Replies

Because the drug war is immune from the Constitution.

That was a curious assertion. Would you share with me what caused you to make such an assertion? Just give me a hint if that is all you have time for. I don't mind looking it up if you would just point me in the correct direction.

Don't tell me you don't know about the Drug War exception to the Bill of Rights! First Amendment protection of free speech? Can't disseminate "drug technology" in any manner, internet or publication. Protection of right to assemble? Anti-gang, anti-loitering ordinances, and the RAVE act that is now being used to suppress/oppress unwanted political gatherings. Second Amendment protection of the RKBA? Being found with drugs and a gun is far worse than being found with either alone, even if you haven't shot anybody or held anyone at gunpoint, and, non-violent drug possessions result in felony convictions, revoking firearms rights for life (even though convicted felons still (theoretically) retain free speech, trial by jury, and other Constitutional rights). Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Surely you know of no-knock raids, approved on the flimsiest of evidence from known unreliable sources, in which people, including innocent people, have been killed? Fifth Amendment protection of property? Civil asset forfeiture. Cruel and unusual punishments? Life in prison on the uncorroborated testimony of a single person, or for possession of certian naturally-occuring plant material in ounce quantities. States rights and enumerated powers? Despite no federal mandate to create the DEA and enforce drug laws, nevertheless this entity and these laws exist. Seems they thought they needed a Constitutional Amendment to establish The Prohibition, but for some reason they decided it wasn't necessary to ban all sorts of other things, some of which have even less to do with interstate commerce than moonshining does.