Many progressives pretend to be pro-individual rights and pro-civil liberties, which could not be further from the truth. Powers (state or federal) run contrary to rights, and the imposition of governmental power to ensure a "right" (as in Obamacare) highlights the lack of political logic among progressives. For some reason, classical liberals and "libertarians" that vote Democrat allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes when it comes to progressive logic, or the lack therof, simply because they disagree with social conservatives.
Oregon provides an interesting case for us. Last week, in Willis v. Winters, the Oregon Supreme Court denied law enforcement the ability to refuse Conceal & Carry Licenses (CCLs) based on the applicant's privilege to medical marijuana under state law. And while federal law, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), prohibits possession of firearms by users of controlled substances (including marijuana), having a CCL does not necessarily imply possession of a firearm, nor is Oregon obligated to enforce federal drug law under the anti-commandeering principle. Anti-commandeering provides one of the principles behind Prop C in Missouri. The federal government cannot force Missouri to enforce the individual mandate, just like the federal government cannot force Oregon to enforce drug laws.
Now, none of this is to say that Oregon could not deny CCLs for medical marijuana users. States have general powers, as opposed to the limited powers of the national government, and have far greater latitude in the areas of safety, health and education, not to mention contract and tort law. If Massachusetts wants Romneycare, then Massachusetts can have Romneycare, but the rest of the nation is under no obligation to bail Massachusetts out when Romneycare fails miserably. If Minnesota wants to ban gay marriage, then Minnesota can ban gay marriage, but Massachusetts is under no obligation to follow suit. If Oregon thinks medical marijuana users are capable of using a CCL responsibly, then so be it.
The point I am trying to emphasize here relates to the inconsistency in progressive logic. Under tea party logic there is no inconsistency in the Oregon decision. In this instance, Oregon is foregoing its broader powers to provide greater protections of individual rights. Social conservatives may disagree on policy grounds, but cannot on constitutional principles. Progressives decry the 2nd & 10th Amendments, and will probably ignore the Oregon decision altogether. This does not fit their narrative because it broadens a right they disagree with (2nd), and diminishes a federal power (regulation of interstate commerce) under a correct interpretation of constitutional federalism (10th).
Progressive belief in individual rights is a farce, and Obamacare provides the perfect vehicle for an example. There is no principle in individual rights underlying Obamacare, rather progressives support the general policy of federal control in interstate commerce at the expense of the 10th Amendment. The classical liberals and "libertarians" that support Obamacare for altruistic reasons do so at their own peril because powers run contrary to rights.
It may not be a good idea for states to strike down all regulations, as much its a bad idea to impose ridiculous amounts of regulation (like with sudafed). In that sense, the social conservative can be as wrong-headed as the progressive. Social conservatives can be just as bad when it comes to the imposition of social conservatism at a national level. But where progressivism will always be wrong with its focus on national politics, social conservatism will always have a leg to stand on in state politics...just not in Oregon.