Here it comes...

[Unreadphilosophy]

"Regulation" can also mean legalizing its recreational use in controlled conditions, but I digress. The Constitution doesn't have to outline what drugs should be illegal and when and why and how. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 already does it.

I'm not sure I even see your point. Drug policy doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution, unless you twist it into a context of free speech or the 4th amendment.

The tenth amendment to the Constitution divides the powers between the government and states. All powers not governed to the government, and not restricted to the states, will be reserved to the states. Drug regulation is not a power deemed to the government by the Constitution. That power is reserved to the states. The government has tried to regulate drugs over the last few years. One only needs to look at what's happening in Mexico to see the results.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...70218.html

Giving states the power to regulate drugs is the best way to go. Make them legal, tax them, and get a profit for your state.