As a citizen, I don't expect the average policeman to understand things like constitutional law, they just do what they are allowed to.  But I do expect the lawmakers to understand it, it isn't a secret.  We were all taught the interpretation of this important document in high school.  Maybe the current generation of lawmakers doesn't have the intellect to understand it, or the courage to follow it.

The U.S. Constitution is a brilliant document.  Much of what is wrong with this country today is due to the subversion of it in the name of "fighting drugs".   The 9th and 10th Amendments cover restrictions of governmental power.  Essentially they say that if something is not covered explicitly by the constitution, then there is no federal law (restriction) on that thing.

When the teetotaler zealots tried to remove access to alcohol, the pro alcohol powers had enough clout to insist that a lawful process be used to create the prohibition.   That lawful process resulted in the ill-fated 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The result was the first drug war.  America had drug gangs (Al Capone, George "Babyface" Nelson, et al.),  drug related drive-by shootings (tommy guns),  drug assassinations (St. Valentines Day Massacre),  disrespect for authority (shooting revenuers),  child drug involvement (smuggling, distribution and boozing),  drug deal induced prostitution (sex for drinks), and increased police forces in response to increased criminal activity in response to increased profits from the drug.

The enactment of the U.S. alcohol prohibition once caused a Japanese politician to remark to the Diet (the Japanese legislature) that America had demonstrated that it was a foolish and immature society that could not possibly be a threat to Japanese imperialism.  Quite possibly the crazy alcohol prohibition was a contributing factor to World War Two.

After the prohibition was enacted, the only legal way the federal government could allow alcohol to become part of the American society again, was to pass another constitutional amendment, the 21st.   The insane drug war was then ended and things went back to normal for most Americans.

One problem surfaced however, the FBI and ATF and other police agencies were not needed as much.  Not to worry, J. Edgar Hoover and Harry J. Anslinger were working on a solution.  There was a new "problem" discovered.  There were Negroes that were getting really bold.  Some even went as far as to not avert their eyes when white women looked their way.  It was Marihuana that was causing this undesirable behavior.  Jazz music was another symptom of this growing Negro problem.   There was another emerging issue with the Mexican-Americans using a coca derivative called 'cocaine' which made them very jumpy and aggressive.   The master plan was to transfer the resources to combat these insurgent problems.  Authorization was needed to be granted by the legislature.

If these substances had powerful constituencies like alcohol, which is truly a dangerous drug, a properly lawful prohibition might have been enacted.   However since these law enforcement people needed to be used quickly, Congress was manipulated using the William Randolph Hearst controlled press to generate marihuana hysteria needed to rush the tax laws through the legislature to effectively make pot illegal.

ALL of the federal drug laws (prohibitions) are unconstitutional in clear violation of the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  The alcohol prohibition was legitimate, that is why the 18th and 21st Amendments exist.

Is corn illegal?   No, like alcohol, corn could not become illicit under federal law unless there was a constitutional amendment to make it illegal.  Is hemp illegal?  Not technically.  Just pay the tax!  But the government won't allow you to pay the tax.  It won't sell the necessary tax stamps.  This government behavior is also illegal.

Who will police the craven federal lawmakers?  In theory "We the people", through the leaders we produce by our democratic elective process.  But since the modern tendency is to reduce things to their most common form, all we usually get to vote for are Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber (I grew tired of voting for crackers in 1992.).   We may have to use other methods.

The state drug laws may be legal, depending on the state's constitution.  In the 1980s the federal government coerced the states which were leaning toward decriminalization to toughen their drug laws, and the majority of those laws are unfortunately, probably valid.

The federal drug laws are illegal.   LAWYERS,  ARE NOT ALL THE FEDERAL DRUG PRISONERS BEING HELD ILLEGALLY?  IS THE "WAR ON DRUGS" MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

Quoting Howard Zinn:
"the world is already moving  in certain directions --  many of them horrifying. ... To be neutral in such a situation is to collaborate with what is going on."