As an interesting adjunct to that, the entire DEA and federal controlled substances register rests on the legal theory defined by Wickard [1], and was unfortuna

As an interesting adjunct to that, the entire DEA and federal controlled substances register rests on the legal theory defined by Wickard [1], and was unfortunately affirmed in 2005 by Gonzales v. Raich [2]. There's no Constitutional authority granted to the federal government for controlled substance enforcement, this power was questionably seized by a convoluted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that has its roots in Wikard. If that case were to be overturned, controlled substances would be defined and enforced at the state level, and a DEA-like federal agency would act in a purely advisory role (similar to the intent of the DOE). Most states currently use the federal controlled substances register to define their own enforcement. In fact, Texas and Florida just got burned by this because the feds loosened the restrictions on hemp-derived THC. Texas and Florida both tried to ban the sale of delta-8 etc... but lost their cases in court because the law states that the controlled substances rule flows the federal rules, so they can't ban it administratively (they have to actually go through the effort of changing the law, and it's not a winning issue politically). [1] https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/this-is-your-constitution-on-drugs https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/this-is-your... [2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/