This will all be very clear to you and me, but the "warriors" won't get it. They will put their blinders on and claim it is false.
Here's part of the story about using a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ENFORCE IT. Link to the whole story is provided.
Anxious not to drive boozers to switch to narcotics, Congress modified the Harrison Act within days to close loopholes, and this time the SUPREME COURT agreed. Less than three years earlier, the court had said Congress could never have intended to make criminals out of any American who happened to possess some form of opium. SINCE IT (the Supreme Court) HAD JUST REQUIRED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN ALCOHOL, you might imagine the court would tell Congress to go get another amendment if it wanted to ban something else. But now it gave the opium user short shrift in handing down twin 5-4 decisions on March 3rd, 1919.[14] First the court answered a complaint out of Memphis that the tax was not really a tax but was a prohibition, which was unconstitutional. It was decided the Harrison Act was a tax, which was constitutional, even though it had other purposes than raising revenue. In the other case a doctor had been charged with prescribing opiates to an addict with no intention of curing him. The justices now said prescribing maintenance doses of morphine was "so plain a perversion of meaning that no discussion of the subject is required."
important part: the tax was not really a tax but was a PROHIBITION, WHICH WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It was decided the Harrison Act was a tax, which was constitutional,
http://www.dpft.org/history.html
Your inputs and others are great and keep me busy with follow-up
There's the usual slams about MJ being deadly, more potent, produces frog babies etc.
After its all been refuted it just keeps coming back to the Commmerce Clause and did the Feds. have the "Right" to do what they have done. Not the "ability".
I just never seem to be able to get my mind around the fact that growing a weed for consumption affects interstate commerce
It's inconcievable to me that the founders could have possibly intended for it to be used this way.
When read in its entirety, the very spirit of the document screams the illegitmacy of the heavy handed Fed.
Anyways, keep up the good work.