On the question of who decides, I might be misinterpreting you but:

The supremacy clause states that the Constitution is the highest and final form of law in the land.

Judicial Review dictates that when the Constitution is unclear or conflict with itself, it is the Supreme Court who will tell us what it really means.

They have told us exactly what the Constitution says about distribution and possesion of illegal drugs entails and what authorities the State and Federal governments possess.

When I say lib or con, I am just using those terms to describe EVERY single member of the Court. They all fall neatly into place, aside from Kennedy.
None of them is going to declare Fed drug laws unconstitutional. Maybe... MAYBE... Ruthie could be convinced, but I highly doubt it.

It seems to me the real question for you is:

Do you believe in Judicial Review?

If not the Supreme Court to explain to us what is and isn't Constitutional then who?

You seem to be arguing, correct me if I am wrong, that you truly understand what is meant by "General Welfare" and the Supreme Court does not. (all of this after admiting no legal background)

In summary:
Do you believe in the concept of Judical Review?
Are you claiming the Supreme Court has errored on their interpretation of "general welfare" and "Necessary and Proper" in terms of Federal drug enforcement, while you, a layman can clearly see that they are wrong?


Ixtellor

P.S. None of this is to sound like a personal attack, or to question your intellect or to be hostile in anyway.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.