In a perfect world, yes, it would be a State issue. We don’t live in a perfect world, no such world exists in reality. It’s become intensely complex, and turned inside out. Reality bites.
If pot truly is a medicine, it should be a controlled substance, approved by the FDA, manufactured under controlled circumstances and under license, prescribed by a doctor, and dispensed through a pharmacy. I could tell you that it is a psychoactive drug, a dissassociative hallucinogen. But you probably know that. I could tell you that it has been peer pushed onto our children, told that it’s not harmful and, yes, it does lead to worse drugs and drug use. But you might dispute that. There’s a lot I could say in defense of my position, but I won’t. I’ll just finish by saying...
I believe evil is real, it exists. Evil uses anything to propagate itself, and drugs are just one of the many ways it does that. Millions have lost their lives to it, many by murder, and millions more lives have been wasted and ruined because of it. Evil transcends oceans and borders and it respects no class or position or child.
Drugs are evil.
1. Is that a principled support of the Constitution?
2. Are there any other sections of the Constitution that you would trample, or just the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment?
The FDA is unconstitutional and should be abolished.
Why? Who says the FDA is entitled to that kind of control over even non-narcotic drugs? I mean, I realize they EXERCISE such power, I have never been convinced they have the authority to do so.
I agree, drugs are evil. But not all evils are within the Constitutional mandate of the fedgov to prevent. In fact, MOST evils don't fall into that category. Treason, attacks by foreign nation-states, illegals streaming across the border, that's about it as far as the list of evils that they're supposed to deal with, and as you can see, they can't even seem to handle those.
Really? I don't see any Constitutional authorization for the FDA.
Furthermore, there is solid precedent against your model of how things should work (but then again, precedent is all too often ignored when it is against what one is a proponent of). Consider this; the Federal government needed a Constitutional amendment {the 18th} to regulate a substance (namely alcohol); furthermore, the 18th was repealed in whole by the 21st... so any claim that the government did/does have the authority to regulate drugs (like marijuana, or opiates, etc) based on prohibition is legally null and void.