Oh, slippery slope arguments do occur. But they're ridiculously rare. And in this case, there's zero indication that they have the slightest relevance to abortion or marriage. And the 1975 rulings in Alaska have *nothing* to do with federally protected rights. While both abortion and marriage do. State rulings do *not* created federally protected rights. Nor is there any 'rights' argument in play in the current State and Federal conflicts about Pot laws. You're offering us 'historic examples' with vastly different circumstances. Alaska had a STATE recognized right. This is a right only recognized in Alaska only. Abortion and marriage are FEDERALLY recognized rights. These are rights recognized in EVERY State. Yet you're equating the findings of a State court with the findings of the Supreme Court. That's a false equivalency in terms of rights. Rights for individuals recognized in State courts do NOT trump the US constitution or US federal law. Rights recognized by the Supreme Court are constitutionally protected and do trump US federal laws. This enormous difference alone obliterates your 'slippery slope' argument by demonstrates wildly different circumstances with utterly different legal implications. But it gets worse for your argument. Additionally, the current State v. Federal conflict involves powers exclusively. There are no rights being cited by....anyone. Not the States. Not the Federal government. No one. Only powers, with the States arguing that they have the power to legislate pot laws in their jurisdiction. And the Federal government contemplating applying the Supremecy Clause to their own Federally recognized rights trump both State AND federal laws. Putting them above both. Thus, the conflict between the States and Federal government would not plausibly effect rights as federally recognize rights are above and have authority over both parties. And its worse for your argument still. Rights and Powers have completely different constitutional bases. Powers are based in the constitutionally delegated authority of the Constitution and those powers retained by the States in the 10th amendment. While rights are retained by the people, enumerated in the Bill of Rights and unenumerated reserve rights articulated in the 9th amendment. One has little to nothing to do with the other. Making it even more unlikely that a conflict of State and Federal *powers* would result in an erosion of individual *rights* as recognized by the federal government. Your argument fails 3 separate times. Any one of which would render your 'slippery slope' ludicrously unlikely.