That is an interpretation "privileges and immunities" worse than the current thinking on the Commerce Clause. It is a very good thing that what you think is of no consequence.
What you apparently do not understand is the role of Natural Law competition among the States with which to determine the correct set of actions and statutes. Some will liberalize their drug laws. Others will tighten them. There will be smuggling across State lines. The States will then be forced to consider an Amendment granting the Federal government narrowly defined powers to regulate or prohibit drug trafficking. That's how it works. In the mean time, we'll all learn a lot about the damage liberalization does while the laboratory of Federalism will point out and develop the most cost effective means to deal with drugs altering perception or cognitive function.
Now I'm no drug libertarian by any means. Personally, I prefer executing people who sell drugs to children or commit a crime resulting in grievous bodily injury while intoxicated. Simultaneously I prefer legalizing drug resorts with the owners equally responsible for the consequences of intoxication outside their property. The point is that somebody other than government must be accountable for people who deliberately take actions to put themselves in a state of mind for which they cannot control what they do. That somebody had best be able to afford the scope of those consequences or pay the ultimate price. No more sugar-coating the reality of intoxication.
Now some might not prefer those rules for their State, to which I say 'go ahead and live in a State placing no value upon sobriety.' Let that State go to hell and see what happens. Federalism limits the scope of such damages and provides the object lessons in bad governance for all to witness while uplifting good ideas and their progenitors with them. Such is how we get better statesmen.
Hence, I am an unalterable opponent of your incontinent reliance upon the one-stop shop for one-size-fits-all, unionized, lawyerized, bureaucratic influence-peddling police state that has become the District of Criminals.
That is an interpretation "privileges and immunities" worse than the current thinking on the Commerce Clause.It is a very good thing that what you think is of no consequence.
I don't think I shall ever cease hearing how uninformed I am from people who ultimately turn out to be less informed. Put simply, you do not know what you are talking about. Perhaps I can inform you, but I have found that generally when someone takes a set against something, there is no persuading them with things like "proof" or "reasoning." "Reasonable" people are few and far between in my experience.
You seem like a relatively intelligent person, so perhaps you will prove to be the exception. At this point, I don't see any reason to make any arguments of my own because others have already done a pretty good job of compiling the facts and presenting the argument. I urge you to read this document, of which this is an excerpt.
Japan employed illegal drugs as a strategy against China during the former's occupation of Manchuria before World War II. The Japanese and Chinese had been enemies for centuries. Aware of the social destruction that drugs cause, as well as the devastating role that opium had played in China's history, the Japanese distributed opium, heroin and cocaine along the Chinese coast when they took control of Manchuria in 1931, earning Japan $300 million per year.11The strategy not only helped finance Japan's war machine, but the Japanese planners thought that it would make the subsequent occupation of China much easier because drug consumption would reduce the combat-effectiveness of Chinese troops...
And when you grasp the essential point made in that document, I dare say I can find a half a dozen more that might serve to make you better informed regarding this subject in which you have chosen to wade.