Personally, I don’t favor the federal regulation of all drugs. I would leave only class A and B up to the federal government. The states should decide the rest. Also, so-called ‘wars on drugs’ have had varied successes depending on where they have been tried. They were successful in Japan and Singapore, for example. On most fronts, it hasn’t worked in America, although I think cocaine use has decreased dramatically since the 70s and 80s.
What are "class A and B" (I know of "Schedule I and II") and exactly what text in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce in them?
Also, so-called ‘wars on drugs’ have had varied successes depending on where they have been tried. They were successful in Japan and Singapore, for example. On most fronts, it hasn’t worked in America, although I think cocaine use has decreased dramatically since the 70s and 80s.
And from 1980 to 1995, alcohol consumption dropped by 23% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm), while from 1973 to 2006 cigarette smoking dropped by 59% (http://www.lung.org/finding-cures/our-research/trend-reports/Tobacco-Trend-Report.pdf) - all while alcohol and cigarettes remained legal. Correlation is not causation - that is the ancient logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this") - like the rooster who claimed his crowing caused the sun to rise.