[Know your rights]

Now that you've seemingly abandoned your silly evasion about "Then you take a legal run at it and we'll see how far you get," perhaps we can have the real discussion you claim to want.

You objected to this SCOTUS decision and said it was "A dubious claim at best since plaintiffs didn't challenge the constitutionality of the CSA as a whole."

No, I objected with those words to your mischaracterization of that decision as upholding the CSA, when all it really did was uphold the challenged section.

many people from across the political spectrum view Roe v Wade as a bad decision and for good reason.

Many people view the CSA as an unconstitutional law and for good reason: the Constitution gives the federal government no more than very narrow authority over intrastate transactions (as all pre-FDR courts that ruled on the issue recognized).

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Now that you've seemingly abandoned your silly evasion about "Then you take a legal run at it and we'll see how far you get," perhaps we can have the real discussion you claim to want.

That's your opinion and your words. I haven't abandoned anything. As for further discussion, it would be an effort in futility and a waste of my time to argue with someone who holds a completely opposite position then I do. I still contend, at the very least you have libertarian leanings on the issue of drugs and the commerce clause. An endless debate on this issue will not satisfy either one of us.