Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

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

[Protagoras]

The Netherlands has extremely liberal drug laws & their public parks are LOADED with addicts shooting up under the shade tree, and leaving their hypos behind.

The Dutch have exchanged the drug war and all it's problems and expense for a littering problem in a small defined area. Good trade.

[Roscoe]

What's your rationalization for firearms being "controlled" and banned using the same clause?

Backwards. The courts have rejected the inane equation of the right to keep and bear arms with the "right" to smoke dope.

It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.

Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.

https://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/november96/96-2060.html

[Protagoras]

And it discredits the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to defend yourself from thugs who would deny your right to pursue happiness is the reason it was enumerated in the bill of rights.

Not that you care.

[tpaine]

Thank you roscoe. You confirmed my predictions at #157.

[Roscoe]

Keep begging.

[Roscoe]

Dope as self defense. As ludicrous as usual.

[Protagoras]

Moronic post which had nothing to do with what I said, as usual.

[tacticalogic]

It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power.

Curious that no one even dared ask the question prior to 1937. This is the same reasoning that concludes that domestic violence is a federal matter, and federal laws concerning it are a valid exercise of the commerce power.

[tpaine]

Keep making a fool of yourself, -- please.

And, thanks for bumping my thread.

[Roscoe]

This is the same reasoning that concludes that domestic violence is a federal matter

Not equating the right to keep and bear arms with doing drugs is "the same reasoning that concludes that domestic violence is a federal matter?"

Dope logic.

[Protagoras]

What point are you trying to make on this thread? And what do you think you will accomplish by doing it?

[tacticalogic]

Not equating the right to keep and bear arms with doing drugs is "the same reasoning that concludes that domestic violence is a federal matter?"

Clintonian parsing.

[Roscoe]

Only dopes think that drugs equal firearms.

[Liberal Classic]

Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

I wish I could say I thought you were wrong, but I cannot. Considering recent developments with regard to tobacco and fatty foods, such as McDonald's hamburgers, I can't disagree with your post. I'm a bit of a cynic, but I saw the "War on Fat" coming a mile off. When the large tobacco lawsuits first came on the scene, I told some friend's of mine that junk food was next. They scoffed, saying that no one could put fast food in the same category as an addictive drug such as nicotine. I'm sad to say that I was right.

[William Terrell]

You can't.

Ok. What specifically should I refute? The linchpin is a statement that the vegetative products they refer to are a threat to the publics health and welfare? There is no evidence of that, and they present none. Give me something to reute and I will.

I will acknowledge that the rationalization you published exists.

[Protagoras]

Only dopes don't answer the question, What is your point and what do you think it will accomplish?

[William Terrell]

False.

You don't know much about the state's police powers, do you? Read the Slaughterhouse Cases (83 US 36). It's probably the most comprehensive source.

[ampat]

Thank you for making that point.

[William Terrell]

I find it hilarious that their posted evidence proves that some drugs are illegal because. . .they're illegal! That these people probably vote republican reflects ill on the GOP.

[dcwusmc]

Your feigned ignorance is quite cute. I believe that you are aware of the link and the erosion of basic and essential rights (ALL related to the concept of self-ownership and control) AND that your smarmy responses are the product of a "mind" that feels that YOU'LL never be affected by them, either because you are part of the problem or you are so ignorant that you can't comprehend that YOUR vices are fixing to come under gooberment scrutiny and control. After all, it is NOT ABOUT drugs or guns or fast foods or tobacco, per se. It is totally about control over others, about bending them to your will. I am not a drug user or one to encourage others to do them, but I am also not one to wait until MY door comes crashing down before I try to stop the madness. By then my only option is to take as many of the bastards with me as I can, which is not the nicest thing to contemplate... so unless you are one of the thugs who does the door kicking, I would suggest you get your cranial-rectal inversion problem resolved and start looking at reality instead of fantasy.