Federal law does not automatically "trump" state law like some media mouthpieces have suggested in their 4 second summation of the winning arguments before the Supreme Court. The constitution clearly defines the powers of the federal govt. and the powers belonging to the states. Powers NOT delineated reside with the state.

How can the federal govt. ban marijuana in 50 states? By a constitutional amendment as was done to alcohol in the 1920's.

How could the Supreme Court allow federal jurisdiction in a case where no state lines had been crossed?

I don't know. Perhaps when we read the decision we will know more. I am personally repulsed that Rehnquist and Thomas were among the judges on 'our side' while Stevens, Ginsberg, and Souter were on the wrong side.

One MPP spokesman commented that there is a $300 billion dollar crime-industry at stake. In some jurisdictions, 50% of the local DA's cases are against marijuana users. These cops, lawyers, judges, and prison workers would be out of a job if they couldn't arrest marijuana patients.

We have a heck of a fight on our hands, but civil disobedience has never been more called for.