The federal governments authority is at the border. It's well within their Constitutional authority to stop drugs coming in from other countries. The subject of the article is domestic marijuana, and all the available information says the original intent of the Constitution was that this is a State issue.
The abuse of the Commerce Clause that's being used give the federal government control of that is the same abuse that's enabled the EPA, NLRB, HHS, and a host of other agencies.
If the federal government needs that authority, then it needs to be explicitly enumerated and granted by the States as an amendment. That's the deal we were left with, and I don't see why there's so much argument over holding up our end of it.
Asinine and nonsensical. If this were Nuclear, Chemical or biological weapons, you would not be spouting crap like that. (It is, in fact a chemical and biological weapon.)
The subject of the article is domestic marijuana, and all the available information says the original intent of the Constitution was that this is a State issue.
The subject of the article does not frame the debate. The libertarian philosophy does not recognize a distinction between weed and hash. If your argument is that people have a right to smoke marijuana, then you can't say that right ends at marijuana.
Do you believe people have a right to smoke marijuana?
The abuse of the Commerce Clause that's being used give the federal government control of that is the same abuse that's enabled the EPA, NLRB, HHS, and a host of other agencies.
I will not dispute that the commerce clause is abused far in excess of what ought to be tolerated, but as I have indicated earlier, the correct authority for drug interdiction is the defense clause.