[DiogenesLamp]

It is the bastardized Wickard Commerce Clause and its progeny. This has allowed fedgov to control health care, education, the environment and a slew of other areas never intended.

Given that the Wickard court was 8 Roosevelt appointees and one liberal non-Roosevelt appointee, it is safe to say it does exactly what they intended that it should do, but the Commerce clause is a poor constitutional argument for making drugs illegal. The Defense clause is far more appropriate.

That they use commerce and Wickard to assert authority over drugs is just a matter of convenience. Because the liberal courts say they can use it as justification they do so, but it isn't the best fit.

[Ken H]

That they use commerce and Wickard to assert authority over drugs is just a matter of convenience.

Uh, no. It is a matter of case law.

Because the liberal courts say they can use it as justification they do so, but it isn't the best fit.

IOW, they're whores who love the Drug War more than the Constitution. If you support fedgov imposition of intrastate prohibition, you support Wickard and you should own up to it.