> I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards?

My bet? "Interstate commerce."

Yep. They can prevent growing your own wheat (in large quantity) because it impacts interstate wheat markets. You can literally bend this to apply to anything on that logic.

it feels kind of inconsistent. prior to roe being overturned the governments were able to regulate abortion to some extent. i assume some abortion medical procedures required a licensed doctor and i assume abortion medicine was regulated by the FDA. but at the same time the government was limited in how it could restrict abortion and this was justified by some privacy right which somehow didn't apply to the FDA regulation of abortion or medical licensing related to abortion. also, this same privacy right couldn't be invoked to allow you to take other medicines you might want. if you look at the arguments made in Roe v Wade I'm pretty sure you could claim you are taking recreational drugs as part of your marital sex routine and therefore this right to privacy should be extended to these drugs. i think if you honestly extended the general principal of roe v wade then a let of laws would be unconstitutional.

And if you're not engaged in any sort of commerce? Just hanging out on your own land consuming what you grew for yourself, like carrots?

Believe it or not, also interstate commerce.

Seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state.

> Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state.

No, according to the Supreme Court, it's interstate commerce if a butterfly bats its wings and the resulting hurricane causes someone to buy a raincoat in another state.

IIRC, the actual case involved someone growing wheat their own land that they didn't even plan to sell. But since wheat was sold in interstate commerce, the court said any activity involving involving wheat could be regulated as interstate commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich says otherwise.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454

> The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.

Incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I've had a similar thought process. We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, but not for practically anything else (a couple other things, but some of them were also bizarre. Like how can you have privacy over who you marry if you're required to get a license before hand and they can still ban some classes/conditions but not others). If it is a right, it should apply universally. If not, then we need to start creating those rights in the constitution (where it requires larger agreement and isn't as easy to overturn). But maybe I'm crazy.

> We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion,

RBG didn't see it that way.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights."

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...

Consumption isn't illegal just possession.

Seriously curious. If I consume somthing, don't I now posses it (it's in my body) or didn't I have to posses it for at least a moment (in order to consume it)

I'm just curious in what ways this distinction would play out. I can see if "consuming" was illegal and "possession" was not logically works but it's harder to see how "consuming" is legal and "possession" is not doesn't effectively make "consuming" also illegal.

Why stop at “grow”? I don’t see why the federal government should have any say over in what chemicals I might want to purchase or manufacture.

There is a bit of a your fist/my face issue. I don’t want my neighbor operating a meth lab in his shed or building an atomic pile.

Devil's advocate: (I won't take on the atomic pile question since we're talking about consumables)

Operating a meth lab is dangerous _because_ it's illegal. If it were regulated and licensed, it would be no more dangerous than say operating an 18-wheel rig.

Your comparison only holds if the rig is filled with the dangerous constituent chemicals, which are also regulated by government.

Exactly. Regulated, not banned.

And this is where their hypocrisy will show because they will absolutely find a way to allow the DEA to remain

Nothing whatsoever. That's why most of what the federal government does is unlawful.