Not true. States cannot infringe upon an individuals constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. -- See the 14th.
Your logic is circular.
Hardly. The Constitutions logic is not circular.
If a law has passed Constitutional review, as most drug prohibition laws have, then they have passed due process.
Nope. --- Opinions made by the SCOTUS are not 'laws' -- such reviews do not confer permanant constitutionality on a law, as any law is always open to further constitutional review.
If a power isn't delegated to the Feds, nor prohibited to the States, then the States reserve that power, or the people do. If the people of a State elect their State Reps, and empower them to prohibit drugs (or, conversely, permit them or otherwise regulate them), due process has been followed per the 10th A. Thus "dry" counties in Tennessee, or Medical MJ permits.
Laws repugnant to basic constitutional principles, laws that abridge our rights to life, liberty or property without due process, are unconstitutional according to the 14th Amendment.
Prohibitionary type laws do so. There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution. See the 10th as to powers prohibited to states. The 14th prohibits States from making laws that abridge/prohibit property without due process.
No level of government, fed, state or local, is authorized to outright prohibit guns, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.. -- Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.
Again, the laws created must not infringe upon the individual rights outlined in the Constitution.
You omit the all-important "without due process."
Nit picking. That particular line 'omits' the words due process. My posts here do not.
The State can take your life, liberty, and property, as long as due process is given, and the laws are equally applied to all.
Correct only if you are convicted by a jury. -- Prohibitive laws attempt to make individuals automatically guilty by mere possession of 'illegal objects'. Juries are even 'directed' that they must convict if possession is proved. -- Prohibitions result in a parody of due process.
The Constitutional vetting of the law is part of the due process of individual cases.
Again, not true. Most lower courts do not even allow Constitutional defense arguments.
Tell me this. -- Why do you want a State to have the power to prohibit dangerous objects? - Isn't their power to regulate enough?
Are you aware of any total prohibitions, as opposed to highly restrictive regulation, in the drug laws? Perhaps I'm not getting the distinction you are making. If a State says only MDs can administer heavy narcotics, or only researchers can possess PCP for experimental purposes, how is that any different from a total prohibition for any practical purpose to street users?
Which is why appeals are part of the process.