But like I said, RP: the Constitution says AMONG the several states, not WITHIN a state. The Founding Fathers wanted to PROHIBIT the state governments from currying favor w/ other states via trade or taxing their citizens more if they buy products from one state vs. another--a FREE TRAFE ZONE was to be the original intent of the Constitution.
Notice that their intent was, as usual, was to enhance individual LIBERTY by prohibiting state governments in this issue. It wasn't to prohibit individuals (again, you are twisting the words of the Constitution to fit a Drug War agenda).
When the Founders used the word "regluate", they meant TO MAKE REGULAR....not to prohibit. The prohibition part was left to the states. When marijuana is grown w/in a state, & does not cross state lines, Congress has no legitimate right to be involved, as the 10th Amendment makes clear...& when the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE has been expressed w/in a state to use marijuana for medical purposes, which the 9th Amendment says they have a right to do, the feds cannot legally destroy that right w/o blatantly stomping on the 9th Amendment.
That is correct. Congress is prohibited from regulating purely intrastate commerce.
Unless.
Unless Congress is regulating interstate commerce and the intrastate commerce is having a substantial effect on their regulatory efforts.
By your statement above, you do agree that Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, correct? What happens if a state then permits some intrastate activity that substantially affects Congress' constitutional regulatory efforts? Should that be allowed?
Should a state, or states, be allowed to undermine and subvert Congress' constitutional efforts?