No, but states don't have to mirror federal laws. Alaska cannot declare federal drug laws void in Alaska, but Alaska does not have to make marijuana illegal under state law just because Congress has made it illegal under federal law.
Does the federal government have jurisdiction over state drug laws in the first place??
Not over state drug laws, per se, but the Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) that Congress had the power, under the interstate commerce clause, to ban possession of marijuana within the states, even if that marijuana never crossed a state boundary and even if it was never sold. (Raich grew his own marijuana in California, as permitted by California's medical marijuana law). (Interesting line up of justices in that case--Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer for the majority; O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissenting).
Subsequently, Congress, without repealing the federal prohibition on marijuana, passed a budget bill saying that the DEA could not use any of its budgeted funds to prosecute marijuana possession that was legal under state medical marijuana laws. But that budget bill says nothing about recreational marijuana, which is now legal under state law in eight states (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Maine and Massachusetts).
Still medical only in New Mexico. No recreational use allowed. That being said, law in NM is that up to 1 ounce is a small fine of $50-$100 and up to 15 days in jail. 1 to 8 ounces is a misdemeanor with a fine up to $1,000 and up to 1 year in jail. Over 8 ounces is felony possession. So simple possession is pretty much being ignored.
>Are states allowed to override federal laws?
A: Extra-Constitutional? No.
Alaska CAN declare such law void; they have A1S8\9th\10th Rights to do as much.
Fact, I relish the day the/a State to do so for any myriad of reasons in the last 100+ yrs. alone.
>but the Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) that Congress had the power, under the interstate commerce
Yep, the handy fall-back of Fascism. Using a single clause to invalidate the WHOLE of Federalism. But, SCOTUS has ‘answered’. 9 robes over-ride 330M inalienable Rights, no?