You're operating on a faulty assumption here: that the illegalization is itself legitimate.
To enact similar regulation on alcohol the Constitution was amended, yet no such amendment exists WRT drugs.
Moreover, the power used to claim the authority to regulate drugs is the interstate commerce clause; which is the exact same clause regarding foreign trade.
To legitimize the War on Drugs the courts have transmuted the interstate commerce clause into an intrastate power, indeed to the point where non-commerce is regulated [under the commerce clause]. (See Raich)
Interestingly, if the federal government tried to regulate foreign countries as it does the states, such would be considered an act of war... and the enforcement of such policies would be (a) the waging of that war, or (b) the victor's subjugation of the defeated. — The Constitution defines the waging of war upon the several states as treason.
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).