Some laws really are unconstitutional - the federal anti-drug laws being just one example.
Proof or its just your opinion?
Here's the proof: The Tenth Amendment says, "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" - and nowhere in the body of the Constitution is the power delegated to the United States to regulate the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs.
I feel it is immoral. If most people also feel it is immoral and it becomes a law.
In our constitutional republic, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any lesser laws that exceed Constitutional authority - such as federal anti-drug laws - are illegitimate.
Did you read that Michael Brown, had enough marijuana in his system to cause halucination? Yeah, most articles only reported that there were traces of marijana, but the last autopsy included that tidbit. You see, marijuana is not victimless and until we come up with standards for driving under the influence, operating machinery or making decisions that effect others, marijuana should not be legalized.
Not to mention the fact that marijuana makes you stupid and lazy and doubles the risk of mental illness.
And despite the unintended consequences and collateral damage there's a conscious absence of concern about the morality of doing it.
From George Washington's Farewell Address
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
Where is the morality in embracing that permanent evil for a "moral" partial or transient benefit?