Gun-control isn’t just about concealed carry, modern sporting rifles nor NICS checks. The prohibited person laws are almost as important as the gun laws themselves.
Recall that the Veterans’ Administration feeding NICS the names of veterans who gave powers-of-attorney to handle their VA benefits. The VA asserted that since these vets declared themselves incompetent to administer their personal affairs they fell under the definition of a prohibited person.
There was nothing novel in this gun-control gambit. Those in power have always strived to dis-arm their anticipated enemies. Colonial governments declared Indians prohibited persons and early gun control laws targeted slaves and freed blacks.
The Bruen decision established text, history and tradition as the criteria for evaluating gun control laws. That puts the prohibited person criteria of the Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) in the crosshairs. There are 10+ disqualifying criteria, including anyone: “. . . who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
Just like many TTAG readers, I have been a lawful user of a “controlled substance.” And so, I wonder what distinguishes me (or you) from the unlawful user of any such controlled substance. What are these “controlled substances” exactly?
There are hundreds enumerated in Schedules I through V. Cough medicines containing codeine are at the low end of the scale in Schedule V. Testosterone is in the middle in Schedule III. Marijuana is in Schedule I; and weed is undoubtedly the most prominent drug of concern overall. Still, it’s not the only drug we ought to be concerned about.
What is an “unlawful” use? Suppose your spouse was prescribed a codeine-containing drug some time ago, perhaps for a cough or dental procedure. She didn’t use it all. You come down with a nasty, uncontrollable, cough and grab the most promising substance in your medicine cabinet.
Presto! You are an unlawful user. Alternatively, you’ve been prescribed testosterone (and Viagra) for that little performance problem. Your son has a hot date tonight and he pinches one of your patches. Presto! He’s a prohibited person.
Our veteran neighbor, who treats his PTSD with cannabis, won’t be so lucky. He will have difficulty keeping his marijuana use a secret from his hoplophobe neighbors, any one of whom could drop a dime on him. If he lives in a medical marijuana state, he likely needs a prescription (a discoverable medical record) and a medical marijuana card (a discoverable public record) to use this controlled substance under his state’s law. But he is still a federal felon.
Our frenemy Nikki Fried, Florida’s Agriculture Department head who issues the widely honored Sunshine State’s CWPs, is suing the Feds seeking to allow medical marijuana users to buy and own guns. Biden’s DoJ is defending the law arguing that it would be too “dangerous to trust regular marijuana users to exercise sound judgment.”
What distinguishes the unlawful user of any other controlled substance from the legally prescribed patient? If codeine is too dangerous for firearm owners, then how does a prescription make it non-dangerous? If testosterone is too dangerous for firearm owners then shouldn’t all men be declared to be prohibited persons due to their endogenous poisoning by this controlled substance?
Second, shouldn’t we distinguish each supposedly “dangerous” drug from all other molecules on the controlled substances lists? Isn’t this a matter of principle? Shouldn’t each molecule be judged on its own merits or lack thereof?
Consider the drug ketamine (Schedule III). It’s a derivative of PCP. Nevertheless, it’s so safe that WHO lists it as an essential medicine. Under-trained medical personnel in third-world countries can safely use it as an anesthetic without expensive monitoring equipment. There is no persuasive evidence of violent behavior from ketamine use. So, why should any use — unlawful or legally prescribed — of ketamine represent a danger for firearms ownership?
Ultimately, this “unlawful user of a controlled substance” criterion must surmount the Bruen “text, history and tradition” standard. If it can’t pass that test, it must be struck-down as unconstitutional. Why should we bother? This is important for two reasons.
First, because gun-controllers are inflamed that Bruen struck-down their may-issue permitting regimes and are further outraged by the “text, history, and tradition” standard. They will seek every alternative avenue to constrain lawful gun ownership to the narrowest possible scope.
What better way than to vigorously pursue unlawful users of controlled substances Congress, even the DEA, can add any substance whatsoever to the controlled substances schedules at a whim.
Suppose they add Viagra to Schedule V. Then anyone who gave his (OFWG) hunting buddy a little blue pill for an upcoming hot date would render that gun owner a prohibited person. The obvious risk staring us in the face is that countless veterans who suffer from PTSD, are easily discoverable unlawful users of weed.
Second, we have an unexploited opportunity to make common cause with our fellow belligerents in the contra-War on Drugs, including powerful people such as Florida’s Nikki Fried. It’s perfectly well established that there are legitimate medicinal uses of marijuana. Nevertheless, Congress has refused to demote pot from the Schedule I to a lower Schedule so that gun owners can lawfully use medical marijuana under guidance from their physicians. Congress wants to reserve to the DEA the power to round up all weed users and strip them of their 2A rights.
It’s natural for each of us to ask ourselves: ‘Why should I care? I don’t use weed and none of my friends do. It doesn’t affect me. Why should I stand up to speak in defense of vets who use it to treat their PTSD?’
The obvious answer is that if we don’t stand up for veterans’ cannabis use there will be no one who stands up for us when we run afoul of the “unlawful use of a controlled substance” tripwire.
As I’ve mentioned above, I am a lawful user of a Schedule III controlled substance. It will cost me $3,000 for my first year’s use of this substance; $1,720 per year thereafter. That’s the price for my annual lawful use of $10 worth of a drug at wholesale prices.
Suppose — purely hypothetically, of course — that in a few years I were tempted to buy my drug in the black market for $100 per year. I cut out my beloved prescriber and registered pharmacist. I would then become a prohibited person. Why? Would I be any more dangerous as a gun owner taking the exact same dosage of black-market drug as the one my physician has prescribed for me?
Millions more patients will soon face this same dilemma as unlawful marijuana users and I face. FDA has declared two Schedule I substances, MDMA and psilocybin, as “breakthrough therapies” for PTSD and depression. One is approaching the end of its Phase III trials with spectacular results. The other is beginning Phase I and II trials with a foregone conclusion as to its performance as well.
But the FDA is nearly certain to impose a REMS on the dispensing of each drug making it prohibitively expensive for nearly all patients. The expected cost of a legal course of treatment of MDMA is expected to be $14,000. And no insurance reimbursement is expected in the foreseeable future.
I expect that the market for MDMA and psilocybin will follow the well-worn path marijuana has traveled. Prescribed legal use will account for a minor distribution channel. Patients will learn of the potential for use of these substances through friends, neighbors, and the internet. The black-market will then fill the void.
One day you, or a loved one, will recognize the potential of any of these three substances (to say nothing of the hundreds of other scheduled controlled substances) to relieve suffering. Will you pay the outrageous prices to use them legally? Or, will you too resort to the black-market?
Collectively, use of such controlled substances is apt to become as ubiquitous as Tylenol consumption, a drug that is vastly more likely to cause an overdose than the three drugs mentioned above. The handwriting is on the wall. Gun owners would do well to read it and act today.
We must litigate in the courts to have the ‘unlawful use, or addicted to, controlled substance’ criteria eliminated from the Prohibited-Persons law based on a Bruen text, history, and tradition analysis.
The feds should be compelled to produce evidence and reasoning for why controlled substance use is outside the bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. Can they show laws adopted and enforced around 1791 prohibiting gun ownership by users of alcohol? Consumers of ergot-contaminated grains? Morning glory seeds? Any substance whatsoever? It’s highly unlikely they will find anything to support such a prohibition.
We have known for centuries that alcohol and gunpowder don’t mix well. There was ample opportunity for the founding generation to have adopted laws prohibiting guns from alcohol users, yet they didn’t do so. And the feds will be hard-pressed to collect compelling evidence that such control was deemed not to be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
Our particular ax to grind in the controlled substance debate is the gun prohibition for unlawful use. Pursuing this cause will ally us with people like Nikki Fried and other unlawful users who don’t (yet) treasure their 2A rights. In times like these, we need all the friends we can identify.
