[tacticalogic]

I'm not the one who spends an inordinate amount of time thinking and posting about drugs. I don't attempt to inject drugs into unrelated threads. I have made a conscious decision to make sure drugs are just not that relevant to my own lifestyle. You decide.

Okay, but I'll need a little more information. Judging by this thread, I'm going to assume you support an "enduring document" view of the Constitution. Do you believe that the substantial effects doctrine is consistent with that view? Does the fact that the WoD is dependent on the substantial effects doctrine influence your view of that doctrine? Would you think differently if there was a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing the WoD, and there was no substantial effects dependency?

[presidio9]

I would tend to think that the WoD necessarily involves a seperate debate on "clear and present danger," and I see that debate as counterproductive to this discussion. The SCOTUS has done very little legislating from the bench that dealt with drugs.