Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[Roscoe]

Black isn't white, even without a bright line.

[secretagent]

Congress apparently can constitutionally ban milk, if it finds milk harmful to the General Welfare, and subject to control by the commerce clause.

[Roscoe]

Heroin isn't milk. Black isn't white. Law isn't chess.

[secretagent]

Rule by law doesn't just mean rule by statute.

[Cultural Jihad]

But you see, we have to allow the manufacture, marketing, selling, possessing, or consuming of any poison in any amount at any time by anyone for any reason, even unto death. Otherwise, our society may ban milk! By golly, I sure don't want *my* milk to be banned, so therefore let's all become moral-cowards and let people destroy themselves with poisons. They apparently have no inalienable right to life if the libertarian ideologues have their way!

[Roscoe]

Rule by law doesn't just mean rule by statute.

Correct.

[dcwusmc]

Since the ICC was intended SOLELY to keep the states trading fairly with each other, not to give FedGov an opening to ban whatever it felt like and since prohibiting possession of anything based on what someone MIGHT do with it is prior restraint, which is outlawed, I still fail to see where you have a Constitutional leg to stand on. Your constant posting of this "finding" does nothing for your case and makes you look like a grinning, posturing jacka$$, like any other 'Rat control freak.

[Roscoe]

...since prohibiting possession of anything based on what someone MIGHT do with it is prior restraint, which is outlawed

False. Nonsense.

[secretagent]

Can't say I disagree with your last post to Roscoe until you got to this part: ...makes you look like a grinning, posturing jacka$$, like any other 'Rat control freak.

I see no point to the insults, even if the "other side" started it.

[dcwusmc]

Ask the Supremes. WRT the First Amendment, prior restraint is agin the law. The same principle holds true, whether or not recognized yet, WRT the banning of ANYTHING based on what someone MIGHT do.

[Roscoe]

The same principle holds true, whether or not recognized yet

False. Nonsense.

[dcwusmc]

Sorry, but I have come to the end of my patience with illogical control freaks like roscoe. They have no case they can make, so trolling and posting flame-bait are their only options.

Besides, I didn't ACTUALLY call him that... I just said he LOOKED like one with his insufferable attitude. I would NEVER call Roscoe an actual bad name. It might hurt his wittle feelings. And that would violate his RIGHTS, you see.

[dcwusmc]

I love your fact-filled replies. They make so much sense to everyone. NOT. Prove your point with the ACTUAL Constitution, if you can. Your previous post is so much intellectual tommyrot put together by a bunch of Constitutionally illiterate morons who violate their oath, to protect and defend the Constitution, every waking moment of their otherwise useless lives. Nor have you actually REFUTED any point that I have made. Could it be that you CAN'T? Hmmm. I'd wager a LOT on that!

[Roscoe]

prohibiting possession of anything based on what someone MIGHT do with it is prior restraint, which is outlawed

Your point isn't in the text of the Constitution, isn't in the Federalist Papers, doesn't exist in statute, and has no historical or legal source in support. It's utterly and completely false, without any merit whatsoever.

You've never produced anything supporting it, you never will.

[dcwusmc]

30 seconds in GOOGLE.com and here you go: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html

Any MORE questions? As you can see, I can back up MINE. You can't.

[Roscoe]

Prior restraints on speech. First Amendment.

Let's return to your actual absurdity:

prohibiting possession of anything based on what someone MIGHT do with it is prior restraint, which is outlawed

Your point isn't in the text of the Constitution, isn't in the Federalist Papers, doesn't exist in statute, and has no historical or legal source in support. It's utterly and completely false, without any merit whatsoever.

You've never produced anything supporting it, you never will.

[dcwusmc]

The principle is universal, clown-meister. Prior restraint is prior restraint, no matter the subject. Prohibition of speech or possession of objects = ZERO difference, except to liberal control freaks who want total and unlimited control over the lives and property of others. This is YOU, roscoe, a control FREAK. Same as a 'RAT. You and Billy Jeff and Teddy No-pants. Wow. The evil triumvirate. THERE is dubya's axis of evil!

[Roscoe]

Prior restraint is prior restraint, no matter the subject.

Smoking crack isn't freedom of speech. Slamming smack isn't the right to keep and bear arms.

Continually drawing such false equivalencies is SOP for the "legalize all drugs" cult.

[secretagent]

Prior restraint refers to First Amendment issues solely, at least in the first few Google pages I scanned.

Please cite some text, or explain it yourself. You may have a new, valuable principle here.

[dcwusmc]

Prior restraint may not currently be in vogue for other than speech, but the principle is clearly established: You may not restrain someone from speaking (possessing an object or substance) simply because of what he/she MIGHT do or say. However, WODDIES such as roscoe could care less about principle or the Constitution and label ANYONE a druggie who dares oppose them.

Something just now occurred to me: A useful purpose for WODDIES... the Red Army in WWII, as I understand it, had penal battalions made up of dissidents and other objectionable people who would be out in front of the combat troops, unarmed, to draw German fire or trip their landmines. We can use WODDIES for similar functions when we invade Iran and Iraq or when we follow the WOsD to its logical conclusion and invade Colombia or, even better, "da HOOD"...

Then, at long last, the ilk of Roscoe could make a useful contribution to society.