Nice try, but there are non-commerce related statutes and you still try to cover your ass by only mentioning the laws that you think are covered by the commerce clause.
I have wasted my time giving you chance after chance to admit that the federal government has a myriad of laws on the books that are similar to it’s drug laws, that cross state lines.
You don’t want to address that, because these laws are widely accepted without objection.
The drug laws are generally accepted in the same manner.
Therefore, belching at length about them as if they are a violation when the others aren’t, is just silly.
You don’t like it. I get it. This is an impasse we’re going to continue to have. We both knew it at the beginning of this harangue.
I've already agreed that this is true. (Free clue: I'm not Ken H nor BCrago66.)
these laws are widely accepted without objection.
I don't accept them without objection. I'm aware of no evidence that many FReepers accept them without objection. Do you think it's a conservative argument to say that unconstitutional laws are OK if they're "widely accepted without objection"?
Yes indeed, there are many federal laws that cross state lines that are similar to federal drug laws. A few of the many examples would be fedgov control of education, the environment, health care, and national drug prohibition. They are all based on the same expansive view of the Commerce Clause.
You don’t want to address that, because these laws are widely accepted without objection.
Accepted by you apparently, but not by people who respect the Constitution.