To me a key issue is that we have a contradiction between state and federal law on recreational marijuana use.
Are states allowed to override federal laws?
Does the federal government have jurisdiction over state drug laws in the first place??
The Feds don’t pay attention to that stuff. If we had the government we have now back in the 30’s, alcohol would still be illegal.
How is it that outlawing Booze at the federal level required a constitutional amendment to be ratified by a majority of states, but outlawing weed didn’t? I’m not saying either was a good idea or not, just that it’s curious.
No, but states don't have to mirror federal laws. Alaska cannot declare federal drug laws void in Alaska, but Alaska does not have to make marijuana illegal under state law just because Congress has made it illegal under federal law.
Does the federal government have jurisdiction over state drug laws in the first place??
Not over state drug laws, per se, but the Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) that Congress had the power, under the interstate commerce clause, to ban possession of marijuana within the states, even if that marijuana never crossed a state boundary and even if it was never sold. (Raich grew his own marijuana in California, as permitted by California's medical marijuana law). (Interesting line up of justices in that case--Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer for the majority; O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissenting).
Subsequently, Congress, without repealing the federal prohibition on marijuana, passed a budget bill saying that the DEA could not use any of its budgeted funds to prosecute marijuana possession that was legal under state medical marijuana laws. But that budget bill says nothing about recreational marijuana, which is now legal under state law in eight states (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Maine and Massachusetts).
Who has jurisdiction I think is the correct question.