well, Huck my friend it is not quite that simple
If it was a conflict btw a state statute and a muni ordinance, then yeah, state trumps.
But between states and fed, States have RIGHTS.
The federal gov’t doesn’t. Federalism is quite tenuous. A veritable house of cards if you will.
In some areas, most notably immigration, the Feds have reserved jurisdiction to themselves, so a better argument can be made that in the case of a conflict betw state and fed law, the fed law would trump. Even so, some state have decided the feds, having had oodles of time, have ceded their reservation, and these states have started to pass statutes dealing with the problem.
As for medical maryjane grown locally (as opposed to imported illegally from Meheeco)........not quite so clear. And then, will the Feds spend the resources to puxh the issue? If so, the effect of losing could be more far reaching than the Feds can stand to lose at this point.
Where it's grown is irrelevant. See Gonzalez v Raich (or Wickard v Fillburn)
That's a different question. There is no doubt CSA trumps state drug laws. Right now anyone who chooses state law over fed law is risking imprisonment.
And even that was not because they wanted to shove something up the State's U-No-What.
It was to guarantee to the State's that the quality of immigrants would be high - "an uniform rule of naturalization". The States wanted it that way - so that no one would be letting in undesirables who then could cross unimpeded over state lines.
The States created the Federal Government, not the other way around - the Federal government is there to negotiate those things in common that the states should do in common - like foreign relations.
The States are not municipal sub-jurisdictions of the Federal government, no matter how much Lincoln and Seward might have wanted that to be.
Thus the use of the Commerce Clause for the CSA is an abomination, and merely proof of the dilution and politicization of the Supreme Court since FDR.