Biden Admin Weeds Out White House Stoners

[Jim H - VA USA]

I got fairly high level security clearances many years ago.

I was very clear in my interview that I smoked pot and wasn't going to change.

From what I remember, only being a member of some communist organization or having a felony conviction barred people from getting security clearances.

They'd even give clearances to people who were in organized crime.

Maybe things have changed since then, but if smoking pot disqualified people from security clearances, then half the American people would be disqualified - and the other half are all douche bags!

>I got fairly high level security clearances many years ago.
>I was very clear in my interview that I smoked pot and wasn't going to change.


I do not believe you. You must be smoking something.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

Bingo. Employers don't want to hear that you are loaded on grass , particularly in writing when the applicant is applying for a gig in someplace like the WH.

The insurance company doesn't want to pay the claim if you get wasted on some bad ganja trip in the Oval Office and accidentally fall on the Red Nuclear button.

I'm surprised that modern young people couldn't figure this out for themselves. There is a reason that neither Cheech nor Chong were ever appointed to high office by previous libs.

There are things you just don't admit.

Like when your Dr asks you how much you drink or if there is a gun in your house

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

If you're stupid enough to lie to the FBI about this, you deserve to be fired. Just ask General Flynn what happens when you lie to the FBI.

If they aren't making you piss in a cup then even the Feebs won't be able to prove anything

> If they aren't making you piss in a cup then even the Feebs won't be able to prove anything

Aren't they still using the polygraph/ lie detector / interrogation assisting device?

I would be surprised if they do not for Top Secret. It's a great interrogation tool. Lemme check....

From August...

How to Prepare for a Security Clearance Polygraph Examination

Some federal clearances for Sensitive Compartment Information (SCI) and other Special Access Programs (SAP) require a polygraph examination.

news.clearancejobs.com

Yup....

How to Get TS/SCI With a Full Scope Polygraph

Getting a Top Secret or Sensitive Compartmented Information security clearance is a long, exhaustive process that can take months and can involve what's called a Full Scope Polygraph or Full Scope Poly, incorporating the questions of a Lifestyle Polygraph and a Counterintelligence or CI Polygraph.

careertrend.com

It's a really big deal. I think too many people take it lightly. The documentation that has to be completed is quite extensive, must be complete, and without error or omission.

 

[pknopp]

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

Bingo. Employers don't want to hear that you are loaded on grass , particularly in writing when the applicant is applying for a gig in someplace like the WH.

The insurance company doesn't want to pay the claim if you get wasted on some bad ganja trip in the Oval Office and accidentally fall on the Red Nuclear button.

I'm surprised that modern young people couldn't figure this out for themselves. There is a reason that neither Cheech nor Chong were ever appointed to high office by previous libs.

There are things you just don't admit.

Like when your Dr asks you how much you drink or if there is a gun in your house

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

If you're stupid enough to lie to the FBI about this, you deserve to be fired. Just ask General Flynn what happens when you lie to the FBI.

If they aren't making you piss in a cup then even the Feebs won't be able to prove anything

> If they aren't making you piss in a cup then even the Feebs won't be able to prove anything

Aren't they still using the polygraph/ lie detector / interrogation assisting device?

I would be surprised if they do not for Top Secret. It's a great interrogation tool. Lemme check....

From August...

How to Prepare for a Security Clearance Polygraph Examination

Some federal clearances for Sensitive Compartment Information (SCI) and other Special Access Programs (SAP) require a polygraph examination.

news.clearancejobs.com

Yup....

How to Get TS/SCI With a Full Scope Polygraph

Getting a Top Secret or Sensitive Compartmented Information security clearance is a long, exhaustive process that can take months and can involve what's called a Full Scope Polygraph or Full Scope Poly, incorporating the questions of a Lifestyle Polygraph and a Counterintelligence or CI Polygraph.

careertrend.com

It's a really big deal. I think too many people take it lightly. The documentation that has to be completed is quite extensive, must be complete, and without error or omission.

Water boarding.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

> Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

No, it would not. It's still against federal law to possess marijuana, it's a federal job, and it's a long-standing policy that prior drug use can be a disqualifier for security clearances and many jobs requiring integrity or where public safety is involved.

Shoot, I am pretty sure that some private employers do not hire people who use tobacco, since there is not federal law that prohibits them from doing so.

