Replies

Under the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case in which it upheld the Harrison Act, United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919), it would be constitutional to impose a prohibitive tax on ammunition: "The act may not be declared unconstitutional because its effect may be to accomplish another purpose as well as the raising of revenue. If the legislation is within the taxing authority of Congress -- that is sufficient to sustain it."

Under the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case in which it upheld the Harrison Act, United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919), it would be constitutional to impose a prohibitive tax on ammunition.

Yes...or tomatoes, for that matter. That's my understanding of the importance of the Harrison Act vis-a-vis drug (controlled substance) enforcement. Because we are blessed with the God-given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and assuming that consumption of tomatoes is one person's chosen path toward happiness, it would be entirely UNLAWFUL and UN-Constitutional for Congress to pass a law prohibiting the CONSUMPTION of tomatoes.

BUT, by passing a prohibitive tax measure on tomato production, transportation or possession, the Harrison Act TRANSFORMS the 'hidden' objective of Congress (preventing the people from consuming tomatoes) into a perfectly Constitutional activity.

Without the Harrison Act and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it (that you cited), Citizen's throughout our Country would be free to imbibe in marijuana consumption, opium consuption, cocaine consumption, methampetamine consumption, and on and on, in pusuit of their individual strivings toward 'happiness' at will!

Under the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case in which it upheld the Harrison Act, United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919), it would be constitutional to impose a prohibitive tax on ammunition:

I believe this reasoning was reversed in 1969, when the Marihuana Tax Act was declared unconstituional.