I’m not supporting the “war on drugs”. I never did because I knew from the start that it only goes after supply which will never do anything but increase street prices which makes matters worse.
US v Lopez is about gun control which of course there should be none other than careful aim.
Gonzales v Raich I agree with, if you grow weeds in your yard and smoke them and don’t try to get my kids to smoke with you then I’m happy for you.
I’ve posted before that 90% of Federal gov’t is unconstitutional - I agree on all those points.
As far as having no laws regulating recreational drugs, it sounds like a fine libertarian ideal, but drug users that I have known (people with extraordinary capability to handle drugs) have exhibited effects so bad on their mind, body and life that it strains credulity to think that all drugs should be 100% legal. The Founders, IMHO, would see that some of our modern problems are indeed relevant to the General Welfare (perhaps we could find out if they took any drastic actions related to individual rights early on under the authority of that clause). I’d be curious to look at some of the rampant immorality and social problems of today from their personal viewpoints - I’m sure much of our society they would find repugnant.
And please - I am not for any unconstitutional SWAT raids - I do not think those type of entries are even necessary unless it is to save lives. All LE has to do is sit outside your house or someplace you frequent undercover and wait for you to leave and have your vehicle disabled or blocked. They can then take you into custody rather easily, but it’s not like an action movie, it’s rather boring.
I found an interesting 29 page paper written by Mark A.R. Kleiman and Jonathan P. Caulkins, who also authored a book that delved into some of the details of legalization and the state of things at this point that had a lot more detailed information than I knew; perhaps it might help you to take a second look at how complete abolishing of all drug laws at once could have some unintended negative consequences.
If you support keeping in place federal laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause, then you are walking over the original Constitution. If you support abolishing them and turning such matters over to the states, then you are respecting the original Constitution. It's that simple.
Here's a simple either/or question. Do you support keeping in place federal drug laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause, or should such laws be repealed?
I've posted before that 90% of Federal gov't is unconstitutional - I agree on all those points
What section(s) of the Constitution did fedgov violate to bring this about, in your opinion?
As far as having no laws regulating recreational drugs,...
Stop it. No one in this discussion said anything of the sort. Recreational drugs are regulated by every state in the union, so abolishing federal drug laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause does not equal having no laws against them.
The Founders, IMHO, would see that some of our modern problems are indeed relevant to the General Welfare (perhaps we could find out if they took any drastic actions related to individual rights early on under the authority of that clause).
What nonsense to think the Founders would act in a way that contradicted everything they said about the General Welfare Clause. These were honorable, principled men.
They knew that unforeseen problems would arise, so they provided a method for amending the Constitution. If drugs are such a menace that federal control is needed, then do the honorable thing and pass an amendment.
I'd be curious to look at some of the rampant immorality and social problems of today from their personal viewpoints - I'm sure much of our society they would find repugnant.
They would see that we've become a democracy. The entire Congress is popularly elected, it has virtually no restraint on what it can regulate, and it can spend whatever it wants. That's what the Founders would find most repugnant.
I am confident their solution would be a return to the original Constitution, rather than pass unconstitutional federal laws to deal with it.