[pawdoggie]

Any FReeper who thinks that the idea that wheat grown for personal consumption can be regulated by the federal government (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 1942) is anathema to the original Constitution, personal liberty and federalism, but that the same regulation of marijuana is just fine, is inconsistent to the point of irrationality.

Talk about "irrationality". The day that (unfermented) wheat can give you a buzz or cause you to be cited for DUI, is the day that wheat and marijuana will be on the same plateau of "regulatability".

[Ken H]

UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide: Any FReeper who thinks that the idea that wheat grown for personal consumption can be regulated by the federal government (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 1942) is anathema to the original Constitution, personal liberty and federalism, but that the same regulation of marijuana is just fine, is inconsistent to the point of irrationality.

pawdoggie: Talk about "irrationality". The day that (unfermented) wheat can give you a buzz or cause you to be cited for DUI, is the day that wheat and marijuana will be on the same plateau of "regulatability".

If you are saying that federal drug laws do not depend on Wickard, you are woefully uninformed:

"The case comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the CSA's findings and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, Wickard and its progeny foreclose that claim."

--Justice Stevens in Raich

[tacticalogic]

Talk about "irrationality". The day that (unfermented) wheat can give you a buzz or cause you to be cited for DUI, is the day that wheat and marijuana will be on the same plateau of "regulatability".

There's nothing in the "substantial effects doctrine" about "buzz". Just ask Bob Stewart.