I agree that pot should be illegal, but my objection to the SC case is that this is a matter reserved for the states. The federal law went beyond a reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause.
Heck, under such a broad commerce clause, the 10th Amendment has no meaning.
I question regulating it for adults, even at the state level. Our governments should not think they have the power to act like our nannies. Educate, rather than legislate!
Nice connection to the tenth amendment. I'd never thought of it that way before.
I always wondered what Congress and the courts thought the founders were talking about when they emphasized limited government. Why did they carefully craft section 8 of article 3 with those few, tightly circumscribed powers only to throw in the commerce clause which now, supposedly, gives the federal government power over virtually everything. Makes no sense.