That is the point. They will not have to if they do not want to. There are places that are still dry. I live next to one of them. You can not buy alcohol, you can not consume it in a public place. You may consume it in your house and yard only.
They have voted on this repeatedly and every time they have voted to stay dry by a landslide.
In my county, buy what you want, when you want and drink where you want so long as you are not drunk and disorderly. It does not cause problems because you move a few miles east or west and you can have whatever fits your taste.
That is what getting the federal government out of it will do. Not every state will legalize that's ok. Some will legalize some but not others. That is ok too.
One size fits all does not work. We have proven that. So let us try letting the states tailor it to fit the needs and wishes of their citizens.
If we try it the other way it will not work. To many people do not want all drugs legalized.
And to force them would be just as much a trampling of the rights of the states as what we have now.
Well, that takes 99% of the wind out of the sails of the people who say we should legalize to get rid of the gangs, lower the prison population, save money, get rid of the DEA, yada, yada.
If, as you say, not every state would legalize, where's the benefits? Where's the savings? My guess is we'd have to spend more defending the borders of all the "non-legal" states.
BTW, if medical costs rise in the states that legalize, do I have to continue to send them my federal tax dollars to subsidize their medical care?