Replies

[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.

"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.

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.

Roscoe, this self-serving piece of crap needs no refutation. Just because the Congress finds and declares something does not make it so. The CSA and its variants are just FedGov's attempts to make 2+2=5 and hope no one notices. Your pathetic attempts to justify FedGov's war on Americans means one of three things:
a.) you make your "living" as a JBT feeding off the misery you cause your fellow citizens;
b.) you are seriously misguided and need to have your eyes opened by a nocturnal visit from your local drug goon squad; or
c.) you suffer from terminal tongue-on-jackboot disease because you have never seen a FedGov prohibition you don't like or a Storm Trooper's a$$ you won't kiss.

No matter the problem you have, you are somewhere between despicable and pitiable for your delusions. Have a nice day.