Replies

Actually commerce is cited here because that's what the USSC uses to justify the War on Drugs. I agree that it is laziness/convenience that they use Wickard, but the fact is that they do use it.

Yes, I know they cite it. As I explained before, they cite it because it's easy. The Courts already gave the government broad powers under Wickard (and remember all but one of those judges were FDR appointees) so the legal authorities use it because it allows for it.

It isn't a very good justification, but they don't have to fight any new court battles to use it, so they just use it. This doesn't mean that their activity isn't authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. In my opinion, the war on drugs is authorized in the part that provides for the common defense, and specifically defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.

Except there's a huge difference: chemical and biological weapons are deployed regardless of the will of those exposed to it; while, on the other hand, drugs aren't used by those who don't want them.

You have too narrow of an understanding of what constitutes a chemical weapon. If a nation dropped gas on us that turned our population into suicidal zombies, you wouldn't doubt that this is a chemical weapon. The only difference between this and what we have now is the delivery mechanism.

This doesn't mean that their activity isn't authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. In my opinion, the war on drugs is authorized in the part that provides for the common defense, and specifically defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.

Which clause of the Constitution discusses enemies foreign and domestic?

Ridiculous, there is a difference — I do not will to have drugs and so I don't. (This can be illustrated in the cases where I do will to have a drug like, [e.g.] a beer or an aspirin, and so do.) — when I was in the Army, an exposure to chemical attack was a distinct possibility, and one I would not will to have.

Your assertion that the only difference is the delivery mechanism completely devalues personal responsibility and accountability because it implicitly denies free will.

It [Wickard/Commerce-clause] isn't a very good justification, but they don't have to fight any new court battles to use it, so they just use it. This doesn't mean that their activity isn't authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. In my opinion, the war on drugs is authorized in the part that provides for the common defense, and specifically defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.

That is a very dubious assertion, especially when there is an actual and far more solid case of national defense that is being ignored: the invasion (aka undocumented immigrants).
...but if the government isn't going to respond correctly to the more straightforward case, why should it go for the far more obscure/questionable case?
Indeed, if it is a national defense problem, why would you be more vitriolic about drugs than an actual invasion?