No they can't. Ownership of such items is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution under Amendment II. Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.
We must be concerned with the health and safety of our population, mustn't we?
Absolutely. Just as we control the spread of diseases, we must also keep the spread of this disease (drug usage) under control.
“Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.”
Well it CAN constitute, but that doesn’t mean it always or even usually does constitute such a danger. For example, a guy sitting in his boxer shorts eating cereal and smoking a bong while he watches cartoons on a Saturday morning doesn’t constitute any such danger.
If just the possibly of constituting a danger is enough, then we aught to ban alcohol as well. All those six packs sitting in fridges across the US could be ticking time bombs.
The Second Amendment didn't stop the Assault Weapons Ban, and pronunciations of "reckles endangerment" do not enumerate powers.
The New Deal "substantial effects" interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a very real threat to your RKBA, and you're blind if you can't see that.
No they can't. Ownership of such items is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution under Amendment II. Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.
Ha! Ha! No they can't declare lead or Potassium Nitrate or anything they want a public health hazard and ban it. No they can't declare Big Gulps Public Enemy Number 1 either.
Thanks for the laugh. Oh, that it were true.