Federal v. States on Marijuana Cannabis, since its discovery, has been used for recreational and medical purposes. It was seen as a drug that was “safe” and did put the body at risk but benefited it. However, this is not the case anymore because the government under I Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 law banned the use of the narcotic and has the right to persecute anyone who attains the substance. Nonetheless, the question is not whether the drug is “safe” to use but whether the States should have the power to regulate marijuana or the federal government should continue having the control over the drug. Since 1996, 23 states including Washington D.C have passed laws that have legalized the medical use of marijuana, yet the federal …show more content…
Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous type of drugs because they can potentially cause severe psychological or physical dependencies. Some examples of these high-level abuse drugs are heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy). The federal government has the right to regulate the distribution of marijuana under the Controlled Substance Act. Despite there being medical research that proves that marijuana can help treat diseases or symptoms such as HIV/AIDS, pain, and even slow down the effects of Alzheimer 's disease, the federal government does not recognize the difference the use of marijuana between recreational and medical. Act. 21 U.S.C §811 of the Controlled Substance Act does not distinguish the difference between the two even though there clearly is. One might ask why the federal government is withholding a substance that is beneficial or even vital for individuals with these diseases. Angel Raich of Oakland, California sued the United States government for interfering with her right to produce and use marijuana. She claimed that the medicated cannabis, that was prescribed to her by her doctor, kept her alive. Although she alleged that the Controlled Substances Act was not constitutional as applied to their conduct, the government still held the upper hand in …show more content…
Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Many people misunderstand this clause because it is very vague, but it means that the federal government can regulate state commerce if they trade with each other. “Purely local activities, therefore, remain outside of the reach of Congress under the Commerce Among the States Clause.” States under the Commerce Clause have the right to regulate marijuana within their own state. This clause gives states the power to trade goods as long as they don’t trade it with any other
...right to file a claim against the city of Fresberg. The Commerce Clause specifically prohibits states from passing laws/ordinances based solely on economic interests. The City Counsel of Fresberg passed the ordinance solely with the intent to boost the local granite industry. This is not in keeping with a national economic interest, also The “Dormant” Commerce Clause means that because Congress has been given power over interstate commerce, states cannot pass laws or ordinances that discriminate against interstate commerce. Clearly what the City of Fresberg did with attempting to regulate the granite production for economic gain.
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
The supremacy clause is what says that the constitution, the national laws and the treaties override the states laws. These are the broad rules in which the smaller parts of the government must follow when creating their own laws
Madison, declared the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and affirmed the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review averted the judiciary branch of the inherent weakness and lack of equality in power among the three branches of government. The independence of the Supreme Court is paramount in protecting the civil liberties granted to citizens. The judicial power afforded by means of the doctrine of judicial review is not superior or above the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the Constitution. Hamilton expounds the power of the courts in the Federalist Papers No. 78, “it only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both”, and judges should regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, (Hamilton, 2008). The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the
One of the pros to the commerce clause is that commerce is controlled by the state (Miller, 2012). This creates room to make their own decisions about trading that will build wealth in the state. This remains independent from state to state. States like to make their own rules when it comes to the people that live in their state. As long as the rules provide an equal opportunity for all people to gain wealth without taking away any freedoms the commerce clause remains a positive part of
...merican community. The Constitution of the United States of America also defines that the federal government does not have authority outside the established clauses in the Preamble.
In the 2015 article “What will Federal Marijuana Reform Look Like?”, Alex Kreit states how the current stance towards marijuana has changed. For this reason, a need for a new policy is necessary, as the present strategy of implementing laws on federal marijuana prohibition is no longer sustainable. This shift of mindset towards legalization of marijuana leads Kreit to say that legalization is inevitable. As an illustration, in 1996, the Drug Enforcement Administration and Congress opposed California’s approval of medical marijuana. In contrast, the year 2013 was when the Department of Justice announced new guidance to deprioritize enforcement of marijuana laws. Because of this shift, Kreit propose that efforts should go to crafting marijuana
The controversy of legalizing marijuana has been raging for quite a while in America. From some people pushing it for medical purposes to potheads just wanting to get high legally. Marijuana has been used for years as a popular drug for people who want to get a high. All this time it has been illegal and now it looks as if the drug may become legal. There has been heated debate by many sides giving there opinion in the issue. These people are not only left wing liberals either. Richard Brookhiser, a National Review Senior editor is openly supportive of medical marijuana yet extremely conservative in his writing for National Review (Brookhiser 27). He is for medical marijuana since he used it in his battle with testicular cancer. He says "I turned to [marijuana] when I got cancer because marijuana gives healthy people an appetite, and prevents people who are nauseated from throwing up. "(Brookhiser 27) Cancer patients are not the only benefactors from the appetite enhancer in marijuana, but so are any other nauseous people. Arizona and California have already passed a law allowing marijuana to be used as a medicinal drug. Fifty Six percent of the California voters voted for this law. "We've sent a message to Washington," says Dennis Peron. "They've had 25 years of this drug was, and they've only made things worse." (Simmons 111) The Arizona proposition garnished an even wider margin of separation between the fore's an against in a sixty five percent support tally. Ethan Nadelmann insists that " these propositions are not about legalization or decriminalization. They're about initiating some non radical, commonsense approaches to drug policy." General Barry McCaffery disagrees saying, "I...
