Twenty-three year old man shot dead by police in a marijuana raid

Dayton Daily News ^ | 10/01/02 | Cathy Mong

[headsonpikes]

"English, please."

You should have said that to your junior high guidance counsellor.

[tpaine]

I suspect roscoe is more of a Ginsburg groupie type.

Thomas's constitutionalism is not roscoes style.

[jjm2111]

I've never understood how people can fail to distinguish the fact the because some don't like the government's constitutional violations while ahem.."prosecuting" the "war" on drugs, that means that we are drug users/dealers/addicts.

I don't do drugs. I don't smoke. I hardly even drink anymore. But prohibition one didn't work. Prohibition two is failing as well.

[Dead Corpse]

There-in lies the problem. Roscoe does not believe that the BOR applies to the States.

Paradoxically, he's a big fan of "pennumbras and emmanations" extending the reach of the FedGov beyond its Constitutional boundries through judicial activism.

How very California Democrat of him.

[tpaine]

Thanks B_babe. I was too lazy at #515 to look up that post of JR's. He made the point that NONE of these drug warriors will admit.

The ~enforcement~ of the drug war is pure unconstitutional evil.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

BTW, did you ever come up with any source supporting your assertion?

Which assertion was that?

[PaxMacian]

RE:...falsely contend that laws restricting any drugs are unconstitional. I enjoy encouraging them to try to produce any support at all for their inane position.

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson, 1774.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Preamble to the constitution: ...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Amendment V: nor shall (anyone) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (due process should include consideration of the constitutionality of drug prohibition)

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it enumerated what one may put into ones body. Therefore, what you consume is your natural God given right. The WOD is an unconstitutional and truly evil war against citizens of this great country.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) - Court rules that the Free Exercise Clause cannot exempt one from drug laws. The two defendants were members of the Native American Church and had ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug. The high court states a new rule: no religious actions may violate general laws, but laws aimed specifically at religions or a particular religious practice will be held unconstitutional.

[Havoc]

A little short on with regard to what. We haven't discussed incarceration numbers, etc. And I really don't care what the numbers are. But, based on the numbers shown, 3/4 of one million people have been arrested for pot related crime. There are 250 million in this country. You do the math. A fraction of one percent of the country got busted. Good. Means the cops are doing their job. I'm sure everyone of them got a bad rap for breaking the law. Poor them. Takes nothing from what I've said.

[Havoc]

How do you feel about drivers getting ticketed or even tossed in the slammer for not wearing a seat belt?

How do I feel about it? Or what do I think.

How about if I give you personal experience as an example of what I think. One of the guys I went to school with endo'd his car 5 times into a local cemetary. He wasn't wearing his seatbelt and because of that, was thrown to the floorboards and survived. The roof of the car was caved in flat to the body line of the car. He would have died had his belt been on. And even the Police said so. That was before the law. Seven years ago, my Aunt was coming home on a winter day driving her truck down the bypass in bad weather. My uncle was in his car right behind her. She hit a patch of ice in the road and lost control of the vehicle. The truck rolled and she was thrown part way out of the window - before the vehicle landed on it's roof and literally cut her in half. My uncle saw it happen right in front of him and could do nothing. She wasn't wearing a seatbelt. We all still miss her - the entire town. She was well and widely known, loved and respected and her funeral was massive. If she'd been wearing a seatbelt, she might have survived but the chances are slim. Long and short of it is that it's at best a 50/50 bet. Sometimes they'll save you and sometimes they'll seal your fate. There is no way to predict when it will be either. And therefore, their requirement is bad law. Helmets for motorcycles are the same. The majority of helmets in accidents exceeding 50mph will Kill you on impact. The only difference they make is open or closed casket. And this can be understood quite easily. Your neck can handle 2 g's of pressure. A helmet will take 3. The helmet will bounce where your head will not, thus putting a reflexive 3 g's force to your neck - snapping it. Death or vegetablised. On low spead impacts they can help you. I haven't personally seen too many low speed impacts with bikes. And this state does't have a helmet law, though it does have a seatbelt law. Then again the state is run by dems but votes pubby nationally quite reliably. Go figure.

