While that's too bad, that's no excuse for gutting the Constitution. That's a liberal style of argumentation. 'It's for the children.'
If you want the federal government to handle it, then it needs to go the way of other existential threats, and have the military in charge, as is the case for nerve gas.
Since it's being dealt with at the federal level as a police power, and the feds have no police power authority outside of federal enclaves, that police power needs to revert back to the States, where it belongs.
I will fight, and do fight, to put the feds back in the box, and stop the creeping over-reach that so-called conservatives champion.
I will, and do work to politically destroy progressives that want to extend the powers of the federal government past their constitutional limits.
/johnny
The Children weren't the only victims, there were husbands and families that felt the loss of a loved one dying from drug overdose. I point out the infants, because losing a mother is particularly hurtful to an infant. No one will ever see to their interests as much as would their mother.
You are trying to ignore this as a "liberal argument" but it is a valid point. Those infants were victims of their mother's drug use. They were hurt, and hurt badly by their mothers exposure to drugs. Their mothers had no "right" to take drugs. They had a responsibility to not do so.
I will, and do work to politically destroy progressives that want to extend the powers of the federal government past their constitutional limits.
I disagree with you that fighting drugs is not within constitutional limits. If poison cat food from China is a federal issue, then so is poison from Columbia and Afghanistan.