What I said was pretty obvious. Creating a question whereby drugs and firearms are lumped together, as they were, leaves little room for making the case for critical distinction between two vastly different issues. Thus leaving only one way out, taking a pass. For those that did answer "No", I offered two possible realities. One, these people are libertarian minded on the issue of drugs or two, they did not understand the issue involving the commerce clause. The latter possibility sounds more reasonable and giving the benefit of the doubt in this case is also reasonable.
The lumping of them together was done when the the commerce clause was expanded to include the regulation of them as "commerce". The question was asked in the context in which the clause has been applied.