Congress was legislating intrastate activities 20 years before FDR. Need a link to the Shrevepost Rate Cases?
Okay, here I go, taking you at face value again!
Followers of these threads are familiar with the legal evolution of the Commerce clause. We know that the Founders did not want the various States discriminating against the persons and enterprises of the other States by means of invidious regulation.
Thus, in a marijuana case where Iowa is attempting to exclude Illinois weed from being sold, processed or transported through Iowa, I would support the Feds' case against Iowa.
Apart from that, the notion that the government has the legitimate power to forbid possession of mere 'substances' is too 20th Century totalitarian to be seriously regarded by anyone with a historical perspective.
As Orwell made clear, lying is the best strategy for success in a Party State. Indeed, it is the only way forward.
But as Solzhenitsyn witnessed, such success leads only to eventual disgrace and death, anyways.
However evil the results of drug abuse are, they pale into insignificance in the face of the horrors perpetrated in the name of 'justice' by the modern progressive State and its odious cadres of human predators, scavengers, and parasites.
They can all go to Hell, in my opinion. ;^)
Paulsen selectively retorts:
Congress was legislating intrastate activities 20 years before FDR.
Notice how bobbie dodges the true issue of Congressional usurpation's, and defends them by in effect claiming they were started in a more conservative era 20 years before.
Paulsen is no conservative, and virtually every post he makes gives away his democratic/socialist 'will of the majority' position.