Regards,
Jim

So Harris shouldn't have been able to pass her security clearances.

An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.

She most certainly had to.

>>An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.
>She most certainly had to.

Here is what I had alluded to in a prior post about elected officials being exempt....

Politicians and Security Clearances

Lawmakers (and aspiring presidents) don’t go through the same background investigation process required of everyone else.

www.govexec.com

" The process of election is considered a public seal of access. When you elect a candidate into office – be it Congress or the Presidency – you in some sense grant them access to the classified information required for the position. "

There is a level where people have to go through background checks to have access to certain info. All elected officials are not privy to all info.

Harris had to go through one to become the VP candidate.

The Biden campaign may have asked for one but U.S. law does not require her to have one. It has always been assumed that the voters would have sufficiently vetted a candidate, usually by way of an honest press. In these days, I think a background check should be done and made public on candidates before elections as our press is no longer a watchdog.

There is no law that states that you get suspended for having smoked pot in the past.

>There is no law that states that you get suspended for having smoked pot in the past.

It's not about being suspended. It's about not passing the initial check while one is basically working probationally.

Even most law enforcement will pass on a candidate who was previously a habitual user in the past. It goes toward character. They normally have better-qualified candidates without such a history that they can choose instead.

 

[pknopp]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

> Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

No, it would not. It's still against federal law to possess marijuana, it's a federal job, and it's a long-standing policy that prior drug use can be a disqualifier for security clearances and many jobs requiring integrity or where public safety is involved.

Shoot, I am pretty sure that some private employers do not hire people who use tobacco, since there is not federal law that prohibits them from doing so.

Regards,
Jim

So Harris shouldn't have been able to pass her security clearances.

An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.

She most certainly had to.

>>An elected official doesn't have to pass a security clearance.
>She most certainly had to.

Here is what I had alluded to in a prior post about elected officials being exempt....

Politicians and Security Clearances

Lawmakers (and aspiring presidents) don’t go through the same background investigation process required of everyone else.

www.govexec.com

" The process of election is considered a public seal of access. When you elect a candidate into office – be it Congress or the Presidency – you in some sense grant them access to the classified information required for the position. "

There is a level where people have to go through background checks to have access to certain info. All elected officials are not privy to all info.

Harris had to go through one to become the VP candidate.

The Biden campaign may have asked for one but U.S. law does not require her to have one. It has always been assumed that the voters would have sufficiently vetted a candidate, usually by way of an honest press. In these days, I think a background check should be done and made public on candidates before elections as our press is no longer a watchdog.

There is no law that states that you get suspended for having smoked pot in the past.

>There is no law that states that you get suspended for having smoked pot in the past.

It's not about being suspended. It's about not passing the initial check while one is basically working probationally.

Even most law enforcement will pass on a candidate who was previously a habitual user in the past. It goes toward character. They normally have better-qualified candidates without such a history that they can choose instead.

They told the truth. They were doing their jobs.

 

[OldLady]

Who cares if you smoked weed in hs or college? As long as you aren't positive for it now, what difference does it make? I have a feeling more than half of us have at least tried it once, out of curiosity.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

This article is somewhat confusing, or perhaps I have not had enough coffee yet.

It seems to indicated that the Biden Admin promised staffers that they would be flexible regarding past marijuana use, but after the affected staffers completed background check forms revealing past marijuana use, even in states where it is legal according to state law, many were asked to resign.

My guess is that the real story is that the incompetent Biden Admin made unclear, unwritten promises that they could not keep, and the stoners had trouble understanding how the system really works, with some being let go due to excessive or habitual use that they considered personally to be "limited", or perhaps being dishonest about the level of prior use. You can just imagine the low-IQ woke cast of characters who are trying to be employees of the Executive Branch these days.

"'The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained,' the staffer said. "

The press was all over Jared Kushner's security clearance challenges. I wonder how many folks with a Hunter Biden type of record are trying to work at the White House.

White House weeds out young staffers who have smoked pot

The White House has weeded out young staffers who have smoked pot - despite them having been informally told that past highs would be overlooked, it has been revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Well, Biden was going to mandate masks throughout the country when he's president, so go figure.

