Break a hole in this for me.

[JD1stTimer]

 Break this defense for me.
I have what I think is a bulletproof defense against federal drug charges which I believe any judge or jury who gives two cents about the constitution of the United States would be forced to agree with. The eighteenth amendment was ratified in order to outlaw alcohol in the United States. If it could have been legally accomplished by Congress there would have been no amendment for this. The Twenty-First Amendment repealed this amendment, and expressly gave the power to regulate alcohol to the states. The drug war issue is philosophically IDENTICAL to the issues surrounding alcohol. Drugs and alcohol are no more dissimilar than newspapers are from books, radio, television, magazines, and the internet. There have been no subsequent constitutional amendments granting regulatory powers over mind-altering substances to any federal power. Therefore, any federal regulations of intoxicants which are effectively the same to said substances as the eighteenth amendment was to alcohol are null and void, and those powers are SPECIFICALLY granted to the states by analogy. Blow a hole in this argument if you can. Any lawyers out there, tell me why it wouldn't hold up except by plain and simple treason against the United States by judges. I'm serious too, I want to see this argument shredded viciously. If you can't break this argument, I BEG you to use it in defense of a client, especially in a medical marijuana state. If you know a criminal defense lawyer, please bring this to their attention.  If you use this defense and it doesn't work, please publish the judges opinion so we can find out what the judge was thinking. Thank you.

[Paradoxic]

Well, heres the text that I think you are referring to in the 21st amendment:

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

This section bans the importation of alcohol in violation of state or territorial law and has been interpreted to give states essentially absolute control over alcoholic beverages. However, it specifically refers to "intoxicating liquors" and apply that term to any other psychoactive substance is a very tough case.

The reality is though, that states can basically regulate drugs themselves because the regulating body, the police, is a state-run institution. Take California for example, medical marijuana is legal there and its grown in cannabis clubs across the state. Technically, this is federally illegal, but no one has gotten arrested for using medical marijuana in CA (as far as I know). The only authority that even could arrest someone is the FBI, and you know they wont waste their time unless its something big.

[JD1stTimer]

I blew it apart on my own.   In the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that due to the Interstate commerce clause Congress has the right to regulate any activity which involves any material which is known to have ever been transported across a state line.  The case required Roscoe Filburn to include his personal family and livestock consumption of homegrown wheat in his wheat production limit, because if he didn't grow the wheat himself he would have to buy it, which would possibly come from another state, and therefore the government can require him to purchase that wheat instead of growing it himself.  I suppose they could have told him he has to buy his bread from Wal-Mart instead of Fry's if they wanted to.  The only powers Congress doesn't have are powers over your own body and nothing else.  Even freedom of assembly, speech, religion, etc, aren't guaranteed unless you are standing outdoors naked on a natural rock which is too large to be possibly moved from one state to another (or possibly you have no rights anywhere, since people do actually move rocks, soil, etc from one state to another) and you are not carrying any objects.  Actually you may not have any rights whatsoever because people travel across state lines to work, and you breathe gases which are often compressed and transported across state lines.  The 1942 Supreme Court said it, really.  Check for yourself.  The only time the Supreme Court has since ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause does not give the federal government completely limitless power taking precedence over Amendment X was in the 1995 case US v. Lopez, in which the Supreme Court ruled that possessing a firearm near a school has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

[JD1stTimer]

That's what I mean about newspapers and television.  Freedom of the press is guaranteed.  A press is a device for placing ink onto a surface or otherwise using pressure and/or heat to mark, compress, or shape an object.  A tv or radio broadcaster is obviously not a press, yet the umbrella of press is, by application of the least modicum of logic, generally considered to include any possible means of non-coercive information distribution.  Furthermore, my argument does not hinge on the fact that liquor was made legal by Amendment XXI, but that Amendment IIXX was needed to outlaw liquor on the federal level. And the DEA busts medical marijuana users in California all the time.  How about this one: http://www.alternet.org/story/17591/ Also look up Angel Raich.