They ruled a constitutional right to privacy -- under which abortion was protected. True or not, their ruling makes abortion legal.
"Congressional "findings and declarations"
Those are 'evidence' only of Congress' desire for power."
Then your job is easy. Refute their findings and the law comes crashing down.
"The power to enact Prohibition was granted by a constitutional amendment - there is none such regarding other drugs."
True. But it wasn't required.
The U.S. Supreme Court did rule that there is a constitutional right to abortion - does that make it true?
True or not, their ruling makes abortion legal.
That was never under dispute. But I think you do in fact understand the claims that Roe v Wade, or the Controlled Substances Act, are unconstitutional - that's what comes under the "true or not" you refer to.
Congressional "findings and declarations
Those are 'evidence' only of Congress' desire for power.
Then your job is easy. Refute their findings and the law comes crashing down.
There is no obligation to refute that which has been merely asserted with no supporting evidence. However:
"(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate."
Clearly false - any goods interdicted during a transfer across a state border have thereby been proven to be distributed interstate.
"(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic."
Purely speculative, as no attempt had been made before or since to control interstate traffic without instrastate control.
The power to enact Prohibition was granted by a constitutional amendment - there is none such regarding other drugs.
True. But it wasn't required.
So it was on a lark that they underwent the process of ratification by three-quarters of the states?