "Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow."

And ff course, you can produce no such assertion from the court. No cites or fake cites are your speed.

[Roscoe]

That congressional 'finding' has been well refuted several times on FR by reputable, legally trained men,

False, as always.

[thisiskubrick]

Well, Wyoming is a weird place. It's freezing outside, and I've been cooped up in my cabin too long.

[tpaine]

"WT cites Slaughterhouse"

Which doesn't say that "Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow." -roscoe-


Well roscoe, - of course you produce no such assertion from the court. Post em if you gottem.
Make your point. - I"m sure that WT can refute you.

[Roscoe]

Which doesn't say that "Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow."

Keep begging the question though.

[tpaine]

I've 'begged' no question.

[William Terrell]

Shell game.

This your response to my saying that I prefer local regulation of drugs. Can you expand? I don't know what you mean.

No cites, naturally. Endless baseless assertions.

This is the response you made to my saying, "Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow."

What does "No cities" mean? It it means I named no cities, I didn't need to. Municipalities are just an extension, and get their powers from, the state divisions of government.

Otherwise your response is meaningless.

Your posting of the rationalization for using 1-8-3 to ban plant products is very strange. I don't need to "refute" it. What is there to refute? It's just a statement of purpose. It makes no argument, just unsupported allegations. Rememer, this just makes something illegal, it doesn't not make it bad. Something is not bad just because Congress says so. "Illegal" could have other purposes, like establishing a base for social control or eliminating constitutional liberties.

(2) could be used to ban virtually anything, and doesn't provide a source of proof of any danger. Where's the evidence that cannabis constitutes any danger to the health, welfare and safety to the people? There is none.

Alcohol is a much greater danger to the public health and welfare than cannabis and it is not included.

(5) and (6) means anything can be controlled using the excuse its local movement can't be distinguished from interstate movement.

Like (2), all the Congress has to do is just state something is a danger and it is so presumed. At the state level, proof is required.

Every fed program effecting individuals has been a failure in that it produced unintended consequences far worse than the original "danger" it proported to fix.

What's your rationalization for firearms being "controlled" and banned using the same clause? Do you support that, too?

Remember, if this charade did not have your and other public school products' support, they couldn't get away with it now any more than they could have in 1919.

[robertpaulsen]

Your link referenced a thread on our gradual movement to socialized medicine. Is prescription drug assistance being done under the Commerce Clause?

"...Commerce Clause that many defend."

I would hope that we would all defend the Commerce Clause -- it is part of the Constitution. We can argue about the misapplication of the Commerce Clause to justify certain laws.

Lastly, many on this board ask the question, "Point out the part of the Constitution that authorizes the Congress to do _________". If the answer is the Commerce Clause, it doesn't mean that one agrees that it is a proper application of the Commerce Clause. It just means that is where Congress got it. Don't confuse a factual answer with a person's position on that issue.

[robertpaulsen]

You are exactly right. And consideration for the BOR is restricted to the first eight; the 9th and 10th Amendments are vitually ignored (how convenient for a centralized government).

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list ping

[tpaine]

"What's your rationalization for firearms being "controlled" and banned using the same clause? Do you support that, too?" -WT-

Good question, which our boys will dance around with as usual, being unable to rationalize the point.

And, of course, any cites/quotes they bring up that support such 'control' will NOT be indicative that they ~personally~ support gungrabbing. -- Pollyanna lives.

[tpaine]

If one wants to make a case for legalizing drugs based on the 9th or 14th amendment, be my guest.
But that's not what the author of the article was doing, was it? He was attempting to compare drug freedom with gun freedom, a right specifically protected by the 2nd amendment.
Drugs were not given such an amendment. And, if the 9th and 14th amendments say so much about protecting the freedoms you so copiously listed, why list guns separately? #89 -RP-


bicusn replies:
That was a argument many founders had against the Bill of Rights, they were afraid that if any rights were listed, than sooner or later only those listed would be considered protected. Guess what,they were right. Thank God that the Bill of Rights is there, or some would be arguing that we have NO RIGHTS, except what the govt was willing to extend to us. Subject to change, of course. -bicusn-

Robertpollyanna replies, unadroitly reversing his position at 89 above:

-- You are exactly right. And consideration for the BOR is restricted to the first eight; the 9th and 10th Amendments are vitually ignored (how convenient for a centralized government).
155 -robertpaulsen-

[Roscoe]

I don't need to "refute" it.

You can't.

[Roscoe]

At the state level, proof is required.

False.