There is no constitutional authority for the feds to regulate and prohibit drugs. If 1-8-3 can be said to be that authority, then the feds have the authority to regulate and prohibit virtually every action and item in the US.
By simply removing the scheduling system, and obeying the intent of the constitution, the regulation of drugs, a local issue, devolves to the states.
And you're lining yourself up with drug addicts. What's your point?
A syllogism:
Drug dealers enjoy much profit from the artificially high price of drugs.
The artificially high price of drugs are because they are illegal.
Any drug dealer with enough sense to breathe will want to keep them illegal, or their lifestyle is over.
Therefore, they use some of that immense wealth to lobby to keep drugs illegal.
Have a nice day.
"If 1-8-3 can be said to be that authority, then the feds have the authority to regulate and prohibit virtually every action and item in the US."That's not the way I read 1-8-3. My copy says interstate commerce. Is there some interstate commerce that Congress may not regulate? Any?
"By simply removing the scheduling system, and obeying the intent of the constitution, the regulation of drugs, a local issue, devolves to the states."
It's at the states right now. States have the power to regulate drugs under their police powers.
The situation right now is that the federal government has chosen to exercise their power to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs. The only way that power may be removed is by constitutional amendment.
That's how we did it with alcohol. That's why Congress was constitutionally incapable of setting a national minimum age in 1986 -- they had no power to do so.