Like gun control laws, Nixon’s War on Drugs was designed to target disliked groups: blacks and hippies. It had nothing to do with public health, safety, or morals. It was politics by other means and America has paid dearly for this ill-conceived venture.
Most of us in the gun-owner community have come to recognize that drug prohibition has done society more harm than good.
The so-called controlled substances show great potential for a range of medical – especially mental health – usage. Enforcement of the controlled substances laws — the War on Drugs — has been a major contributor to unlawful drug dealers fighting it out with guns rather than through price and promotion. We in the gun owner community will do society in general, as well as the Second Amendment, great service by surrendering in the War on Drugs.
Wondering which delegated power in the Constitution serves as authority for any laws regarding alcohol, or drug consumption. Seems such laws are pre-crime punishment. Seems to be “legislating morality”.
As stated prior SIA.
The end result of returning 2A rights will ultimately lead to longer incarcerations and more severe penalties for less severe offenses.
Oh, and the return of the death penalty in states where it’s currently banned. Better believe it’ll get used too.
The beauty of every free man legally carrying a firearm over a century ago? The reality for habitual offenders that a victim will eventually show them the err of their ways.
But you do you. Keep tooting those ’employ every lawyer’ and ‘every perp’s a victim’ horns.
“But you do you. Keep tooting those ’employ every lawyer’ and ‘every perp’s a victim’s horns.”
Should I wish I understood your response, as it relates to anything I pontificated?
Your wish to return full rights to convicted violent felons will result in more litigation in every case.
The demand for full rights also portrays criminals as victims of ‘the system’.
Make no mistake, YOU placed the ‘Iconoclast’ term on yourself regarding this topic, not me.
Remember? I remember.
I’m sure my comment was clear to others who read it.
I’m being given 100-120$ greenbacks per-hr. to finish a few copy past task on my laptop. I even have definitely now no longer imagined like it might even feasible however my (aos-02) confidant buddy turned into receiving $42 k simply in 4 weeks operating this clean opportunity & she has encouraged me to try. Following Link
For More Details:>>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
Every law has a moral basis; the only question is “whose morals?”
It’s clear in the ‘We the People’ part of the preamble.
What follows those words applies to ‘We the People’, NOT those who are actively subverting the will of ‘We the People’.
How many restrictions is open for debate.
“Every law has a moral basis; the only question is “whose morals?” ”
The first statement is subject to question, but the matter of “whose morals” is important to consider. “Whose morals?”, indeed. Every culture/society declares their “morals” superior to all others. My main question is, “why is murder ‘immoral’ ?” (note: morals, and utility are not the same)
Dan Z. How are you going to ‘Compel this Despotic Marxist Cartel and their Police State agencies to review their already Unconstitutional violations when you can’t even compel an indictment for their criminal offense of directly and intentionally depriving you of your 2nd/A rights with ANY and ALL illegal–under 18-241-242–gun control laws?
This, obviously, is because they have manipulated and corrupted the criminal justice system to support their totalitarian disarmament agenda without making themselves criminally accountable or prosecutable. Becoming clearly ‘above the law’ as the cliche goes. People always say, Congress or one of the other branches is the most powerful, but never underestimate the DOJ. As we all have been getting a full preview of lately.
And now Statist states like N.Y, are wiping their asses with the Bruen decision, and even further restricting carry, even if you do get a permit to! And there’s already another one waiting in the wings to follow the ‘door knocking’ qualifier for issuing but they’re waiting to see if they remain in power after the midterms because this will really be the ball…er, cap buster on the 2nd/A.
Oh, and it started way before Nixon. Nixon just proved that there’s really no difference between Laughing Donkeys or Fat Elephants when it comes to ‘them against us’, which is why Egalitarian Libertarianism (not to be confused with ‘liberalism’ by so many of you ig no fucking ra-mooses) was the original political founding platform, before ‘other’ deep state power organizations started influencing elections and formed proprietary political PACS and Parties for their own ‘gainful’ agendas.
I’ve already explained the historic and long-term plans for total disarmament in several previous topic posts here and nobody paid attention so I’m not repeating it again. Suffice to say if y’all rally rally rally wanna flip the coin…you must change the political government structure back and continue where Trump left off only this time clean house, or rather put all the rights violators IN the Big House, and prohibit them from having firearms, voting, ever getting a high end job, and so on… when they are free again, thanks to the worst law, the 68GCA, which is the really bad one for facilitating universal disarmament by permanent disarmament prohibition even if you paid your dues and are a free man and then making everyone felons one way or another with never ending target focused unnecessary laws. (read ‘Three Felonies a Day’ on Amazon). Or despicable Rogue state G’s who simply are traitors to the American Constitution they swore an Oath to Uphold.
With true MAGA control of the government again with emphasis on a true value based Constitutional Republic oriented mission to preserve liberties, there must be a repeal of the Marxists’ first weapon of Totalitarian Enslavement. Gun Guntrol’s gotta go. All of it. No prohibition if you are not incarcerated. Yes, in extreme situations some temporary restrictions would be necessary in an indisputable high risk situation. But no General Puplic situations where Gun Free zones mean absolutely Nothing to an active criminal, insane person, terrorist, etc. who is hell bent on accomplishing some serious bad action. and will likely do it with a firearm as they would laugh at any prohibitions, except at a person with equal firepower to stop such an incident, as we so frequently see. Which, of course, is exactly the point of dutifully and diligently fully enforcing criminal Deprivation of Rights statutes and nullifying and reversing all gun control prohibitions.
Less than 60 days and counting…Time flies, and so does your rights!
And for Sam, I am, here, Murder is one of those phenomena that maintains a transitional situational definition. under the general category of ‘Killing’ or Homicide.
Depending upon the purpose and reason for the killing of another human. Which, in reality, depends too much on subjective perception. Based, often, of flawed values or lack of reasonable objectiveness.
This gets complicated but ‘laws’ try to keep it straight and from getting out of control. Between you and me, Society will never attain a level of higher enlightenment, with our lack empathy for humanity and worthless we consider human life to be when it comes right down to it.
But Morality itself doesn’t have much to do with murder except maybe in interpretational or subject to cultural or religious belief systems. It’s just a state of mind.
In some cases of moral disparity one person’s murder is another person’s good deed and justice served?
Hell, even the god of the Old Testament in the first couple pages of Genesis ‘kills’ most of the people just because they didn’t do as they were told!
“…there must be a repeal of the Marxists’ first weapon of Totalitarian Enslavement. Gun Guntrol’s gotta go. All of it. No prohibition if you are not incarcerated.”
Well, we’re in *vastly* different territory thanks to ‘Bruen’.
I’m beginning to think the best way to knock those prohibitions down is to dare them to be granted cert. by the High court.
Do they really want to get slapped as hard as they were in ‘Bruen’? Rather than let a national precedent be set by the Court, they may well fold like a cheap suit…
Here is the issue. Congress has a limited number of enumerated powers. One of these is the Commerce Clause. Congress and SCOTUS have stretched this to “. . . in or AFFECTING interstate commerce.” Since absolutely everything is in or affecting interstate commerce, there is nothing beyond the reach of Congress under the Commerce Clause.
This interpretation of the Commerce Clause is now so deeply entrenched in our legal system that it is not amenable to being rescinded. It would be easier to get SCOTUS to renounce Marbury v Madison. So, what we have to do is deal with this intransigence.
It is largely a POLITICAL matter today – and less so an issue SCOTUS will reverse. Do We the People consent to be governed under a particular expansive application of the Commerce Clause? Or, do we WITHDRAW our consent? I.e., tell our Congress-critters that they MUST change a particular law?
It is the 10A that reserves to the states ALL OTHER powers not delegated to Congress. These are referred to as the “police powers” to legislate for public safety, health, and morals.
So, where does the power to regulate “substances” properly fit? Under “Commerce” or, under public safety, health or morals? THIS is the KEY question for us as voters.
