That's a good point, Brucie. It's worth noting that, for the past hundred years or so, the people advancing the "states' rights" arguments have generally been on the conservative end of the spectrum (employing the word "conservative" as it is used in the US currently). Those seeking to maintain racial segregation have been the most visible proponents of the states' rights philosophy, with gun owners a close second. I read an interesting editorial the other day that pointed out that this has recently changed; with such a dominant conservative trend in the federal government these days, the states' rights arguments are increasingly being advanced by advocates for more "liberal" causes, such as liberalization of drug laws, acceptance of gay marriage, etc.

For myself, in general, I tend to look at states' rights as an anachronism. While things were different 200-plus years ago, these days people routinely travel and trade between/among the states, so it's a little harder to see what relevance states' rights has to the modern world. However, I also have a real problem with the current conservative trend in our national government, so my theoretical willingness to abandon states' rights to the dustbin of history is in conflict with my desire to see the pendulum swing back in a more liberal direction.