And at that point, your state can take that issue to federal court for resolution.
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Do you want a Constitution that is an "enduring document", fixed as it was understood and intended by those who wrote and ratified it until such time as it is amended, or do you want a "living document" that can be molded into whatever meaning we can imagine, to suit whatever it is we want at the moment?
Alleging an injury after the fact is all fine and good for the legal system's Civil law methodology, and while such procedural rules may be sufficient to mitigate disputes between two parties, it is certainly insufficient when dealing with damages and injuries which may affect thousand or millions of parties. When the public is to be put at risk of serious injury, it becomes imperative that officials take all appropriate steps PRIOR TO THE FACT of a potential injury to alleviate or mitigate any potential damage as a result of it.
One State cannot build nuclear devices and allow their street gangs to play with them. Such recklessness puts States downwind from the fallout zone at risk for death or injury. No! While "prior restraint" may be prohibited in our legal system, it is a required part of any activity which shows serious potential at being a danger to the public at large.
Consider Typhoid Mary. They ended up having to lock her up because she continued to spread typhoid wherever she went. Her threat to the public at large was deemed to be too grave to allow the issue to be resolved by ex post facto injuries. Prior Restraint was permitted in her case because the threat to the public was just too great.
Now I am not suggesting the legalization of Marijuana is in this category of drastic and obvious potential danger to others, but the legalization of hard drugs definitely is in my opinion. The problem for marijuana is that the arguments being advanced in favor of it work just as well for the harder drugs, and so they are connected by the same philosophical thread.
Whatever argument justifies Marijuana on the basis of "rights" also justifies Cocaine and Heroin on the same basis, and those are simply a dire threat to any society which will tolerate them. It is very like the issue of "Gay Marriage", if such should be enacted into law, will also justify Polygamy.