If a “substance” actually moves in interstate commerce then I (for one) will concede that Congress has power to legislate for purity and potency, but NOT necessarily to permit/prohibit commerce. But what if it does NOT ACTUALLY move in interstate commerce? Do We the People really want Congress to regulate it? On what pretext? The War Power? International Relations? Which Federal power precisely?
If the pretext is public safety, health or morals then the power to regulate seems to fit best with the states. And, the several states are apt to see things differently.
Let’s consider mushrooms as a very interesting example. Mushrooms travel by winds and propagate underground. Is this “interstate commerce”? Mushrooms are of three types: culinary; poisonous; and those containing psilocybin.
Suppose Congress-critters with the acquiescence of the President agreed that CULINARY mushrooms were disgusting. Suppose they decided to forbid the cultivation, possession, or consumption of culinary mushrooms. Would we consent? Even if a simple majority of American voters agreed that culinary mushrooms were disgusting, on what rationale would we consent to a prohibition against culinary mushrooms? Do we not recognize liberty to eat whatever fruit of the land bestowed upon us by Gaia?
Next, suppose Congress and the President decided to forbid POISONOUS mushrooms. On what pretext? That people might eat them accidentally or to commit suicide? But these are concerns of public safety, health, or morals. Aren’t these properly the powers reserved to states? Some states might see fit to regulate poisonous mushrooms and others not. Is this not the prerogative of their residents to consent to such decisions of their state governments?
Finally, observe that Congress and the President have forbidden – absolutely – mushrooms containing PSILOCYBIN. Why? Psilocybin is remarkably safe. The worst that may be said of it is that it might cause a “bad trip”. But most people who endure a “bad trip” characterize it as among the most meaningful experiences of their lives. If a “bad trip”, or any other side-effect of consuming psilocybin, is reasonably construed as a matter of public safety, health or morals, is it more properly a state or Federal concern?
It is, I believe, within this framework that we must evaluate “controlled substances”. And then to campaign among our fellow citizens to move their regulation out of Federal jurisdiction and into state jurisdiction.
What’s at stake here? Our 2A rights under the Prohibited-Person laws. The War on Drugs which most Americans see as just as obvious a failure as alcohol Prohibition. The war on our physicians’ individual rights to practice the healing arts according to their individual interpretation of the science, and under the supervision of their state licensing boards. The war on us patients who have a right to pursue medicinal therapies at individual discretion. Do we not have the right to ivermectin or hydroxychoriquin? Both of these “substances” are designated “Essential Medicines” by WHO. Where do Federal agencies find the power to forbid our physicians from prescribing them?
“Do we not recognize liberty to eat whatever fruit of the land bestowed upon us by Gaia?“
Exactly the position of every true liberal. How refreshing to see this sentiment expressed on TTAG, bravo!
And it’s clear the so-called ‘War on Drugs’ was championed by the conservatives, thus revealing their disdain for liberty.
MajorStupidity,
Why do you ALWAYS lie??????
“And it’s clear the so-called ‘War on Drugs’ was championed by the conservatives, thus revealing their disdain for liberty.”
Harrison Narcotics Tax Act – sponsored by Francis Burton Harrison, a DEMOCRAT (in fact, a “Progressive” WILSON Dimocrat).
18th Amendment – (per Wikipedia, a LIBERAL (read, Leftist/fascist) source) “The Eighteenth Amendment was the result of decades of effort by the temperance movement in the United States and at the time was generally considered a progressive amendment.”
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 – introduced and championed by Harry Jacob Anslinger, a DEMOCRAT.
The Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act of 1934 – another Harry J. Anslinger production, and championed by your “progressive” hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 – here’s the actual vote (don’t know the sponsor) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/91-1970/s584
OOPS, HALF of the votes for passage were Dimocrats
WHY are you such a persistent and inveterate LIAR, you pathetic @$$clown?? Why can’t you EVER tell the truth????
This stupid whiner statement is on par with his “bUt rEaGaN bAnNeD rIfLeS cUz bLk pAnTeRz” BS.
The discussion prior to the decision mentioned NO FEWER then THREE primarily white groups carrying rifles around Cali. The black panthers were mentioned too of course. The debates/discussions are public records and available to all……….. but POS raciss scum like whiner see rassissism everywhere. 🤪
Everyone is STILL laughing at you whiner. 🤣
“Do we not have the right to ivermectin or hydroxychoriquin?“
Yes, but one doesn’t have the right to intentionally lie about these substances, leading to injury and death for unsuspecting citizens.
“their individual interpretation of the science”
Unfortunately, when one lives in a society with other beings, we all must agree on certain facts. Random individuals’ interpretations of reality can often not be a valid arbiter of truth.
Speech is free, but lies ya gotta pay for.
MajorStupidity,
No. No I DO NOT have to “agree on certain facts”, simply because a lot of fools and propagandists, like you, assert them as “facts”. “lies ya gotta pay for”????? When do St. Anthony Fauci, and Joe Biden and the CDC, get to pay for THEIR lies. “If you get vaccinated, you cannot spread COVID.” “Masks work.” “The vaccines are safe.” “You need to get the booster!” “Boosters will increase your immunity.” And my favorite of all, completely IGNORING natural immunity.
Jeebus, but you are a pathetic liar. And a credulous idiot. And a Leftist/fascist. Ah, but I repeat myself.
I laugh when I see all the signs that used to state ‘Covid Vaccines Available Here’ have been removed. They’ve been replaced with ones that state ‘Covid SHOTS Available Here’. 🤣
Inherent rights (Constitutional rights) are either inherent, or they are not “rights”. I am fine with a limited-duration deprivation of the right to free travel, RKBA, and vote by a convicted felon, during the term of their sentence (including probation/parole). After that, they are a citizen again. If I’m convicted of a felony, do I lose my right to free speech? How about right to free exercise of my religion? Do I lose the right to counsel?
While I am personally against persons who are “under the influence” carrying guns (that’s just stupid), if someone is that stupid, let them suffer the consequences if they f*** up. A right is a right, and I shouldn’t require a permission slip to exercise it, nor should it be “revocable” at the whim of the gummint.
“…which is why Egalitarian Libertarianism (not to be confused with ‘liberalism’ by so many of you ig no fucking ra-mooses) was the original political founding platform…”
Presidents and legislators come and go; the bureaucracy remains forever.
“I am fine with a limited-duration deprivation of the right to free travel, RKBA, and vote by a convicted felon, during the term of their sentence (including probation/parole)“
Would you be kind enough to cite the specific section of the United States Constitution which authorizes such ‘deprivation’, thanks!
Before I respond to your question, MajorStupidity, clarify your position – is it your position that a convicted felon cannot be incarcerated???? That he can bear arms and vote during his incarceration??? That he is permitted to freely travel during his period of incarceration?
What a complete f***ing tool of a clown you are, MajorStupidity. I literally cannot take you seriously, you are too big a fool, liar, and propagandist.
Oh, and YES, there is a constitutional basis for deprivation of rights following criminal conviction. I’d tell you where to find it, but I want you to engage in the actual exercise of research, rather than simply parrot Leftist/fascist talking points. Go look it up, f***head.
Hey whiner, it right there in the preamble you dimwit. ‘We the People, in Order to Form a More Perfect Union’. What follows applies to that group, NOBODY else.
Convicted felons have been found guilty of actively subverting the efforts of ‘We the People’ in their endeavors towards achieving the ‘More Perfect Union’.
Thanks for playing. Everyone is still laughing. 🤣
Hey, don’t you have some students that need brainwashing professor?
Freedom is messy. The .gov has no business mandating what substances I put in my body nor what I put in my gun safe. Nor even that I have a safe. The war on drugs, like the war on guns is motivated by racism and class hatred.
When I have committed a real crime then the .gov has a right to get involved. Not before.
“Congress has a limited number of enumerated powers. One of these is the Commerce Clause.”
I think the Commerce Clause was the most problematic issues the founders faced. They all knew the potential for the Commerce Clause to negate the entire Constitution.
