It was a well-settled matter of common law in the 19th century that in order to have standing in court, there had to be a corpus delecti or body of the crime which included alleging a right deprived or an injury. They seem to ignore that matter of jurisprudence with the drug cases. Here's some state cases having similar holdings:
[New York] "To adjudicate upon, and protect the rights and interests of individual citizens, and to that end to construe and apply the laws, is the peculiar province of the judicial department...The judicial power "is the power to hear and determine those matters which affect the life, liberty, or property of the citizens of the state." (City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okl. 22, 223 P. 640, 644, 35 A.L.R. 872, 878.)" Nash v. Brooks, 297 N.Y.S. 853, 855-856.
[Delaware] "Though questioned by Wigmore, the prevailing American rule is that proof of the corpus delecti requires (1) proof of the injury, death or loss, according to the nature of the crime, and (2) proof of criminal means as the cause. 7 Wigmore on Evidence, [section] 2072. This is the rule in Delaware." Nelson v. State, 123 A.2d 859, 861.
[Connecticut] ““Corpus delecti” consists of occurrence of specific kind of loss or injury embraced in crime charged, rather than commission of crime charged by someone.” State v. Vuilleumer, 210 A.2d 673, 674, 3 Conn.Cir. 223.
[Pennsylvania] "It has long been fundamental to the criminal jurisprudence of thie Commonwealth that a necessary predicate to any conviction is proof of the corpus delecti, i.e., the occurrence of any injury or loss and someone's criminality as the source of this injury or loss. See Commonwealth v. Burns, 490 Pa. 619, 627, 187 A.2d 552, 556-557 (1963); Commonwealth v. Turza, 340 Pa. 128, 133, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (1940)." Commonwealth v. Maybee, 239 A.2d 332, 333.
