[tahiti]

"Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government is entitled to enforce the CSA’s proscription of the use of marijuana"

"Proscription" means "to banish or outlaw."

In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Goldberg, in his consenting opinion, declared that ingesting a chemical, in this case a birth control pill, was a "fundamental" right, a right "retained by the people," protected by Amendment IX.

Alcohol, another chemical that free people can ingest, could only be banned by a constitutional amendment, not a federal law enforced by a congressional agency.

So, what has changed since then that allows the "powers of Congress," through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), to overrule, usurp, diminish, "deny or disparage" our rights, "retained by the people," protected by the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1965?

[robertpaulsen]

"In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Goldberg, in his consenting opinion, declared that ingesting a chemical, in this case a birth control pill, was a "fundamental" right, a right "retained by the people," protected by Amendment IX."

Actually, he said, "In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected, as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding."

He said nothing about some right to ingest a chemical.

"Alcohol, another chemical that free people can ingest, could only be banned by a constitutional amendment, not a federal law enforced by a congressional agency."

An amendment was not necessary to ban alcohol. A federal statute would have sufficed.

"So, what has changed since then ..."

Nothing.