I'm able to make distinctions, that aren't all or nothing. Selling antibiotics over the counter, would result in their becoming totalling useless within 10 years. Your all or nothing approach applies to everything. e.g. If speed limits are OK, then why not have Hillary ride in your right seat with a cattle prod to enforce it and make them all 5mph? I have no problem making logical distinctions.
It would be a logical extension of the arguments they make that extend their control of interstate commerce to encompass the internal commerce of the states. The only way they can effectively regulate the drugs you take is to control all the means by which you might acquire them.
I don't concur that it would be a logical extension. Fathomable, but not logical.
Neither do I, but I'm nonetheless asked to choose between being "for or against legalizing drugs", with no middle ground in sight.
I don't concur that it would be a logical extension. Fathomable, but not logical.
Do you consider the arguments that resulted in the creation of the "substantial effects doctrine" that gives the federal government authority over intrastate commerce to be a logical extension of the interstate commerce clause?