That wasn’t his argument.
He was arguing that you have a constitutional right to smoke pot, just like you have a constitutional right to bear arms.
This is wrong.
“The Constitution doesn’t say that you have the right to breathe.”
The Constitution has consistantly upheld the right of the community to regulate the buying and selling of alcohol, among other things. There has never existed a constitutional right to smoke pot, or use controlled substances.
“The Constitution is a LIMIT on federal government.”
And one of the things that the constitution provides to the federal government is the right to regulate the transit of goods across the border.
“The Constitution does not give rights, it restricts government.”
Then show me where it says that you have the constitutional right to smoke pot. It’s not there.
“I don’t smoke pot, but I do rake the alleged conservatives over the coals for getting the Constitution upside down.”
The 2nd amendment explicitly affirms the right to bear arms. You need to read the 21st amendment again.
The 21st says that communities have the right to ban the sale of alcohol and to prohibit it’s traffic. So there does not exist the right to buy and sell controlled substances within the American constitution.
Other nations are different, but I’m talking about America here. If you want this to be the case, then you need to repeal the 21st Amendment.
Governments don't have rights, people do. Governments have POWERS, ceded to them by the people. You are upside down again.
So, if someone makes an Edison light bulb in the state, and sells it in the state, the FedGov has no POWER to say squat about it.
Same with cannibis. Although states do retain the POWER to regulate that traffic.
/johnny
What is the difference between "personal autonomy" and "free will?"