Booby-Trapped Pot Injures Three Drug Agents

wkrn ^

[chance33_98]

Booby-Trapped Pot Injures Three Drug Agents 

A booby-trapped pot plant left two national guardsmen and one agent from the Alcohol Beverage Commission with non life-threatening injuries when it exploded. The explosion happened during a routine marijuana eradication conducted by the Governor's Task Force.

At 2:00 p.m. Thursday afternoon, three drug agents found roughly 30 plants in a secluded Maury County pot patch. Suddenly, there was an explosion near the three agents.

"They cut a plant and a device detonated."

Maurice Hobbs, a special ops sergeant with the Tennessee Highway Patrol, rushed to the men who suffered injuries, including ringing ears and cuts from flying shrapnel.

"It was very loud. There was a crater in the dirt indicating, it was some kind of high explosive. It blew a log in half."

Thankfully, no one was seriously injured, but blast experts said had the men been standing directly in the path of the blast wave, the situation could have been much more serious.

"There were enough explosives there to cause extensive damage."

Bomb experts asked News 2 not to disclose how the booby-trapped pot plant was triggered, but agents did tell us it was powerful, sophisticated, and there for a purpose.

"More than likely it was for law enforcement personnel."

"He's taking time to plant marijuana, taking time to build a device for us, hoping to hurt us or kill us."

News 2 spoke to the TBI coordinator for the Governor's Task Force on Marijuana Eradication. He said to date, his men have seized around 400,000 plants across the state, with each plant valued at close to a $1,000. Money is a prime reason some growers booby-trap their crops. If you have any information on who made the bomb, call the Tennessee Highway Patrol.

[Roscoe]

As far as I know, the Supreme Court has never granted cert to hear a case dealing with the constitutionality of the CSA.

Circuit? District? Trailer park?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Circuit? District? Trailer park?

Just what I said. Keep up the trailer park stuff, too, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

[tpaine]

From that same decision, quoting the state law in question:

"There was no express prohibition against the individual right to use intoxicants and none implied"

Contrast it with the portion you posted:

"Whether the general authority includes the right to forbid individual use, we need not consider, since clearly there would be power, as an incident to the right to forbid manufacture and sale, to restrict the means by which intoxicants for personal use could be obtained, even if such use was permitted."

Obviously, Justice White was bound on glossing over the 'right to forbid individual use' issue.
-- "Clearly there would be power" is a VERY arguable point.
-- I say he was begging the constitutional individual rights question in order to justify making governmental regulatory powers become prohibitive unconstitutional law.

[stuartcr]

Sort of like stills during prohibition.

[tpaine]

The founding fathers didn't risk everything so guys like Tpaine's friends could shoot heroin into their veins and smoke crack on our streets.
480
_________________________________

The only persons I know that talk like they are drugged are you 'warriors' here on this forum, VA, frantically defending your insane crusade.

Why? -- I suspect you make your living off it.

[tpaine]

Libertarians seek to corrupt and misinterpret the 1st Amendment, and the Constitution generally.
_________________________________

Sheer unadultrated, & foul Roscoebull.

[WyldKard]

By the terms laid out by the Constitution. According to the 10th Amendment:

According to who?

ACCORDING TO THE DAMN CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS WHO WROTE IT. Try reading it for once.

Look..it's very simple. According to the 10th Amendment, any rights and powers not given to the Federal Government BY the Constitution are reserved for the States and for the People. Thus, if STATES, on an individual basis, want to ban alcohol, or cigarettes, or whatever...they have the power. The 10th Amendment gives them this power.

Now, people who actually understand the Constitution know that the Federal Government didn't have the power to go to all the States and force them to be dry. They needed to have the power GIVEN to them by the Constitution. Which is why the 18th Amendment was passed. It gave the Federal Government the power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, and transport of alcoholic beverages throughout the Union and it's territories. If the Federal Government ALREADY possessed this power, like you claim it did, then a Constitutional Amendment was NOT REQUIRED to give it this power...this power you claim the Federal Government ALREADY HAD. And I refuse to believe that our Government was so stupid in 1919 that it didn't even realize it already had a power it thought it needed a Constitutional Amendment to receive.

Once again, PLEASE explain why the 18th Amendment was needed to federally ban alcohol, if the Federal Government already had the power before 1919 to ban alcohol federally?

Look again. National Prohibition was subject to a number of exceptions, not all alcoholic beverages were prohibited.

According to whom? Not the Constitution, thats for sure. Section 1 seems very cut and dried. I'll repeat it for you again:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

The current federal prohibitions on illicit drugs required no constitutional amendment and have survived decades of judicial review.

Why did Alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment to be prohibited, but previously legal drugs (before the 1930's, these drugs WERE legal, unless prohibited by STATE LAW) like opium, marijuana, cocaine, etc etc, NOT require a Constitutional Amendment to ban them on the Federal level?

As for passing judicial review, has Roe Vs. Wade, and so have Gun Control Laws, for exactly the same reason. The Supreme Court lacks the balls to review it.

[Roscoe]

ACCORDING TO THE DAMN CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS WHO WROTE IT.

False.

[National Prohibition was subject to a number of exceptions, not all alcoholic beverages were prohibited.]

According to whom? Not the Constitution, thats for sure.

Wrong again.

