The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Could Hunter Biden Be the Next Poster Child for Second Amendment Rights?"
An interesting article in Politico (Betsy Woodruff Swan):
The president's son is the target of a Justice Department investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018 — a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Federal law bans drug users from owning guns.
But the constitutionality of that law — like many other provisions restricting gun ownership — is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago.
His lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms.
The dispute would come as the White House fights to tighten gun laws. And it could put conservative gun-rights enthusiasts, who typically criticize the Biden family, in unusual alignment with the president's son.
The federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) bans gun possession by anyone who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." (It's a separate provision from the one that bans gun possession by convicted felons, which would include people who had been convicted of feloniously possessing a controlled substance.) The Politico story notes the dispute among lower courts whether this particular provision is constitutional, and links to relevant cases.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
#JusticeForHunter
Cocaine and guns are chocolate and peanut butter…they make each other better!
Don't forget the Alcohol and Tobacco!
It seemed to work for Hunter S. Thompson.
that's (Dr.) Hunter S. Thompson
Interesting. So the implied argument is that he had not yet been convicted of unlawful use, therefore it's a violation of Due Process to withhold his 2nd Amendment rights?
If so, I think that's actually a pretty good argument.
It's a lousy argument. Biden has admitted unlawful use and the question of whether he lied on his license application or was an unlawful user at the time can be adjudicated without a separate conviction and does not rely on one.
What other rights can be unilaterally taken away from you on the basis of a mere confession?
Related, how is that "confession" even usable when it is being extorted from you in exchange for permission to exercise a constitutional right?
Parental rights come to mind.
Fair. And an injustice that should be corrected, not duplicated.
On a temporary basis only. For parental rights to be permanently terminated requires a lot more.
I think if its going to be an issue it will boil down to not a weapon charge, but the charge that fed law enforcement always "gets their man" on. You admitted to lying on a federal form. You lied to .gov. You may not get any more time than Martha Stewart did, but you will get some LE consolation prize.
"Related, how is that “confession” even usable when it is being extorted from you in exchange for permission to exercise a constitutional right?"
That's a major point to me. It's a constitutional right, the idea that you'd have to go crawling to the government for permission to exercise it in the first place is offensive.
It's hard to find a drug addict who isn't lying and in denial to some degree, the same is true for many classes of mental illness.
I don't know the phrasing of the question, if it was something like "Have you used drugs X/Y/Z in the past N weeks?" then I'd support prosecution. That's clearly factual and non-accusatory.
but if it's like this (from an article):
One question on the application asks if the applicant uses or is addicted to drugs. The box is checked “no.”
Then it's basically begging a drug user/addict to lie/deny that they're using. Like, how many people would call themselves a drinker if they had 1 drink a week?
As for expecting them to pro-actively give up the weapon if they become an addict that also seems like punishing someone for the inevitable.
The current Form 4473 asks [Question 21(g)]:
Note that this includes not only unlawful use of controlled substances but addiction to a controlled substances even if that substance is prescribed legally.
The question is vague as to the time frame "user of" refers to. For example if you're not addicted to the drug and not taken the drug in the past month and reasonably don't anticipate doing so in the future, can you legally answer 'yes'? I would think so. But if the last 100 times you had the "anticipation" that you wouldn't use the drug in the future has failed to pan out, perhaps such an anticipation would not be "reasonable" this time.
The "addicted" part is a little vague - but as a layperson I would consider that to be a physical addiction rather than a "strong emotional draw" to the drug that you don't succumb to.
Fortunately the "or any other" seems to make it clear that an addiction to a stimulant that is not a controlled substance, such as caffeine in coffee or nicotine in tobacco, doesn't count!
The "I certify" notes above your signature indicates that a "Yes" answer to this question immediately disqualifies you from receiving or possessing a firearm.
What really needs to be focused on, is the beginning part of the question:
"Are you an unlawful user of"
That's a present-tense question. Aside from literally being currently addicted to any of them, or currently high on any of them, if you've quit for even a day, and don't intend to resume, the "No" response is not a lie.
"Have you ever been or are you now an unlawful user of...." would be a different question.
Looks to me like the whole law is well within the post-Bruen ambit of the 2A.
Seems a good policy, at least wrt nonviolent drug abuse.
"[The dispute] could put conservative gun-rights enthusiasts, who typically criticize the Biden family, in unusual alignment with the president's son."
