But IIRC, IANAL, the ability of the feds to forbid cultivation and in-state sale rests on the interstate commerce clause. Mentioned often by the Obamacare debate, the issue was that the feds argued any pot grown or sold inside a state would very likely eventually find its way across state lines; therefore, the right to regulate interstate commerce gave it the right to deeply regulate what was essentially a state matter.
Of course, a more bushy supreme court didn’t buy this argument with Obama’s health bill - the argument that health costs and insurance crossed state lines. It seems that at least when the cause is against big government, the court is now willing to limit the ICC.
SO a state might argue that internal, regulated traffic negates the original argument that it would result in interstate traffic. A shakey argument, and the question is whether SCOTUS would effectively neuter a lot of the country-wide control the federal government currently exercises. A cynical left-right reading of the court, law and order vs. freedom, etc. rather than purely legal issues, likely would say “no”. (Of course, this also assumes the state government cares enough about enacting the measure that it would actually fight all the way to the Supreme Court.)
However, since the use of the ICC is somewhat stretched at this point, SCOTUS might surprise everyone if they feel that they need to reign in the feds just to make a point.
As a resident of Washington, I thought I’d provide some details about our recent marijuana law.
It did not, by itself, make medicinal marijuana legal. That was done a year or two ago. The recent ballot measure allowed the state to regulate and tax production, distribution, and sale. Producers, distributors, and retailers would have to purchase a license from the state to handle marijuana.
Prior to this, using marijuana for medical purposes was legal, but you had to grow your own, and there were regulations on how many plants and such each person could have. A few individuals tried to form dispensaries by having people sign a form declaring the dispensary to be their designated grower, but those got shut down pretty quick.
And yes, that ‘medicinal’ qualifier is as thin a line as you think it is. Our second largest city has declared all marijuana enforcement to be law enforcements lowest priority. And one of the big arguments for further legalization was that it would reduce the smuggling of mariiuana from mexico and hence the nasty things done by the smuggling cartels.
If a state is allowed to regulate marijuana but doesn’t, the existing laws or lack apply.
If a state is required by mandate to regulate it but has not rules or licensing in place, does that imply that by definition, anyone is empwered to do anything regulated to which no regulations apply restrictions?
(If the state is required to license motor vehicles but decides not to issue licenses, then anything can drive on the roads?)