Paul Armentano: The Unconstitutional War on Pot

The feds use the 3 clauses coupled together to pull the teeth of our founding fathers, their words of wisdom and guidance, is our constitution. The necessary and proper clause, the commerce clause, the supremacy clause. With these clauses the feds have unlimited powers, read Clarence Thomas' dissent in Gonzales v Raich and his dissent in Gonzales v Oregon. The feds can control the lemons we grow in our backyard if they choose to. I think it has gone to far to ever be drawn back, it is truly a shame. I would love to be apart of trying to get some supreme court rulings reversed, wickard vs filburn for one, our federal government is on a path of self destruction and the sheeple are asleep.  WAKE UP, WAKE UP, the wolves are here. Does anyone ever wonder why we are in the mess that this country is in, all these wars, bad economy, homeless veterans, bank fraud, corporate personhood, welfare, ect. ect.  I am proud to be an american, but I am ashamed of our federal government.

The reversal of the onus of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore unconstitutional in all jurisdictions.

More: http://is.gd/ccxry6 .

Read Nigro v. U.S.,276 U.S. 332 (1928) where the Supremes held,

"...In interpreting the Act, we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of the opiate and other drugs, it is beyond the power of Congress, and must be regarded as invalid."

Nothing has occured to Article I of the Constitution since 1928 that would alter, increase, expand or further advance the power of Congress.

Guess not. Carry on.

Testing:

Just wondering whether this comment format supports blockquotes. I've never tried it before at this forum. Let's see.

Michael wrote:

From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even if someone were being harmed. It’s a state or personal issue, pure and simple.

Testing:

Just wondering whether this comment format supports blockquotes. I've never tried it before at this forum. Let's see.

Michael wrote:

From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even if someone were being harmed. It’s a state or personal issue, pure and simple.

"From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting"

why I can see some far reaching idiotic federal prosecutor try to make a case that Pot stolen from boat owner to boat owner is piracy?

Bryce wrote:

If a person does it in one’s own home, not harming another person, then why should that be any of the Fed’s business?

Hmmm. I'm not even sure that it should be the fed's business if someone else IS being harmed.

I don't see anything wrong with a state declaring a substance to be illegal within its own borders, and to prevent interstate trafficking of such substances. But simply declaring something to be illegal does not necessarily mean that state law enforcement is going to aggressively pursue private users. Some states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, but they don't go after and raid the homes of known sodomites based on the existence of these laws.

In my state the so-called "war on drugs" isn't really used to go after pot smokers per se, it is utilized to go after hard core drug traffickers, people who make and distribute meth, etc. The average (casual) pot smoker is left to himself to do what he pleases in the privacy of his own home. But if he gets out on the public streets and highways while using, endangering the lives of the common citizenry, well now, that's a whole 'nother story.

Bryce wrote:

If a person does it in one’s own home, not harming another person, then why should that be any of the Fed’s business?

Hmmm. I'm not even sure that it should be the fed's business if someone else IS being harmed.

I don't see anything wrong with a state declaring a substance to be illegal within its own borders, and to prevent interstate trafficking of such substances. But simply declaring something to be illegal does not necessarily mean that state law enforcement is going to aggressively pursue private users. Some states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, but they don't go after and raid the homes of known sodomites based on the existence of these laws.

In my state the so-called "war on drugs" isn't really used to go after pot smokers per se, it is utilized to go after hard core drug traffickers, people who make and distribute meth, etc. The average (casual) pot smoker is left to himself to do what he pleases in the privacy of his own home. But if he gets out on the public streets and highways while using, endangering the lives of the common citizenry, well now, that's a whole 'nother story.

Laws on Marijuana should be put on the same level as fireworks, Some prohibit, some allow. But allow local governments to choose what direction they want to go.

Research needs to be done on the percentage of federal funding that States receive to pursue pot growers in the name of "the war on drugs" and it needs to be cut off.

I'm with you there, Jeff. If a person does it in one's own home, not harming another person, then why should that be any of the Fed's business?

It shouldn't, if you read the constitution.

"... it is for the states or local communities to decide."

Yeah, the more local it gets, the better. It seems to me that in many cases, it should go as local as one's own home. I see little need for government, however small or localized, to interfere with one's activities conducted in one's home.

Michael wrote:

That’s for them to decide - on a state level, or locally. And that’s how the founders wanted it.

A brilliant system, in my opinion.

We most definitely agree on those two points; it is for the states or local communities to decide, and it is a brilliant system, albeit so simple it's almost stupid.

Michael wrote:

That’s for them to decide - on a state level, or locally. And that’s how the founders wanted it.

A brilliant system, in my opinion.

We most definitely agree on those two points; it is for the states or local communities to decide, and it is a brilliant system, albeit so simple it's almost stupid.

I agree that the federal government has no business (not to mention no constitutional authority for) "regulating" marijuana. On the other hand I think it's a really tough sell, this idea that marijuana is safe to use and ought to be legalized. The only people who are ever going to believe that are people already predisposed to believe it.

Something was mentioned in the interview about marijuana being a 'natural herb.' The implication apparently being that since it grows naturally, it should not be regulated in any way by any entity. A cousin of mine once argued with me that since God put marijuana on the earth, then obviously he intended that we should smoke it. My answer to that line of argument was simply this: God also put poison wild berries on the earth, does that mean he intended that we should eat them? If so you'll pardon me for acting in direct defiance of God's supposed will for his moral creatures.

My whole point with this post is obviously this: these kinds of arguments/justifications are just silly and ultimately undermine the intentions of those who fall back on them. They ought to be avoided like the plague in my humble opinion. That is, if your ultimate intention is to change anyone's mind about the illegitimate federal "war on drugs."

Wow, you have to admit that makes pretty good sense!

the war on drugs is a joke,and has been a joke since it's inception,all it really is nothing but money for states,counties,and cities to waste,all the while our countries infrastructure is deteriorating.
It's about time our government get their act together and fix whats really broken,our country,befor it becomes a third world toilet.

Hey there ThomKane,

Indeed, liberty is not a left or right concept. The out-of-control federal government threatens those from any political affiliation.

Regardless of what one personally thinks is right to put in their body, I think we can all agree that the Feds have no constitutional mandate to decide for us.

I really enjoyed chatting with - and learning from - Paul Armentano. What was most striking to me is the commerce clause issue, which keeps coming up whether it's agriculture, gun rights....or weed.

The feds continually use and twist this simple clause as an excuse to expand their own power - at the expense of your liberty.

I'm glad this issue is being discussed here. Shows us that the 10th amendment isn't something just for the left or the right!

Great interview - and it starts out on the right path too. Something that most don't even consider, "where in the constitution do they get the authority to wage this war on drugs"

Where in the Constitution? That should be the question for everything the federal government does.