Congress doesn't have the authority to legislate on marijuana if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state as the interstate commerce clause cannot be used. In California, several county sheriffs had publicly said that they would arrest DEA agents if they tried to enforce federal law in California. Historical precedent for this practice dates back to shorty before the civil war where the Milwaukee Sheriff arrested two US Marshall agents for kidnapping because they were trying to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. This particular sheriff is flat-out committing theft and abusing his authority; he needs to go to jail for a very long time.

Gonzales vs. Raich held that the Commerce Clause lets Congress prohibit intrastate marijuana production. It's a messed up decision, but it's precedent now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Au contraire(and I don't agree with this reasoning), Congress granted itself this regulatory power because "if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state", that affects other state commerce (since demand would be affected by the lack of import of product), and thus can be regulated via the commerce clause.

If a non-US citizen consumes marijuana even in a "legal" state that makes them deportable and perpetually inadmissible to the US.

It's very much illegal at the federal level.

Under a law that is in violation of the Enumerated Powers and Tenth Amendment. Federal Law only supersedes state or local law where the Constitution stipulates that it does.

I'm all for that, but that means a lot of other federal laws and regulations getting wiped from the books.

Which I think is a good thing, but many arguing this angle for marijuana legalization haven't fully considered the implications.

Nevertheless, it's not the current law as far as the courts are concerned, despite what the 10th amendment says. (I suspect the current SCOTUS wouldn't mind rectifying that, given the proper cases and opportunity.)

But in the current political climate, try saying the words "state's rights" without getting labeled a racist or extremist or anti-masker/vaxxer.

Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf?

And why are his officers complaining that the truck is "light", and "what do you mean, that's all you got?"

Let's not pretend this is being done for any reason other than to enrich coffers.

> Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf?

1. Because his department (and possibly him specifically?) get a kickback from the federal agency on asset seizures.

2. To deny that he is simply pocketing the money for his department on his own authority.

The incentive might be the seized property, but the purpose is to disrupt the drug trade in cases where prosecution would be difficult or impossible.

Which it is technically accomplishing.