And you got all that from "to regulate"? And this also applies to commerce with foreign nations, since the identical phrase, "to regulate" is used?
"More absurd is to assert that the commerce clause applies to possession of an item."
I agree.
"Possession" falls into the substantial effect realm and, for that, the Necessary and Proper Clause applies.
"Somehow I think you'll lose that case 9 out of 10 times -- "
I don't, but I'm sure glad I don't have to do that all the time.
The citizens in Alaska felt that possession by adults (small amounts, in their homes) harmed their children in that marijuana use by Alaskan teens was double the national average, so in 1990 they passed a referendum to make marijuana illegal.
...and since then: # Alaska Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled that personal possession of cannabis is protected by state constitution's privacy clause. As recently as Sep 14, 2004, the AK Supreme Court refused to overturn a unanimous Appellate Court decision that police were not allowed to enter a home simply based on smelling cannabis smoke outside.
"Somehow I think you'll lose that case 9 out of 10 times -- " 67
I don't, but I'm sure glad I don't have to do that all the time.
Since you're glad that you've seldom if ever have taken a person to court for drug possession claiming that you were harmed by their act of possessing drugs so that you may gain restitution for your claim of pain and suffering you make my case. Drug possession and use is prevalent in the U.S. Yet you have not been harmed, endured pain and suffering, by those people's possession or use of drugs. For if you had you'd take them before an impartial jury.