What's perverse about the logic here? Alaskans say: we're okay with people using marijuana. And the Feds say: that's great, but we're not okay with it and as long as it involves interstate transportation or the coastal waters of the United States, we'll arrest you for it.
That's precisely the separation of state and federal power the founders envisioned.
The perverse part is that people who are supposed to protect the rights of the Alaskans are instead actively working to deny them those rights, while hiding behind the flimsy excuse of "separation of state". It's definitely not what the founders envisioned - the "commerce clause" - the reason-to-go for every federal power expansion now - was meant to prevent trade bareers between states, not to allow the Feds to suppress state decisions under the guise of "oh, it might influence the price of marijuana in other states, so it's commerce, so we can do whatever we want". Calling this "precisely what the founders envisioned" is just laughable.
All it takes is you sending a picture postcard using the US Postal Service during your 'crime' to make it a federal thing.
This sort of hack to elevate crimes to federal level has been abused plenty of drugs cases in the past, so that separation of state and federal powers is mostly a matter of decorum, if the feds want to be involved in a case they will be.
The postal service being used within a state should not make a non-federal crime a federal crime. "Not crossing state lines" versus "using a service that could be used to cross state lines".
That's precisely the separation of state and federal power the founders envisioned.