Pragmatically, this is a question of enforcement.

Federal LEOs shall not compel state LEOs to enforce federal law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act and the 10th Amendment for why, but this fact has very long precedent.

So if nice Mr DEA man goes to the state police and say "help me bust these grow operations", the head of the state police says "go piss up a rope, those are tax-paying law abiding citizens who are breaking no law I have the responsibility to enforce."

And this is called state's rights.

Rhetorically I am well within the realm of sanity to describe purchasing weed at the dispensary down the street as legal. Feel free to insert the implicit footnoted "persuant to the laws of the state of oregon" in your head, if you like, for completeness.

Unless the federal government wants to get into a serious fight over state’s rights, weed is effectively/wholly legal in states like California (I don’t know the specific laws outside of CA)

If you’d like to argue that the federal government - through the supremacy clause - has the power to override States that legalize marijuana, perhaps you’re right in theory.

But I think it’s a fantasy that the federal government will want to die on that hill. There are politically valuable reasons to avoid addressing the tension between state’s rights and the federal government’s power.

It sounds like we're using different definitions of the word "illegal". It's unfortunate that English makes it cumbersome to draw the necessary distinction.

Given that the federal government has consistently grabbed more power than our founding documents actually gave them, forgive me for not really giving a shit what the federal government's opinion is.

It is a kind of ironic situation. Modern states rights arguments tend to reside on the right, but that is also where anti-drug legalization sentiment resides as well. I'd be very interested to hear a debate where a right winger insists the fed should step in, and a left winger replies "Personally I support states rights". Just to see where it all goes.

Whenever power in Washington changes from one party to the other, the other party rediscovers the importance of states' rights.

Personally whenever I hear "states rights" my mind jumps immediately to people using that term to justify the pro-slavery side of the Civil War.

Demanding that people give the federal disclaimer every time they discuss the matter is tedious and pointless (since of course you already know it...)

> Demanding that people give the federal disclaimer every time they discuss the matter is tedious and pointless (since of course you already know it...)

It seems to me that saying "pot is legal in MA" is precisely as incorrect as saying "pot is illegal in MA". They're both half-truths.

I believe there's rhetorical and political power, however, in repeating an untruth without anybody challenging it.

HN is intended to be a site for serious discussion and honest debate, and I choose to not let use this rhetorical device go unchallenged.

It costs me karma every time, and I consider it a cost worth paying.

Does your distinction matter? If the state of Delaware declares driving a red cars illegal everywhere on the planet, would you jump to correct people saying driving red cars is legal in Germany and let them know it isn't?

Most people would not do so because there is no feasible way of Delaware enforcing their opinions in Germany. If you're not willing to take your viewpoint to the extreme then you're making an implicit declaration that you think the federal government does have the power to override the states here and will do so.

That's why people are downvoting when you say you're just exposing an "untruth". It's similar to hen people say they don't care about politics which really implies that the current status quo suits them well enough to not be involved

The US federal government has many ways of enforcing their opinions on US states and does so regularly. Almost all banks will not open accounts for pot related businesses due to federal banking laws. In the past the federal government convinced the states that did not have a drinking age of 21 to up the age by withholding federal highway funds from those states until they did.

Being "precisely correct" is tedious and pointless. I was like that in the past and it was a hard habit to kick, but I strongly encourage you to do the same.

Your comments are extremely generous.

Its a silly thing to get worked up over although important in a few instances. The pot industry has limited access to banking and you have states like Kansas going after Colorado for enabling drug traffiking

Because you can walk into a store and buy it?