Did you read the opinion? Decisions typically contain some rhetorical flair ("fluffy stuff"), but there was plenty of substance to this decision. See e.g. pages 3-5 of the Syllabus. None of this analysis would be relevant to a decision about marijuana, and many of the standards the decision sets forth would fail in the case of marijuana.

Yes, I agree, but the 14th amendment requires some kind of asymmetry in order to have effect. To violate equal-protection, something has to be unequal.

Not sure I get your meaning here. People who break the law are incarcerated more than people who don't break the law. That's not an equal protection violation.

I was speaking of racial disparities in incarceration rates for marijuana possession, despite no similar disparity in usage rates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/t...

That seems to be missing a comparison with dealing rates - aren't arrests mostly targeting dealers rather than users?