Just delete the spaces...

I Am @ Revolutioni.st

"One man with courage is a majority." - Thomas Jefferson.

i've often said we need to approach it legislatively by simply adding a phrase like "this Clause shall not be construed to give Congress the power to proibit the possession or sale of any commodity". that should bring both unconstitutional Prohibition, as well as the equally unconstitutional gun control laws, crashing down overnight.

we know that the purpose of the commerce clause is to prevent states from enacting protectionist tariffs on goods from other states, thereby inhibiting competition and hurting both the economy and progress in general, and that the prohibitioist / gun grabbers' use of the clause constitutes just such an offense, but i'm afraid where we might lose is the clause's part about being able to be used "to the fullest extent", and doesn't contain any statements of puropose.

so, while they might not be able to regulate manufacture, they might be able to regulate possession and sale, even though doing so violates the "spirit" of the clause.

we might have an angle with the deprivation of rights, though, as individual drug use is clearly protected by the 9th amanement and states' rights by the 10th. the argument that "the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to drug use" is a straw man, because people's rights aren't required to be enumerated, and indeed it is the government that lacks the enumerated right to outlaw it.

so the argument then went that "we cannot regulate the vice, but surely we can regulate the means by which a man minsters to that vice", and that's when they went for the commerce clause. BUT although the commerce clause doesn't say it cannot be used to ban things, if that ban impacts upon one's *ability* to minister to that vice which it is our Constitutional right to indulge, then the commerce loophole might be nullified as a deprivation under colour of law, which it certainly is.

everyone knew this then and still does, of course, this is why the doctors who told the truth about marijuana when they were hired to legitimise the state's lies were berated for "trying to prevent something that is for the good of the country"; the whole question is whether or not the public will cease to give its blessing to judicial actiivism on hot-button issues, ie: will they finally start respecting the law they claim to cherish even when it doesn't suit them.

hey, is there any way to subscribe to comments on these threads, or do we just have to keep checking back? i know a good drug lawyer in LA, but what we really need is a constitutional specialist i think.

Dear Kalash,

It looks like you have been doing some homework. I hope you are successful in your suit. I do think the supreme kangaroos will disregard it no matter how well presented and true to the law it is. Just looking at the case history and recent events as well as some of the latest appointments recently it will be an uphill battle. They tend to roll over like an obedient dog when it comes to supporting the governments position on drug policy. There appears to be even more blatant disregard for established precedent, anything goes in the drug war mentality with most of the new justices.

The ACLU or the Drug Policy Alliance might be willing to assist you with legal and financial support. Good luck..

Greg

Good luck with this. You are absolutely right.

However, given Raich, I'd say your chances are slim and none.

BTW Thank the maker for that uber right winger Clarence Thomas who can actually read the Constitution and understand it.

Did you read his dissent in Raich? Brilliant. And so simple to understand that an ordinary citizen could understand it.

Bottom line is this. A crime (a true crime) is only being committed when one group or individual infringes on the rights of another group or individual. When there is no victim, there is no crime. When there is a product that is in demand there will always be someone to meet that demand. That's capitalism. In regards to Drug Policy and the War on Drugs, the only real crime that is being committed, is by legislature and by the law enforcement agencies trying to enforce these unconstitutional and downright criminal laws, They commit armed robbery, breaking and entering, burglary, grand theft auto, kidnapping, and homicide. Unfortunately, because of the success of their brainwashing through media propaganda and of the ignorance of the masses, they are able to get away with all of these crimes. If you look back at our history when Alcohol Prohibition was in effect, the same problems were evident. Al Capone did not exist because of Alcohol. The reason Al Capone became as infamous as he did was because of Alcohol PROHIBITION. His empire flourished because of prohibition. Ending Alcohol Prohibition in 1933 is one of the major contributing factors (besides the War) that got this country out of the Great Depression. Drugs users have had ALL of their rights stripped away from them. Our government has created the underground (black) market, and the violent crimes that go with it, when they started this War on Drugs via Drug Prohibition. And all they do is shift the blame and point their fingers at the drug users. This War on Drugs all started because of ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice. Its downright fascism hiding behind the peoples ignorance of their rights.

Anyways I could go on forever (practically write a book) about the corruption in our government and the solution to America's "Drug problem" but to sum up, we need to start fighting back. Fight organized crime by abolishing the DEA. You should DEFINITELY file a lawsuit against the DEA and if you do, and need signatures for a petition of some sort, I'm in.  Check out L.E.A.P. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. These are current and former law enforcement officers who understand the root of the problem.They may be able to assist you in some way. The D.E.A. ARE the Domestic Enemies of America and they need to be abolished.