As someone who is very involved with 2A issues, I have never encountered a fellow conservative who wants drug addicts and other mental defectives to have guns. This isn't to say that people holding these views don't exist; I have no doubt that they do. But to imply that they constitute anything more than a rounding error is fantasy. I fervently hope that Hunter Biden will experience exactly the consequences his family has worked for decades to impose on others.
I don't think the question is whether we want drug addicts to have guns -- rather, it's whether the Second Amendment allows these particular prohibitions on gun possession. As the article notes, some judges have taken the view that it doesn't.
Well, the infallibility exercised over 2nd Amendment as a God-given right will just be transferred -- with the exact same problems -- to "Who is an addict?" Would an alcoholic be exempt? Crazy
Alcohol users' inclusion might depend upon what the definition of a "controlled substance" is under the statute. They are probably not unlawful users.
They are not. But legal cannabis users (in states where its legal for recreational or medical use) are prohibited due to cannabis' scheduling on the federal level. Its an absurd situation.
Some judges are reliably full of shit. That they exist is no argument for the constitutionality of anything. You need to make that argument separately. And the argument that druggies have a right to bear arms is about as fringy as the argument that felons have that right.
That's interesting, because in general I am probably more tolerant of gun restrictions than many here, but I do oppose a blanket ban on all felons having the right to own a gun. If someone has been convicted of tax fraud, or embezzlement, or some other non-violent felony, I'm not really sure why that should preclude him from being able to take his son hunting. I just don't see the connection.
I'm fine with precluding people convicted of violent felonies from owning a gun, because there is a connection between guns and violence. But I think a ban on all felons is overbroad.
Why is the argument that druggies have a right to bear arms fringy? It's right on point with SCOTUS's own standard for constitutionality in a 2A context. Find me a plethora of regulations banning gun possession/ownership due to drug use from circa 1791/1865. I have a very difficult time believing you'll find any, as we didn't really start banning substance use until the 1910s. Maybe you could fit this into the prohibition of gun possession/ownership by felons, which has some historical tradition. However, lots of drug crimes are misdemeanors, not felonies. And having used drugs is very different from having been convicted of using them.
The 2A initially only applied to Americans in DC and federal territories…so of course the drafters meant for it to allow them to snort cocaine and carry guns when they were away from their dumb families. A right for me but not for thee!!
Yea, Form 4473 doesn't ask about whether you snort cocaine and carry guns. It asks whether you're an unlawful user of drugs at any time, in any relevant jurisdiction (including federal). Nice strawman you've built there.
Hunter wipes his ass with BS like that! He conned a billion dollars out of China!! He’s got Big Dick Energy!
It asks whether you’re an unlawful user of drugs at any time
No it does not. It asks:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
When the form means “at any time” about something it, for example, asks:
Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
Since the drug question lacks the “Have you ever been” language, I think it’s pretty clear that it means “Are you currently”.
Indeed.
Sam Bankman-Fried 2 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User “The 2A initially only applied to Americans in DC and federal territories…”
Sam – you have been corrected on that point far too often
Notice how Volokh never engages me over my arguments?? Because he knows I’m correct and all of his work on the 2A has been undermined by a commenter on his blog. A pea brain 125 IQ commenter poked holes in the 200 IQ preeminent constitutional scholar’s crowning achievement.
Professor Volokh has a day job and, as far as I can tell, rarely if ever responds to outlandish and legally indefensible arguments made by trolls. You would be unwise to interpret his silence as anything but that he has better things to do than feed the trolls (apparently I don't share that trait though - the joys of retirement).
Sam - learn some basics
Learn Basic historical facts
A - DC was created after the BoR was approved in congress and sent to the states for ratification.
B - The BoR applied against the federal government in all the states, federal territories and in DC after it was created.
Please make an attempt to learn basic facts which you have ignored repeatedly in spite of being informed multiple times.
Was the 2A an individual right at inception?? Remember, the 1A specifically refers to Congress and Thomas is correct that the Establishment Clause defies incorporation because it is a federalism provision that makes no sense to apply to the states. How can the 2A which specifically refers to the country (free state) and all of its citizens (militia) ever be read as only restricting the federal government??
There wasn't even the concept of 'collective' rights until the 20th century! So, yes, it was an individual right at inception.
It was a federalism provision—I’ve never once said it was a collective right. The 2A is very obviously a response to the events at Lexington and Concord just like the 3A was a response to British abuses along with pretty much every other amendment in the BoR.
You can keep repeating "it was a federalism provision" until you're hoarse, but nobody is going to take you seriously.
