Perhaps while under the influence.
Let's see, Congress could enact a prohibition on the sale of whiskey to the Indians because because whiskey was "legitimate commerce." But Congress can't enact a prohibition on the sale of marijuana because marijuana is not "legitimate commerce." And marijuana isn't "legitimate commerce" because Congress prohibits it. But if marijuana wasn't prohibited by Congress, then it would be "legitimate commerce" that Congress would then be empowered to prohibit. But as soon as Congress enacted a prohibition on marijuana it would instantly revert to no longer being "legitimate commerce", so the prohibition would be unconstitutional.
What case was that anyway? Cheech vs. Chong?
But Congress can't enact a prohibition on the sale of marijuana because marijuana is not "legitimate commerce."
It is clear that I never said that or anything like it. A "prohibition on the sale of marijuana" is a law prohibiting commerce in marijuana. Even a small child could understand that extremely simple concept. That being established; (the concept not your idiocy, that's so clear it needs no extrapolation) any commerce in marijuana is obviously illegitimate, ie not legally sanctioned, in nature.
When you go back and complete your grade school education you might be fit to argue the dictionary definition of a few words. Legal concepts are much further down the road for you. Until then this is nothing more than an exercise in 'throwing the monkey's crap back at it' for me. It's kind of fun watching you eat it.