Well its a matter of settled law that it is federal control. Firearms, in my opinion are another matter, as this involves a right to keep and bear arms. My personal preference this would be true for alcohol/liquor which to some extent is controlled within state jurisdiction (state stores). Isn’t it interesting that alcohol, tobacco and firearms merit their own executive enforcement agency, as a result of control through taxes? Firearms have no business being in that group.
The marijuana tax act of 1937 was repealed by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which placed pot as a Schedule I agent, along with heroin and many other psychoactive agents, which is controversial but that’s where it is, and puts it as federal.
Insofar as CA legalizing pot, it would affect interstate commerce even as it is federally illegal by the 1970 CSA so the Commerce Clause would be invoked in the enforcement certainly. As a states rights issue you raise an interesting challenge from a Tenth Amendment perspective that the fed govt. does not have the power to regulate this delegated to it in the Constitution.
In the past, Commerce Clause has won out over 10th in this type of thing. Not going to pass however- but if it does there is no way federal law and DOJ would not intervene.