Except Supreme Court justices as that term appeared in Stevens’ McDonald dissent.
I mean, prior to the 20th century and drug criminalization, most of the "hard drugs" we care about today were seen as medicinal and you could pick them up at any drug store (this was also before prescriptions were required to buy most drugs).
That some people abused them was seen as a person vice, but not a criminal matter.
So yeah, "original intent" sees no difference between Joe Blow the coke user and Joe Blow the alcoholic. Whatever you feel the 2nd amendment allows regarding private possession applies to both equally.
If you're a "original intent" sort of guy, that is. If you're not, then the question of treating drug-abusers different from other folk is a lot easier.
"(this was also before prescriptions were required to buy most drugs)."
"Most"? Can you identify ANY drugs you needed a prescription to legally obtain, prior to the 20th century?
In my view, the Second Amendment has always applied to the right to bear firearms by law-abiding citizens. Implicit within that, is that if an individual was not law-abiding, they may not have second amendment rights.
When considering the question at hand (if the individual is currently engaging in non-lawful activity, such as the use of illegal drugs), it would appear to be within typical historical precedent for restricting second amendment rights. Those individuals who are not law-abiding do not have those rights.
So if the government wants to take your guns, all they have to do is make you a law-breaker first.
Easy enough. How many drivers haven't sped at some point?
Some responsible 2A proponents do object to the fact that answering the question
in the affirmative disqualifies you from possessing a firearm even if the condition was last seen decades ago and is no longer a current condition or is well controlled by medications that you've been taking reliably for decades.
Like other red flag laws, there should be some official decision if someone is a user or addicted and there should ALSO be a procedure to have their rights returned.
In this case, if Hunter hasn't been prosecuted or clinically found to be a user/addict, then the red flag should not be used.
The prosecution and conviction of him for violating the law by acquiring a gun while being a user pr for lying on his application is all the due process that is needed. The argument against red flag laws is that the deprivation of the right to bear arms happens without any such due process as a trial.
How many right wing heads are exploding at the prospect of supporting Hunter Biden on any issue?
Such a "prospect" only exists if one thinks addicts should be able to buy guns, and how many "right wing heads" think that? It's not even a rounding error.
Where does Form 4473 require you to be an addict? The wording is "unlawful user." There is also a disclaimer that "the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medical or recreational purposes in the state where you reside." This implies that a single (maybe historical, maybe contemporary) use of marijuana is sufficient to disqualify you from owning or possessing a firearm. Is that the result you want?
My reading of
would require an affirmative answer by a lawful (i.e., prescribed by a single licensed doctor who is well aware of your condition and believes it is the best medical solution) user of a controlled substance but who is addicted to that substance.
As far as the evil weed... The question is in the current tense (unlike others which include the “have you ever” verbiage) so historical usage that isn’t quite recent would not require an affirmative answer to the question.
¨Such a ´prospect´ only exists if one thinks addicts should be able to buy guns, and how many ´right wing heads´ think that? It’s not even a rounding error.¨
The constitutional invalidity of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) under Bruen is actually a respectable argument. At a minimum, the burden of justification would fall upon the prosecution. What are the historical antecedents for prohibiting gun possession by anyone who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance"?
Hint: ¨but Gandydancer thinks they shouldn´t be able to buy guns¨ does not feed the bulldog.
"What are the historical antecedents for prohibiting gun possession by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”?"
Trivially, there can't be such historical antecedents, because the very concept of "controlled substances" is too recent.
Zero. Conservatives understand that one's rights do not vary with how sympathetic a defendant you are.
Next question?
Wow, you sure do have a rosy view of your compatriots!
[I would not say the same about the left; there's always some people who are not big on ideological consistency in any cohort]
Judge Julius Hoffman would like five minutes for rebuttal.
None.
Talking heads (on any side of whatever line you're drawing) are quite comfortable with hypocrisy. Besides, they can always just not talk about this one specific issue while talking about the larger "criminal Biden enterprise!"
I support principals, not people. In your example I don't care who he is or what he's on,my only concern would be if he used it in a violent criminal manner.
My position would be that federal drug laws have no proper constitutional basis, so violating them can’t properly be a predicate for taking away somebody’s constitutional rights.
That he’s never been convicted of violating federal drug laws is, however, also a good basis for rejecting that disability.
In short, I don’t like the guy, and I think he’s an idiot to use drugs, but I do hope he wins, because he really ought to, on multiple grounds.
Head decidedly unexploded, by the way.