Thanx for your response. Was hoping to generate some serious thinking.
Sam,
Of all the myriad f*** ups that SCOTUS has made, “commerce clause” jurisprudence has to rank right up there with Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Wickard v. Filburn is so completely boneheaded, wrongly decided, stupidly written, and generally confused that it even rivals Roe v. Wade.
The Commerce Clause does not mean, and never did mean, what SCOTUS currently (since about 1937) interprets it to mean. I’m cautiously optimistic that SCOTUS, having given us Bruen, will remedy this glaring f*** up.
“I’m cautiously optimistic that SCOTUS, having given us Bruen, will remedy this glaring f*** up.”
Not sure SC has a complete remedy; each case to be dealt with separately. SC cannot scrap the commerce clause, federal legislators find it useful. Am surprised that CC isn’t used more often; CC was the foundation of applying the civil rights act to the states.
Sam,
“SC cannot scrap the commerce clause, federal legislators find it useful.”
No shit. That they find it useful, I find unpersuasive (perhaps even the opposite of persuasive). More importantly, they can’t (and shouldn’t) “scrap the commerce clause” – they should go back to its ORIGINAL intent and meaning (easily discernable from the documentary history around the Constitution). F*** the fascists in Congress (of BOTH parties) who want to use the commerce clause to federalize EVERY aspect of our lives.
If you have not used the “evil” weed for 2 days, are you still a user? How about 2 years? 20 years? 40 years?
What about Chemo therapy? mood elevators? federally legal drugs for PTSD? Some of these seem to just it worse on some vets.
If we can see this, don’t you think that legislators also can?
What the heck, TTAG? Having my (very reasonable and vanilla) comments removed from the site multiple times is just getting absurd. The WordPress moderation pergatory is already an inconvenience that prompts me to skip half the articles on this site to avoid the frustration, but the increasingly frequent removal of entire comments is unfounded.
Haz,
The TTAG “moderation policy” is NOT purgatory, it is Dante’s Ninth Circle of Hell. It is the MOST inconsistent, ineptly exercised, ham-handed, irrational, incompetent “moderation policy” I have ever run across.
And we all bitch about it constantly, and they REFUSE to address it. As I’ve said before, not sure if it is stubbornness, incompetence, or a big “f*** you” to the readers and commenters, but it is not a policy that would be pursued by any rational business. It is NOT an “algorithm”, that is a flat-out LIE. Don’t know what it IS, but I sure as hell know the editors/moderators are using a bullshit “algorithm” excuse to hide behind, because they do not want to own their subjective, inconsistent, stupid “moderation policy” . . . so they lie about it.
If you drink don’t drive. If you drink you need to lock your Gun up and give the key to a designated safe keeper. Firearms, shooting, etc. are disciplines. If you have to fill your piehole with something that makes you an azzhat then beforehand while you are sober discipline yourself.
Exactly, anything that impairs judgement whether it be drugs, alcohol , or listening to a Biden speech , should not be ingested while carrying a firearm.
Yes, And those are different from Constitutionally protected natural born rights to defend yourself from harm.
That is simply bad behavior and creating and
unnecessary high potentiality for danger to yourself and others. You can be sued for this in the business world and in some Counties, it can be a low felony to be target shooting or hunting while ‘under the influence? Similar to driving.
The Constitution could never cover all questionable human behavior. That is a function of individual citizens in a peaceful value producing society along with only necessary civil statutes as guidance by general majority consensus, not the government’s independent dictates.
That’s why when We MAGA again and ‘clean out the shit House’, in less than 60 days, there should be more public referendums every time there’s a Bill sponsored before it can be passed. The single district Representative system is sadly lacking and way too corruptible to be pragmatically equitable. This could never be done before due to obvious time constraints and having a life which was the the original purpose of State Reps and Senators. Representing Us.
But it is now proven that they don’t most of the time.
But now, with modern Tech and instant device communications, this could be easier than Peasy with true Majority Rule Of And By the People! It’s too easy for our G to get away with too much without diligent monitoring of THEM (Not Us). It is incumbent upon and is the duty of every voting citizen to pay attention to American politics and be following the governing of our land. There’s no excuse to Not do this anymore.
Especially if you don’t appreciate being a slave in a future that is nearer than you may believe.
“If you drink don’t drive.“
I would certainly appreciate you indicating specifically what section of the United States Constitution authorizes such a restriction on ‘The Peoples’ right to consume a beverage or right to freedom of association and travel.
Perhaps research the history of prohibitionist legislation, the sponsors thereof, and the votes which passed same. The federal government has no such mandate . . . but thanks to Congress (both sides, but the Dimocrats certainly figure prominently), we get to deal with their f***tardery. Cool story, bro . . . now do infringements on free exercise, free speech, RKBA, etc.
If you didn’t have double standards, you’d have no standards at all, you lying s***weasel.
You’re a pathetic POS for calling me a Holocaust denier after I stated facts about WWII whiner, then going dark for a few days. Total POS scum behavior.
But, I wouldn’t expect any better from a Marxist slimeball such as yourself.
Yeah, you’re the longest running joke on TTAG.
James,
You actually expected ethical behavior, and rational argument, from THAT lying, propagandizing POS Leftist/fascist s***weasel?????
Hmm. Would you be interested in some beachfront property in South Dakota??? How about a bridge in Brooklyn??
You’ve been around here long enough to know what a liar, propagandist, and fraud MajorStupidity is. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” MajorStupidity hasn’t changed his MO since he started infecting this forum. I use his idiot, lying comments as an opportunity to belittle and mock him, as he richly deserves. He is an INTENTIONAL sanguinary perpetrator of terminological inexactitudes (thank you, Sir Winston).
But, but, but, I remember all the science the government publicized!! Marijuana, the gateway drug. The Devil’s weed. It6 turns black men into sex fiends! Did it also turn Latinos into sex fiends? Sorry, I can’t really remember. It causes white women to lose all of their prohibitions, so that they will couple with blacks, Latinos, donkeys, and even incels! And, oh yeah, there was no possible medical use for that weed, I remember that clearly.
Gubbermint long ago shot itself in the foot with all that nonsense. Now, no one listens to warnings when a drug really is dangerous.
I meant inhibitions, not prohibitions. It’s government that prohibits things, and few people pay any attention to them.
“But, but, but, I remember all the science the government publicized!! Marijuana, the gateway drug. The Devil’s weed. It6 turns black men into sex fiends!“
Yep, the conservative Republicans have been lying for decades about drugs, as a part of the conservatives’ racism and class oppression.
Remember when corrupt Republican president Richard Milhouse Nixon declared “The War on Drugs”…
“While the war on drugs was officially inaugurated by Nixon in June 1971, the United States has used drug laws to selectively target specific communities for more than a century. In the 1870s, anti-opium laws were aimed at Chinese immigrants. In the 1910s and 1920s, anti-cannabis laws introduced in the Midwest and Southwest targeted Mexican Americans and migrants. As John Ehrlichman, a top Nixon aide, revealed in a 1994 interview that was published in 2016, the war on drugs itself was designed to target Black people and “hippies”:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
Their plan set the country on the misguided, punitive, and counterproductive path it pursues today, as administrations since have carried it forward. Incarceration rates skyrocketed during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, surging from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997, and Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump made their own damaging contributions to escalating the drug war.“
https://www.vera.org/news/fifty-years-ago-today-president-nixon-declared-the-war-on-drugs
Cool story, bro!!!! Now do Dimocrats and Prohibition, the Marihuana Tax Act, etc., etc., et ad nauseum cetera. Or do you ONLY criticize Republicans??? Oh, that’s right, that’s EXACTLY what you do, you lying, two-faced, hypocritical s***weasel.
I doubt that there is any benefit to debating whether it was one party or the other that started or promoted the War on Drugs. All such a debate will accomplish is distract us – and our Congress-critters – from finding some new policy.
