[rbmillerjr]

“So is he(Thomas), in your words, “nutty”?”

No. His opinion has nothing to do with and does not support your opinion, which along with RonPaul, is nutty. I’ve explained the distinction above on what Thomas’ dissenting opinion pertains to.

(Federal Drug laws remain.)
“That’s not the question - the question is whether they’re Constitutional.”

Yes. Our State and Federal Drug Laws are constitutional.

This is true, despite Ron Paul’s 6th grade bubble gum prize constitutional analysis.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

His opinion has nothing to do with and does not support your opinion, which along with RonPaul, is nutty. I’ve explained the distinction above on what Thomas’ dissenting opinion pertains to.

I rebutted that alleged distinction - "The federal claim for authority to ban drugs rests on the Commerce Clause" - and you haven't addressed that rebuttal.

Federal Drug Laws are constitutional.

So you keep claiming, with no argument but an attempt to sweep under the carpet Justice Thomas' analysis: "local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power."