Of course its constitutional. If it weren't, it would have been overturned long ago. Not every law you disagree with, is unconstitutional. I believe Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. So far my side has had no success turning that decision around in the USSC. The same is true of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. You can moan and groan all you want, it will get you nowhere.
Anybody who can actually read the Constitution (and the supporting material of those who wrote the Constitution) should be able to see that.
This is very easy to understand. The Constitution is the only lawful document, that guides the Congress in its law making and governance of the USA. There is no supporting material written by anyone, that is considered part of the Constitution. Period! No Federalist Papers, NO papers of Thomas Jefferson, NO papers of James Madison. Nothing!!! The Constitution is a stand alone document, from which all subsequent written law is based on.
Liberty is the liberdopians' fig-leaf. The gross ugly nakedness behind it is and always has been their overweening passion to score dope without fear of punishment.
Bwaahahahahaha! That's good! You're just like the good folks in Animal Farm who read the new commandments: "Four legs good, two legs better."
Instead of (foolishly) trusting the idiots on the Supreme Court (or worse, the idiot Presidents or Congresscritters)...why not simply READ the Constitution (and the supporting literature)?
If you do that, you'll see that there is no way in h@ll that the Founding Fathers ever intended the commerce clause to be used such that certain substances were BANNED...from interstate traffic, or ESPECIALLY from production within states (as cocaine, marijuana, LSD, etc. ALL are).
The Commerce Clause was intended to "make regular" commerce among the "several states"...in the same way a LAXATIVE makes one "regular." Congress was given that power in order to INCREASE commerce among the "several states"...NOT to decrease (or especially BAN) commerce.
One can see that the Commerce Clause was intended to INCREASE commerce among the "several states," because the Articles of Confederation did NOT have such a Congressional power...and the states RESTRICTED commerce more than the Founding Fathers desired.
There is no supporting material written by anyone, that is considered part of the Constitution.
If you totally ignore the supporting documentation, you end up not understanding what the Constitution even means. You come up with your COMPLETELY WRONG understanding of "regulate commerce among the several states," for example.
Or you end up with the completely non-sensical idea that Congress can do ANYTHING that promotes the "general welfare."
Read the Constitution. Read the supporting literature (including simply American history). You'll see that there's no way in h@ll that the Constitution gives Congress the legitimate power to regulate ANY drug. That's precisely why an amendment was necessary for alcohol Prohibition. (Given your WRONG interpretation, do you think that the 18th Amendment was not necessary? Do you think Congress simply could have passed the Volstead Act, without a supporting Constitutional amendment?)