[DiogenesLamp]

The huge hideous elephant-gorilla hybrid which is an offense against nature, man, and God than no-one seems to want to acknowledge (much less address), is that the War on Drugs, the very foundation of the Federal government to prohibit drugs, is based on usurped powers and the mere color of authority.

No, it's based on real, and constitutionally legitimate authority. Drugs represent an attack on our populace, and the National government has always been empowered to respond to deadly attacks through the Defense clause.

Now people allege that it is the Commerce clause from which their authority derives, but this is incorrect. They are just using an abuse of power granted to them through Wickard v. Filburn, but the real and legitimate authorization lies in the Defense clause.

The enemy is even now sending in Drones to deliver their chemical weapon payload.

[tacticalogic]

Now people allege that it is the Commerce clause from which their authority derives, but this is incorrect. They are just using an abuse of power granted to them through Wickard v. Filburn, but the real and legitimate authorization lies in the Defense clause.

Can you produce any historical background to back up that assertion? There is evidence to support the assertion that it's not within the original intent of the Commerce Clause, but finding it within the intent of the Defense clause seems to be a personal innovation.

[OneWingedShark]

>> The huge hideous elephant-gorilla hybrid which is an offense against nature, man, and God than no-one seems to want to acknowledge (much less address), is that the War on Drugs, the very foundation of the Federal government to prohibit drugs, is based on usurped powers and the mere color of authority.
>
> No, it's based on real, and constitutionally legitimate authority. Drugs represent an attack on our populace, and the National government has always been empowered to respond to deadly attacks through the Defense clause.

Nope — if it was within the Constitutionally delegated powers then we never would have needed an 18th Amendment.

[alexander_busek]

Drugs represent an attack on our populace, and the National government has always been empowered to respond to deadly attacks through the Defense clause.

I've never heard of even a single case of a drug "attacking" someone.

(Think: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people.)

To be honest, what you should have said is:

"Returning to the people the right to consume those drugs (cocaine, marijuana) which were perfectly legal for most of this nation's history represents an attack on our populace."

That is what you really believe, and that is what you should have said.

Regards,