You’re operating on a faulty assumption here: that the illegalization is itself legitimate
So, we can’t ban heroin? How about Coke? Meth? Or full auto weapons? Or private ownership of nukes? Alcohol was common and legal in 1776, other drugs were not. There ARE some needed limits on states rights, even though there are more limits on them than there should be.
One of the big problems with pot is that it funds the cartels which are enemies not just of this country but of civilization itself. This may be why they do align to an extent with the muslim terrorists....
If weed is to be legal it would have to be legal in at the fed level. It would have to be regulated and there would have to be strict penalties for “bootlegers”. We would need a way to determine where it was grown (ie. inside the USA).
______________________________________________________________
The Tenth Amendment lays that out very clearly.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
______________________________________________________________
Which section of the Constitution do you think delegates to Congress the power to impose national marijuana prohibition?
Nope; not at the federal level.
Or full auto weapons?
The second amendment prohibits that.
Or private ownership of nukes?
Do you know how much it costs to make a nuke?
How about the upkeep? What about the delivery system?
This might be an issue for the mega-rich, or for a whole State, but it's not even remotely in the realm of everyday life.
Alcohol was common and legal in 1776, other drugs were not. There ARE some needed limits on states rights, even though there are more limits on them than there should be.
The limits are obviously as stated in the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.