Well let us say the Feds can't regulate speed limits. More folks are maimed and die. The Feds cut checks associated with that. One state legalizies pot. Then we need drug guards on state borders. Maybe it makes the citizens of state state mind numbed zombies. The Feds cut more checks, the economy is damaged. And on and on it goes. No state is an island, even Hawaii, as it were.
That does not follow. The states can do that just fine, seeing as they are the ones enforcing those laws.
Strike one.
One state legalizies pot. Then we need drug guards on state borders.
Then the various states might figure out the risks versus the benefits of various regulatory or criminal schema and optimize them by competition. You got sumthin' agin Federillism?
The very assumption that the Federal government is the only competent regulatory authority is beyond laughable. You've got to do better than that.
Wait a minute, you're missing a step in logic. If the feds stop regulating speed limits, who's to say that the states won't start? In fact, haven't they already started?
One state legalizies pot. Then we need drug guards on state borders.
Not at all. One state legalizing pot should help the states that don't, because all the druggies will move to the state where it's legal.
You have it completely backwards. The states created the federal government. The states can tell the Federal government to stick it up its ass. The commerce clause was never intended to change that.
Unless, of course, you are a "conservative" FDR worshipper.