Well, we've agreed that the definition of "to regulate" includes "to prohibit" -- therefore, to regulate trade between the states includes prohibiting trade.
Unless you're trying to tell me that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used in the same sentence.
"Regulating is not prohibiting."
Correct. Regulating means a number of things, including prohibiting.
Actually, no we didn't. And no, it doesn't.
Our federal government has *never* been given the privilege by We the People to tax items to the point of prohibition.
They assumed the privilege, and currently the federal anti-marijuana laws are based on the interstate commerce clause.
Our individual, inherent rights acknowledged by the Constitution are derived from our individual, inherent right to own property, first and foremost our own bodies. If the government can tell you what you can, and can't put into your own body, then you do *not* own your body, but are simply renting it from the federal government.
*Any* federal laws legislating marijuana use to the point of prohibition are entirely unconstitutional, and furthermore, We the People do not recognize federal laws that infringe on our individual, inherent rights acknowledged by the Constitution.
Concerning the upcoming state ballot measures to legalize marijuana, one would hope that not only state/local police would stand off vs. the federal authorities, but also that some of the federal authorities would defect to the state/local side. And one would also hope that with proper funding, Blackwater folks could be employed to defend We the People. Ideally, bloodshed would be kept to a minimum, but I'd not shed a single tear over any federal authorities deaths due to their attempt at enforcing unconstitutional legislation. In that scenario, the federal authorities are *supposed* to die, and We the People are supposed to win. Ideally, in the end, the good guys win.