Drug prohibition is a particularly clear-cut example of unconstitutional law-making which today's courts have let stand. Back in 1919 when the 18th Amendment was adopted, it was manifestly clear to everyone that the federal government lacked the authority to prohibit intoxicating liquors absent such a Constitutional Amendment. The parallel between drug prohibition and alchohol prohibition is exact: Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government any more authority to prohibit drugs than it had to prohibit alchohol, absent a Constitutional Amendment. The only thing that has changed [due to our socialistic public education system, but that's another rant...] is that public opinion and judicial opinion has shifted so far in support of unfettered federal power that the government can merrily ignore its Constitutional limitations.
And social conservatives are quite willing to join this massive public opinion / judicial shift by which the Constitution is bypassed, simply because it happens to coincide with their social engineering agenda (in this case the Drug War). Of course when it conflicts with their agenda (e.g., the abortion issue), they get all upset, and complain endlessly about how the Supreme Court was wrong to rule as it did. Consistency is not exactly a strong point among social conservatives...
Libertarians, and some honest conservatives who truly care about preserving our Republic, think the Constitution means what it says. Period.
In your opinion and nothing more.
The law is the law.
Some laws I may agree with and others I may disagree with. Some laws are viewed as unconstitutional and some are deemed constitutional. That's what social, cultural and political agendas are all about. That's why will hold democratic elections and choose who we think deserves the public trust and should be given the power and authority to govern this great nation. That's what the US Constitutiona is all about.