Re-analyzing Gonzales v. Raich, I actually have reasoning better than what was implied by my satire. The supremacy of federal drug law over a state law is not that big of a stretch as I implied. One could argue that the Congress has the ability to regulate wholly intrastate activities as an extension of the necessary and proper clause. Indeed, it may be necessary. However, I would argue that it’s not proper. It overstretches the federal government’s power, especially since it took an amendment to ban alcohol. Additionally, in my eyes, it violates the principles of federalism. Well, that depends on your interpretation of federalism. The state has its sphere, and the national government is interfering with the sphere in an improper situation, in my opinion. Federalism allows for experimentation within states. It can’t happen if the national government is regulating everything. If it was a matter of national security, then the national government would have the necessary and proper powers to regulate. Medicinal marijuana should be left to the states. It is not proper for the national government to interfere.