Our best shot is to form a coalition among both Democrats and Republicans to end this war; somehow.
The difficulty, of course, is that there remain plenty of voters who still want to try to control drugs. No politician is eager to give-up these votes. So, they eagerly sit on their hands to avoid being counted as having voted in favor of DRUGS!!!
I think the best path out of this War on Drugs is to convince Congress to cede power – perhaps gradually – to the states. Since drugs are medicine and the practice of medicine is a state power (not a Federal power) the easy thing to do would be to eliminate the prohibitive Schedule I. Then, any physician could prescribe these drugs (pot, MDMA, mushrooms, etc.) as regulated by his state medical board.
Then, a next step would be to amend the drug laws to permit any drug to be manufactured and sold within the boundaries of a given state withOUT FDA approval. Immediately, pot and mushrooms would be controlled only by the states that want to control them. They would be ordinary “agriculture” in states that didn’t want to control them. And the Feds could keep themselves entertained by chasing traffickers crossing state lines.
Soon enough, larger and more liberal states would have manufacturers of MDMA and LSD producing and selling within those states, and within the laws of those states.
Agreed, don’t lose the few brain cells you have left and then misplace stuff like laptops, pistols, kickbacks – shit likethat that can cause great embarrassment or a prison sentence.
Unless of course your daddy can “disappear” stuff for you, like our own King Dribblecup can
@James Campbell
“Your wish to return full rights to convicted violent felons will result in more litigation in every case…The demand for full rights also portrays criminals as victims of ‘the system’.”
Thanx. I was focused on the source of authority for drug and alcohol control, trying to fit your comment to that.
If unalienable rights are a thing, and protected by the Constitution, then stealth life sentences are an insult. However, I do not oppose actual life sentences in jail for certain crimes. The question is, why are human rights, and constitutionally protected rights, denied people who have fully discharged their adjudicated sentences?
Further, why is it that only the natural, human and civil rights to bear arms, and vote withheld? Why not withhold any, or all, of the other constitutionally protected rights (enumerated or not) denied?
Disliking sloganeering, but…if a person is too dangerous, after serving time in prison, to be allowed to vote, why are they not to dangerous to be walking about free? Any justification for that is pre-crime punishment.
Limiting natural, civil and human rights because the person might commit a crime in the future should apply to all of us. People who have committed no known crime in the past just might, under certain circumstances, commit a crime in the future; and no one can calculate the likelihood. Simply because something hasn’t happened in the past is zero guarantee of continued behavior in the future. (I suspect there is no analog to lifetime suspension of rights of a free person in the era of the founders).
Bottom line? Be consistent in your thinking. If you want a person to be denied rights in perpetuity, then sentence that person to a lifetime in jail, without possibility of parole; don’t try to be clever.
“Bottom line? Be consistent in your thinking. If you want a person to be denied rights in perpetuity, then sentence that person to a lifetime in jail, without possibility of parole; don’t try to be clever”
I agree 💯%.
Just understand that returning full rights upon release to civilized society will inevitably lead to a drastic increases in incarcerations, and life sentences/death penalty.
Expect to see first time convicted carjackers who use a firearm to face a life sentence. A jury will view that person and a “prohibited possessor” if he were on the street.
But in order to keep him from receiving his restoration of 2A rights, he now looks at life in prison.
Not being clever, pointing out truth.
I’m willing to bet if most violent convicted felons were given the choice between being sentenced in a manner of all rights returned upon release from incarceration vs some restrictions of rights upon release, the latter would be chosen far more often. Why? The release with all rights returned would be a longer sentence.
“Just understand that returning full rights upon release to civilized society will inevitably lead to a drastic increases in incarcerations, and life sentences/death penalty.”
Freedom is risky, all around.
But would the increase you predict be more, or less than happening now, with no cash bail required? We can predict an increase, but cannot specify an amount.
I agree with that entirely.
Impossible to predict the effects of such a radical change in the system.
libertarian garbage
Ain’t that the truth. For goodness sake- it’s not like just EVERYONE can be allowed Liberty, right? That’s crazy talk, right there. I mean- just imagine the dangers that could arise if people had ACTUAL freedom. It just makes one shudder to think…
Liberty can’t be allowed to roam around free- it’s ENTIRELY too irrepressible for that. Let’s just be real here- there is NO bigger threat to despots and tyranny than The People having an unalienable Right to Liberty.
Nope, nope, nope… that’s unilaterally unacceptable- we have GOT to keep that sh!t UNDER CONTROL. Liberty is WAY too valuable to share with The (little) People.
“Liberty can’t be allowed to roam around free-…”
+1; zackly.
You should refrain from excessive alcohol (or illicit drug) consumption when commenting.
Aw, mon.
‘Tis the only way I can make sense of what I write.
Said dacian the demented and MajorStupidity.
“…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [treaty] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added “
18A tells us that the property of Alcohol was banned (and the ensuing violence that resulted in 21A). There is no such amendment for the property of drugs.
The DEA is every bit as legal as the ATF… not at all. Save the 3rd, name one single amendment in the BoR that the drug war hasn’t been used to violate….
Qualified Immunity + Incarceration on a whim = American Cities on Fire
How much poverty has the US government invented out of thin air on the backs of Houston Narcotics division and the Sonja Faraks of crime labs when Kamala Harris wannabes, and others like them, when they send a parent to prison? The numbers that those two alone are responsible for fraudulently putting in prison are staggering, to say nothing of “crimes” without a single victim.
One crime lab tech, one narcotics division… nearly 100,000 false arrests and imprisonment. Justice would be our own Nuremberg Trials.
A lot of medical ignorance in this article. The difference between you self-medicating and being treated by a prescribing physician should be readily obvious. Buying drugs off the black market invite a host of quality control issues. Good luck buying THC with a reliable dosage on the black market. Not a good look, author.
“The difference between you self-medicating and being treated by a prescribing physician should be readily obvious.”
There are greater risks on/from the black market, but “risk” isn’t the question/issue. Why should the source of a drug determine that a person moving from prescription to black market is designated a “prohibited person”? Prohibited because of placing oneself at greater risk? Or because a black market drug might somehow make someone do illegal acts, whereas a prescription drug will not?
Now, if you want to make avoiding taxes on prescription drugs a crime….but, the increased risk to the consumer should not be a crime that makes one a “prohibited person”.
Laws protecting oneself from oneself is simple “nanny state” overreach. Society does not have first call on my person.
The difference is that people using drugs from the black market are usually not using said drug for strictly medical purposes and even if they did are not going to be able to monitor or control for side effects. You probably wouldn’t want to share a highway with such people nor have them fly your plane. There’s definitely a lot of arguments for pushing an end to the war on drugs but there’s a good reason many drugs are behind the counter and prescription only. Being casual about your son dropping some testosterone and viagara before a date is a red flag for a cavalier attitude about some very dangerous substances. This is the medical equivalent of someone showing up to the range flagging everyone and saying “negligent discharges are part and parcel of gun ownership”
The effects of the drugs are the effects of the drugs (I don’t like sharing the road with anyone taking Rx drugs, either).
As noted before, increased risk is nanny state.
And yes, as with any popular drug, people will commit crimes to obtain and distribute at a profit. After committing the crime is when “prohibited person” tag should be assigned.
BTW, the increase risk you identify reads interestingly like gun-grabber propaganda that we need stricter gun laws, because some people to to another state to buy guns, then sell the guns at a profit is gun control states.
Are we, the PotG, statists? Or, are we Constitutionalists? Pick one.
Where in the Constitution did the founding generation authorize Congress to practice medicine? Or to regulate medicine? Do you find it in the War Power? Navigable Waters? Where?
Where do you find in the Constitution where the powers not delegated to Congress are reserved to the states? In the 10A?
So, if we are statists then all power is vested in Congress. But, if we are Constitutionalists, power is divided between the Feds and the States. Where does medicine belong? Was medicine delegated to Congress? No? Well, then, it belongs to the states.
