Wow. I'm in the middle of reading an interesting article in The Weekly Standard by William Watkins I think (who has a book out on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that I'm looking forward to reading) arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in its striking down a 9th Circuit decision which said that the Federal Controlled Substances Act was unconstitutional in superseding the California law allowing marijuana for medicinal use. I am against illegal drugs. Period. I think that adults who sell them should be executed. Children who sell them should be kept in jail until they reach adulthood and then executed (just kidding, I'm not that extreme). But--should the Federal government have any control? Watkins does an excellent job demonstrating that the interstate commerce clause does not apply, at least in the situation of the case, which involved growing marijuana inside the state of California. I definitely need to read the full opinion of the Court and concurring/dissenting opinions. I am especially curious of Scalia's and Thomas's position and arguments. Any thoughts? I am especially curious if anyone can present an argument to "keep me in the fold" of supporting such federal laws.