Congress clearly has the power to outlaw drugs under the Interstate Commerce Clause, certainly ones which are transported or sold across state lines. Perhaps the Feds are prohibited from outlawing growing marijuana in your living room for your personal use. If anyone has been prosecuted for that, it would have been under state or local laws anyway.
Also, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," What part of INALIENABLE do you not understand? It means- government shall make no law--- none, that infringe on these rights. Why is this principle so difficult for conservatives to grasp?
The preamble to the constitution doesn't have the force of invalidating Federal Laws. It's a general philosophical statement. It's introducing the constitution which follows. It doesn't have any specific application. When has there ever been a court case where a law was struck down based on the preamble to the constitution, from the time when the drafters of the constitution were running the government till now? Cite me just one case.
I can't cite a case, which doesn't mean there isn't one, but I feel this is back and forth is becoming a tangent with no relation to my original point. What the courts have or haven't done is not the point; what they should be doing is. I'm not going to keep chasing my tail on this subject; if I wanted to engage in that kind of no-win argument I'd stay in the GOP and help them in their daily pillow fights with the Democrats.