"'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Read it. Read it again. Now tell me, where does the Constitution address the issue of drug sales, drug possession, and drug use?" By Van

According to Van's flawed reasoning, all drug laws are null and void according to the Article X of the US Constitution. If we adhere to this bogus logic, I assume that if California voters decided to legalize all drugs, heroin and speed would be fine as well.
As previously stated, despite passage of medical marijuana at the state level, medical marijuana activists can not expect that California voter will can change the law at the federal level without changing the laws originating in Washington D.C. Such laws were created and retained by your elected representatives, the predecessors of Sam Farr and his other peers in Congress. Our current congress can change those obsolete laws.
The Supreme Court has already ajudicated this issue by interpreting existing federal law. Rather than direct your anger using lame logic (such as comparing the DEA to Nazis), perhaps you ought to pressure Farr and others in Congress to recognize the respective will of state voters. Get them to write a new federal law that would respect the will of state voters retroactively.
I'm glad to antagonize Van to write his opinion in the middle of the night; however I have friends who use medical marijuana too, and I am sympathetic to their plight. I was merely offering constructive advice to apply the democratic process in a more effective manner. Obviously, Van misunderstood what I was attempting to communicate. Maybe I can get you to redirect your commentary to Sam Farr and others in Congress. Make it an election issue. Happy writing, Van