Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 741-748 next last
To: dcwusmc
nothing that confers authority to fedgov to prohibit it

Militia malarkey.

This title may be cited as the 'Controlled Substances Act'.

§ 801. Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances.

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

"It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953."

"Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit."

https://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/november96/96-2060.html

341 posted on 01/16/2003 6:50:04 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
In 1733, the Georgia colony had the dubious distinction of being the first colony to establish a prohibition edict.

270 years ago. So much for the bogus suggestion that prohibitions didn't exist in America's early history.

342 posted on 01/16/2003 6:57:43 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Legal prohibitions date back to the earliest days of our nation and even before, your hatred of our representative forms of self-government notwithstanding.
Now you're not even using your own argument and head off in another tangent! You're even refuting yourself.
Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived.
Limitations are not legal prohibition! Get your spin right!
343 posted on 01/16/2003 7:01:05 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The edict was rescinded in 1742.
Gee, prohibition didn't work way back then either!
344 posted on 01/16/2003 7:03:41 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
1. In 1733, the Georgia colony had the dubious distinction of being the first colony to establish a prohibition edict.

2. Limitations are not legal prohibition!

Newspeak and doublethink! The George Orwell award for the evening goes to philman_36!

345 posted on 01/16/2003 7:04:44 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
So much for the bogus suggestion that prohibitions didn't exist in America's early history.
BTW, that was a local prohibition, not a national one, that failed.
Besides, where have I ever suggested that there were no prohibitions in America's early history?
346 posted on 01/16/2003 7:05:58 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
It is insane, roscoe, -- for you to post & repost, -- insisting that a 'congressional finding' can prohibit 'controled' substances.
The 18th amendment proves otherwise. - Case closed.
347 posted on 01/16/2003 7:06:04 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Gee, prohibition didn't work way back then either!

Local prohibitions continued around America for centuries. Catch a clue.

348 posted on 01/16/2003 7:06:06 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The 18th amendment proves otherwise.

The eternal question beggar arives.

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."

Repealing National Prohibition by David Kyvig, Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago

"The day is unlikely to come when the eighteenth amendment will be repealed."

--President Warren Harding, 2nd Annual Message, December 8, 1922


349 posted on 01/16/2003 7:07:16 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The George Orwell award for the evening goes to philman_36!
To me? you are the one changing your words and argument around exhibiting signs of doublethink.
And as far as "Limitations are not legal prohibition!"...I used your own words to make that analogy.
350 posted on 01/16/2003 7:08:25 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Local prohibitions continued around America for centuries.
Cite please...as you so often quip.
Catch a clue.
I'll catch a clue as soon as you give one.
351 posted on 01/16/2003 7:10:04 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Cite please...as you so often quip.

"In 1733, the Georgia colony had the dubious distinction of being the first colony to establish a prohibition edict." Posted by philman_36 to Roscoe, On News/Activism 01/16/2003 3:41 PM PST #334 of 351

Short term memory loss?

352 posted on 01/16/2003 7:12:46 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Oh, BTW...in 1733 the colonies were still under British Crown rule, not the Constitution which set up a whole new ballgame.
Get the point?
353 posted on 01/16/2003 7:12:51 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Local prohibitions continued around America for centuries.
"In 1733, the Georgia colony had the dubious distinction of being the first colony to establish a prohibition edict."
Short term memory loss?

"The edict was rescinded in 1742."
No short term memory loss on my part, though that has got to be one of the most feable attempts at disparagement and association you've made to date.
I don't consider that instance "continuing for centuries". In fact, that particular prohibition was rather short lived lasting only nine years, not even a whole decade!

354 posted on 01/16/2003 7:18:55 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
"In 1733, the Georgia colony had the dubious distinction of being the first colony to establish a prohibition edict."

Doublethink, newspeak, short term memory loss and now lack of reading comprehension. What next?

355 posted on 01/16/2003 7:21:46 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
the Constitution which set up a whole new ballgame

Now you're begging that question too?

356 posted on 01/16/2003 7:22:42 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Local prohibitions continued around America for centuries.
And before you go there...such things as dry counties don't constitute a prohibition. That would be an instance of the "legal limitations", not prohibition, mentioned earlier.
357 posted on 01/16/2003 7:22:52 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
'Buckaroo', ims, -- was utterly convinced that 'roscoe' was a diaBOTical machine, programmed to respond to key words posted to 'it', with the same limited, repetitive stock phrases, over, and over & over.

This thread makes one wonder....
358 posted on 01/16/2003 7:23:01 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Now you're begging that question too?
Begging what question?
359 posted on 01/16/2003 7:23:55 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
What next?
Proving you're a shill.
360 posted on 01/16/2003 7:25:09 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 741-748 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson