It may be a stupid argument but there are always consequences to absolutes. What politicians would repeal these laws? There aren't any, or perhaps it's more precisely stated as there aren't enough. Further, one believes that all laws should be enforced I can guarantee you are in violation of something. The number of laws and regulations which have no sunset provisions are incredible and they are breaking some rule. Maybe they have a horse too close to a church or something.
On the other hand we have massive disregard for MJ laws in CO which are not unconstitutional in any of the three branches opinions so Obama is effectively sanctioning violations of law on a massive scale. Make no mistake, I don't like current MJ laws but the FDA and the DEA answer to him and there is absolutely and unconditionally no need for Congressional involvement in rescheduling drugs, legal or otherwise. None whatsoever. If he did there is no question of violation of Constitutional authorities as the CSA explicitly allows for this. Legal changes which are proper and pass Constitutional muster. But that's not important if one just likes Obama doing "what the thinks is right", the same philosophy which led to CIA and NSA abuse by the former administration, while crying about parking tickets and making ridiculous claims about public safety.
In the end the "liberals" and "conservatives" as they call themselves aren't much different. It is just what topics they choose to be irrational about.
You realize that both Clinton and GWB failed to enforce the same federal marijuana law since 1996, I hope. If you really knew what you were talking about, you'd also realize that the protocols for executive removal of cannabis from schedule 1 classification are basically impossible to overcome. If aspirin were schedule 1 it'd likely stay there. Congress labors under no such constraints.
If you were being reasonable, you'd realize that what the NYPD wants is to maintain stop & frisk, to use choke holds & for their leadership to close ranks behind them whenever anything questionable occurs. They also want to keep using what really are chickenshit tactics wrt stop & frisk. Possession of small amounts of marijuana is a petty offense subject to a fine except if the miscreant displays it in public which is an arrestable offense. Using stop & frisk, officers demand that anybody for any reason empty their pockets & display the contents in public, escalate the offense against the intent of the law & the accused who intended no public display. It's abusive.
I have no doubt that stop & frisk has been a useful tool for street level enforcement wrt weapons, where public display isn't at issue. That doesn't mean that the NYPD should have ever been granted such powers, certainly not within the conceptual limits of professed conservative values.
If I don't want to be subject to stop & frisk, then I'm in opposition to what the NYPD wants.
If I don't want the police to be able to escalate criminality at will, I'm opposed to what the NYPD wants.
If I don't want officers to be excused for using dangerous choke holds in violation of dept policy, I'm opposed to what the NYPD wants.
If De Blasio expresses similar sentiment, then I'm with him.
It doesn't have anything to do with Obama, Unions or the welfare state other than for those who refuse to squarely face the issues.