Not true. -- I've been saying for years that like all rights, the public aspects of 'doing drugs' can be reasonably regulated, using due process of Constitutional law. - Prohibitions however, -- are repugnant to due process of law.
-- We have never, and cannot empower governments to enact prohibitions on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property.
You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".
Yep, per the Constitution, reasonable regulations can be written.
Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense". So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.
Rant on my boy. You can't argue the issue logically, so you invent things to say. Infantile game you play.
So your entire argument here is: Dangerous weapons like bio or nuclear are reasonable, but crack, heroine, ext are not reasonable to prohibit citizens from possessing? And so we all must follow tpaine's definition of reasonable.