[robertpaulsen]

"But like I said, RP: the Constitution says AMONG the several states, not WITHIN a state."

That is correct. Congress is prohibited from regulating purely intrastate commerce.

Unless.

Unless Congress is regulating interstate commerce and the intrastate commerce is having a substantial effect on their regulatory efforts.

By your statement above, you do agree that Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, correct? What happens if a state then permits some intrastate activity that substantially affects Congress' constitutional regulatory efforts? Should that be allowed?

Should a state, or states, be allowed to undermine and subvert Congress' constitutional efforts?

[libertyman]

You betcha!

When the Congress oversteps its constitutional authority, the states have the right--or beter yet, the OBLIGATION-- to "JUST SAY NO!", & refuse to help them in their illegal actions.

You're sounding like FDR when you use the excuse that anything that even merely AFFECTS interstate commerce gives the feds ultimate authority to regulate & even prohibit an item. W/ that line of thinking, then EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN should be placed under federal control, because somehow, someway, state lines were crossed when producing or buying a product...or even the items that were used to help produce it.

People growing their own marijuana for their own personal use in no way affects interstate commerce. The STATES have the authority of prohibiting it if the people so desire.

[Know your rights]

Should a state, or states, be allowed to undermine and subvert Congress' constitutional efforts?

Yes, so long as that "undermining" and "subversion" consists of allowing what Congress has no authority to forbid.