The opposing argument serves as a perfect gateway to the topic of relationship between Federal and State government. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause serves...
California was the first to consider medical marijuana legislation. The trend of marijuana legislation does exist, but society must find ways to regulate the use of this illicit drug. Congress responds by acting as what we call a “doctor” figure. When Congress Plays Doctor, “In the majority’s view, marijuana use, abortion, and suicide are so evil that they must be prohibited at any costs to individuals”(Kaminer, 2000). Congress is playing doctor by stating the actions as evil. Marijuana being categorized as evil is a method used steer people away from abuse. Medical marijuana has side effects and prohibiting this drug from society benefits versus putting health at risk in hopes of having solutions to
This clause states that the federal government’s laws are the supreme laws, but only if that legislation was performed constitutionally. The Supremacy Clause would also include treaties, so the national government’s treaty with another body would hold strong if they too were done following the rules listed in the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause establishes the system of federalism by setting up the order in which power would flow. The Constitution is the highest level of this power, and the rest of the powers are delegated from it. The federal government is on the level beneath the Constitution, showing that all of their power is delegated to them by the Constitution, therefore they must follow it. Under the federal government lies the state governments, who also have powers, but their powers are lesser than the federal government 's. However the Constitution does have reserved powers for the state. This sets up a system of federalism because it establishes the two areas of government, and it decides which body would be supreme. The limitation of that supremacy is the Constitution, and the federal government holds the
Ever since marijuana’s introduction to the United States of America in 1611, controversy of the use and legalization of the claimed-to-be Schedule I drug spread around the nation. While few selective states currently allow marijuana’s production and distribution, the remaining states still skepticize the harmlessness and usefulness of this particular drug; therefore, it remains illegal in the majority of the nation. The government officials and citizens of the opposing states believe the drug creates a threat to citizens due to its “overly-harmful” effects mentally and physically and offers no alternate purposes but creating troublesome addicts hazardous to society; however, they are rather misinformed about marijuana’s abilities. While marijuana has a small amount of negligible effects to its users, the herbal drug more importantly has remarkable health benefits, and legalizing one of the oldest and most commonly known drugs would redirect America’s future with the advantages outweighing the disadvantages.
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The commerce clause gives power to the government over the states. This was established in the Gibbons v. Ogden case in 1824. Gibbons and Ogden both were running their steamboats along the same route, on the Hudson River, which was between New Jersey and New York. Ogden got an injunction through a New York state court. This injunction concluded that Ogden had got exclusive rights by the state to operate that route. Gibbons had received his permit from the federal government. The New York court sided with Ogden and ordered Gibbons to stop operating his steamships. Gibbons then preceded to take this to the Supreme Court. John Marshall sided with Gibbons and said that New York’s grant to Ogden violated the federal licensing act of 1793 and for the first time the commerce clause was interpreted. It was concluded that the government had the power to regulate this because of the commerce clause. Since then the commerce clause has expanded the power of the government furthermore than the states would like it
The Constitution of the United States also plays a factor in the legalization of marijuana. The Constitution is one of the most important documents to America and the way it operates. It establishes our way of life and gives America its structure and guidelines to operate with. Yet, in the Constitution, there is no amendment that declares marijuana illegal (Boaz, 2007, p.2). Marijuana being illegal is not authorized by the Constitution which means that the government should not be authorized to punish us for it. Alcohol was once illegal in this country and it was prohibited in the twenty-first amendment, where marijuana does not have an amendment prohibiting the use of it across the nation. If the prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional
Despite the 1976 ruling by the federal government that marijuana has “no acceptable medical use”, sixteen states have passed medical marijuana laws that allow for patient use o...