Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PMQuote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Let's be specific. What argument do you want me to concede?
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
That there is no federal standing, at least not as currently expressed. Here's the breakdown.
Federal standing as asserted under the CSA is that since drugs are often transported through international or interstate channels, the power to regulate them is granted to congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution, as amplified by the "necessary and proper" clause.
That regulate = ban is open for discussion, but let's just assume it to be true in this case.
The question then is, is the control of a substance produced in one state, unless explicitly intended for distribution across state lines, within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government? To the extent that jurisdictional authority is exercised in ways that are "necessary and proper" to preventing interstate traffic in that substance, yes. Well, under the 10th any power that's not been delegated to the federal government "is reserved to the states or the people respectively". The constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to ban the production, possession, distribution or consumption of anything, therefore that power belongs to the states. The CSA's constitutionality is based on the proposition that violation of the 10th amendment is "necessary and proper" to enforce it's jurisdictional authority over interstate drug traffic. IOW, the ban on production is constitutional because it's constitutional to violate the constitution (which it is within a certain scope and I believe only under executive authority, though I could be wrong on this).
So unless it's constitutional to violate the constitution, or another logical breakdown can be presented, the CSA has no standing.
If you're interested in how it's held up under Supreme Court scrutiny, I'm pretty familiar with most of the relevant decisions (which makes me a BLAST at parties) but I have a really hard time discussing them without gratuitous caps-lock abuse and many, many a dirty swear word. Think, citation of precedent with loosely similar facts to find various ways of concluding that the 10th amendment doesn't apply...SWEAR...
---
That having been said, the constitutionality question doesn't address any opinion on legalization or criminalization, just the way it's approached on a strictly federal level.