That he’s never been convicted of violating federal drug laws is irrelevant. That he was using controlled substances and lied on his application are elements of his crimes that can be proved at trial (or not) without any need for a separate drug conviction.
Not really. There is a major constitutional issue here. Imagine that the question asked whether a person were a particular ethnic minority in the context of a law asserting that firearm possessing by such ethnic minorities is illegal. That law is surely unconstitutional and any court should throw out a conviction based on lying in response to that question. Similarly, if prohibitions on gun possession due to drug use are unconstitutional (as I believe they are, but others will disagree), any court should throw out a conviction based on lying in response to a question about drug use.
In that case though it's clearly established that someone can't be denied equal protection under the law due, due process, or privileges and immunity just due to their race or ethnicity.
As of yet there is no controlling case law that says that an unlawful drug user can't be denied their Second Amendment rights.
It's one thing to answer a question falsely (although still a crime) to avoid a clearly unconstitutional result and doing so to avoid a result which you merely think is unconstitutional.
Do you also think a "sovereign citizen" intentionally filing a false 1040 claiming $0 of income when they had $1M of income shouldn't be found guilty of knowingly filing a false tax return just because they believe that the US Government has no jurisdiction over them?
My position would be that federal drug laws have no proper constitutional basis, so violating them can’t properly be a predicate for taking away somebody’s constitutional rights.
::wank::
This is a thread about the state of the law as it is, as adjudicated by people who have that as their job, not how you personally wish it were.
Isn't his alleged crime lying on the form rather than being an ineligible person in possession? Even if the possession requirements are not constitutional, does that really let him challenge the separate charge of lying to federal officials?
Why not both? Acquiring the gun is a separate act from lying on his application for a license to do so.
Without looking it up, I would think the penalty for that is less than for illegal gun possession.
The right-wing law prof,
tossing partisan red meat
to his downscale fans
You are such an idiot.
The Disgraced Penn State Coach
Spitting out bitter pubic hairs,
that cling to his ...dammit, iambic pentameter is hard
I thought the charge was lying on the application form, not the possession.
There is no second amendment issue here, just perjury.
As a side note, nothing is illegal for a Biden, so Hunter is not an illegal drug user, just a plain old drug user.
That might be true. Is there case law on perjuring oneself in order to pursue a fundamental right? Assuming, of course, that there is a 2A right to gun possession despite one's former/current use of illegal substances (which I believe is likely the case in light of the history and tradition standard).
You mean like the right of liberty in the form of not going to jail?
I cam get behind any challenge to the constitutionality of the question but the lies themselves are different.
But I have it on good authority that Hunter Biden and the man who raised him to be a lying, gun-toting drug addict are our social betters.
My impression is that the prohibition for chemically dependent people to purchase firearms is infrequently used and may be more useful to prosecutors as leverage in a plea bargain deal. It is likely that Hunter will be charged and likely the charge will be for a white collar crime, like tax evasion. A plea bargain seems the best for all parties and so I would be surprised to see a charge on the gun crime.
There are those out there who want Hunter's scalp. I would remind them that many people have been touched by drug addiction and they are likely to see their child, relative, or friend in the person of Hunter. These people will know the pain that President Biden feels as a father. They will want justice, but a merciful justice.
Fuck them. Hang Hunter up by his balls.
Getting stomped by better Americans into culture war roadkill has made Gandydancer a disaffected, pathetic heap of scars, bruises, white grievance, bigotry, and resentment.
And the precise target audience of the white, male, disaffected, right-wing blog with a vanishingly scant academic veneer.
"Getting stomped by better Americans"
Only bit of your "post" that stands alone,
Project much, "Coach"?
"gun-rights enthusiasts"?
Politico thinks 2A rights is just a hobby, unlike people asserting 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A and 8A rights.
Maybe I will start using "abortion-rights enthusiasts".
How about "evidence-hiding enthusiasts" in a 4A/5A context?
I think this statute is grossly overbroad.
Can the government prove someone is a habitual drug or alcohol user in a court proceeding (the same way proof of wife beating can be established under that statute) and disarm them? Sure. Drunks and drug addicts can be impaired to the point where they cannot come to the defense of the government, as the 2nd Amendment contemplates.
But this statute doesn't do that. There's no procedure, no due process, no definition of what constitutes a "user" or is "addicted", and no attempt to determine what drugs might make gun possession dangerous. So I think it's a clear Second Amendment violation. Go Hunter!