Our several states’ legislatures are apt to see regulation of medicine differently. You might hold that this is wrong! That there must be a single national authority for medicine. Perhaps you would hold that there must be a single authority globally; WHO should dictate American medicine policy.
Yet, if you are truly a Constitutionalist then you ought to concede that medicine can only be regulated by the several states.
You will always be able to move to a state which legislates for public safety, health and morals according to your taste. But, so long as the Feds regulate medicine your sole recourse is to move to a different country; one which will accept you as an immigrant.
What country will you move to? Switzerland? Will you live under their constitution and laws (for guns and medicine)?
(Wouldn’t let me reply to your other post) No, allowing people the right to self defense is not the same as allowing anyone to ingest any drug they want to get their hands on. You have a right to protect yourself, not to be a degenerate addict. Learning how to operate a firearm is not hard. Treating someone’s lung cancer or giving appropriate antibiotics actually takes a lot of training. Side question: Are you ok with drunk drivers on the road? I’m not saying a couple beers. I mean they drank and entire handle of vodka. Is that ok with you? Mind you they haven’t hit anyone yet. They’re just driving like you’d expect them to. Is it a nanny state to demand they don’t do that?
“…not to be a degenerate addict.”
Where is that written? Not all natural, civil and human rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Who is the cosmic authority that demands humans not be degenerate? Does everyone agree to submit to that cosmic authority? There is a difference between unalienable rights, and social customs/more’.
We face, daily, an unknowable number of drunk drivers, and controlled substance users. And we cannot stop them, until they do damage, and can be punished under the law.
The source of alcohol and/or drugs should not matter; only the result of the use. Nor should just the use. It is the result that should make a person prohibited, just as the article poses. If politicians can declare one substance illegal, they can declare another, for any reason convenient. (thinking “traditional remedies” and vitamin supplements)
Yeah, actually, it kinda friggin’ IS the same – the federal government has the powers EXPRESSLY delegated to it in the Constitution, and NO OTHERS. It ain’t rocket surgery, champ.
“Yeah, actually, it kinda friggin’ IS the same – the federal government has the powers EXPRESSLY delegated to it in the Constitution, and NO OTHERS. It ain’t rocket surgery, champ.”
Bravo. 👏
Spot on.
Each individual state is supposed to work as a democracy, deciding everything not expressly defined as the responsibility of the fed.gov.
Fed.gov also needs to verify states are not violating individual citizens rights.
Those who don’t like the way a state is going is free to vote with their feet (move to a state that is more aligned with their values).
It’s pathetic to see morons consider it a win when the fed.gov goes beyond it’s defined responsibility by making laws that should be decided at the state level.
James,
“Each individual state is supposed to work as a democracy, deciding everything not expressly defined as the responsibility of the fed.gov.”
ONLY subject to our inherent rights (the part the 14th Amendment got right). A state has no more power to deprive me of the inherent right to self-defense (and the right to carry weapons in aid thereof) than does the federal government.
Otherwise, totally agree with you.
“A state has no more power to deprive me of the inherent right to self-defense (and the right to carry weapons in aid thereof) than does the federal government”
Agree 💯%.
“. . . allowing anyone to ingest any drug they want to get their hands on.”
You seem to hold that every drug the DEA puts on Schedule I must be dangerous. Dangerous to the user; or, dangerous to his neighbors. You place enormous faith in the DEA and Congress. Do DEA and Congress-critters know what they are doing when they put drugs on Schedule I?
The history of MDMA being put on Schedule I is a tragedy. The head of DEA acted without lawful authority. He acted against the recommendation of an administrative law judge who took testimony from medical professionals on the medical use of MDMA. He ignored that evidence.
Several years ago FDA designated MDMA a Breakthrough Therapy for PTSD. MAPS is now in the final stages of the second Phase 3 trial evidencing safety and 60+% efficacy MDMA. DEA still holds that there is no accepted medical use.
You are free to trust DEA, FDA and Congress to make judgements as to the medicine which is safe for you. I don’t trust any of them to make such judgments for me.
Liberty is a tough concept. Sometimes to enjoy the liberties you value you need to concede that others have liberties that you disparage. Can you live with that? Or, do you need a government to control your neighbors on every issue which you sincerely hold dear?
Have you ever noticed that drug warriors and gun controllers all use the same language? Their adherents will defend tooth and nail their version of what is acceptable for other people. Replace 2A with 5A property and suddenly rights are too dangerous to be left for people to make their own decisions and mistakes.
For the Right, though, it’s as if being loyal to a flag that resembles the US flag, allows them to be disloyal to the actual flag.
“For the Right, though, it’s as if being loyal to a flag that resembles the US flag, allows them to be disloyal to the actual flag.”
Gotta admit….I am not loyal to the US flag, or the anthem, or the pledge. I am loyal to the country that allowed me birth, but not to symbols.
BTW, your 5th amendment protection prohibiting self-incrimination can “legally” deprived of you. Should you ever be offered “immunity” for self-incrimination, you can be compelled to self-incriminate, or face jail time. Additionally, if you self-incriminate in court testimony, the public will judge you, and react to that judgement.
Sam,
I am loyal to the founding principles of the United States, as articulated in the DoI and Constitution. If the US strays from those principles, well, as TJ said: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
I can tell the US to piss off tomorrow . . . and I am solely responsible for the consequences of that act. But, then, so is the US. “F*** around and find out.”
Since Bill Clinton, it has been obvious to me that the winner of the Anti/Federalist Debates was Lysander Spooner. Look at all these constitution absolutists that care less about the hemp paper to which half of them swore an oath, then whether some coke user violates their sensibilities.
Canada tends to be fine for quality medicine, I don’t advise smuggling prescription drugs but it happens with boring regularity given the difference in pricing outside the US.
“The difference between you self-medicating and being treated by a prescribing physician should be readily obvious.”
This is utter nonsense. Twenty-five years ago my physician prescribed a psychotropic medicine to me. He attended to my prescription for several years. Then, he abandoned his practice and moved to another state. Abandoning me in the process. Since I knew what my prescription was, I carried on taking the same dose for years, buying it OTC in another country. Since I was fine, I even lowered my dose to about 2/3 what I was prescribed. I was fine. Yes, I was self-medicating. For decades.
Who are you to tell me that I need the Federal government to tell me that I can’t ingest a medicine I know how to use? What utter arrogance on your part!
Now, I’m prescribed a different medicine. It’s a controlled substance. It’s costing me $3,000 for the knowledge and wisdom of my prescriber. I consider his advice well worth that cost. Next year, the cost will be just $1,000 for 4 consultations. Probably also worth-while. After a couple of years on this controlled substance, I anticipate that I’ll have the dosing down and will want to economize on my cost. You will tell me that I can’t ingest this medicine which I will – by then – know how to use?
Most of us use Tylenol from time to time. We don’t need a doctor to tell us to limit our consumption of this dangerous drug. The label tells us the maximum dosage. The therapeutic index for Tylenol is about 3. Take three times the recommended dosage and you will begin to damage your liver. Perhaps you need a licensed physician to tell you not to do such a thing. I’m clever enough to figure this out for myself.
Perhaps you need the FDA to decide which drugs you can buy OTC and which require a doctor’s prescription. But if God endowed governments with the wisdom to make these decisions then why do different countries have different rules for which medicines require a prescription and which do not? Why can I buy ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine where I live (outside the US) but need an Rx to buy it in the US?
May your statist chains rest lightly on your wrists.
There have literally been many debates about taking Tylenol behind the counter because of the sheer number of people who cannot take it properly leading to avoidable liver transplants. Don’t even get me started on the people who promote antibiotic resistance through uneducated use of antibiotics. There is a saying in medicine: a physician who treats himself has a fool for a doctor. Now imagine applying this maxim to those with no medical education whatsoever. I’m a doctor btw.
Umm . . . been a Puritan long, Templar???
