Yes, she is. She's using an emotional issue, and emotional rhetoric to convince people that the federal government needs to get involved in something that constitutionally, it has no business or authority doing. How do you see that from a politically conservative standpoint, and what kind of precedent does it set? How does it fit the agenda of getting the federal government under control?
It should be emotional. Thousands of kidss lives a ruined every week in this country by drugs. It's damned emotional with me. Drugs are sold in my kids' schools, and they are enticed periodically to try them. - And again, on the constitutionality, when the federal government gives money to states, it may attach strings. I don't like that. I don't like getting at states that way. My state is weak, weak, weak in accepting such. The way to battle it is to get your state reps to stop doing so.
Then you have no problem with the liberal's tactics of reducing everything to an emotional level, and ignoring any constitutional restraints on the federal government as long as we "feel good about it"?