Federal law would continue to apply, and be enforceable by Federal officers, in any state of the Union. This is basic doctrine.

State and local officers would be bound by state law; they have no responsibility to enforce Federal law, nor are they required to do so.

Or is there basically nothing a state can do?

I wasn't sure what that poster on that comment section was talking about.

It does help clarify why there is a push for Holder enforcing federal laws against states that legalize marijuana. They're afraid, very afraid.

Someone would have to be arrested by a Federal agent, tried and convicted, and then appeal, eventually to the Supreme Court. The state attorney general could certainly assist the subject of such a test case. The court would be under no obligation to take the case, and it has already ruled, not too long ago, that the Commerce Clause gives Federal jurisdiction even over marijuana grown in and distributed in a state, since this could readily be diverted from intra-state trade into inter-state trade. The affair would be a bet the court would reverse this ruling, and that would be a bet in face of long odds indeed, in my view.

Your insight is always appreciated.

Sorry for the silly question. I was not sure what that commentator was on about.

He seems to imagine there is something un-Constitutional about the Federal drug laws themselves ( the reference to 'the feds house of cards concerning drug laws will start to fall apart' ), which suggests some combination of ignorance and illusion.

He speaks of "drug laws" generally. I admit that I was taken by his idea, because it did seem interesting, and I've read similar comments over marriage equality. I think, however, you've convinced me that they're not in the same ballpark. One choses what to consume (outside of water and oxygen, etc), one does not choose who they are attracted to, etc.

and thus subject to federal regulation, even though the federal government prohibits marijuana as commerce.

What if a state certified that any MJ grown was grown and consumed strictly within the stae. Then the Fed wouldn't have interstate commerce claims.

Which is the basis for the Violence Against Women Act.

So we're fucked even if we do get it legalized unless we can get the DOJ to respect it.

practically unchanged since 2000. And hell bent on destroying liberals, as always (since about 1980)

They'll probably consult several CEOs at a cocktail party before deciding something so important.

Your living in one of the most corrupt countries on the planet, Money Rules.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.