From NBC:

The [regrettably titled] Tax and Regulate Initiative has far more than the nearly 434,000 signatures needed to make the statewide ballot, said Richard Lee, well-known Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur and the initiative’s main backer. Campaign organizers say they will submit more than 650,000 signatures of registered voters next month.

…

The proposal would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and older. Residents could cultivate marijuana gardens up to 25 square feet. City and county governments would determine whether to permit and tax marijuana sales within their boundaries.

And the piece de resistance:

Marijuana is illegal under federal law. But some legal scholars have argued the U.S. government could do little to make California enforce the federal ban if the drug became legal under state law.

Pardon my French, but no s#!*, Sherlock. It’s called nullification, and it works.

To the author’s credit, though, she managed to make it all the way through an article quite clearly describing the Tenth Amendment in action without comparing legalization advocates to slaveholders in the antebellum South even once.

While the media of late tends to focus on the new crop of states resisting DC with legislation on firearms and health care, they almost always miss, or ignore, what I consider to be some of the greatest and most effective state resistance to federal power – marijuana activism.

According to our friends at NORML, there are now 13 states who are openly resisting federal laws on medical marijuana. And now my home state of California is on the verge of taking it to the next level – full legalization.

According to a report in the SF Chronicle yesterday:

Two prominent East Bay marijuana advocates got clearance from the state today to try to put a pot-legalization initiative on the November 2010 California ballot.

This isn’t your run-of-the-mill “medical marijuana” bill – that’s already legal in CA. If approved by voters, the bill would:

allow anyone over 21 to possess or grow marijuana for personal use. It would allow each local government to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana sales.

Any honest person reading the Constitution through the intent and understanding of the founders would recognize that the federal government has no delegated power to be involved in the marijuana issue, in any way.

Keep in mind, though, that the federal courts (and the DEA), don’t really care what the Constitution has to say about it.  They’ve interpreted it in their own way, and have made it quite clear that they don’t recognize state marijuana laws as “valid.”

But, as we say here in California, thanks for your opinion, DC, we’ve got our own.