This is also an important states' rights issue. The federal government technically says that California can't actually legalize marijuana. But they're going to do it anyway.

I hope this works out for them, if only because it will show the diminishing power of the federal government... which is the way it should be.

The last time a state really pushed hard on states rights' and on counteracting federal law, it didn't turn out well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

It's true that it's quite well-settled that California can't nullify federal laws, but they can reduce the overall effectiveness of marijuana prohibition by repealing California's laws against marijuana possession, since most drug offenses are currently prosecuted in state courts under state law.

If it wanted to go a step further, California could also prohibit the use of state resources and police to enforce the federal laws: while states often assist in enforcing federal laws, well-established "anti-commandeering" doctrine holds that the federal government can't force them to do so. Since California can't nullify federal law, the DEA could still conduct raids in California, but if California's police didn't assist at all, and California courts weren't available for prosecutions, enforcement would be quite low.

They aren't attempting to nullify federal law. They are trying to change state law that applies to the same offenses. The feds can continue to do as they please, but the state doesn't have to waste it's time and money finding, arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating, and probating these particular criminals.

If is passes, I wonder how long it will be until the federal government starts withholding federal funding for education, transportation or law enforcement.

Not bad at all. Just think: all the military equipment that California used to use to harass the pot-smoking hippies can be put to use fighting another civil war.

All over a mildly-psychoactive plant.

Similar to the revolutionary war being fought over a bunch of dried up leaves used to color and flavor hot water.

Turns out "Give me liberty or give me death" was catchier than "Give me tea or give me death".

California is far from just another state (some would say a country inside a country), but generally I agree in that this is a somewhat larger test than normal for state rights.

I like this news item. However, I'm curious how this falls under the HN guidelines:

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."

California isn't the first state to have such an initiative on the ballot, so I don't see how this is an interesting new phenomenon.

And for the record, I didn't flag this. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

There are other flat-out legalization initiatives? Where?

I'm aware of numerous "for medical use" initiatives which have passed, which of course we all know is de facto legalization ("Hey, doc, my, uh, eyes, uh, hurt a lot." "Oh, well, there's only one cure for that. Here, have a scrip.") But who else has done flat-out no jokes legalization yet?

I'm not trying to ask a gotcha; I'm open to the possibility I haven't heard of them. It's an honest question.

There have been in the past that failed. In particular, I recall one in Nevada. This isn't the best reference for it, but it was the easiest to find: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/326/nevadaII.shtml

From further down in the Guidelines:

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link."

This story may be off topic but I love hearing hn readers take on pretty much anything.