So your argument is essentially that transportation, importation, delivery, and use are not broad categories within which the individual states have been expressly given regulatory power? No disrespect, but I don't think that comports with either the text of the Amendment or relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Because the 21st establishes express state powers related to alcohol (which, again have been accorded pretty broad discretion by SCOTUS), the 10th Amendment is inapplicable, as it only applies to powers that have not been expressly delegated. Also, U.S. v Darby -- which is still good law -- established a long time ago that the 10th Amendment is a truism: is only reiterates the principles of federalism already inherent in the Constitution. In other words, there aren't many, if any, actionable issues under the 10th Amendment.
P.S. I think we have successfully derailed the topic!
edit: food for thought -- Granholm v. Heald
, 544 U.S. 460 (2005). In this relatively recent case, the Supreme Court recognized that the 21st Amendment "grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system."
Also, let me clarify my above statements by saying that I'm not claiming the States have exclusive
power to regulate alcohol. Just that among the categories expressly mentioned in the 21st Amendment, the States have a huge amount of regulatory leeway.