But you assume that I agree that the Federal drug laws are legitimate. I do not. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to ban drugs.

The California ballot measure is intended to create a state law to overrule federal law. It’s pretty much a libertarian’s dream ballot measure – except that it would have to rely almost entirely on the 10th Amendment in court for its survival when the state (or someone operating under the state law) is sued by the federal government. What other possible defenses would a person have against a federal lawsuit if they operated legally under the state law while in violation of federal law?

I agree that it’s absurd to talk about states’ rights because rights apply only to individuals. That aside, if states’ rights under the aegis of the 10th Amendment is an absurd notion viz-a-viz the power relationship between states and the federal government in light of the Civil War (or whatever you want to call it) and the 14th Amendment, then California’s marijuana-legalization ballot measure is an equally-absurd notion. The ballot measure is little more than an attempt at nullification of a federal law (in fact, that’s about exactly what it is). Because might makes right and because the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment gives the federal government almost limitless power (two realities that, as you points out, can’t be ignored), the California ballot measure, if successful, should be viewed with trepidation by libertarians.

Am I missing something here?

Green stole that line from me. Or did I steal it from Ayn Rand? Can’t remember… ;-)