4 ms·

I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in ou

by TylerE 4y ago

I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards?

bashinator 4y ago
Why stop at “grow”? I don’t see why the federal government should have any say over in what chemicals I might want to purchase or manufacture.
- TylerE 4y ago
  There is a bit of a your fist/my face issue. I don’t want my neighbor operating a meth lab in his shed or building an atomic pile.
  - bashinator 4y ago
    Devil's advocate: (I won't take on the atomic pile question since we're talking about consumables) Operating a meth lab is dangerous _because_ it's illegal. If it were regulated and licensed, it would be no more dangerous than say operating an 18-wheel rig.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
      Your comparison only holds if the rig is filled with the dangerous constituent chemicals, which are also regulated by government.
      - bashinator 4y ago
        Exactly. Regulated, not banned.
tablespoon 4y ago
> I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards? My bet? "Interstate commerce."
- giantg2 4y ago
  Yep. They can prevent growing your own wheat (in large quantity) because it impacts interstate wheat markets. You can literally bend this to apply to anything on that logic.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state. No, according to the Supreme Court, it's interstate commerce if a butterfly bats its wings and the resulting hurricane causes someone to buy a raincoat in another state. IIRC, the actual case involved someone growing wheat their own land that they didn't even plan to sell. But since wheat was sold in interstate commerce, the court said any activity involving involving wheat could be regulated as interstate commerce.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich says otherwise. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454 > The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    Incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
giantg2 4y ago
I've had a similar thought process. We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, but not for practically anything else (a couple other things, but some of them were also bizarre. Like how can you have privacy over who you marry if you're required to get a license before hand and they can still ban some classes/conditions but not others). If it is a right, it should apply universally. If not, then we need to start creating those rights in the constitution (where it requires larger agreement and isn't as easy to overturn). But maybe I'm crazy.
- cronix 4y ago
  > We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, RBG didn't see it that way. “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.” “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights." https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...
EricDeb 4y ago
And this is where their hypocrisy will show because they will absolutely find a way to allow the DEA to remain
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
Consumption isn't illegal just possession.
- gernb 4y ago
  Seriously curious. If I consume somthing, don't I now posses it (it's in my body) or didn't I have to posses it for at least a moment (in order to consume it) I'm just curious in what ways this distinction would play out. I can see if "consuming" was illegal and "possession" was not logically works but it's harder to see how "consuming" is legal and "possession" is not doesn't effectively make "consuming" also illegal.
baggy_trough 4y ago
Nothing whatsoever. That's why most of what the federal government does is unlawful.

by TylerE 4y ago

I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards?

bashinator 4y ago

Why stop at “grow”? I don’t see why the federal government should have any say over in what chemicals I might want to purchase or manufacture.

TylerE 4y ago
There is a bit of a your fist/my face issue. I don’t want my neighbor operating a meth lab in his shed or building an atomic pile.
- bashinator 4y ago
  Devil's advocate: (I won't take on the atomic pile question since we're talking about consumables) Operating a meth lab is dangerous _because_ it's illegal. If it were regulated and licensed, it would be no more dangerous than say operating an 18-wheel rig.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
    Your comparison only holds if the rig is filled with the dangerous constituent chemicals, which are also regulated by government.
    - bashinator 4y ago
      Exactly. Regulated, not banned.

tablespoon 4y ago

> I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards? My bet? "Interstate commerce."

giantg2 4y ago
Yep. They can prevent growing your own wheat (in large quantity) because it impacts interstate wheat markets. You can literally bend this to apply to anything on that logic.
TylerE 4y ago
Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state. No, according to the Supreme Court, it's interstate commerce if a butterfly bats its wings and the resulting hurricane causes someone to buy a raincoat in another state. IIRC, the actual case involved someone growing wheat their own land that they didn't even plan to sell. But since wheat was sold in interstate commerce, the court said any activity involving involving wheat could be regulated as interstate commerce.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich says otherwise. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454 > The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  Incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

giantg2 4y ago

I've had a similar thought process. We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, but not for practically anything else (a couple other things, but some of them were also bizarre. Like how can you have privacy over who you marry if you're required to get a license before hand and they can still ban some classes/conditions but not others). If it is a right, it should apply universally. If not, then we need to start creating those rights in the constitution (where it requires larger agreement and isn't as easy to overturn). But maybe I'm crazy.

cronix 4y ago
> We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, RBG didn't see it that way. “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.” “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights." https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...

EricDeb 4y ago

And this is where their hypocrisy will show because they will absolutely find a way to allow the DEA to remain

tick_tock_tick 4y ago

Consumption isn't illegal just possession.

gernb 4y ago
Seriously curious. If I consume somthing, don't I now posses it (it's in my body) or didn't I have to posses it for at least a moment (in order to consume it) I'm just curious in what ways this distinction would play out. I can see if "consuming" was illegal and "possession" was not logically works but it's harder to see how "consuming" is legal and "possession" is not doesn't effectively make "consuming" also illegal.

baggy_trough 4y ago

Nothing whatsoever. That's why most of what the federal government does is unlawful.