Federal Drug Laws.....Legal?

[Copperhed51]

Ok, so I've done my fair share of research into federal drug laws and how it is that they are enforced. What it all boils down to is a phrase in the Constitution that says:
"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Then the Controlled Substances Act says this:
"(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because -

(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,

(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and

(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession."


The Controlled Substances Act also says:
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.


This is what their entire argument for enforcing this law is based on. It's saying, "We can't prove that you didn't buy this through interstate commerce channels that we have control over, so it is illegal. BUT, it has long been held that in the United States, one phrase controls legal proceedings: ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who
asserts, not on who denies). The Controlled Substances Act has no legal merit because it assumes guilt by admitting it can't prove it. You can't do that in law. Anybody have any legal thoughts?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

No, they are not legal, but they'll absolutely kill you over it, and they've convinced enough people that's ok.

[votefreedomfirst]

No, it's not Constitutional. Which is why it took an amendment to bring about alcohol prohibition. Unfortunately respect for the document that is the foundation of our government has declined significantly since 1920. The commerce and "general welfare" clauses have been stretched well beyond their original internet to the detriment of the Republic.

[powerofreason]

Courts absolutely suck in this country. Especially Federal ones, good God.

[TastyWheat]

The word "regulate" didn't exactly mean what it does now. The term nowadays means, "to bring into conformity with the rules", or basically to apply some kind of restriction. The word, as used in the Constitution, means, "to make regular." So it basically meant that the Congress should do what is necessary to ensure free and open trade. To think the founders would grant the Congress power to completely cut off interstate commerce, in the case of recreational drugs, is utterly ridiculous.

Furthermore, this law makes the silly assumption that any action that precedes interstate commerce can also be regulated in the name of interstate commerce.

[Copperhed51]

Furthermore, this law makes the silly assumption that any action that precedes interstate commerce can also be regulated in the name of interstate commerce.

I assume you're referring to the fact that this law sets a precedent that would prevent people from growing tomatoes in their back yard or building any device or product that could be bought from a manufacturer in another state. It's so unbelievably ridiculous and frustrating. I've literally been getting really stressed about it tonight while researching it because there's basically nothing I can do. I wrote my representatives and explained to them how crazy these laws are but doubt it will do any good. After all, one of my reps is Sam Brownback. At the same time I'm pretty excited because I'm leaving the country for a year pretty soon.

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

Where ya headed Copperhed? There are lots of places in the world where things are changing a lot faster than in the US as far as drug policy is concerned. I bet and hope that it's not Saudi Arabia or the UAE... or Sweden!

[fr33domfightr]

The controlled substances act came about when the hippies were running around, seemingly without control. From what I've seen or read, people wanted the government to do something about this rampant disregard for the status quo. I don't know if that's true or not, it could just boil down to the congressmen wanting to control THE PEOPLE anyway they could.

Notice also that the CSA occurred after the 1937 stamp act was ruled unconstitutional. The CSA was enacted for the purpose of controlling the drugs people wanted. This still goes on today, as designer drugs are created, they get added to the list. Notice the controlled substances act doesn't include so-called poisonous plants. It doesn't because no one wants to smoke that, as it would kill you, but its not illegal.

That item 5 that copperhed51 lists, about not being able to distinguish between INTERstate (between States) vs. INTRAstate (within a State), really takes the cake. This is to allow complete control, anywhere. It also eliminates States' Rights, if a drug were to remain within a State!! Say what?!?!

Votefreedomfirst is also right too, about the prohibition amendment.

Do a search for Angel Raich, and there might be something to be learned from that case and the protection of our liberty vs. fundamental rights.


FF

[Copperhed51]

Where ya headed Copperhed? There are lots of places in the world where things are changing a lot faster than in the US as far as drug policy is concerned. I bet and hope that it's not Saudi Arabia or the UAE... or Sweden!

Actually I'm going to South Korea to teach children English for a year. Granted, my history as an airline pilot doesn't exactly prepare me perfectly for the job, but I think it will be challenging and fun at the same time. It pays decently, my housing will be paid for, and airfare to/from SK is paid for. Everybody who has done it says it's a great opportunity to save lots and lots of money. So, I figure why the hell not? I'm relatively young (25) and am unemployed right now. If I don't do it now, I probably never will and I know I'd regret not trying it out.