[Tarkin]

"The problem is, this is a disingenuous argument made by addicts to open a loophole and get drugs for free. And lord only knows what "rights" we would have to grant to stoned co-workers. Sadly, we once again are denying a benefit to some because of the corruption it creates in the wrong hands. Probably for the greater good that it remains illegal."

The problem is that if you actually read the majority opinion in Raich you'll see that Stevens almost openly said that the court may accept a substantive due process argument in the future (and then we would just have another judge-made liberal law so the libs would have their goal - allowing pot and maybe other drugs without touching the Commerce Clause).

[GVnana]

the court may accept a substantive due process argument in the future (and then we would just have another judge-made liberal law so the libs would have their goal - allowing pot and maybe other drugs without touching the Commerce Clause).

The dwindling spiral we get when we fail to uphold the organization of our government as outlined in the Constitution. We'd be better off as a nation if California dealt with this alone.