 

[woodwork201]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

Anyone who supports the Constitution, any so-called conservative, should be standing up for the druggies. We used to day, and some still say it while not really meaning it, I hate what you say (or do) but I'll fight to the death do defend your right to say (or do) it. Those are empty words today.

 

[woodwork201]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

Anyone who supports the Constitution, any so-called conservative, should be standing up for the druggies. We used to day, and some still say it while not really meaning it, I hate what you say (or do) but I'll fight to the death do defend your right to say (or do) it. Those are empty words today.

>Anyone who supports the Constitution, any so-called conservative, should be standing up for the druggies. We used to day, and some still say it while not really meaning it, I hate what you say (or do) but I'll fight to the death do defend your right to say (or do) it. Those are empty words today.

It's an interesting point, but some drugs are plain bad, like meth. Some can be used in moderation, and it is arguable whether or not occasional recreational use off the job is an issue - everyone has their own opinions, and not every job is the same.

Regarding constitutionality, it is completely constitutional to restrict behaviors that the citizens, via their legislatures, consider to be undesirable, unless it conflicts with a fundamental right like freedom of expression, assembly, religion, arms, and such.

You claiming religion or expression ?

 

[basquebromance]

Biden's old school, damn it, and that's just the way he likes it

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

> Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

It's Article 1, Section 8...

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

[toobfreak]

Biden Admin Weeds Out White House Stoners

Wow. So does that mean now they'll have to sneak Hunter in through the service gate?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Biden Admin Weeds Out White House Stoners

Wow. So does that mean now they'll have to sneak Hunter in through the service gate?

>Wow. So does that mean now they'll have to sneak Hunter in through the service gate?

I would suspect that is what is normally done anyway, and there is no way Hunter would ever get a security clearance with his love of all things illicit. Not sure if his prior business dealings with the Ukraine and China would hurt or help. Probably help greatly, since Biden Admin seems to be pro-China and anti-Russia, with Biden even agreeing that Putin is a murderer.

Ya know, the MSM said that Trump had no diplomacy skills. He certainly demonstrated it countless times, meeting with Putin to much fanfare, and even Kim Jong Un. After meeting with Kim, the press reported that Trump sent Kim "love letters," LOL. The reality is, throughout Trumps whole term, DPRK never set off a nuclear explosion, nor a long-range missile.

And now Putin tells Biden "I wish you good health," and China says at a "peace" conference in Alaska, "US citizens don't have trust in Democracy."

Biden tripping on the stairs today did not help, but he can normally fly up those long steps far better than most 80-yr-olds. It's his brain I am more worried about. A president can be in a wheel chair for all I care, as long as they are a strong leader who has great policies.

We went from a position of strength to weakness so quickly.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Dragonlady]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

Anyone who supports the Constitution, any so-called conservative, should be standing up for the druggies. We used to day, and some still say it while not really meaning it, I hate what you say (or do) but I'll fight to the death do defend your right to say (or do) it. Those are empty words today.

>Anyone who supports the Constitution, any so-called conservative, should be standing up for the druggies. We used to day, and some still say it while not really meaning it, I hate what you say (or do) but I'll fight to the death do defend your right to say (or do) it. Those are empty words today.

It's an interesting point, but some drugs are plain bad, like meth. Some can be used in moderation, and it is arguable whether or not occasional recreational use off the job is an issue - everyone has their own opinions, and not every job is the same.

Regarding constitutionality, it is completely constitutional to restrict behaviors that the citizens, via their legislatures, consider to be undesirable, unless it conflicts with a fundamental right like freedom of expression, assembly, religion, arms, and such.

You claiming religion or expression ?

Yes, some drugs are just plain bad, but criminalizing their use does nothing to stop their spread. Until drug abuse is treated as an illness, instead of a moral failing, you will continue to have problems.
\

 

[woodwork201]

>Anyone who supports the Constitution, any so-called conservative, should be standing up for the druggies. We used to day, and some still say it while not really meaning it, I hate what you say (or do) but I'll fight to the death do defend your right to say (or do) it. Those are empty words today.

It's an interesting point, but some drugs are plain bad, like meth. Some can be used in moderation, and it is arguable whether or not occasional recreational use off the job is an issue - everyone has their own opinions, and not every job is the same.

Regarding constitutionality, it is completely constitutional to restrict behaviors that the citizens, via their legislatures, consider to be undesirable, unless it conflicts with a fundamental right like freedom of expression, assembly, religion, arms, and such.

