"...Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously praised the division of sovereign powers included within America’s constitutional structure for its capacity to encourage states to “serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”1 This legislative freedom is constrained, however, by various constitutional restrictions including the
Supremacy Clause, which provides that federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”2 Pursuant to this established principle of federal legal preeminence, any state law that conflicts with federal law is generally considered preempted and therefore void. Although simple in theory, the task of determining whether a state law is “in conflict” with federal law can be incredibly complex in practice. The ongoing national debate over marijuana provides a clear example of the confusion associated with the states’ ability to pursue policies that deviate from those advanced by the federal government. In addition to the 20 states and the District of Columbia that currently exempt qualified users of medicinal marijuana3 from penalties imposed under state law, Colorado and Washington in late 2012 became the first states to legalize,4 regulate, and tax small amounts of marijuana for personal (i.e., nonmedicinal) use by individuals over the age of 21.5 These broad legalization initiatives stand in stark contrast to federal law, which makes the cultivation, distribution, or possession of any amount of marijuana—for any purpose other than bona fide, federally approved scientific research—a criminal offense.6 Therefore, the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana remains a federal crime within Colorado, Washington, and every other state. As a result, individuals who grow, possess, use, sell, transport, or distribute marijuana, even when done in a manner consistent with state law or pursuant to a state-issued license, are nonetheless in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and remain subject to federal criminal prosecution or other consequences under federal law.7 Given the federal government’s continued ability to enforce its own prohibition, it cannot be said that the Washington and Colorado laws create a right to use ..."
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf
Just because it is legalized by states, doesn't mean you can't be tried by the Federal Government. There is a risk involved, and it is most certainly non-zero. I think all drugs should be legalized simply because if you take the profit out of it, much of the
societal harm is taken away from it. Then we have to deal with the damage done to the individuals themselves, but that is probably the lesser of the two evils.
