“You did not, but no matter; let’s try this: Which section of the Constitution do you believe delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate drug policies? “
They don’t have it under the Constitution, of course. However, they also don’t have the power to provide federal food stamps, for instance either. That food stamps and other extra-Constitutional welfare programs are in place and that such “great society” programs provide a good deal of the cash for the drug trade (my opinion) is part of the larger problem of which you speak.
Federally funded, or partially funded drug treatment would also have to be eliminated, as would “disability” and other safety net programs that allow a drug user to not feel the full force of their personal choices and addictions.
To delve further into the hypothetical, legalizing heroin, for instance, would require an entire retooling of certain criminal statutes - whereby (as an example) petty theft while positive for heroin would require a lengthy prison stay - in the name of personal accountability.
While states can, theoretically, legalize drugs under the Constitution, they would court disaster for themselves and their neighboring states if they were creating legions of heroin addicts who by virtue of other extra-constitutional entitlements were not subject to the limiting factors of personal responsibility.
So while we don’t generally disagree on the merits of states rights, to me, you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them. I don’t think states or citizens are ready for that yet. We can argue if that matters, but that is where we are at this point, in my opinion.
The extra-constitutional aspects of the drug trade cannot be argued alone without catastrophic societal consequences (enabled by “safety nets”) in my opinion.
So rather than argue that, I choose to look at the practical aspects. Are “legal” alternatives to drugs taxed too much - and does that taxation encourage “illegal” drug use?
It’s not the argument you want, but in my opinion, it’s the argument we have.
So you believe the Constitution delegates no such power, yet you support fedgov using such unconstitutional power for a policy you support.
In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.