Either states have NO ability to regulate dangerous materials through prohibiting its citizens from possessing said material, or they do.
Weird theory my boy. -- Where did you dream up that one? -- Can you justify it with ~any~ link to our founding documents or common/case law as practiced in the USA?
I challenge you to make a rational argument supporting your theory.
My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic.
Meaningless denial. You simply can't make a rational argument supporting your claim, so you want to argue about the word 'theory'.
Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.
Rehnquist belies your specious 'logic':
"-- It is, of course, well established that a State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not contravene any federal constitutional provision.... --" Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his 'Pruneyard' decision.
Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins Address:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pruneyard.html
So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can.
Just as I said, States can make reasonable regulations, but they can't make unreasonable prohibitions that violate due process.
[see Harlan above on due process]
So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?
Back to basics tex? In our system:
-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
Can you agree on those basics?
So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"?
Who get's to decide what is reasonable?
Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.