The relevant statute specifically references 21 U.S.C. sec. 802, which includes a long list of definitions, the very first of which is "addict." "The term 'addict' means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction."
Moreover, the procedural due process is the criminal trial the person would receive, during which the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed a gun while an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance ("controlled substance" is also defined in sec. 802).
I'm not a huge fan of these gun crimes that should, if they're constitutional at all, be left to the state governments to prosecute. But, in fairness, there are relevant definitions and procedural due process in place.
The relevant statute says "unlawful user of or addict." The statute you've identified defines "addict," but not "unlawful user." The latter seems quite broad.
Both those words have meanings in common parlance, especially when used together.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/user
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlawful
Great! So an unlawful user is someone who unlawfully uses a substance. That could mean using marijuana (which is unlawful under federal law) exactly one time. I would call this grossly overbroad, as Dilan Esper stated in the original post to which you responded.
Dilan Esper's statement that "[t]here’s . . . no definition of what constitutes a 'user,'" is what I was replying to. There doesn't need to be a definition because "user" is a term in common parlance.
"User" -- "a person who frequently uses alcoholic beverages or narcotics." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/user
"Use" in turn means "to consume or take (liquor, drugs, etc.) regularly." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use#h1
So an unlawful user of controlled substances is someone who illegally consumes or takes controlled substances frequently or regularly, not just one time.
Now you can get back to making stupid arguments like nicotine is a controlled substance.
"as the 2nd Amendment contemplates."
As the militia clauses in Article 1 contemplate. You really need to stop wishcasting the 2nd amendment you'd rather had been ratified in place of the one that actually was ratified. The 2nd amendment doesn't condition the right on being fit for militia duty, it conditions it on being a member of the People.
Exactly…so why was incorporating it necessary??
To keep the states from violating the right, obviously. But you knew that.
But it was an individual right at inception…so who did it cover at its inception??
Do you not understand that "who has the right" and "who the right is guaranteed against" are different questions?
Now, unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify Congress, so there's an argument, which some courts early on agreed with, that only the 1st amendment was limited to the federal government. But it pretty quickly lost to the alternate position, which is that as a federal constitution, it defaults to only binding the federal government unless it explicitly says otherwise.
The 14th amendment is that "explicitly says otherwise". Since the 14th amendment there hasn't been any serious argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't bind the states: Making it bind the states was literally one of the purposes of the amendment, as explained in Congressional and public debates.
The 2A explicitly mentions country though…so it seems like it should have protected the RKBA for the unorganized militia in the entire country and not just the unorganized militia in DC and federal territories…such a head scratcher. 😉
Kobyashi Maru for the Biden admin.
If they dont charge him, conservatives will cry political corruption. Leftists will say drug use is not a big deal and shouldnt be disqualifying.
If they do charge him, leftists will say drug use should be disqualifying. conservatives will say the GCA is unconstitutional.
Tune in for the next episode of The Quantum Second Amendment: Where Hunter hunts Schrodingers Cat.
Yes, the Biden Admin is the one in trouble here.
Because people outside of the FOX News set sure do care deeply about Hunter Biden.
And surely leftists can’t stop defending the guy.
[I think it's pretty awful the awful things the right says about him, but I am unaware of anyone on the left going to bat with him staying out of jail if he did crimes]
I suppose people outside the Fox News set WOULD care about the President's son being a drug addicted perve with deep financial connections to our nation's enemies, if most media outlets gave the story any significant amount of coverage.
The conspiracy to hide the shit Fox News makes up from the public!
Go pound sand, Sarcastr0: You guys haven't been in a position to claim the media don't conspire since Journolist was exposed. And that was over a decade ago.
That wasn’t a conspiracy. And even if it was, that doesn’t give you license to discard all critical thinking and declare a coverup when the right’s alternate facts don’t catch on.
Like you have speculated your way into this whole Hunter Biden selling secrets thing based on *nothing*. It’s not a coverup, it’s your evidentiary standards are borked.
I mean, I know a lot of folks who would have said that last week. Honestly, it's basically Boomers that care so much about drugs. Attitudes towards them (across demographics) liberalize a lot as you go down in age brackets.
That said, this is an eminently "winnable" scenario for the Biden admin. They charge him, put him in a comfortable minimum security prison or home arrest (seriously, outside of hardline whackos, no one is going to bat an eye at home arrest), and in a few years when President Biden is on his way out the door, he gets a pardon. Honestly, Biden might like knowing that his son isn't getting up to more shit in the meantime.
