> The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart.

No, that's not what's being said. If you grow your own plant for personal use, there's no need for the federal government to be involved. If you grow that plant and then try to sell it, then there's some commerce which does fall under some regulation (we'll leave the interstate nuances aside). Having the fed being allowed to say you cannot grow in your house is one step away from saying you are only allowed to perform missionary position (no other positions are allowed) between the hours of 7-8pm, but not at all on Sunday.

▲

999900000999 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Okay. So if you decide to visit a friends house does him sharing still count as personal use ?

In many communities you have a guy who cooks plates of food and sells them. While technically this is illegal with out a permit, it’s usually tolerated.

I’m all for the legalization of everything for adults, but it’s a very complex issue. Education is the way here, not punishment

	▲	semiquaver 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No one argues these things are not able to be regulated. Instead, per the 10th amendment, it must be left to state law since Congress does not have unlimited power and may only legislate where power has been granted to them by the constitution.

▲

kjkjadksj 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And before people say you are being hyperbolic, the government still regulates sex positions. Sodomy is illegal in 12 US states.

▲

randallsquared 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Not the federal government, however.

There are specific prohibitions on certain categories of state laws, like granting titles of nobility, creating non-gold/silver currencies, etc. The federal government cannot constitutionally regulate sex positions, because anything not explicitly covered in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people. In that broad grant, however, the states individually can make or avoid making law on any topic.

As others have mentioned, the Supreme Court has frequently worked around the Constitution for reasons that made sense to them at the time, including the original ruling that this one overturns.

▲

BobaFloutist 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>The federal government cannot constitutionally regulate sex positions, because anything not explicitly covered in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people.

That being said, there's probably not a constitutional way to enforce laws regulating sex positions. Even if you don't agree that such laws are clearly discriminatory in intent (let alone impact), the privacy violations necessary to prove guilt "Beyond a reasonable doubt" almost certainly violate the Fourth Amendment, and any theory of harm would implicitly (if not explicitly) rest on religion.

This is all assuming you don't accept Griswold as a reasonable constitutional argument that pretty obviously would extend to the kinds of sex people have.

	▲	dylan604 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> That being said, there's probably not a constitutional way to enforce laws regulating sex positions. Right, but until someone gets arrested for this, nobody has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law itself. It is one of those unenforceable laws. Even biblical law required witnesses (never just one) before being able to prove adultery.