There is no federal constitutional right to smoke marijuana. And our elected represenatives have voted by the will of the people that this activity is illegal. I think the court ruled correctly in supporting what our duly elected represenatives have legislated.
14th amendment has nothing to do with this. These are state laws. States have all kinds of laws that differ from one another. You don't have a right to medical pot in these states as a CONSTITUTIONAL matter. The same sex marriage issue is a problem because there are efforts to argue it's constitutionally compelled.
Why don't the courts rule this way on firearms in California and strike down all their restrictive bans?
Answer:
The court is being selective once again. I agree with Thomas. The courts are out of control folks.
The Constitution is not a list of our rights. It is quite clear on this point - the Constitution is a list of the powers of the federal government. If it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, it's a right reserved for the people or the states to regulate.
If the federal government can overrule state laws at whim, what's the point of a state legislature?
Such statements were the fear of the Founding Fathers, who thought that if they enumerated rights, then some may assume that those are all the rights that the people have. Thus we have the wholly forgotten 9th Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."