[toyodafenninro]

I see it like this, and please understand I'm totally neutral on this issue. Used to smoke, don't anymore, and could care less who does so long as their state of being high doesn't interfere with my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Abacab points out something that should be obvious to anyone who isn't asleep: the way the law stands, even if state X legalizes marijuana, the federal government can (and will) punish said state through the interstate commerce clause or other similar means.

This is why the whole notion of revenue generation, except perhaps tourism, becomes bunk - as no business owner of sound mind would enter into the market of a federally illegal substance - especially when uncle sam all but mandated that he would crack down on any offenders were this bill to pass.

States rights is really a two way street, and abacab is correct in comparing it to individual morality and group morality. A political society is, by definition, voluntary participation in group morality (ask John Locke). The two options if one is displeased is either changing the law through the process allowed, or returning to a state of nature or leaving for another political society whose group morality is more pleasing.

This issue isn't going to be resolved until a state legalizes it, a clash with the federal law occurs, and a case is escalated to the supreme court. Then, it's going to depend only on the court's makeup at the time...and how much each member wants to ally with their political party.

Not to sound overly pessimistic, but marijuana may have a popularity among a sizeable minority across the board in the USA...but it is going to have a rediculously difficult time getting through congress or the judicial branch.