"The absolute prohibitions of the Amendment extend only to the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. The Amendment does not prohibit the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of alcoholic liquors which are not intoxicating, or of intoxicating liquors for other than beverage purposes. It does not define intoxicating liquors or directly prohibit the purchase, possession by the purchaser, or use of any liquor, whether intoxicating or otherwise. The power to deal with these questions is vested in Congress under the provisions of Section 2 of the Amendment, or left to the several states."

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/wick/wick1.html

For example, sacramental wines and home winemaking were exceptions.

[Roscoe]

Just what I said.

That you have no cites or authorities in support. Got it.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

How could I possibly come up with a cite when none exists? God, you're dull.

Maybe you could come up with a reason---JUST ONE---why your interpretation of the Commerce Clause is conservative.

[Roscoe]

From that same decision, quoting the state law in question: "There was no express prohibition against the individual right to use intoxicants and none implied"

The actual quote:

"There was no express prohibition against the individual right to use intoxicants and none implied unless that result arose (a) from the prohibition in universal terms of all sales and purchases of liquor within the state, (b) from the clause providing that every delivery made in the state by a common or other carrier of the prohibited intoxicants should be considered as a consummation of a sale made in the state at the point of delivery, and (c) from the prohibitions which the statute contained against solicitations made to induce purchases of liquor, and against the publication in the state of all circulars, advertisements, price lists, etc., which might tend to stimulate purchases of liquor."

Tsk, tsk. Busted again.

[Roscoe]

How could I possibly come up with a cite when none exists?

Exactly. Tens of thousands of convictions, and not one overturned on the basis of the bogus claim that there is a Constitutional right to manufacture, sell and use illicit drugs.

[WyldKard]

False.

So you are saying that the 10th Amendment does NOT say what it says? What is it exactly you are trying to say is false? Are you suddenly going to suddenly ask me to define "is"?

The Amendment does not prohibit the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of alcoholic liquors which are not intoxicating, or of intoxicating liquors for other than beverage purposes.

Well no duh!! Thats because the Amendment actually SAYS it bans intoxicating beverages. INTOXICATING BEVERAGES. So of course "near beer" and sacrimental wine doesn't count. Sheesh! You are trying to confuse the issue, and take away from the actual question, the one you have, in a cowardly fashion, refuse to address:

"If the Commerce Clause of Article 3, Section 8 already gave the Federal Government the power to ban the production, sale and transportation of intoxicating beverages throughout the entire Union, then why was the 18th Amendment even needed? Why did the Federal Government have to be given a power you claim it already had prior to 1919?"

[WyldKard]

Exactly. Tens of thousands of convictions, and not one overturned on the basis of the bogus claim that there is a Constitutional right to manufacture, sell and use illicit drugs

We're not saying there is a Constitutional right to sell use and manufacture pot. We're saying that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no authority to pursue a FEDERAL PROHIBITION of it. States can prohibit or allow as they like, as allowed by the 10th Amendment.

There's no Constitutional right to manufacture, distribute or use hamburger meat either, but that doesn't come up in court, now does it?

[Roscoe]

We're not saying there is a Constitutional right to sell use and manufacture pot. We're saying that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no authority to pursue a FEDERAL PROHIBITION of it. States can prohibit or allow as they like, as allowed by the 10th Amendment.

"Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other states from the state of origin." -- U.S. Supreme Court BROOKS v. U S, 267 U.S. 432 (1925)

To regulate is "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed" (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196); "to foster, protect, control and restrain" (Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 47). One form of such regulation is prohibition. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45; United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co., 232 U.S. 399; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308; Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311; Seven Cases of Eckman's Alterative v. United States, 239 U.S. 510.

[Roscoe]

INTOXICATING BEVERAGES

"The absolute prohibitions of the Amendment extend only to the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. The Amendment does not prohibit the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of alcoholic liquors which are not intoxicating, or of intoxicating liquors for other than beverage purposes. It does not define intoxicating liquors or directly prohibit the purchase, possession by the purchaser, or use of any liquor, whether intoxicating or otherwise. The power to deal with these questions is vested in Congress under the provisions of Section 2 of the Amendment, or left to the several states."

Reading is fundamental.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Exactly. Tens of thousands of convictions, and not one overturned on the basis of the bogus claim that there is a Constitutional right to manufacture, sell and use illicit drugs.

Where is your constitutional right to drive an automobile? Where is your constitutional right to wear blue jeans? Where is your constitutional right to eat dinner at a Mexican restaurant?

More proof of your socialist leanings . . .

In sum: you've nailed the socialist pro-W.o.D. stance down pat. Bravo. In hundreds of posts to these W.o.D. threads, you've not once demonstrated that this is the correct conservative position, although you've been asked versions of that question many, many times. We can waltz like this until the cows come home, but all you've done is chant the socialist mantra. Arguing with you about this issue is like arguing about God with an atheist.

Why not win some hearts and minds? If the answer's so obvious to you, why not spit it out?

[Roscoe]

There's no Constitutional right to manufacture, distribute or use hamburger meat either, but that doesn't come up in court, now does it?

CNN - Federal team begins hamburger plant probe - Aug. 18, 1997

[Roscoe]

Where is your constitutional right to drive an automobile?

Driving on the public roads is a conditional privilege normally requiring a license.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Driving on the public roads is a conditional privilege normally requiring a license.

Weak. Drinking booze is a conditional privilege normally requiring that an individual be of a certain age.

We don't have any rights other than those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, right?

Still another dodge on my question as to why your stance on the Commerce Clause is the conservative one, or are you just going to blank me on that forever?