An airtight argument that proves that the feds have no authority to outlaw drugs.

Mr. Spicoli has something he wants to add to the debate.

Mr. Spicoli has something he TOOOtally wants to add to the debate.

Should the federal government allow states to legalize pot?

I laugh whenever I hear the “experts” debate this point.  Let me make it very simple for you. The federal government has absolutely no legal authority whatsoever to say what type of drug you can or can’t have or take. None. It isn’t about how dangerous it is.  It has nothing to do with running it through the laughably UNconstitutional FDA. There is really NOTHING to argue about. It is about the simplest argument in the world to understand. And that is precisely why you have never heard it. They don’t let it circulate because they can’t defeat it.

The constitution says Zero regarding any type of regulation or outlawing of “drugs”. Alcohol is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Pot is a drug. Heroin is a drug. The feds needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, and they need one for every other drug. They have no authority without one. If they don’t need one for pot, then why did they need one for alcohol? Why?  There is no “constitutional exception” for dangerousness or anything else. That isn’t law, that is made up nonsense. Laughably absurd in your face foolishness.  Case closed.  Thank you, I’ll be here all week, don’t forget to tip your servers.

Now that looks a bit wasteful.  I'm seeing a lot of burn and smoke there.

Now that looks a bit wasteful. I’m seeing a lot of burn and smoke there.

Think about it. When “the people” were supposedly “clamoring” for alcohol to be outlawed by the all powerful Oz back in the early 20th century, why didn’t the federal government just outlaw it?  Oh yeah, the inmates weren’t completely brainwashed at that point. The people KNEW the feds didn’t have the legal authority to do that without an amendment. So what did they do?  The overlords waited till the whole world was immersed in a giant war they caused and that’s when they went around and got their Constitutional Amendment passed. Here are the pertinent provisions of that amendment. Note the date.
AMENDMENT XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.
Section 1.  After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

When the people had had enough of this utter absurdity, which I suspect was foisted on them like every other supposedly “organic movement by the people”, and they were on the verge of revolt, the overlords took a step back and reversed the decision with ANOTHER constitutional amendment. Here it is.
AMENDMENT XXI
Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.
Section 1.  The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Prohibition did have one lasting effect, the rise of the FBI.  I'm sure that's just another coincidence.

Prohibition did have one lasting effect, the rise of the FBI. I’m sure that’s just another coincidence.

Back then, the government AND MORE IMPORTANTLY the inmates knew the feds couldn’t even outlaw HEROIN, much less alcohol or pot.  Here is a link to some history of these old drug “laws” if you care to start looking into it. It isn’t complicated. And, no,  you don’t “have to be a lawyer” to understand it.

Brief history of drug laws for you.

So what did our owners do in order to be sure they could have the control they wanted?  They incrementally and illegally took the power over time.  The feds cooked up a bunch of bs laws about manufacturing and transportation and “taxes” and the “FDA”, they were all crap. But their very existence proves that the government knew they couldn’t just outlaw it.

Confidential pictures I obtained of the FDA's files.

Confidential picture I obtained of the FDA’s file room.  I think it’s pretty clear they know what they’re doing.

Then they used the power of slow brainwashing in schools and media to “re-frame” the argument in the inmates minds. People now actually believe that the whole issue revolves around whether the FDA “finds” the drug dangerous. What did I miss? When did they change the constitution? Oh right, they didn’t bother.  So the government’s employees now get to decide whether the government can do it. And of course the “ultimate” legality of all of this is “decided” by yet more government, called, “courts”. And of course those are completely “independent”. How do we know this? Well the government  tells us so. Do you see how it works?

Cartman asserting the same legal authority the feds have over drugs.  Of course he can't put you in a cage.

Cartman asserting the same legal authority the feds have over drugs, zero. Of course he can’t put you in a cage.

Of course now we are a long long way passed needing any actual authority on any and everything, not just drug laws.  My god they can come rendition you.  They just tell the inmates what they are going to do. Give the illusion of a “debate” and then implement.

“The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.” – Henry Kissinger

Remember, he is smarter than you or me, so I guess we should listen to him.

Remember, he is smarter than you or me, so I guess we should listen to him.

The arguments that are ALLOWED to be made in “public forums” are always in the same limited box.  Red team/blue team arguments. Always keep the people distracted from the real game.  And of course the KoolAid distributors in the media are there to “bring it home” for a nice price.

He's right 98.666% of the time, according to his auditors.

He’s right 98.666% of the time!  Or maybe he’s more like Maxwell Smart, “missed it by THAT much.”

It is amazing. It is so simple. So in your face. And yet, nobody ever brings it up. Watch the debates. Listen to the fake arguments. Get people asking, or arguing about THE WRONG question and you don’t care what the answer is.  That is the way the game is played on you my fellow inmates.

Now you know.  And the next time you hear someone talking about it, you too will laugh, just like Legalman.  Because you’ll hear about safety, and danger and rights etc. etc. But you won’t hear Mr. Spicoli’s argument.   Even the esteemed members of the bar don’t dare raise that one if they want to keep their “government issued license” to make a living.  The control is endless.

Legalman lives,

Legalman IS the law.

Legalman IS the law.

13 thoughts on “An airtight argument that proves that the feds have no authority to outlaw drugs.

  1. ppob

    I’m still learning from you, but I’m trying to achieve my goals. I definitely love reading all that is written on your website.Keep the stories coming. I liked it!

    Reply
  2. Vivian

    I came to your Mr. Spicoli weighs in on the pot debate. | THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LAW page and noticed you could have a lot more hits. I have found that the key to running a website is making sure the visitors you are getting are interested in your niche. There is a company that you can get visitors from and they let you try their service for free. I managed to get over 300 targeted visitors to day to my website. Visit them today: http://rural.geek.nz/url/d5t

    Reply
  3. not fake

    People most from the time make a broad idea about what their credit history is not fake still,
    you must remember the valuable lessons that you learned
    being a child, several of which, just like the notion of fundraising,
    may be applied to your career today.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I have no idea how this possibly related to anything on this site. But I am glad you’re here Mr. or Ms. Bot. I will take your sage advice into account, and I am sure my followers will as well. Your name provides great comfort to me and I will be clicking on your link as much as I can. Thank you.

      Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Let me say this about that as the politicians like to say. The commerce clause was there when they passed the amendment. Nobody thought it authorized Jack at that point. And IF the commerce clause is what Wickard v. Filburn says it is, well, I think that falls under the “spooner rule”. The constitution is nothing but a sham.

      Reply
  4. Shalanda Willen

    When I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now every time a remark is added I get 4 emails with the same comment. Is there any method you may take away me from that service? Thanks!

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Correct. Only treatments. Preferably expensive and only marginally effective. The best of all are treatments which lead to new and untraceable problems that then can also be treated.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *