There have been bills on this before, but they do not get very far.mzmtg said:
It's not about drugs improving anything. It is about the freedom of adults to put whatever substance they want into their body so long as they do not harm the life/liberty/property of another.wsweeks2 said:How is it the war on "some" drugs?
I don't feel sorry for anyone who gets involved with that stuff, gets a conviction, and then later realizes what they've done.
We all have choices to make, and we have to live with the result of those decisions. Those who play with fire get burned. That's life.
Other than giving us the television series Cops, what have illegal drugs done to improve our society and our culture?
There have been bills on this before, but they do not get very far.mzmtg said:...my point is that the consequences for this particular action are grossly out of line when one considers the actual harm done by the act.
That is articulating it. There is already case law on that.wsweeks2 said:And like I said, they better articulate it. Not just I smelled smoke. Have fun convincing a jury in a civil trial that you smelled smoke in a car from someone who has never smoked or done drugs. The cop better have a roach to plant.
NO. Commerce Clause does not extend so far.Scenarios aside, does the federal government have the Constitutional mandate to tell you what you can and cannot put into your body?
Yes or no answer will suffice.
Then why do they have a claim on my income?Rammstein said:Smoking a bowl and dieing years later from lung cancer is not a tangible infringement on another's life/liberty/property.