Gawd, I hate the smell of 10th Amendment igorance in the evening. It smells like ... ignorance.
The 10th Amendment does NOT make pot smoking a right, as you noted, but for the WRONG REASONS. It simply says that the fedgov DOES NOT HAVE A VOICE IN THE MATTER. If a state says you have the right to smoke pot within their jurisdiction, the FEDGOV IS SUPPOSED TO BE SILENT under the 10th.
But, like so many self-professed limited government conservatives, you say you want limited government - as long as the concept does not limit what you want government to do.
And I said differently where? You appear to not understand the difference between something being allowed versus something being protected. I hate the smell of someone that doesn't read or understand what they're accusing people of.
But interstate commerce and regulation of foreign trade are a bit of a bugaboo to your overall tactic.
I suggest you stick with the argument that the federal government cannot regulate the manufacture, sale, or use of drugs which occur solely within the confines of a single state.
But, like so many self-professed limited government conservatives, you say you want limited government - as long as the concept does not limit what you want government to do.
Is this where I'm supposed to cry? Give me a break. I want the people of any given state to be able to decide whether a certain substance (pot, C4 explosives, or plutonium) requires regulation for the purpose of public health. What of weapons? Interestingly, weapons were singled out by the framers and those who ratified the Constitution as so necessary as to be protected.
If all substances were to be protected, why were weapons singled out?
I'm all for more liberty, and I'll entertain arguments to legalize some substances that are currently prohibited, but I won't entertain the notion that getting high is a Constitutionally protected right.