The federal government has no jurisdiction. They technically don't have the authority to make a substance illegal at the federal level anyway -- they get away with it by levying taxes on banned substances that can't actually be paid.
Regardless of that, if the DEA starts arresting people who are not violating state law after the electorate in CO has spoken in such clear terms, libertarians are going to go apeshit. That's the last thing that the Obama administration needs, and he's already made it very clear that marijuana is not high (ha) on his list of concerns.
> Regardless of that, if the DEA starts arresting people who are not violating state law after the electorate in CO has spoken in such clear terms,
Which they had no problem doing with the medical marijuana dispensaries in California, despite Obama's own promises that he would end the crackdowns.
> libertarians are going to go apeshit. That's the last thing that the Obama administration needs,
Sadly, I don't think either Democrats or Republicans care about libertarians. Look at how the Republicans unabashedly broke their own rules to disenfranchise Ron Paul voters, even though Ron Paul had next to no hopes of winning the nomination.
The feds don't have the authority to criminalize a substance? News to me, perhaps you should brush up on Supreme court decisions since the 1940's: Start with Wickard v. Filburn then move on to Gonzales v. Raich
The expansive rulings on the Commerce Clause has opened up the ability of congress to legislate just about anything, provided they can tie it loosely to the act affecting commerce in some minuscule way.
IANAL, and I'm not going to pretend (like yourself) that I can interpret Supreme Court opinions by "brushing up" on them.
Could you point me to an instance in which the cases you cited were used as precedence in support of federal jurisdiction over controlled substances within state lines? Or did you just want me to be impressed that you can cite Supreme Court cases involving the commerce clause?
Erm, those cases were directly about federal jurisdiction over controlled substances within state lines. Quoth Wikipedia:
"Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes."
On a separate note, the federal government prevents states from exercising their constitutional right to lower the drinking age to 18, by blackmailing them with the threat of losing highway funding. There's nothing stopping them from doing that with marijuana.
This was an amendment to the Colorado Constitution by the voters of the state. The Colorado state legislators can't override this like they could a statutory ballot measure.
Regardless of that, if the DEA starts arresting people who are not violating state law after the electorate in CO has spoken in such clear terms, libertarians are going to go apeshit. That's the last thing that the Obama administration needs, and he's already made it very clear that marijuana is not high (ha) on his list of concerns.