[Noamie]

All Hail the Great and Mighty FedGov! Thanks be to your benevolent protection from the evil weed. All Hail FedGov!

Excuse me, but I believe that the law is important. I have nothing against anyone changing Federal narcotics law(s), but until then the law should be enforced. You seem to disagree. That's fine.

[Wolfie]

Exactly. Federal law trumps Sate law, including State lvel gun and immigration laws.

[OneWingedShark]

Excuse me, but I believe that the law is important. I have nothing against anyone changing Federal narcotics law(s), but until then the law should be enforced. You seem to disagree. That's fine.

Federal narcotics law are predicated on the unlawful — to be more precise, the usurpation of powers not delegated to the federal government: regulation of intrastate commerce (via WICKARD v. FILBURN) and non-commerce (via GONZALES v. RAICH).

[Boogieman]

“I have nothing against anyone changing Federal narcotics law(s), but until then the law should be enforced.”

Even if the laws are unconstitutional?

What if we changed the language of your statement a little to reflect a different kind of unconstitutional law?

“I have nothing against anyone changing gun control law(s), but until then, the law should be enforced.”

Is that okay too?