[Havoc]

Not addictive - right. You keep telling yourself that.

No, I'm not getting it confused with something else. In india, the big thing to do is to get lit on pot till it no longer has it's effect, then they start playing with cobras.
They actually stick their tongues out to get the cobras to bite them on the tongue to get a rush from the poison.

Pot is an entry level drug and has been long known to be such. It is not only addictive, studies that have been quoted long have shown they lead to everything else under the sun when pot no longer does the job. When my Dancer neighbor could no longer get a rush on it, she moved to cocaine. Then she went to rehab. And after being clean for a year of probation started back on pot, then combined it with alcohol and started quickly moving back up the chain. What kind of moron do you take the public for?

[Havoc]

I'm not a garbage man - I'm a waste removal engineer. Get a life. Republicans and conservatives are not going to side with you on this. The nutcase commie liberals might.
But the constitution doesn't give you the enumerated or unenumerated right to either suck doob or break the law when it's made illegal.

[Roscoe]

I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a "substantial effects" test under the Commerce Clause

CSA. Substantial and direct. Splat.

[Havoc]

But it is outside the perview of government to grant itself authority by replacing the process of public debate, vote, and ratification of amendment with creative semantics.

Since when. Our representatives are not sent up their to be mere puppets. They are their to serve the people, the interests of justice, the constitution and the best interests of our nation. You're addiction induced cravings aren't a reason for us to do away with intelligent legislation that is in the best interests of this country. If you want to crawl around in the gutter sucking doob like a moron, go find one of those uncivilized french speaking countries and stop trying to drag ours down to their level.

[jmc813]

Pot is an entry level drug and has been long known to be such. It is not only addictive, studies that have been quoted long have shown they lead to everything else under the sun when pot no longer does the job.

Studies have shown that the vast majority of marijuana users tried alcohol before trying pot. Would you claim that alcohol is an "entry-level" drug as well, and if so, do you support it being legal?

By the way, I'm terribly sorry to hear about your aunt. I can't imagine how terrible that must have been for your uncle to witness it.

[Roscoe]

Compete denial

To a complete falsehood. Sourceless naturally.

"The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies." -- BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)

Criminy, tpaine, are you ever right about anything?

[Roscoe]

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson, 1774.

Constitution - 1789. Founding Father who said smoking dope was a Constitutional right - nada.

[tacticalogic]

Pot is an entry level drug and has been long known to be such. It is not only addictive, studies that have been quoted long have shown they lead to everything else under the sun when pot no longer does the job. When my Dancer neighbor could no longer get a rush on it, she moved to cocaine.

Sorry to hear about your neighbor, but the available research shows that the the vast majority of marijuana users do not go on to harder drugs. Even the federal government's own research has disproven the "gateway drug" arguement. I realize you work with the worst-case scenarios, but if you insist on characterizing those cases as the general rule with respect to the results of marijuana use, then you are no more objective on the subject than Sarah Brady is on the subject of gun control.

When you talk about the seat belt issue, you make a conscious distinction between talking about what you think about it and talking about how you feel about it. You see both sides of the issue and present objective, reasoned observations. I get no sense of that kind of objectivity in your posts about drugs and the drug war.

[Roscoe]

Which assertion was that?

How quickly you forget.

"The whole authority of the CSA is predicated on a New Deal interpretation of what constitutes interstate commerce---NOTHING ELSE." -- Hemingway's Ghost

Still waiting for even a shred of support.

[headsonpikes]

"Pot is an entry level drug..."


In much the same way that your views are entry level totalitarianism.

[tpaine]

Criminy, roscoe, are you ever going to stop posting nitpicking out of context 'cites', that supposedly support your unconstitutional views on life, liberty, and property?