To equate buying booze to buying high-grade uranium is ludicrous. To state that individuals don't have a right to buy goods and services is equally as ludicrous. You would engage in a circular argument with Bill Clinton on which "is" you're trying to define. As usual, when you meet an intellectual dead-end, you throw the rhetorical spaghetti against the wall.
Here is the brass constutional tax. You are trying to say that a person has a constitutionally guarenteed right to purchase something, call it good X. I asked you to cite which part of the constitution guarentees this, you responded with the commerce clause. Again, and to repeat, the commerce clause is a power of the Federal government, NOT anything that guarentees a right to an individual citizen.
So again, purchasing anything, be it booze, uranium, diapers, or a car, is not a constitutionally protected right, at least certainly not protected by the commerce clause.
You are the one missing the point, it isn't the object that is attempting to be purchased that is the analysis point, it is what is guarenteed by the constitution.
I'm not saying that individuals don't have a right to purchase goods and services, I'm just saying that nothing in the constitution guarentees this. That's why laws can prohibit purchasing something without violating the constitution. You know like blue laws, that prohibit the purchase of booze. Sorry to inconvenience you with actual constitutional analysis that doesn't comport with your "Rob in VB thinks X so that is what the constitution says" type of reasoning.