In Oregon's case, it's not a matter of leaving something untouched by law. It's a case of actually CODIFYING and REGULATING the killing of innocent people.
But that's beside the point. The argument that it's just individuals doing the killing, not the state, is even more bogus when we consider that although the states never OWNED slaves, the states were in violation of the 5th Amendment (made clearer by the 13th and 14th later), and complicit in slavery by allowing it.
"In Oregon's case, it's not a matter of leaving something untouched by law. It's a case of actually CODIFYING and REGULATING the killing of innocent people."
So by the process of regulating but not banning of lets say again, tobacco use and people eventually die because of this; a state would be an accessory to "killing innocent people"? Even though all of the people consuming the products will be doing so of their own free will?