" But there are many arguments for and against drug-use. The Religious Majority and Moral Authority, argued in the 90s, that drug-use is a social ill,"
Using the State to enforce social engineering programs and “reprove social ills” is a more um, Euro-fascist way of conducting government. So whatever arguments you are talking about have nothing to do with any of this constitutional philosophy.
" What is your grievance, exactly? I don’t think the Supreme Court would oppose you that you have a ‘Right’ to poison yourself and your body, “as long as it doesn’t infringe upon others”
What… I. Like. It’s illegal to possess certain drugs at a federal level, or even to grow them on my own land, by my own hand, for my own use- without ever even interacting with another person let alone infringing upon their rights. That is my grievance… My grievance is that a shitload of my implicit rights, granted to me by God himself and afforded from out of the hand of Nature to one and all, have been denied to me and sidestepped by bloated federal agencies that, from the vantage purely of constitutional philosophy, should not even be allowed to exist in the first place, since they were created solely through executive order and clearly violate the sphere of power dispensated to the Federal Government in both the Spirit and the Letter of the Law. Our Constitution states that any power not explicitly granted by it to the Federal Government is not legitimate: and it lays out very clearly a few very explicit powers that the executive branch is allowed to wield: the power to manage border security in whatever way the president deems fit, etc. Turns out that getting to decide what drugs are illegal or not, isn’t one of those powers; nor is hacking into all of our Iphones to spy on us.
You mentioned weed being legalized: yes, by states. There isn’t an inch of movement at the level of the federal government on that, which is the whole issue here. And drugs are just a very obvious example of what I have been talking about, ie. implicit rights and their being afforded equal protection by our constitution- just as much as any right that has been explicitly defined, like my right to free speech. So in short, my grievance is that the federal government has exercised constitutionally illegitimate and therefor illegal powers in denying me the implicit protections afforded to me by the founding documents of this nation,- me and so many others, on 1,000 different fronts besides the blatant and colorful example of the drug war. My grievance is that these illegitimate agencies should be immediately disbanded, and their entire illegal funding seized and granted to all the people of this country whose taxes have been used to fund them for so many years in the form of a kind of stimulus package; my grievance is that every federal agent who has participated in the illegal activities of these agencies (the DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. etc.) should all be brought before the Supreme Court and tried for treason against the United States as well as for aiding and abetting our sworn enemies in the case of CIA operators funding different terrorist organizations for example; etc. etc. etc.
" Your position is very Libertarian."
That’s a basic philosophical school,- not even a school of philosophy, just a general philosophic attitude. I am not making a case for, against, or about that in this thread. In this thread, I am talking about the nuances of administration: Federalism, Natural right, implicit and explicit protections, etc. The idea of, instead of using the logically untenable category of the Group (meaning “the social good” for example) to ground our legal system, (The European states work this way, that is why their governments freely carry out social engineering programs, toward the object of some group-based idea of the collective good; that is why they can jail you for refusing to address a transgender person by his preferred pronoun.) as inevitably resulted from the emergence of governments in the past merely though the blind evolutionary forces of nature that have shaped an equally blind history of mankind upon the Earth, (The US alone was born out of an act of Will and deliberation; it did not just evolve out of an endless series of conflicts like other nations. A group of men sat down in a room, planned it out on paper like architects designing a building, signed their names on it, and then waged a war whose sole purpose was to defend that newly inaugurated state.) using the category of the Individual as primary, and then developing a system of internal checks and balances meant to measure out a harmonious dispensation of authority in conformity with that primary category,- a system whose purpose is only to secure the rights of said individuals, as well as to protect our border and carry out the few other duties and exercise those few powers that have been so dispensated and granted to the Federal government by our foundational documents, leaving all else to the independent state-level governments.