No. It said that states may regulate the presence (or absence, in this case) of criminal penalties against doctors, for the use of a controlled substance under the doctor's direction. The waiving of criminal penalty is conditioned on following statutory procedures.
The tougher legal inconsistency to square is this opinion v. the medical marijuana one (Raich), where SCOTUS held that the federal regulation was superior to the state one. Thomas's dissent uses that line of argument.
I haven't deconstructed either case in great detail, so take my summary analysis with a grain of salt. One bottom line buzzphrase is "illicit use." One bottom line question unsettled is who gets to decide what is licit and what is illicit.
I was responding to the earlier case (1992) that you cited, NY vs. US.
I have to do my laundry now. Maybe I'll get back to this later.
That was different. There it whether federal law could trump state law. This one is whether the uncontested (for this case) current federal law supported Ashcroft's interpretation of it, and the justices decided it didn't.
In reading, this appears to only be a very slight victory for states, if one at all. There's clearly room for Congress to pass another law that quashes the will of the people of a state.