I thought I already answered this question. I'll be happy to answer it again.
As with any law, absent Congressional action, the state has the power to regulate the commerce in their state. They can prohibit the sale of sex toys, for example. Since Congress has chosen to regulate marijuana, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to comply.
Are you saying that, despite federal action in this area, states should still be allowed to regulate marijuana as they please?
Leaving aside the question of whether a state does or should have the right to ban the sale of sex toys, why do it? Is there some threat to the commonweal involved? Is it a thinly-disguised attempt to enforce religious beliefs of some people on others? Or are some people not happy that others might be enjoying themselves, so to speak?
Anyway, this law would be blatantly discriminatory against seasoned citizens who have severe arthritis, secretaries with carpal tunnel syndrome, and amputees. If this bill becomes Law, the SCOTUS case would be hugh and series -- and brutally entertaining.
Are you saying that, despite federal action in this area, states should still be allowed to regulate marijuana as they please?
I didn't say that at all -- I simply asked you a question. I can't get past your logical inconsistencies. When you agree with a federal law (War on Drugs), you invoke the Supremacy Clause, i.e. that the Constitution and federal statutes are the Supreme Law of the Land, and states are bound to uphold the federal law as supreme. But in the case of RKBA, you take a clearly enumerated Constitutional right, and subjugate it to the control of each state legislature without regard to the Supremacy Clause.