Alcohol prohibition in the United States underwent a similar process. New York legalized alcohol, while it was still prohibited by federal law. Eventually, enough states had stopped arresting and prosecuting people for alcohol that it was not feasible to continue federal prohibition.
Yes, the DEA may have a presence in Colorado and Washington, but the vast majority of law enforcement is handled by local authorities. When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.
What was the federal-state-local funding model like then? I know most municipalities continue to depend on federal funding, and I can see the US government using this (I recall a similar thing a few years ago around legal drinking ages)
The feds would need to justify a denial in funding based on some public health grounds ("to promote the general welfare" [1]). If this was brought to the courts, it could actually be a good opportunity to critically examine effects of legalization in a relatively rational, authoritative venue. The DEA's absurd Schedule I classification would need to be justified if it were to be imposed.
> When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.
Maybe true, but unfortunately there have been instances relating to medicinal usage where local enforcement followed federal instead of their state law.
I don't know what we would do if we could not grow and use cannabis as medicine. We live in california. My wife has been able to get off heavy pain killers only because of medical cannabis. We don't sell it or give it away. What we grow we use. Leave us alone big federal government. Regulate and control but don't put people in jail for a useful plant.
Yes, the DEA may have a presence in Colorado and Washington, but the vast majority of law enforcement is handled by local authorities. When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.