You claiming religion or expression ?

No, I'm not claiming any thing. I'm looking for someone to name the enumerated power that gives the Congress the power to tell us what we can do withour own bodies - what we can eat, drink, ingest? I don't have to claim religion or expression.

The things you mention are a subset of the enumerated and protected rights but they are certainly not all of our rights. Your post is an example of the outcomes that the Federalists feared would happen if there was an enumerated Bill of Rights. Suddenly many would assume those are the only rights.

The Founders attempted to assuade that fear with the 9th and 10th Amendments but, back then and now, there are those who think the only rights protected by the Constitution and the only rights the Government must recognize are those listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Either the government has total power to regulate what you consume, and to decide what's good and bad, or they have no power to do that. There can't be an in between. So which do you think it is? All, or none?

 

[woodwork201]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

> Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

It's Article 1, Section 8...

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

To make all laws necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.... not to make any law they wish or to assume any power they wish. Try again. Which enumerated power, which of the "foregoing Powers" or other powers vested by the Constitution gives them the power to tell us what we can and cannot ingest into our body.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

>Anyone who supports the Constitution, any so-called conservative, should be standing up for the druggies. We used to day, and some still say it while not really meaning it, I hate what you say (or do) but I'll fight to the death do defend your right to say (or do) it. Those are empty words today.

It's an interesting point, but some drugs are plain bad, like meth. Some can be used in moderation, and it is arguable whether or not occasional recreational use off the job is an issue - everyone has their own opinions, and not every job is the same.

Regarding constitutionality, it is completely constitutional to restrict behaviors that the citizens, via their legislatures, consider to be undesirable, unless it conflicts with a fundamental right like freedom of expression, assembly, religion, arms, and such.

You claiming religion or expression ?

No, I'm not claiming any thing. I'm looking for someone to name the enumerated power that gives the Congress the power to tell us what we can do withour own bodies - what we can eat, drink, ingest? I don't have to claim religion or expression.

The things you mention are a subset of the enumerated and protected rights but they are certainly not all of our rights. Your post is an example of the outcomes that the Federalists feared would happen if there was an enumerated Bill of Rights. Suddenly many would assume those are the only rights.

The Founders attempted to assuade that fear with the 9th and 10th Amendments but, back then and now, there are those who think the only rights protected by the Constitution and the only rights the Government must recognize are those listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Either the government has total power to regulate what you consume, and to decide what's good and bad, or they have no power to do that. There can't be an in between. So which do you think it is? All, or none?

> Either the government has total power to regulate what you consume, and to decide what's good and bad, or they have no power to do that. There can't be an in between. So which do you think it is? All, or none?

I am sorry, but I do not agree with the premise of the question, and I have fully stated my opinion with the prior post about Article 1, Section 8, which I think contradicts your premise.

I am completely with your objectives of limited government, but the way it works is that that congress passes laws, sometimes unconstitutional ones, and when the do, the SCOTUS needs to deem them so. Otherwise, like the election, where the SCOTUS should have heard the Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit, I thought. It seemed to have the most merit of them all, IMO.

SCOTUS ruled Texas "lacked standing." Really? No standing? If the election outcome happens to not be correct (SCOTUS did not rule on that), then Texas voters have been disenfranchised and marginalized, two popular buzzwords with even Leftists these days.

Regards and thanks,
Jim

 

[easyt65]

IS HARRIS NEXT?

WH axes staffers over past pot use even though Kamala Harris has admitted she smoked it

Vice President Kamala Harris has publicly admitted to smoking weed in college as the White House revealed that a handful of staffers were let go over past use.

www.foxnews.com

Inner Administration Double Standard.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

> Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

It's Article 1, Section 8...

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

To make all laws necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.... not to make any law they wish or to assume any power they wish. Try again. Which enumerated power, which of the "foregoing Powers" or other powers vested by the Constitution gives them the power to tell us what we can and cannot ingest into our body.

> To make all laws necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.... not to make any law they wish or to assume any power they wish. Try again. Which enumerated power, which of the "foregoing Powers" or other powers vested by the Constitution gives them the power to tell us what we can and cannot ingest into our body.

I posted the exact text, verbatim. See ya.