No: Hunter is very likely to win on his challenge to that aspect of the gun control act. non violent felons historically (pre 1968) were not disarmed.
Hunter winning his challenge puts other Biden gun policies at risk.
So does anyone else winning such a challenge. Bruen is invalidating laws left and right as it is; Hunter Biden isn’t really a but for cause of that.
I'm just saying that if Chelsea Clinton pulled as much crap as Hunter Biden, we'd be talking about how lovely her funeral was.
What’s crazy is the Biden family gives the Palins a run for their money on being trashy!?! Too bad Jerry Springer isn’t around to do a reality show featuring the Palins and the Bidens in which they would compete in like white trash games like impregnating strippers and getting in drunken brawls as a family.
No, we'd be talking about the whistleblower's suicide by vanishing shotgun blast to the back of the head.
No, but it’ll be pretty funny if he skates because of our idiotic gun policies, thus depriving the local idiots a gram of flesh.
Can someone using a nicotine patch legally buy guns?
"Controlled substance"??? Yup.
"Addicted." Hell yeah...nicotine is more addictive than heroin.
Seems like the answer is: No.
(I'm not gonna touch the issue of people addicted to the most dangerous drug--alcohol--but this federal law seems to capture A LOT of people who use perfectly legal drugs.)
The gun statute relies on the definitions in 21 USC sec. 802, which includes a definition of “controlled substance.” Tobacco is specifically excluded, so I’d imagine nicotine is too.
21 U.S.C. 802(6): The term “controlled substance” means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Definitions of schedules I-V are fairly broad. See the DEA's definitions and some specific examples at https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling. I have no doubt that nicotine would qualify under Schedule III or IV. The IRC is extraordinarily long and convoluted, so I haven't dug through for a definition of tobacco. However, it's unlikely that all nicotine products (e.g., vape pens) are exempt under the IRC of 1986. After all, vape pens didn't exist until quite recently.
That said, you'd still have to be an "unlawful user" or "addict" of nicotine to be prosecuted. Unlawful user is hard to imagine for anyone over the age of 18. Addict is a lot easier to imagine, as santamonica pointed out. This certainly leaves a lot of room for prosecutorial discretion.
My analysis here may be wrong. Looks like the scheduled drugs are updated by regulatory agencies. I'm having trouble finding a current list. Can anyone provide a link?
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/ seems to have the list. https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling has a different format. Neither one lists nicotine or tobacco.
"Controlled substance" means listed in the Controlled Substances Act, and nicotine isn't in the list. Anabolic steroids are though, all those guys at the gym had better be careful.
The Controlled Substances Act defines each Schedule in terms of its physical and psychological effects, no? The specific things listed are only examples, right? See 21 U.S.C. 812.
Nvm. I think I read the statute wrong. Congress set the traits for regulatory agencies to look at when scheduling and set the initial schedules. Regulatory agencies have the power to schedule new drugs. Any idea where we can get a current list of all scheduled drugs?
I thought everyone here was supposed to follow the "Science"???
well the "Science" (Quotations intended) of "Addiction" is "Once an Addict, always an Addict" If Jimi Hendrix had quit H in 1968 and was still alive today the "Addictionologists" (an actual Medical Specialty, not enough quotation marks in the world) would say he was still an "Addict".
Obviously it's all bullshit, but it is the "Science"
so will Coach Sandusky be getting a new Cell-mate?? nope, not even if Hunter B abandons a young woman to asphyxiate (not drown, theres a difference)
See, Hunter abandoned his young daughter without asphyxiating her (actually doing her a solid by not seeing her)
Frank
If all Hunter Biden did was exercise his 2A rights while practicing what the political sage George Washington Plunkitt calls honest graft, then don't prosecute him.
The only reason to pursue him is if he practiced *dishonest* graft, and I have no idea about that because I don't know how far one's graft has to go before it's illegal.
Thats about the stupidest thing I've read on AlGores Internets which is saying something, especially when you read what AlGore says. Yes, the whole idea of having to fill out some form where you swear you're not a Drug Addict/Insane/Dishonorably Discharged from the Military before you can exercise a constitutional right is stupid, Hmm, how did it start,
Oh yeah, a dishonorably discharged Marine shot JFK, so now he would have to lie on the form, and oh, I see, no punishment, like with Hunter B.
You're welcome for clearing that up for you,
Frank
I promise Hunter Biden will never see the inside of a prison. As much as I wish he would.
I just want to see the FD-1023 that Wray refuses to release to congress