= new reply since forum marked as read
One being the way the winds clearly are blowing- that the clock is ticking on marijuana prohibition... and two being, I suspect that it would be awfully hard from a legal standpoint to justify the rights of tribal authorities to defy state laws legalizing cannabis, if they didn't consistently argue for tribal autonomy in both directions.
On a larger note, I'm not sure if doing the sensible, tenable thing especially in regards to a decades-old failed and stupid policy-- qualifies in my mind as "nice", but I certainly recognize that the performance of the DOJ in Obama's 2nd Term around this issue could have been a lot worse and counter-productive than it has been. A lot worse. They've accommodated a reality; that pot is moving towards legal and regulated status in at least part of this nation- which I'm sure a lot of hard-line career government drug warriors resisted hand and foot.
So yes, I enthusiastically support this move. 'Course there are a lot of reflexive Obama-bashers on this board, I'm not one of them. I think History will judge the guy pretty well overall. 
Morgan Freeman so famously said..
And, I know you're not "one of them" and I thank you for that.
The State of California contended that the Bands’ high-stakes bingo and poker games violated state law and requested that the Court recognize its statute governing the operation of bingo games. Riverside County additionally sought legal recognition of its ordinances regulating bingo play and prohibiting the operation of poker and other card games. California argued that under Public Law 280 (1953) Congress had granted six states – Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin – criminal jurisdiction over Native American tribal lands within the state’s borders.If California’s regulatory laws prohibited gambling on a criminal basis, then it is likely Public Law 280 would have given the State of California the authority to enforce them on tribal lands. However, if as the Cabazon Band argued, California’s laws on gambling were civil regulatory laws, then the tribal lands would not in fact fall under the lawful jurisdiction of the state.
The Supreme Court held, as the Cabazon band argued, that because California State law did not prohibit gambling as a criminal act – and in fact encouraged it via the state lottery – they must be deemed regulatory in nature. As such, the authority to regulate gaming activities on tribal lands was found to fall outside those powers granted by the Public Law 280.
The Cabazon decision of 1987 had lasting implications regarding the sovereignty of Native American tribes in the United States. The ruling established a broader definition of tribal sovereignty and set that precedent that if the few states that with some lawful jurisdiction over tribal lands could not impose state regulations on reservation gaming, and then no state could have such a right. Indian gaming could thus only be called into question in states where gambling was deemed criminal by state law.
Assuming it hasn't changed since this supreme court decision would give California jurisdiction cause California treats mj criminally.
Its a pretty basic question and the answer is no.
There's another catch.
The Mohegan and Mashantucket tribes entered into agreements with the state this year certifying tribal police and making them responsible for enforcing state laws within their territories, said Mike Lawlor, under secretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning in the state Office of Policy and Management.
Before the agreement was signed, tribal officers could only arrest tribal members. Additionally, the tribes were paying to have state police present on their property to enforce Connecticut laws, Lawlor said.
"So, the laws that govern Connecticut, the criminal laws, govern the tribal reservation and the tribal police departments are obligated to enforce those laws, and that would certainly include marijuana," Lawlor said.
If a tribe wanted to grow marijuana, the tribe could terminate its agreement with the state, Lawlor said.
The Justice Department's position raises concerns, said Cromwell police Chief Anthony Salvatore, legislative chairman for the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association.
"The Connecticut Police Chiefs Association is concerned regarding this latest development and sees the potential of a number of issues that need to be clarified first," Salvatore said.
For example, it's unclear what role tribal officers would have if a tribe were to pursue marijuana as a business opportunity, Salvatore said. Secondly, how would this affect Connecticut's medical marijuana dispensaries and producers, he said. And many other concerns stem from there, including how state police might uphold laws on tribal lands, Salvatore said.
http://www.courant.com/health/hc-casino-mairjuana-tribes-announcement-20141211-story.html
I'm for this as much as the next guy but if you think a tribe in oklahoma is gonna start selling weed and the oklahoma state police are going to sit around and allow it your wrong.
The only thing mentioned is the feds will not prosecute, which led to a lot of hyperbolic headlines.
I'll place money there will be no weed officially sold by tribes in Oklahoma in the next year. It's an easy bet.
California has the highest native population followed by Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico and Washington.
In california they'll be selling "medical marijuana", In AZ they will be selling "medical marijuana". Washington they will be selling state tax-less legal weed. Not sure about New Mexico and in Oklahoma they will be going to jail in state prisons for selling the deamon bud.
New York tribes will not be selling weed unless something changes with NY law. Even their cigarette sales are regulated by the state.
Because I was confused and convinced by several earlier arguments in the thread, I thought I'd post this to further muddy the waters 
http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/jurisdiction.htm
This would be a fascinating scholarly legal review article to read (Honey? Are you paying attention to this? This is far more interesting than polygamy!)
