The 2010 California Initiative

Federal law

Federalism means both the federal and state governments have the right to enact and enforce laws. Nothing requires any state, nor the federal government, to prohibit marijuana, nor impedes either from enforcing or repealing its prohibition laws. (This concept is also known as 'dual sovereignty.') Marijuana is currently prohibited under both federal and state law. Passage of the initiative would (partially) repeal state prohibition only, leaving federal prohibition intact. See: Legalization & Federal Law on this site.

The dynamic between state and federal law, presented by this initiative, is someimes incorrectly characterized as a "conflict." It cannot be emphasized enough: There is NO conflict between state and federal law presented by this initiative. Certainly, there will be a significant inconsistency between state and federal marijuana law if the initiative passes, but that is the point of the initiative: to depart from conventional prohibitionist dogma on marijuana.

This came up before, in 1923, when New York state repealed its alcohol prohibition laws, leaving federal prohibition intact. It wasn't a problem. Nor was it a problem in 1932, when eleven states (including California by 2 to 1) voted to repeal their state alcohol prohibition laws, more than a year before national prohibition was repealed.

If this initiative passes, it is unclear how the federal government will respond. I see only three general options: (1) to send in armies of federal police to provide street-level enforcement of the marijuana laws, (2) to yield to the states, as with medical marijuana, or (3) to tell the truth about marijuana and enact legislation straightening this all out, granting to states the right to tax cannabis.