You and that other guy who pointed this out are missing the forest by focusing on a tree. The point is that the consequences of some activities do not remain within the state.
So let's say they aren't counterfeiting money, but are instead counterfeiting movies or clothing, or whatever. Would the consequences stay within the state?
Pot is an activity that won't remain in a state. If one state has it, it will encourage people in other states to engage in it as well. (as the lawsuits are even now alleging) It will grow and spread as drugs invariably do if given a host population.
No, the point is that the Federal government has no such right/power.
Your argument is, essentially, the same as the exigent circumstance
argument used by the courts to ignore the requirements of the 4th Amendment — namely that staying within the confines of the Constitution would present some sort of difficulty or harm.
I assert the opposite: that by not having a government constrained by the Constitution we invite lawless abuse upon ourselves.
Pot is an activity that won't remain in a state. If one state has it, it will encourage people in other states to engage in it as well. (as the lawsuits are even now alleging) It will grow and spread as drugs invariably do if given a host population.
Really? I don't see legalized prostitution being proactively pushed by the other states because one state has it. Or do you mean to tell me that because one state allows it that all states must allow it?