Replies

There are a number of fanatics on FR who label any law or regulation regarding drugs as a "WOD" or a "WOsD." I reject their assertion.

There also are a number of fanatics on FR who 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.

Suddenly in love with private clubs?

Legal distinctions between private clubs and businesses open to the general public have been around for quite a while.

Read a book.

Wonderful, but you're irrelevant. At least this explains why you never bothered to put forth a conservative argument in favor of the War on Drugs.

There also are a number of fanatics on FR who 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.

Sorry, wrong burden of proof. In a limited government with enumerated powers, you have to be the one to show that a law or agency is constitutional, because it is specifically authorized in the Constitution. Where's the Constitutional authorization for the DEA? Where's the Constitutional authorization to prohibit leafy substances? If it isn't explicitly spelled out, it's unconstitutional.

"There also are a number of fanatics on FR who 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." - roscoe

Clever wording, roscoe.
- We all know our states have the power to ~regulate~ intoxicating substances. -- Restrict? Sure, states can restrict the public use, sale, etc, of most anything, --- ~if~ -- reasonable constitutional guidelines, [IE, due process] are followed in the making of such law.

Outright prohibitions are not due process, - not constitutional, and not part of our guaranteed republican form of government.

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.