Ever heard of “nunya”??? As in, “It’s none of your damn business!”? Your thinking is EXACTLY what leads to idiots like Senile Joe deciding which guns we can and cannot have. If you don’t see that? Sounds like a “you problem” to me.
“I carried on taking the same dose for years, buying it OTC in another country“
Another proud conservative, flouting the Laws of America, while insisting everyone else must follow them to the letter.
Lying s***weasel says what????
Peddle your pathetic, prevaricating propaganda elsewhere, lying Leftist/fascist.
I’m sorry, please point out to me in the Constitution where the Feds were given the power to regulate what I eat, drink, smoke, etc.???? I seem to have missed that clause . . . ya freakin’ moron.
You don’t seem to understand how the Constitution works. At all. Good luck finding some unpasteurized milk, Francis.
Amish farm down the road.
“Good luck finding some unpasteurized milk, Francis“
Raw milk is one of those areas where the facts interfere with a treasured delusion.
“Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk To Celebrate Its Legality, Become Immediately Sick
BY DAN NOSOWITZ ON MARCH 10, 2016
Oopsie.“
https://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/west-virginia-lawmakers-raw-milk-sick/
I buy unpasteurized milk all the time. I use REAL buttermilk in cooking all the time. Try it sometime, ya moron.
And the fact that the feds do things that aren’t authorized does not mean that libertarians/constitutionalists don’t “understand how the Constitution works”, it means that fascist puritans like you don’t know how liberty works. You are simply the “conservative” version of MajorStupidity and dacian the demented. Fascism is FINE with you, so long as it’s YOUR fascism.
What a hypocritical @$$clown.
“…please point out to me in the Constitution where the Feds were given the power to regulate what I eat, drink, smoke, etc.????”
Commerce Clause, as discussed earlier.
And you and I BOTH know that that is NOT what he commerce clause actually says, nor what the intent was. The feds certainly DO regulate my right to (for example) distill my own booze, in my own home, or grow marijuana in my own backyard, but that is NOT authorized by the commerce clause, in any way, shape, or form.
You are welcome to the contrary opinion, but you would be hard put to find ANY textual or historical support for that position. The history of SCOTUS “commerce clause” jurisprudence is probably the most embarrassing thing in American jurisprudence, short of the efforts to justify and legalize slavery.
One of the many reasons I rarely frequent my local public range is on the few occasions that I have, I’ve seen beer cans, scores of them, scattered around the bays. I don’t want to visit a range where people are under the influence.
I hate to be an a$$hole (not really), but I don’t want to be around people who smoke marijuana or use other substances and firearms, at the same time or not. Call me prejudice, I don’t give a $h*t,
In fact, I, as a land lord, demand the right not to rent to said people. As a business owner, I demand the right not to hire said people. It’s called freedom of association.
Rights are funny things. Sometimes they conflict.
The Controled Substances Act is illegal. It rests firmly on the abomination that is known as US v. Miller, which was the result of open intimidation of the Justices.
meant Wickard v. Filburn. This flu SUCKS!
Don’t forget Gibbons v Ogden and Wickard v Miller. The Controlled Substances Act was based (allegedly) largely on the Commerce Clause.
DEA claims their hands are tied because there are treaties involved.
“… in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [treaty/commerce/etc] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added”
I’m sure the only reason we continue to have problems with FedGov is because no SCOTUS has been impeached for lying to the government. Take note that Alito recently gaslit the entire nation on the question of whether marijuana is property. I’m sure I can find plenty of pharmaceutical robberies the police investigated as thefts.
This is a state issue. Not a federal one. Just like education. Like individual or cooperate welfare. The feds should stay out.
And the “pothead fascist” Nikki Freid is not a friend of the Second Amendment.
No she ain’t. And anything goes will NEVER fly. Dan really opened the BS brigade with the testosterone talk. I’m not aware of any prohibited persons vis a vis TRT. Btw I don’t care if old guys take it. Just don’t lie about being “drug-free” as a bodybuilder/weightlifter/ athlete. You are NOT. Don’t expect my sympathy when you get heart disease or kidney problems…
You would be surprised how many bodybuilders use insulin. And are not diabetic. Wish it grew muscles on me, it just keeps the Dr from lecturing me about my legs and eyes.
I just drink water, city water, and with all the meth piss and other drugs in it I get all fucked up for free.
Well, that SOUNDS good . . . until you start growing boobs from all the estrogen in the water. Life them tans frogs.
I take a drug which if too much or not enough is used can have an effect on my mind or moods. Shown by my wife’s occasional” are you low” Do you need to check your blood sugar?” questions which really can be interpreted as boy you sure are bitchy today. We already are denied certain occupations . So them deciding the slight chance a diabetic could go postal as a reason to deny us a right might sound good to someone grasping at any chance to keep weapons out out of reach.
As to the shroom’s unlike marijuana where even the seeds are illegal the spore are technically legal to possess even ship by mail in many states. As long as is for things like collecting or ID purposes. Grow them and you are breaking the law.
Did you know that non-diabetic people intentionally OD on insulin to get hallucinations?
Personally I find the whole sweating/shaking thing <70 to be really unpleasant but, apparently, some people fight through that to get to that 5-12mg/dl range and hallucinate for like half an hour before their liver rescues them.
Makes me wonder how many people die doing that and for those that don't, how fast do they take a shower?
Just my opinion and you can take it how you wish.
With drugs, while using while driving, or on the job etc. should be treated like alcohol is. A DUI/OWI charge. Or if stoned/high on the job means loss of employment.
What you do off the clock, or off the road is your choice. If you choose to commit suicide on the instalment plan, that’s on you. Commit a crime while high/stoned, or to support your habits, that is also on you. And should have consequences.
Next, get convicted of whatever crime, serve whatever sentence is imposed by the courts, and pay whatever fine, restitution, or recompensation the courts order, and any rights forfeited while incarcerated/under court ordered sentence should be restored. The person convicted has done their time, paid the price and should be considered to be square with the world.
Lastly, most states have zero tolerance for alcohol use while armed. And should have the same for illicit or mood/mind altering prescription drugs. If someone can’t have a beer or glass of wine with a meal while armed, then use of pot, or psychoactive, or pain medications or illicit recreational drugs should also be prohibited.
Weird how the gun community has to have this shoved down their throat and highlighted with “boner pills” before they pay any attention but when I said this eight years ago I was a “lunatic”.
Also, the effects of shrooms on resetting people’s brains are interesting but if you really want to see where this kinda thing is going in the longer term you want to look at the effects of LSD. It’s stupid effective at ending alcoholism and other forms of addiction as well as depression and a bunch of other issues. The literature, pre ban, was ridiculously promising and the outcomes of the studies spoke for themselves. Nothing cures PTSD like candy flipping. Nothing.
But that’s currently a bridge too far. And, if we’re honest, Conservatives are going to take decades to be dragged kicking and screaming into this reality. Which, to me, is idiotic since if they’d simply embrace certain parts of this stuff (instead of screaming “LEFTY!!” at anyone who dares mention it) the GOP could win landslide after landslide.
People want government OUT of their lives. If the GOP would actually push SMALL GOVERNMENT, it would win a hell of a lot more than it currently does.
“If the GOP would actually push SMALL GOVERNMENT, it would win a hell of a lot more than it currently does.”
GOP is Dimwitocrat-lite; they can’t push small government. The Dims are all about increasing power over the populace. Republicrats are all about being invited to the best parties.
They’re all all about increasing power over the popualtion.
They’re all various flavors of Malthusian, though some of them may not know it.
“People want government OUT of their lives.”
No they do not. They like getting “free stuff” from the government. “Free” condoms. “Free” abortions. “Free” syringes. “Free” medical marijuana. “free” crystal meth or “free” LSD at the government run injection center. “Free” STD/AIDS treatment, “Free” college. “Free” college loan forgiveness. “free” housing.
It always seems to come down to this. It all depends on whose Ox is gored. In our increasingly secular society.
