[Blue Ink]

“If what’s binding is the Constitution, from where in that document does the federal government derive the power to criminalize a substance? Are you really going to make a case for the Commerce Clause here?”

I agree with you, there’s a good argument that drugs should be regulated by the states, not the Fed. But drug trafficking is an international crime, involving US border sovereignty. How would the states combat it individually?

[Ken H]

I agree with you, there’s a good argument that drugs should be regulated by the states, not the Fed. But drug trafficking is an international crime, involving US border sovereignty. How would the states combat it individually

Suppose a state decides to legalize marijuana. Do you support its authority to do so under the Tenth Amendment without federal interference?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I agree with you, there’s a good argument that drugs should be regulated by the states, not the Fed. But drug trafficking is an international crime, involving US border sovereignty. How would the states combat it individually?

Well, that's a good point. Let me give it a think and get back to you.

But I submit that if drugs were regulated by the states, not the Fed, and each state set its own anti-drug policy, the whole nature of drug trafficking would be radically different than it is today. So if we're going to change a variable, we have to be careful to remember that by changing that variable, we also change the effect of it as well. Fair?