Case law is largely irrelevant. You know what existed before 'case law'?
I think the logic is sound: Party A (statute) argues a->x, b->y, c->z. Party B shows a, b, c don't actually hold in reality and therefore you cannot conclude x, y, or z based on a, b, or c.
Statue is therefore meaningless.
Amendment 18 & 21 set the precedent. Amendments 4, 9, & 10 provide huge cover.
>By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves?
I didn't expound my whole logic, but the largest difference is that slaves are human beings and cannabis is a plant.
Also note, slavery is outlawed by the US constitution. Cannabis is not.
SCOTUS has demonstrated, as I pointed to in Raich, a willingness to engage in staggering contortions to reach/justify/support a goal. Accepting your reasoning, however correct it may (or may not) be, would mean massive changes in what constitutes contraband and how it may be suppressed - a degree of change SCOTUS is rarely willing to cause (and certainly not over cannabis).
Your reasoning has been tried, and failed. People are working very hard to make such reasoning work, and are making little progress.
I think the logic is sound: Party A (statute) argues a->x, b->y, c->z. Party B shows a, b, c don't actually hold in reality and therefore you cannot conclude x, y, or z based on a, b, or c.
Statue is therefore meaningless.
Amendment 18 & 21 set the precedent. Amendments 4, 9, & 10 provide huge cover.
>By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves?
I didn't expound my whole logic, but the largest difference is that slaves are human beings and cannabis is a plant.
Also note, slavery is outlawed by the US constitution. Cannabis is not.