Policing morality is a problem.
Constitutionally speaking this should be a states issue, unless drug issues cross a line of national security concern, which in some cases I think they do, but certainly not all cases.
Medically, I might buy the argument that pot has medicinal uses, but if so it should still be a controlled substance as the abuse potential, especially among youth, is too great.
Morally, the Bible warns against selfishness and sloth as deadly sins. Recreational drugs satisfy a selfish indulgence, and do not glorify the Maker. But unless it hurts or infringes on someone else’s rights, morality is between the individual and God. We are all guilty of some sin.
Our constitutional rights and our constitutional government (if we can maintain it) are dependent upon a moral society. We are close to losing that, evidenced in a multitude of things including our divorce rates, drug use and other addictions (porn, alcohol, etc), out of wedlock parenting, and corruption and crime.
So from a national security perspective (saving our constitutional govt) its not in our interest to encourage marijuana use. Beyond national security, constitutionally, it belongs to the states. Defining the fuzzy line between these two will be a challenge. I think it would be a mistake to just wave it off completely to state governments without drawing that distinction, particularly since so many state governments are either corrupt (only concerned with the revenue legalization provides) or inept, or both.
Not following you here ... do you mean the distinction between what federal restrictions are and are not justified by Constitutional national security concerns? If so, what are the justified restrictions?
Using your definition it sounds like something that would be in the national interest would be to encourage healthy, active, drug free lifestyles. Hmmm, how about mandated, group exercises?
Seriously, you statist nuts should join up with the proglibs to act out your control fantasies. Jeez