Court rulings are not called facts, they are called opinions and rightly so. This is evidenced by the fact that over time, opinions are reversed and overturned.
Most conservatives believe that "right" and "wrong" are moral absolutes which do not change with time. Cultural Jihad is the only one who I have seen consistently attempt to support he drug war on these terms, which is why the arguments against his are fundamentally different (based in religion and not constitutionality).
The hurdle that you have to overcome, Roscoe, is not to prove to us that the government courts have backed government use of force against the people in the drug war - that much is obvious. Government (ab)uses its power in literally hundreds of areas to which I stand opposed, but might does not make right in any of them.
You have continually asserted that law that has been tested and upheld in multiple courts meets your standard of constitutionality. I have asked you time and again if you also apply that same standard to Roe, Brady, Lautenberg, or any other pile of claptrap that opposes the 'conservative' agenda. You have responded with commentary like:
Empty rhetoric
Brilliant. Seems to me that behind the opinions you have posted, there is little fact. Please do not pretend to be the righteous defender of truth when you have given us none.
And by the way, this is at least the fourth time I've asked with no answer: "Do you think the actions of the agents were appropriate to the situation?"
The CSA findings of fact at issue aren't "court rulings."
Get a clue.