You may be right because of the word trade; however, the Federal government itself has authorized the growing (University of Mississippi) and interstate distribution of legal marijuana since 1976 through CIND.
Not trying to split hairs, because the total patient list has probably always been under a dozen people, but it is still an interesting fact and one I only know of because I randomly represented one of the Federal patients in a corporate capacity. Each patient dosage is individualized, and the Federal government gives my client 360 joints per month.
[1] https://www.drugabuse.gov/researchers/research-resources/nid...
Why bother with exposing yourself to breathing problems or lung cancer. And with smoking being banned in more and more places, it can't be easy to administer.
As far as respiratory issues, I have never seen any medical record (nor would I discuss them if I did), but my Client is a public figure/activist for medical marijuana and addresses this question regularly. You can find videos online of him discussing this and many other issues if you are interested, but in short he claims no negative respiratory effects and 34 years on this dosage.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2013/01/coder-charged-for-gambling-sof...
You mean interstate trade, of course.
"The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution '[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution' its authority to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States' includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law." (The answer is 'yes.')
The only think that is allowed Federal government to terrorist people in the name of Marijuana is it is still not a common knowledge that the laws about Marijuana are absurd. Federal government taking on MS might be a good thing for society in general.
One big issue with the "war of drugs" is that it is very easy to benefit by helping the illegal drug dealers that fighting against the regulation. If Uber can wage war on different government for de-regulating taxi business why cant a wannabe hemp company do the same? It is not happening but MS getting into this is a good sign.
I don't think this means what you think it means. A quick glance at wikipedia expands and explains:
The Ninth Amendment explicitly bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but this amendment does not explicitly bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.
What unenumerated right is being infringed here?
One could suppose the right you're referring to is that of the individual states to create their own laws...except the Constitution covers that one in Article VI, clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Or the right of the states to regulate trade...
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
...hmmm.
The problem is that a) weed is illegal in the United States under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811) b) the President of the United States has decided not to enforce this law (in violation of Article III clause 5: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"). This had led to a murky situation where the laws that apply to a local company are very very different from the laws that a multinational entity like Microsoft has to worry about. I'd be very interested to see what happens in the long run here.
Shipping it across state lines seems like an obvious example.
Microsoft may be keeping distant enough not to worry (though perhaps not given their formal partnership with Kind, even if their own offering is only to governments), but Kind is basically betting it's business -- and the personal liberty of its decision makers -- on the willingness of the federal government to extend the informal prosecutorial tolerance of in-state activities related to marijuana that comply with state laws in states which have adopted some form of state legalization to larger interstate enterprises (and on that tolerance continuing at all, which it might well not under a different administration.)