“If one, as a strict constructionist conservative, thinks the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to ban such things, then legalization thereof is a rational outcome - not because we “want them legal”, but because we want a government that only does what it is strictly allowed to, and no more.” - ctdonath2
“If this is how libertarians view America then thank God for logical conservatives. Just think what would happen if NAMBLA could be free from prosecution or gangbangers could legally wave a gun in your face?” - april15Bendovr
“But they’re not - and can be prosecuted precisely because the government is properly empowered to do so. Causing or threatening harm is one thing; simple possession of an inanimate object is something else entirely.” - ctdonath2
First, let me be clear. I’m in favor of banning both drugs and NAMBLA.
First, you say that there is no power for Congress to ban drugs. Then, you say there is a power to prosecute NAMBLA. What clause in the Constitution gives Congress the power to prevent harm or to stop threats? You cannot have it both ways.
The general duties of "preventing harm and stopping threats" are the jurisdiction of the States. The States had a list of very specific things they wanted a national government to handle collectively, on their behalf. The created and authorized tht government to peform those functions. Among them was not a blanket power to "prevent harm and stop threats".