This your response to my saying that I prefer local regulation of drugs. Can you expand? I don't know what you mean.
No cites, naturally. Endless baseless assertions.
This is the response you made to my saying, "Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow."
What does "No cities" mean? It it means I named no cities, I didn't need to. Municipalities are just an extension, and get their powers from, the state divisions of government.
Otherwise your response is meaningless.
Your posting of the rationalization for using 1-8-3 to ban plant products is very strange. I don't need to "refute" it. What is there to refute? It's just a statement of purpose. It makes no argument, just unsupported allegations. Rememer, this just makes something illegal, it doesn't not make it bad. Something is not bad just because Congress says so. "Illegal" could have other purposes, like establishing a base for social control or eliminating constitutional liberties.
(2) could be used to ban virtually anything, and doesn't provide a source of proof of any danger. Where's the evidence that cannabis constitutes any danger to the health, welfare and safety to the people? There is none.
Alcohol is a much greater danger to the public health and welfare than cannabis and it is not included.
(5) and (6) means anything can be controlled using the excuse its local movement can't be distinguished from interstate movement.
Like (2), all the Congress has to do is just state something is a danger and it is so presumed. At the state level, proof is required.
Every fed program effecting individuals has been a failure in that it produced unintended consequences far worse than the original "danger" it proported to fix.
What's your rationalization for firearms being "controlled" and banned using the same clause? Do you support that, too?
Remember, if this charade did not have your and other public school products' support, they couldn't get away with it now any more than they could have in 1919.