Order #085904452.edited

docx

School

Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

History

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by nobertbulinda

Legalizing Marijuana: State Laws v Federal laws Name Student affiliation Course Instructor Date

Legalizing Marijuana: State Laws v Federal laws Some years ago, the idea of legalized marijuana, even for treating medical conditions, was controversial and cutting-edge. Today, the conversations around legalized marijuana have significantly evolved. While the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes spreads via the states, all kinds of marijuana remain illegal on a federal level. Not surprisingly, this is not the only contradiction between state and federal laws. As postulated in the Federalist No. 47, the judiciary, executive, and legislature departments of the government haven't been kept separate and distinct, and it is without a doubt that the general mass of authority allotted to the three are bound to collide. As a result of the incompatibility between federal and state law on marijuana, individuals in various sates often find themselves in possession or using cannabis in accordance with the state laws while simultaneously violating the federal law. Where then does the supreme power lie? This essay examines the various complexities that emerge when federal and state laws on marijuana use conflict. The 10 th amendment created the federalism concept, wherein the federal government only held those powers delegated to it by the United States’ constitution and all power that remains are reserved for the sates. Debate regarding the 10 th amendment were often centered around health care, same sex marriage, and arm fire control, to name a few. However, since California first legalized cannabis for medical purposes in 1996, advocates of marijuana have more firmly and frequently held the hand of the tenth amendment. While each state broadly restricted the possession, distribution, and production of cannabis, in the last few years, numerous states have limited or repealed such restrictions. Arguing that the drug war is significantly failing, that individuals arrested for possession or use of marijuana aren’t cured of the habit during their imprisonment time these states consider marijuana legalization to be mor beneficial. They hold that legalizing and controlling marijuana would minimize crimes related with the drug, and result to a more responsible and safer use of the drug. These states

also point to the medical benefit of marijuana. Marijuana not only relieves nausea experienced by patients of cancer but is also essential for patients with multiple glaucoma, sclerosis and AIDS. As of this writing, 37 states, including the Columbia district and 4 US territories, permit the utilization of medical cannabis. Citing the Federalist no.51 that' 'to lay the foundation for the distinct and separate exercise of distinct authority of governments departments, which to some extent, is considered on all aspects to be important to liberty preservation, it’s without doubt that every government agency should possess its own will’’, proponents (states) of marijuana legalization content that marijuana should be a state and not a federal concern and that federal regulation of marijuana was an infringement of their power under the 10 th amendment, a denial of liberty if you will. However, the United States Supreme Court had a different opinion. In Raich vs. Gonzales case, the court ruled that under the US constitution, Congress had all legislative authority to employ commerce power to prohibit even medical cannabis, whether or not it was permitted under State law ( Somin , 2005 ). Under federal law, Cannabis is categorized as a Schedule I substance, that is, having a spiked potential for misuse/abuse and little medical significance ( Celeste & Thompson-Dudiak , 2020 ). While state and federal laws continue to conflict, the biggest question regarding the current state of marijuana law is perhaps what it means if something is illegal under federal law and legal under state law. Notwithstanding the preceding laws of the states, Celeste & Thompson-Dudiak (2020) document that any undertaking involving cannabis that isn’t sanctioned under the federal CSA is a federal offense in all states across the US, including states having purported to legitimate recreational or medical marijuana. With respect Article VI, clause 2 of the US constitution (Supremacy Clause), federal law is considered the ''prime law of the country/land'' that tends to take precedence over contradicting state laws. In practical terms, this may be translated to mean that the constitution provides power to the federal government

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

over the state laws and that states are unable to prevent federal prosecution of their subjects who are found in possession of marijuana. Additionally, the supreme court also holds that laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana don’t impact the CSA’s restrictions. In conclusion, regardless of whether an individual is for or against the legalization of marijuana, there's a developing problem regarding the use of marijuana in the United States. Whether or not cannabis should be regulated by the state or federal government isn't for this paper to decide. Unlike writers of a fictious movie who according to Roberts (2017), when trapped in a utilitarian dilemma resort to some kind of scheme or twist that permits the tough choice to be avoided, the Congress has no choice but fix the inevitable conflict between federal and state law on marijuana. With statistics indicating that about 56% of Americans want marijuana regulations handled at the state as opposed to 26% who want the process controlled by the federal government, it is without a doubt that Congress can do a better job of considering all distinct criteria that might be considered when deciding whether or not to legalize cannabis so as to save the few and the many like when spiderman saves the falling bus full of kids and the MJ (Roberts, 2017)

References The constitution of the United States . HIST , 711 (B02). https://www.archives.gov/founding- docs/constitution-transcript Read Articles 1-3, James Madison, National Archives “The Federalist No. 51, [6 February 1788],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0199 “ The Federalist Number 47, [30 January] 1788,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0266 . Somin, I. (2005). Gonzales v. Raich; Federalism as a Casualty of the War on Drugs. Cornell JL & Pub. Polly , pp. 15 , 507. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=cjlpp Celeste, M. A., & Thompson-Dudiak, M. (2020). Has the Marijuana Classification Under the Controlled Substances Act Outlived Its Definition? Conn. Pub. Int. LJ , pp. 20 , 18. Retrieved from https://cpilj.law.uconn.edu/wp- content/uploads/sites/2515/2021/03/Celeste-Final.pdf “The Federalist No. 51, [6 February 1788],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0199 . Roberts, D. The irresolvable moral dilemma at the heart of Avengers: Infinity War [Electronic resource]. Accessed mode: https://www. vox. com/summer- movies/2018/5/17/17343442/avengers-infinity-war-captain-america-thanos-sequel- moral-dilemma .

Order #085904452.edited

Related Documents