Addicted to the Drug War

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

[donh]

So the "recommendation" has NO legal force at all.

Quite a non-issue for all the huffing and puffing.

One of the prerequisites for arguing with me, would be reading what I wrote. The DEA was in violation between 1988 and 1992. And what the Supremes did was temporarily suspend, not vacate, the 1988 findings.

[dcwusmc]

Then, as now, it was about the money. They were collecting a TAX, not BANNING. I despise and abhor Washington's method of collection, but it was a tax close to what was allowed by the Constitution, not a "tax" like that of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Stamp Act... prohibition disguised as a revenue-raiser.

[Roscoe]

...the 1988 findings...

Actual language:

The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator conclude...

[Roscoe]

They were collecting a TAX, not BANNING.

George Washington didn't merely collect delinquent taxes, he ordered the stills of moonshiners smashed and their stocks of untaxed whiskey confiscated and destroyed. If he were alive today, dope dealers wouldn't fare well at his hands.

[tacticalogic]

Shall I post the CSA findings again?

Sure. Post it a couple of hundred times. Then explain how the plain language of the Commerce Clause says the federal government has the power to regulate something because it might be commerce, and that it might be interstate.

Is ther any reason the same standard couldn't be applied to other articles or clauses of the Constitution, and what would be the consequences of doing so?

[donh]

Do the Dred Scott findings of 1838 re-instate slavery?

No. Never read the decision, huh?

Do you intend to ever respond to an argument by actually responding to the argument? Let's see if you got the point: do we refer to regulations and findings to determine the consititutionality of laws, or do we refer to clauses of the Constitution? Would you like me to remind you of what you said demonstrated the consitutionality of the Substances Act? I'll be happy to keep doing so until you come up with a straight answer to a simple question.

[Roscoe]

...it might be commerce, and that it might be interstate...

Illegal drug traffic is both.

[donh]

If he were alive today, dope dealers wouldn't fare well at his hands.

George Washington took opiates to relieve his physical difficulties and grew marijuana to supplement his income. In the US, controlling what people put in their mouths is entirely an experiment of the modern age, which would have horrified our founding fathers.

[Roscoe]

Most people who raise the Dred Scott decision haven't read it and don't know what it says.

[Roscoe]

George Washington took opiates to relieve his physical difficulties...

People still do.

...and grew marijuana to supplement his income.

Chronic or hemp?

[donh]

...the 1988 findings...

Actual language:

The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator conclude...

What did I say when you tried to make this argument before? Dictionary puzzles are not relevant. If the finding meant nothing, there would have been no need for the DEA to refer it to a higher court for relief, now would there?

[donh]

...Dred Scott...

Ahem. Let's see if you got the point: do we refer to regulations and findings to determine the consititutionality of laws, or do we refer to clauses of the Constitution?

[Roscoe]

And how did the DEA fare in the higher court?

[tacticalogic]

Illegal drug traffic is both.

The Commerce Clause makes no special provisions for drugs. Whatever standards are applied to them can be applied to any other material object or posession that could bought, sold or traded.

[Roscoe]

...do we refer to regulations and findings to determine the consititutionality of laws, or do we refer to clauses of the Constitution?

You've been trying to hang your position on the long moot findings of an administrative (regulatory) law judge. A slim reed, which snapped.

[Roscoe]

The Commerce Clause makes no special provisions for drugs.

Or whiskey.

[Cultural Jihad]

~•: HERITAGE STUDIO :•~

	A NATIONAL GUARD HERITAGE PAINTING The Whiskey Rebellion George Washington reviewing the troops in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on October 3, 1794 ~ by D.J. NEARY ~ painted in 1989 for the Army National Guard

IN SEPTEMBER 1791 the western counties of Pennsylvania broke out in rebellion against a federal excise tax on the distillation of whiskey. After local and federal officials were attacked, President Washington and his advisors decided to send troops to pacify the region. It was further decided that militia troops, rather than regulars, would be sent. On August 14, 1792, under the provisions of the newly-enacted militia law, Secretary of War Henry Knox called upon the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania for 12,950 troops as a test of the President's power to enforce the law. Numerous problems, both political and logistical, had to be overcome and by October, 1794 the militiamen were on the march. The New Jersey units marched from Trenton to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. There they were reviewed by their Commander-in-Chief, President George Washington, accompanied by Secretary of the Treasury and Revolutionary War veterean Alexander Hamilton. By the time the troops reached Pittsburgh, the rebellion had subsided, and western Pennsylvania was quickly pacified. This first use of the Militia Law of 1792 set a precedence for the use of the militia to "execute the laws of the union (and) suppress insurrections". New Jersey was the only state to immediately fulfill their levy of troops to the exact number required by the President. This proud tradition of service to state and nation is carried on today by the New Jersey Army and Air National Guard.

Text written by The Army National Guard Bureau.

Source: http://www.heritagestudio.com/whiskey.htm

[donh]

Chronic or hemp?

What?

[dcwusmc]

Nice graphics!

[donh]

And how did the DEA fare in the higher court?

AS I TOLD YOU: the finding was suspended, not discharged. In essence, they lost, but it will be years before they have to pony up.

I have had enough of this--I have had more attentive discussions with cellular automata. I am tired of telling you the same things over and over. Have a good day.