But it is - it is based on a "substantial effect" test for interstate commerce authority that is found nowhere in the language of the Constitution and that Justice Clarence Thomas has condemned as a "rootless and malleable standard." (The same test that has authorized the federal big-welfare state, by the by.)
I disagree.
While offering no reason for anyone else to share your disagreement.
Still no reasons to offer?
That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee (a dependency-forming chemical stimulant).
Darn good thing, then, that I don’t drink, smoke, take illegal drugs or caffeine.
Should drink, tobacco, and caffeince be illegal? Would a federal law against within-state commerce in those chemicals be Constitutional? (I say no and no.)
I offered up a reason way back in post #33.
"Should drink, tobacco, and caffeine be illegal? Would a federal law against within-state commerce in those chemicals be Constitutional? (I say no and no.)"
Tobacco is inching closer and closer to that. If there was enough impetus on the part of the public that these were substances that posed enough of a danger to the public health, they might very well go that direction of Prohibition.