So much for the constitutional requirement of uniform enforcement of federal laws. One can argue that the federal governments drug laws themselves are not constitutional, but clearly granting certain states an exemption from the enforcement of criminal laws violates the rights of people who live in states where they are enforced.
You can’t pass a Federal law that makes violation a crime in Texas but not in Colorado.
But since the constitution means nothing to these people anymore, who is going to complain?
You might want to read a bit more.
Historically, and traditionally, and tenth-amendment-wise, the “police power” belongs to the states.
The “police power” refers to the essence of criminal jurisdiction, and has to do with matters that effect the health and welfare and general well being of the citizens.
Federal government has criminal jurisdiction where Congress controls things according to their “exclusive legislative authority”.
There are DOJ documents and Supreme Court rullings out there that explain it more, you can research them if you like.
Some federal laws will still be enforced such as smuggling, interstate transportation etc. Simple possession or cultivation should never have been federalized in the first place.
If a DEA agent arrests a suspect in Spokane WA with 10 pounds of pot they can still prosecute him federally but they can't just dump the case on the state and locals for prosecution as they did in the past.
Given the crowded federal docket and prosecutable guidelines, DEA is not going to wast their time on any case they know the AUSA will decline because all the work will be for not.