This is an internet legal phenomenon similar to the income tax deals-take this "nullification is law!" business to any Court in America, and see how many let you give the instruction. That is pretty good evidence right there that it isn't, in fact, the law.
Oh, well if
the government says so, then it must be right. That's a recipe for the success in a free country!
(And perhaps you should reread your first paragraph in that post. You know, the part where you indicate that courts have been known to say and do the wrong thing...? That might kinda maybe have some relevance to your notion that jury nullification is wrong because courts today say it is.)
You keep confusing "wrong" in a moral sense with "legal."
It is not the law, and was never intended to be. That is my point. It is entirely legal for a judge to toss a juror who refuses to deliberate because he doesn't like the law, just like it is legal for the United States to enforce validly enacted laws.
And I realize that the government makes mistakes-there's a mechanism for dealing with that, called the ballot box.
There are laws in this country that trump the laws of its legislature. These laws are found in the articles and amendments of [the] Constitution.
It seems as though you would have us change something that isn't broken. Congress doesn't have a blank check to make any law it sees fit (and if we don't abide by them, well too bad, go to jail, do not pass go).
Congress only has the power to make laws which the people have granted it the authority to make. Telling the people to wait and vote for someone who will actually follow the Constitution does not make it right that the Constitution is being ignored now. The power of jury nullification is instant. It puts the brakes on the government when it has stepped out of bounds. On the contrary, it is
YOU who should use the 'mechanism of the ballot box' and vote in someone who will amend the Constitution before attempting to enforce the (currently unconstitutional) laws on drugs (if you so desire to give the government that power - - - but, also keep in mind that you'd have to convince roughly two-thirds of the people to also vote for representatives who will amend the Constitution. That is why amending the Constitution is so difficult, as it is supposed to be.)
All it would take to be able to make these laws on illegal substances 'valid' is to amend the Constitution in the same fashion we did with alcohol prohibition. I present:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. [My comment: This is the part that you would like to see, I understand. Consequently, this is the right way to do things. The legal and moral way.]
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
From here, I'll leave the responsibility of learning your history to yourself.