Funny how most of the judges that the contitution provides to be the arbitors of such claims have laughed statements like these out of their courtrooms.
Like the ones that gave us Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas? A conservative wouldn't dream of pointing to them as authorities on the meaning of the Constitution. Why do you?
Justices are often unwilling to make unpopular decisions, even if those decisions are in support of the Constitution. Remember, justices have also ruled slavery legal and that the Second Amendment does not apply to the individual's right to keep and bear weapons. Justices that make unconstitutional decisions should be immediately impeached. Keeping people off drugs is not worth our Bill of Rights.
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
-Justice Clarence Thomas