* Cannabis has demonstrated medicinal value, directly contradicting statute. Statue provides no evidence of, nor ability to verify, its claim that there is a lack of evidence of medical value.
* Individual prohibition requires a constitutional amendment a la amendment 18.
* Founding leaders of US grew hectares of cannabis. System is in gross hypocrisy.
> Cannabis has demonstrated medicinal value, directly contradicting statute. Statue provides no evidence of, nor ability to verify, its claim that there is a lack of evidence of medical value.
Please cite a case of a law overturned in the US judicial system because of medical value.
> Individual prohibition requires a constitutional amendment a la amendment 18.
Again, please cite case law. I'm pretty sure you don't need a constitutional amendment to outlaw possession of a type of good.
> Founding leaders of US grew hectares of cannabis. System is in gross hypocrisy.
Seriously? It wasn't outlawed until the modern era. By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves?
I think the logic is sound: Party A (statute) argues a->x, b->y, c->z. Party B shows a, b, c don't actually hold in reality and therefore you cannot conclude x, y, or z based on a, b, or c.
Statue is therefore meaningless.
Amendment 18 & 21 set the precedent. Amendments 4, 9, & 10 provide huge cover.
>By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves?
I didn't expound my whole logic, but the largest difference is that slaves are human beings and cannabis is a plant.
Also note, slavery is outlawed by the US constitution. Cannabis is not.
Your reasoning has been tried, and failed. People are working very hard to make such reasoning work, and are making little progress.
The point ctdonath was making was that the Supreme Court has ruled that private, personal cultivation of marijuana, even when in accordance with state laws, has an effect on interstate commerce. The relevance of the effect on interstate commerce is that the activity - growing marijuana - falls under the purview of federal law and federal law enforcement agencies.
To bring it back to your suggestions and the distinction between conventional and legal arguments, ask yourself this: for each suggested argument, think of two worlds with one being a world where your argument is absolutely correct and the other being a world where your argument is absolutely incorrect. Is there a difference between these two worlds in whether or how personal marijuana cultivation affects the illegal interstate marijuana market?
This line of argument can be used to justify federal involvement in anything. This makes it useless in drawing any interesting distinction, nor does it address any of my original arguments.
However, I do not think the US Supreme Court has real claim to be the final, global arbiter. Usurping power is, however, the US Supreme Court's demonstrated prerogative. It's pretty much how the institution began its life.