I believe that most states also outlaw the growing, use and selling of drugs because they're bad for people and bad for society and people who don't use drugs pay the consequences of people who do.
As to your second point, being that the 2nd Amendment (that is, the second thing that the framers saw fit to include in the Constitution) dealt with the arming of the populace, I think you've answered your own question. The framers didn't mention pot, cocaine, heroin, etc.
Or try this on for size: Is Ritalin more or less harmful than pot?
Ask your doctor about Ritalin, I wouldn't hazard a guess. My experience with marijuana leads me to be of the opinion that it's best left as it is.
Or how about this: Is that wet spot in your backyard a federally protectable wetland? If not, why not?
Funny you should mention this. My family and I successfully fought off the greens and the feds on this very issue in my very yard. We prevailed for a number of reasons.
One day you may find the Drug War in inconsistent with conservatism. Until then, stay safe, stay armed.
I do find it odd that a branch of anarchy has wrapped itself in the cloak of conservatism and comes to us with this proto-libertarian ideal of "no WOD = no consequences". It's a flawed premise on its face, and until you and Mr LeRoy (FR's own WOD-obsessive) can present a logical reasoning as to why we should drop the gates and let the drugs in, I'll respectfully (for the most part) disagree.
Until you do, it's a bunch of utopian yapping based on a childlike version of "let's pretend".
One thing I've noticed about the pro-dopers is a consistent inability to stay on topic. Now please answer my question at #47...