In today's New York Times, there is an article titled, "U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws, State Vote Aside". California has an initiative on the ballot, Proposition 19 that legalizes Marijuana. Ir may well pass.

If the people vote for this law, our Attorney General has announced that the Federal Government will 'aggressively' prosecute violators. This is a clear statement that our government knows what is best for us and will insist on it even when the people whom they are supposed represent have stated their opinion unequivocally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us...html?th&emc=th

Not only is this an 'imperial' form of government, it works against the interest of the nation and in favor of the government itself. The Mexican gangs derive over 50% of their income from Marijuana distribution and sales. Since this law meets the clearly expressed position of the people and will decrease drug related violence, who could be against it? The answer is that it threatens law enforcement at all levels. The load on local law enforcement would be drastically reduced; state and Federal prisons would have significant surplus beds rather than being overcrowded. The DEA could face drastic cuts. Prosecutors at all levels would find that we do not need as many of them as we now have, etc. In other words, the people win and government loses.

This draws into question how much of our current government structure is now not, " ... government of the people, by the people, for the people but rather, government of, by and for the government.

I would say that the courts will have to decide in the end which entity, the state or feds, have the final jurisdiction over this issue. Remembering a number of decisions out of the Supreme Court in recent memory, I have no confidence in their adhering to the Constitution on this.

Since there's nothing strictly in the Constitution about drugs, do you think they'll invoke the COmmerce Clause for this?