I would have to agree, and yet each year big bucks are spent to allow voters to vote on state initiatives that are basically meaningless. I have to wonder though, about the 'states' involvement in issuses such as drugs when I see superbowl ads that portray users as supporters of terrorism. This is propaganda coming from the State (a lifeless entity without the ability to become addicted to anything- unless one is talking about power, perhaps) and as such, one would think, should be neutral in regards to an issue that concerns individual citizens.
What worries me most is that we may fail to see the collaboration taking place between the State and the law enforcement/prison industrial complex. Were I to build my own private dam on a river, I could see how the State might have an interest in protecting the water 'rights' of those downstream. When I'm stopped for a burned-out taillight I do not see how the State's interests are servered by having my car searched for drugs, guns, or anything else. ie. the folks 'downstream' could care less what's in my car as long as I'm responsible with it.
They are by no means meaningless when the issue is confined to the state alone. However, when an initiative is passed in direct conflict with an existing Federal regulation, law or policy, then it is, by the constitution, null and void. Individuals cannot claim 10th amendment "rights", only state governments have that protection for actions they take as duly elected representatives of the citizens of their state.