Originally Posted by mrbatchelor
Note that this link has a further link to a PDF at the bottom of the page for the whole article.
While the original premiss is about Marijuana the author makes reference to the fact that this line of reasoning may hold for other areas as well. This was written well before the current national non-discussion on gun control started.
I would take very little comfort from that article. Cato is generally an excellent source and I do not personally agree with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich.
The author's thesis is largely uncontroversial; the scope of marijuana use means that federal resources for enforcement against users can not result in a meaningful ban of marijuana use. Further, Congress does not have the authority to treat a state as a mere administrative unit and compel state resources to enforce the federal marijuana ban.
So what? Neither of these observations would serve as a defense against federal prosecution. By analogy, you would not stand under a tree during a lightning storm just because the risk was slim though appreciable.
Others may take another meaning from this article, but because I see not even an argument that there is protection from federal prosecution in permissive state law, I would draw no sense of security from such law.