Okay, I'm starting to get just a tad pissed. Exactly what the fuck are you looking to get from me, Roscoe? Could you give me a clue?"The whole authority of the CSA is predicated on a New Deal interpretation of what constitutes interstate commerce---NOTHING ELSE."
That's my interpretation of what's going on after reading the %&#)%!#*%^) CSA itself. Would you like to know my calculus for thinking so? Read 2->6 of Section 801. Findings and declarations. Every single one of those findings and declarations deals with commerce. The federal government, through the Commerce Clause, has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Are you suggesting that the federal government could prohibit drugs if the Commerce Clause didn't even exist?
Further, it is my assertion that what the CSA claims constitutes interstate commerce is overly broad because if it wasn't, the Federal Government wouldn't be able to prohibit ILLEGAL DRUGS. You could substitute "bicycles" for "drugs" throughout the entire findings and declarations of the CSA and still have an entirely worthy set of findings and declarations. That, by definition to anyone on Planet Earth except for you, is "overly broad."
You are being exceptionally tiresome and cumbersome here. Further, you don't even have the stones to say whether or not you support the Drug War, so why the Christ do you even care? Are you just some meddlesome little geek who gets his jollies typing on an internet chatboard and seeing his name and his oh-so-lofty rhetoric in print?
Here, I'll save you the trouble of replying to me:
Roscoe: False. No facts, sources, cites.
That's the only thing you bring to the table here, nothing else. I don't know why the hell I ever had any respect for you on these threads. Others warned me not to and I didn't listen. I guess they were right.