Break this defense for me.

dragonrider understands what I mean with my post. Everyone going on about how other drugs are not chemically related to ethanol are way off on this one. And ZiggyBuggyDoog is right about interstate commerce. The first case like that I heard about was in 1942 when some thunderfuck of a Supreme Court justice said that a farmer who grew wheat on his farm to use as feed for his own animals and for his own family to eat was required to include that in his production tallies for the wheat production limits. Because wheat is a product which is often shipped across state lines. In other words, that the interstate commerce clause overrules the entire rest of the Constitution and gives the federal government completely limitless powers over everything, even the power to negate future amendments. You probably can't even amend the Constitution if the gov. doesn't want you to since the proposed amendment would have to move from one state to another. Even elections can be made illegal if the candidates travel to more than one state or send advertisements to various states according to that logic. It's obviously blatantly a misinterpretation, and I can't seem to find the names of the judges who were on that court, but a Justice Jackson delivered the opinion, and he and his cohorts should have been hung for treason. Their opinion argued that the power to regulate interstate commerce included the power to prevent private interests from producing their own materials if they are materials which can be purchased from markets selling that product produced in various state, and forcing them to purchase those materials from a designated market.
The opinion further stated that anything the government wanted to do regarding any private transactions whatsoever would no longer be restrained by courts, but only through
political process. In the case of Wickard V. Filburn,
the Supreme Court ruled that the entirety of the constitution was effectively null and void due to the highest precedence
and unlimited scope of the Interstate Commerce clause.
The United States that had once been a great nation
was no more as far as I'm concerned, and I declare myself a one-man nation right here and now. Anybody wanna join me?

wow i just re-read my post and i should be shot for crimes against grammar:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZiggyBuggyDoog

wow i just re-read my post and i should be shot for crimes against grammar:wtf:

---

we is putin' yer firin' squad together fer ya y'all

It was actually a good, well thought-out post despite some gramatical crimes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

we is putin' yer firin' squad together fer ya y'all

It was actually a good, well thought-out post despite some gramatical crimes...

---

Firing squad! Thats the last time i try to adjudicate while intoxicated :jointsmile:

I feel the same way about the 18 amendment defense, but it seems the controlled substance act shoots holes in it.

I read a good article on this soon as I find it again I will link it.

nixon didnt want junkies comming back from vietnam
so he enacted the csa. that trumps your defense sorry.

Damn I didn't see this post at work,I would love to dive on in.Its a solid argument but I've formed three points that might but a chink in your armor.


Oh and my mate above seems to have taken the historical rout in trying to topple your argument,and yet it still stands.

Well back when the government actualy worried about the constitution they found the way around consitutional amendment.

First it was after prohibition spawned crime gangs like Al Capone's and they decided they had to get rid of machine guns, that were perfectly legal then.

They couldn't buck the 2nd emendment, but they could control commerce so they made a tax act, placing a tax on machine guns that you have to pay and process to buy a machine gun. To this day you can buy a machine gun if you do th paperwork and pay the tax.

The drug prohibitionists also didn't think a ban on pot would pass the constitution, so they borrowed from the anti gun folks and passed a tax act, requiring a tax be paid for possession, but refused to actually sell the stamp.

All perfectly constitutionally legal.

Sometime afterward we got the controlled substances Act I believe that made the tax act redundant.

If anything you need to change some verbage... instead of using the word "DRUG", change it for the word "MARIJUANA", and maybe add something about marijuana being a naturally occuring plant, and not a manufactured chemical. That is something akin to trying to outlaw apple trees because Eve ate the apple.

to get the MJ tax stamp, you had to have MJ in hand/possession. and you had to have the tax stamp to legally have said cannabis. therefor, by going to get said tax stamp, with MJ in hand, you have already broke the law, and cannot get the stamp, due to bieng arrested on site and all. history channel had a show a while back. very informative lol.