Comments on: Paul Armentano: The Unconstitutional War on Pot

By: GaryH

GaryH — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 04:08:10 +0000

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.

By: Gavin R. Putland

Gavin R. Putland — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:55:12 +0000

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 .

By: TheRealBillC

TheRealBillC — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:40:25 +0000

Don't be so sure that the police in your state are not using drug laws differently for urban minorities than for suburbanites, or just peope they don't like. That is what is happening in New York State. In the state at large personal possession of a small amount is a minor infraction, but in New York City the police are using a law that says that cannabis in public view is a misdemeanor. What they do is they tell some poor black kid to empty his pockets. The kid doesn't know he can refuse. Once the baggie of cannabis is displayed "in public view" they are arrested on a misdemeanor charge. As long as these laws are on the books, we are all vunerable. You also have to consider that personal users have to get their cannabis from somewhere. It is really unequal justice to leave the people who create the demand alone, while going after the people who provide the supply. After all, if it were legal, they would be no different than the licquor store owner (trafficker) or shop that sells tobacco products (pusher). Decriminalization, whether actual or de facto does nothing to reduce the violence or diversion of money to gangs from cannabis sales.

By: tenthamendmentcenter podcasts | The Ruthless Truth blog

tenthamendmentcenter podcasts | The Ruthless Truth blog — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:18:23 +0000

[...] Paul Armentano: The Unconstitutional War on Pot [...]

By: Thomas Mackie

Thomas Mackie — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:32:53 +0000

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.

By: Terry Morris

Terry Morris — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:25:26 +0000

Guess not. Carry on.

By: Terry Morris

Terry Morris — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:24:44 +0000

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. Itâ€™s a state or personal issue, pure and simple.

By: larry

larry — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:20:45 +0000

“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?

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:42:58 +0000

Terry, you make a really important point with this:

“Iâ€™m not even sure that it should be the fedâ€™s business if someone else IS being harmed. “

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.

By: Terry Morris

Terry Morris — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:17:59 +0000

Bryce wrote:

If a person does it in oneâ€™s own home, not harming another person, then why should that be any of the Fedâ€™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.