This is what you wrote:

I was not aware that having access to medical marijuana was a right protected by the Constitution.

A woman's choice is such a right. Therefore, the comparison is like comparing apples and oranges methinks.

If the Supreme Court were to someday rule that having access to a drug or the like is protected by the Constitution, then it would be a good comparison.

As anyone who can think, read, and follow a discussion can plainly see: you are claiming that Americans only have rights that the central government bestows on them through a ruling by the high court.

I say bullshit. The right is there in the document itself and was there all along. You can not find one leg to stand on to say that my right to grow and eat plants is not protected by the constitution.

I think you need to read it someday. I'll wait.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a link to my saying that the government can do anything it wants unless SCOTUS said it cannot do it.

Please read what I wrote again, this time for comprehension.

I have never said that your right to grow and eat plants is not protected by the Constitution. Never. What I have said, is that since SCOTUS has already ruled on a woman's right to choose, a state passing a law outlawing abortion was clearly invalid. Since there is no such SCOTUS ruling that you are Constitutionally protected to be able to plant and eat anything you want, a State has the right to pass a law outlawing your activities and that law would be valid unless and until overruled by a higher court.

Thus comparing abortion to medical marijuana is not valid since, to the best of my knowledge, the issue of the use of medical marijuana has not been decided by SCOTUS. IOW, for the truly dim bulbs around here (that would be you Heru), and also those who choose not to understand basic English (that would also be you, Heru), States may, under the US Constitution, pass laws against medical marijuana and those laws will be valid until ruled invalid by a court with the authority to do so. That is precisely what took place with the issue of abortion. States ruled it illegal, SCOTUS ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not permit them do to so, and now laws prohibiting abortion are unconstitutional and invalid. When, and if, SCOTUS were to decide that the use of medical marijuana is a protected constitutional right, States will not be able to enforce their laws saying it is illegal and prohibited.

At that time, comparing abortion to medical marijuana will be Apples to Apples.

Keep trying, Dude. You'll get it right sooner or later.

I don't really have a position on the argument you are having with others here, but your post made me wonder about something. There's certainly an argument to be made that pot, because it can be grown with naturally available seeds, should not be in the purview of the government, anymore than growing tobacco for friends and family is [or shrooms...when was the last time you heard of someone getting arrested for dealing or imbibing shrooms?]...

Federal law categorizes certain types of "shrooms" as hallucinogens and as such, certain types of "shrooms" are indeed illegal per the Federal Code.

It might even be interesting to some people that Federal law does not categorize marijuana as a drug (narcotic). It is also categorized as a hallucinogen.

Tobacco is also controlled to a certain degree. There are laws specifying, for instance, that tobacco cannot be sold to minors. If it already has not happened (I don't follow this area much) there is also a movement to allow tobacco to be controlled by the same folks who control prescription drugs. IOW, tobacco and shrooms are a bad example if one is arguing that either is not controlled by government because they occur naturally in nature.

You argue that the government has the power to do anything at all unless the Supreme Court says that it must not do it. In fact, the written document gives no power for the central government thugs to tell a man what he may or may not eat.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post a link to where I said that the government has the power to do anything at all unless the Supreme Court says that it must not do it.

Learn to read. I'll wait.