Alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment...

...so how can federal drug prohibition be Constitutional without the passage of an Amendment? Didn't prohibition set a legal precedent?

Good question. I have absolutely no answer as to why is didn't set a precedent.

 
The only way the Feds could stop the production of alcohol was by a constitutional amendment. Likewise the only way to repeal that amendment was by another amendment.

Drugs, however, are regulated by the Feds under their commerce provisions of interstate commerce.

Drugs are involved in interstate commerce rather than simply manufactured for one state's consumption.

Alcohol could be produced within a state's jurisdiction for consumption only within that state, therefor the need for the constitutional amendment.

Drugs obviously could be manufactured within a state's jurisdiction and consumed locally as well.

The idea that the interstate commerce clause applies to homegrown and home consumed products is such an absurd stretch of the Constitution as to render the document completely meaningless.

We may as well have a Constitution burning party, because if we allow it to say anything our rulers declare, then it's just a worthless scrap of paper we pretend to respect.

 
But NO drugs are homegrown and home consumed products. It is too expensive for drugs to be manufactured for a single state's use. Therefor they are involved in interstate commerce and justly regulated by the Federal government.

*** But NO drugs are homegrown and home consumed products. ***

Because they are illegal. If it were legal, one could grow there own pot for personal use.

*** Alcohol could be produced within a state's jurisdiction for consumption only within that state, therefor the need for the constitutional amendment. ***

So could drugs, if they were legal.

Your argument makes no sense.