Replies

So you hadn't seen it! I thought not. Why don't you give a link to where it comes from so the rest of the inanities can be viewed by everyone. Don't try to wiggle out of this one by rehashing yesterday's conversation or through deferment. You're busted and you know it. You're exposed as a lazy bum who won't look anything up for himself and uses other people's links to justify their position. I've caught you with the catch all. You're just a fish! Why didn't you state where that came from?

Too bad spleen isn't a substitute for facts.

Appellant John Wacker argues that the section of the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 under which he was convicted, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (the "Drug Act"), impermissibly regulates intrastate activities which do not substantially affect interstate commerce, in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Although he does not cite United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), we assume that he asks us, in light of that recent decision, to reconsider our holding in United States v. King, 485 F.2d 353, 356 (10th Cir. 1973), that 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) is constitutional.
This argument was recently rejected by the Fourth Circuit, see United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995), and we agree that it is without merit.

United States v. Wacker

Moreover, contrary to Leshuk's alternative contention, the Drug Act is not unconstitutional as applied if his possession and cultivation were for personal use and did not substantially affect interstate commerce. Although a conviction under the Drug Act does not require the government to show that the specific conduct at issue substantially affected interstate commerce, see Scales, 464 F.2d at 373, Lopez expressly reaffirmed the principle that "where a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1629 (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 197 n.27 (1968)); see also United States v. Stillo, 57 F.3d 553, 558 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995); Scales, 464 F.2d at 374- 76. We thus reject Leshuk's Commerce Clause challenge to the constitutionality of the Drug Act.

United States v. Leshuk

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 v. United States