This is all well and good, but at this point there's no guarantee that the federal government won't slap it down. My limited understanding of the law suggests there are two avenues for the federal government to do so:
I. - Under the Supremacy Clause "the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties [are] "the supreme law of the land."...and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state." [1]
Whitehouse.gov lists Department of Justice Guidelines for (medical) marijuana laws, stating that "persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution."[2]
II. - Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce...among the several States"[3]
A quick example of how the ICC could be applied:
If a farmer in Colorado buys fertilizer from a company in a marijuana-illegal state for the purpose of growing and selling marijuana they have engaged in interstate commerce and may be subject to the ICC.
I just hope that the federal government stays hands-off long enough to see what kind of net change in state government cash this can make.
The Supreme Court ruled on this a few years ago. They said that Congress can regulate home-grown marijuana (even though they are only constitutionally allowed to regulate interstate commerce) because the presence of homegrown marijuana affects supply/demand in the interstate market for it:
It seems obvious to me that the authors of the interstate commerce clause didn't intend it to grant the authority to regulate anything and everything just because an interstate market for it exists, but the courts are generally quite hesitant to invalidate Federal laws.
Practically speaking, most drug enforcement happens at the state level. This means that individual users and small sellers in states that legalized marijuana probably won't have many issues, but you won't see ABC Liquor and Cannabis opening its doors any time soon.
Yes, there's no question federal law has precedence in this area. The best a state can do is pass a law stating state and local authorities are not allowed to cooperate in federal drug cases.
Here in California medical dispensaries are legal under state law, but occasionally (quite often, really) the feds will come in and arrest anyone involved.
I. - Under the Supremacy Clause "the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties [are] "the supreme law of the land."...and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state." [1]
Whitehouse.gov lists Department of Justice Guidelines for (medical) marijuana laws, stating that "persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution."[2]
II. - Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce...among the several States"[3]
A quick example of how the ICC could be applied: If a farmer in Colorado buys fertilizer from a company in a marijuana-illegal state for the purpose of growing and selling marijuana they have engaged in interstate commerce and may be subject to the ICC.
I just hope that the federal government stays hands-off long enough to see what kind of net change in state government cash this can make.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
[2]http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-m...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause