Are you trying to miss the point?
That is a stupid question, and so is the assertion that a state prohibiting drugs out of a majority decision is violating people rights.
Contrary to what you might think, the mere fact that a majority wants to violate a right, such as the right to get and use property, does not end the right, it merely violates it.
They can move, if they don't like it
Specious, because you should not have to move to use your rights, and because every other jurisdiction in America has related drug laws.
If you eliminate EITHER of the choices from the decision, you are THEN violating rights.
You have no right, either by yourself or with others(however many others), to violate a right. None. Not letting you have a choice in the matter doesn't violate your rights, because you've got no right to make that choice to begin with.
By your strange argument, the First and Second Amendments are massive violations of rights, becayse they take a away one of the choices in two separate political issues. And I say that's a good thing.
But that's not even what I'm proposing. No one has suggested an amendment to prevent the prohibition of drugs(although that wouldn't be a bad idea). I'm merely pointing out that only one of the two choices in just.
Perhaps because by owning it, buying it, selling it, ect, you violate other's rights. The same goes for hard drugs. You have no right to endanger your neighbors when they have specifically voted to prohibit such an activity.