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.
Well, I had in mind the pre-Civil War Constitution, but wrt the 14th Amendment, I agree with your (and Justice Harlan's) position
Can you point out where in the California State Constitution an individual has the right to keep and bear arms? I'll save you the time. It's nowhere to be found.
California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th. California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, including Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.
California can ban all guns. Right now, they choose not to.