”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added).” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, the only reason that the feds had historically prohibited the production of intoxicating liquors was because the states had amended the Constitution, as evidenced by the 18th Amendment, to grant the feds the specific power to do so. But also note that the feds lost the power to prohibit intrastate alcohol production when the states ratified the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment.
Getting back to the 10th Amendment-protected intrastate marijuana industry, the medical understanding of any bad effects of use of marijuana magnified by its widespread use have arguably been delayed by constitutionally indefensible interference with intrastate marijuana commerce by the corrupt feds imo.
Note that the individual states can regulate the intrastate production of anything that they want to, ultimately depending on what the legal majority voters of a given state want imo.
You fail to take note of the fact that marijuana is a narcotic and alcohol is not a narcotic. Due to the fact a substance is a narcotic makes it subject to control no matter which jurisdiction the narcotic is in, because narcotics deprive are addictive and harmful in ways that most non-narcotic substances do not. The latest medical studies reconfirm how marijuana is a harmful narcotic unlike non-narcotic substances tha may nevertheless addictive in a different manner with different consequences.