The Bill of Rights doesn't CONFER rights. There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution, therefore the fedgov has no authority to do so, no matter WHAT gets passed by the Congress. The STATES are another matter---if they want to ban'em, they have the legal right to do so. It's called the "reserved powers" part of the Bill of Rights. That's why they had to pass the "Prohibition amendment" to have the fedgov regulate liquor in the first place.
Not so, under the Supremacy clause, or under 'due process' of the 14th. - States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns. -- Study the threads posted article.
Also, on the 14th, -- Justice Harlan recognized:
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, .
. . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777
Thus, the states can make legally 'reasonable' regulations under their reserved powers.
Outright premptive bans on various items of property cannot be rationalized as due process.
George Washington and the Founding Fathers disagreed with your ill-informed viewpoint. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion?
by your arguement, abortion cannot be outlawed.