Actually, my question would be "What in the Constitution gives the government the power to ban them?"
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to ban the interstate commerce of drugs. Whether or not Congress should ban drugs is another matter. The fact is they have the constitutional power to do so, so say the courts.
I would hope that you agree with that basic fact.
As to activity within each state, Congress does have the power, through the Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact legislation that is both necessary and proper to carry out their other powers -- in this case, an interstate ban. Without this, Congress could pass regulations but could not enforce them.
Congress has determined that in-state growing, possession, and distribution of marijuana has a substantial effect on their interstate regulatory efforts. Seems obvious. So they passed laws against that activity. The courts agreed.
My analogy is this. Congress regulates interstate flights (through the FAA). Altitudes, flight patterns, takeoffs and landings, radio frequencies -- all to facilitate the interstate commerce of cargo and passengers.
What about purely in-state, non-commercial flights? Should that be off-limits to Congress? Should private pilots be allowed to fly whenever and wherever they wish, as long as they promise to stay within the state?
The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress (the FAA) the power to regulate those in-state flights ONLY WHEN those flights have a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Now, could air traffic be handled differently? Of course. Should air traffic be handled differently? Why? Just because someone is uncomfortable that the federal government is involved in purely intrastate matters?
-- my question would be "What in the Constitution gives the government the power to ban them?"
Socialists claim that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to prohibit the interstate commerce of drugs, even though the only word used in the Constitution is "regulate".
Socialists also claim the courts have the power to say congress has the Constitutional power to prohibit commerce in drugs, despite the clear requirement of the 18th amendment to prohibit commerce in booze.
Congress has made 'findings' that in-state growing, possession, and distribution of marijuana has a substantial effect on socalled 'interstate regulatory efforts'. So they passed unconstitutional laws prohibiting that activity, and got the courts to agree that regulating is not prohibiting, that it is more akin to regulating traffic. -- An inept analogy.