I am deliberately taking this line out of your good post and in context of the MJ issue; not to throw a tankard; but to wonder.
Your line is not true. Or shall we say, it has not been true. Incest, rape, etc., are issues that take place in the privacy of the home (most often). Meth labs are operated in homes.
I have no doubts, for example, Rush took most of his painkiller drugs at home, regardless of whether they were legitimately obtained or not.
If the example holds true, then those spouses and children abused in homes should be left alone and not intervened or intruded upon. (In this case, a state is deliberating with its own laws; possibly why, for example CA Dems, continue to try to lower the "age of consent" laws in CA; dittos in re "votes").
The question then, along this line of thought is, is MJ a powerful drug to help those suffering from ailments? Or is it not, or is it rather, a placebo.
There are many points of argument with regard to MJ (in light of yesterday's SCOTUS): For starters:
1. A simple plant grown in backyard or on windowsill. Should be regulated or not. Is it considered a trifling plant or not. If it has restorative or medicinal powers, should it only be used for valid medicinal purposes -- or should its recreational use be permitted, as well? Which side of the argument are pro-legalizers arguing for or against.
#1 reminds me of the so-called "consensual sex" debate which constantly goes on concerning sex with the underaged. If the underaged gives consent to have sex with a legal adult, the liberals argue this constitutes consent and therefore overpasses the statutory rape laws.
2. Actually, the various points of discourse on the recent SCOTUS ruling might be best facilitated in threads specifically purposed with each issue as its own thread for discussion purposes, I think.
One of the other points I brought up elsewhere is the issue of Fed monies. If the woman growing pot on her windowsill (for medicinal purposes) was in any way receiving federal subsidies for say... healthcare or housing or food. If so, then she is indeed a subject to FEDERAL laws. In this case Federal Laws rules MJ to be illegal. And if so, it may have higher authority than the CA laws concerning the legitimacy of Pot.
Given what I've just written, then, if said person then visits (with MJ) to a friend or relative in another state, is that resident then also subject to federal prosecution in re "harboring" laws?
The latter is why I think the "interstate commerce" laws were possibly being deliberated at this point in time -- to lay down the rules for further debates, the more detailed debates.
...as long as one person's actions do no harm to another person. Such acts, causing harm to others should, and rightfull are, the purvue of governments.