Replies

I suppose if they lie enough about the constitution, it really will contain a statement pointing to why drugs should be legal.

Perhaps you would like to give an exact quotation followed by article and section from the US Constitution that gives it the authority to regulate drugs within state borders. Oh yeah, that article and section wouldn't exist because the federal government has no intrastate commerce regulatory powers unless you consider prosecuting slavery and counterfeiting intrastate commerce. While you're at it, read the 10th amendment. It states clearly and unequivocably that any power not explicitly granted to the US Government is one that the US Government doesn't have. This isn't about morality, it is whether do-gooder hyper-moralist thugs would violate the US Constitution; it is a litmus test for the orthodoxy of your adherence to the US Constitution.

This isn't about morality, it is whether do-gooder hyper-moralist thugs would violate the US Constitution; it is a litmus test for the orthodoxy of your adherence to the US Constitution.

Well said. - As usual you will get no coherant response from the thugs I flagged earlier, or from VA.
-- In fact, I suspect he was miffed that I didn't include him in that post. He desperately wants to be known as a full member of FR's anti-constitutional mafia.
I doubt they want him.

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.

(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because--

(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,

(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and

(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.

(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.

(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.

(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.

(7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.

Perhaps you would like to give an exact quotation followed by article and section from the US Constitution that gives it the authority to regulate drugs within state borders.

Congress has the power "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. And before you make an ass out of yourself, please understand how this provision of the constitution works. Pay careful attention to Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court in 1942 proclaimed that even activities such as a farmer's growing grain to feed to his own livestock had been meets the test of "interstate commerce.