These same people Disagreed with the Christians. When the Christian said a father is necessary in the home. They like replacing the father and his love and discipline with a welfare check. And replace his guns with the guns of a big city police department.
You appear to be quite correct. And the reason Americans have become psychedelic-phobic is because they BELIEVED DEA propaganda. It’s time to wake-up America. What your government is telling you must be presumed to be a bold-faced lie until proven otherwise by multiple unbiased researchers.
Today is a new day. Many Americans, mostly conservative or libertarian, many of them gun-owners, began to suspect that our governments were lying to us about COVID, about it’s treatments, and about the Vax. These Americans are now open to the possibility of considering that their beloved DEA might have been lying to them as well.
The original origins of drug-control laws were based on racial prejudice against Chinese laborers who used opium, then Mexican laborers who smoked pot. Then Nixon got the War on Drugs going on steroids with his pogrom against his political enemies: Blacks, and hippies. So where has this gotten us my fellow Americans?
Now that pot has been decriminalized in many states and veterans of military service have begun using it to treat their PTSD, Americans are gradually waking up to accept that pot has legitimate medicinal use. And it’s not all that problematic in recreational use.
Finally, what you report is being widely circulated in professional psychiatric and psychological professional journals. Psychedelic-assisted therapy will be mainstream in a few years.
So, now is the time to start converting hearts and minds in the gun-owning and conservative constituencies. The stars are aligning. And the place to start – for we PotG – is with a Bruen attack on the illegal drug use disqualifier for 2A rights.
Take Elmer Fudd. Let’s suppose him to be against drug use. He probably won’t be convinced on this point for a very long time. But we can ask him some questions. For example: ‘Do you think that a veteran, who developed PTSD in honorable service to his country, ought to lose his gun-rights because he uses pot at the advice of his physician?’
“They’re all various flavors of Malthusian, though some of them may not know it.”
Not well-read on Malthus, but wonder if he considered government war on food production, such as we see in the Netherlands, and the transportation sectors in the US and Canada? Seems Malthus confined his “theory” to natural activity, with no investigation into intentional government action creating shortages.
Thinking it difficult to ration abundance, plenty. But, shortages…ah, that requires government intervention, and the task is easier.
But mass starvation is such a useful political tool…
https://fee.org/articles/why-the-dutch-farmer-protest-is-your-cause-too/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020_FEEDaily
“But mass starvation is such a useful political tool…”
“We’re from the government, and we are here to help you.”
sorry but this is not the first or
best fight to pick. there are plenty of history, text and tradition cases showing that founders did not want drunkards armed. bar patrons were disarmed. military didn’t allow drinking. we can go on. how about we knock down GCA or existing “assault weapon” bans before coming to the aid of PCP users. defending the gun rights of PCP users is pretty tone deaf.
Perhaps there should be a law against judges AUII, Adjudicating Under the Influence of Intoxicants? A prime example is Yamhill County Oregon Judge Ladd Wiles who gave my marijuana bootlegging tenant a free pass for shooting at my children in retaliation for efforts to evict. Judge Wiles refused to understand that the production and distribution of marijuana remains a Federal felony even though his own famously philandering, perjuring, drug addicted wife, Amanda S Marshall, was vigorously invoking civil forfeiture of properties used for marijuana grows when she wasn’t to busy performing fellatio on her subordinates at the US Attorney’s office. (Google it. The Justice Department report reads like a script for a porno movie.). The trial was concurrent with the precedings by the Oregon Bar Association against his wife for committing perjury. Her vigorous advocacy of drug decriminalization as well as gun control substantiates the observation that Judge Wiles was self medicating to cope with the humiliation. He swallowed the Elmer Fudd defense that a 12 gauge shotgun isn’t a deadly weapon.
I remember this story. The drug legalization crowd and the sexual Liberation crowd, have a utopian fantasy view, that they can conduct their activities free of any type of criminal actions. Or criminal results.
They have only increased government corruption. And in the long run they have caused a population shift away from democrat-controlled cities. And now democrat-controlled States are losing their population. They will need “normal people” to come back and fix the damage they have caused.
Normal people should refuse to help them.
@LampOfDiogenes
“The feds certainly DO regulate my right to (for example) distill my own booze, in my own home, or grow marijuana in my own backyard, but that is NOT authorized by the commerce clause, in any way, shape, or form.”
Actuality is what matters. The founders knew it could come to this, and Franklin wrapped up the problem with the Constitution in the beginning, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” 230yrs later, seems we can’t keep it.
Sam,
What you said, X 1,000. Our benevolent gummint is of the “give us an inch, and we’ll take a light year” school of thought. Once we started allowing the feds to take liberties, they’ve been running with it like Jim Brown in the backfield. If we don’t call a penalty, force them to take the ball back where they started, and get a “do over”, we have only ourselves to blame. John Ringo is one of my favorite SF authors. In one of his books, he put the following words in the mouth of one of his characters, in re: SCOTUS: “Have they ever even READ the Constitution?” My current answer is, “Sure, when it’s convenient for their agenda. Otherwise, not so much.”
“My current answer is, “Sure, when it’s convenient for their agenda. Otherwise, not so much.” ”
Shakespeare’s butcher, and Carroll’s rabbit had it right, long ago.
I’m about as Libertarian as they come and believe all drugs should be legal. But I also believe if you need to do mind altering drugs to cope with life you forfeit other rights. Mainly the right to vote and own firearms.
Personally I noticed long term Marijuana use litterally makes you dumber. I witnessed it over a period of years that my X smoked it. It’s unfortunate but her decision.
BSon,
I’m sure you hate this argument (as most do, including me, most of the time), but . . . that’s a slippery slope, my friend. Who decides what activities deprive a person of which rights? I have LOTS of “sins” that I despise (lying being a major one, which is one of the many reasons I despise MajorStupidity so much), but . . . I don’t think they do, or should, deprive him of his rights. Even though he is a liar, a propagandist, and a Leftist/fascist moron, he STILL has the right to free speech (but I have an equal rate to comment on what a stupid liar he is), RKBA, freely exercise his religion (or lack thereof, although he seems to be a proponent of the Church of Globull Warmening). “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The Federal Government has no authority to regulate drugs whatsoever, other than to support fair commerce *between* the States. The whole drug war is clearly unconstitutional and judges and prosecutors that enforce drug laws are tyrants. And so is everyone else that supports the drug war.
MarkPA
“Where in the Constitution did the founding generation authorize Congress to practice medicine? Or to regulate medicine? ”
The above shouldn’t even be a rhetorical question; you know the answer. All words, thus all law, is subject to interpretation by the political faction having the most power. SCOTUS has established that authority under the Commerce Clause is malleable, depending on circumstance (including the source of law degree of attorneys and judges, and the political theories embraces by the attorneys and justices).
And there it stands. The founders knew the Commerce Clause contained the seeds of destruction of the constitution, and the nation. It will take more lawyers, and judges of “conservative” alignment to put a temporary stop to abuse of the Commerce Clause (btw, commerce clause also neuters amendmants 9 and 10; nothing is free of iinterstate commerce.)
Very important issue to resolve, Dan. MarkPA’s comment above is also a vital point.
Re: the distinction between lawfully prescribed & used controlled substances vs. other uses, at least a prescribed substance has directions which if followed ensure appropriate & safe use that should not impair the individual. Controlled substances used off the street (& those which are not listed but also can create cognitive impairment) are problems; vis. drunk driving & Colorado’s increase in MVAs associated with marijuana use since legalization there.
However, having directions from a physician doesn’t keep people from misusing prescriptions, as you also point out.
No, I don’t feel lucky.
I’ll take all 10.
Thank you, very much.
And, if you think of any more,
well, just pass them along.
We will see whether our state legislatures
ratify them.
ALLIKIES SHOULD NOT DRINK IN DRIVE NOR HAVE FIREARMS ….
O WHATEVER …