Actually commerce is cited here because that's what the USSC uses to justify the War on Drugs.
I agree that it is laziness/convenience that they use Wickard, but the fact is that they do use it.
> A more rational authorization for drug interdiction is in the section responsible for defending the nation. Drugs are no different than chemical or biological weapons, and therefore the constitution authorizes the government to stop them.
Except there's a huge difference: chemical and biological weapons are deployed regardless of the will of those exposed to it; while, on the other hand, drugs aren't used by those who don't want them.
Yes, I know they cite it. As I explained before, they cite it because it's easy. The Courts already gave the government broad powers under Wickard (and remember all but one of those judges were FDR appointees) so the legal authorities use it because it allows for it.
It isn't a very good justification, but they don't have to fight any new court battles to use it, so they just use it. This doesn't mean that their activity isn't authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. In my opinion, the war on drugs is authorized in the part that provides for the common defense, and specifically defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.
Except there's a huge difference: chemical and biological weapons are deployed regardless of the will of those exposed to it; while, on the other hand, drugs aren't used by those who don't want them.
You have too narrow of an understanding of what constitutes a chemical weapon. If a nation dropped gas on us that turned our population into suicidal zombies, you wouldn't doubt that this is a chemical weapon. The only difference between this and what we have now is the delivery mechanism.