Why are you lecturing me about stuff you seemingly do not know as much about as do I? The Pure Food and Drug act was in 1906, well before Wickard. The Harrison Narcotics act was in 1914, again, well before Wickard.
It begs the question. If these two landmark pieces of drug legislation both occurred before Wickard, how can you claim they are "based on expanded federal powers under the Wickard Commerce Clause" ?
That's what you're endorsing when you endorse the War on Drugs. You have ceded any principled constitutional objection to programs such as the war on poverty, the EPA and federal control of health care.
Nonsense. The War on Drugs is a legitimate National Defense Issue. The primary mandate of any government is to protect it's people from Danger, especially such danger as comes into the Nation from beyond it's borders. Fighting against those who seek to undermine and destroy our society is indeed a rightful and proper activity for our governments to undertake. Social Engineering (War on Poverty) and the endless expansion of the power of the Federal Bureaucracy (EPA) are not.
This argument is like equating any criticism of Obama with Racism. The two things are not equivalent.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
More education for you from the opinion of the Court, written by Stevens:
The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States” includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.
So which side are you on, Stevens or Thomas?
____________________________________________________________
The War on Drugs is a legitimate National Defense Issue.
Garbage. There is no legislation or case law that cites national defense provisions in the Constitution as a delegation of authority to regulate intrastate drugs. It's the Wickard Commerce Clause. That is what you are endorsing, rationalizations notwithstanding.