[Malum Prohibitum]

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.

NO. Commerce Clause does not extend so far.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

But the S. Ct. disagrees with me. See Raich.

From Clarence Thomas' dissent.

"If Congress can regulate this under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. . . . the federal government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."

 

[fallison]

From Clarence Thomas' dissent.

"If Congress can regulate this under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. . . . the federal government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."

They don't already? :shock:

 

[wsweeks2]

From Clarence Thomas' dissent.

"If Congress can regulate this under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. . . . the federal government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."

They don't already? :shock:

+1

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

Ramm

PM sent

 

[Rammstein]

PM replied.

 

[Rammstein]

You simply won't agree to the senarios that I have put forward that drugs are not a victimless crime.

[/quote]

There is no evidence what-so-ever that someone sitting at home and drinking a beer or smoking a joint or smoking a cigarette is infringing on someone else's life/liberty/property.

If they smoke a bowl or drink some beer and then get on the road they are putting other people's life in danger of death or great bodily harm. That is a tangible infringement.

Smoking a bowl and dieing years later from lung cancer is not a tangible infringement on another's life/liberty/property. Sure it would be sad for the family, but he did not harm anyone else.

Drinking a beer and dieing years later from cirrhosis is not a tangible infringement on another's life/liberty/property. Sure it would be sad for the family, but he did not harm anyone else.

If a homeless alcoholic guy steals to support his alcoholism there is no outcry to ban alcohol. They put him in jail for his action, not the reason for his action.

If a crazy guy with a gun shoots up an office full of people, they put him in jail for killing an office full of people, not because he used a gun to do it.

Any object can be used for good or for evil. Guns, drugs, cars. It is not the object that should be banned. Rather, society must punish the individual for their actions.

 

[Rammstein]

Lysander Spooner[/URL]]Vices Are Not Crimes

A Vindication Of Moral Liberty

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime â€" that is, the design to injure the person or property of another â€" is wanting. It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another....

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property.... For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be a falsehood, or falsehood truth.

Source

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Smoking a bowl and dieing years later from lung cancer is not a tangible infringement on another's life/liberty/property.

Then why do they have a claim on my income?

 

[Rammstein]

Smoking a bowl and dieing years later from lung cancer is not a tangible infringement on another's life/liberty/property.

Then why do they have a claim on my income?

Because the voters discovered they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury.

Using public tax dollars to pay for the health care of others in not only immoral, it is not fiscally responsible.