As has been pointed out to you several times, prohibition is based on expanded federal powers under the Wickard Commerce Clause. That's what you're endorsing when you endorse the War on Drugs. You have ceded any principled constitutional objection to programs such as the war on poverty, the EPA and federal control of health care.
Why are you lecturing me about stuff you seemingly do not know as much about as do I? The Pure Food and Drug act was in 1906, well before Wickard. The Harrison Narcotics act was in 1914, again, well before Wickard.
It begs the question. If these two landmark pieces of drug legislation both occurred before Wickard, how can you claim they are "based on expanded federal powers under the Wickard Commerce Clause" ?
That's what you're endorsing when you endorse the War on Drugs. You have ceded any principled constitutional objection to programs such as the war on poverty, the EPA and federal control of health care.
Nonsense. The War on Drugs is a legitimate National Defense Issue. The primary mandate of any government is to protect it's people from Danger, especially such danger as comes into the Nation from beyond it's borders. Fighting against those who seek to undermine and destroy our society is indeed a rightful and proper activity for our governments to undertake. Social Engineering (War on Poverty) and the endless expansion of the power of the Federal Bureaucracy (EPA) are not.
This argument is like equating any criticism of Obama with Racism. The two things are not equivalent.